Topic: Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian - Merry Christmas to all!!! (Read 895 times)

Sorry but leaving is not an option but murdering is?

The woman would be fully guilty for intentionally murdering her husband.

Moral truth is absolute and objective. The application of that truth to specific circumstance is varied and colored by the imperfect perspective of the actor.

Take af_newbies challenge for example.


He is of course correct that there are psychopaths and narcissists. However, if you look at their behavior they are not actually following a "do as you would be done by" code.

If you have ever seen someone of that temperament outsmarted or outmaneuvered their response almost always highlights their true philosophy. You do not see a calm acceptance of defeat at the hands of the more skilled or cleaver. Instead you see rage, anger, desire for revenge and power. The psychopaths wants to be free of constraint but they do not want to be the victims of their own philosophy. They want morality for sheep they can pray upon with only themselves exempt. It is a philosophy of power.

Those are really the only two alternatives a belief in objective morality or a philosophy of power. Everything else eventually finds it's way into one of those two camps. This hypothetical debate between Kant and Nietzsche highlights the contrasting views.

Kant vs Nietzsche
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHJFWJgXuXg

In the video Nietzsche accuses Kant of being a slave to reasons while Kant in turn calls Nietzsche a slave to passion.

You note that you are ok if others presumably government take parts of what is your's for the needs of others. You also note that some people do not consider it ok and ask who is correct. You are essentially asking if it ok to steal when it is necessary to achieve a greater good.

The answer is that it is never ok to steal, however, sometimes it may be necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Thus we steal from the population as a whole to fund the military and prevent the greater evil of conquest and murder against us by outsiders. The error arises in those who think that via preventing the greater evil the lesser evil becomes somehow good. It does not. It is choosing bad to avoid worse and acceptable only until we can figure out a way to avoid worse by choosing good.

The people who feel that the theft is not ok are correct but the fact that the theft is not ok does not mean we are currently powerful or wise enough to abolish it at this moment in history.      

That settles it then. There is nothing absolute.

I find it perfectly ok for the wife to kill her husband in that case, that's just self defense.

Leaving is not an option when you're deeply under the material and psychological control of someone.

You find it wrong. I find it normal. We don't have the same definition of morality.

No moral is absolute. Nothing is absolute in fact, but especially not what is linked to ethics or morals.

Feel free to respond Moglie  I was merely pointing out that my statements were not in response to your comments, so I can understand why you were wondering what I was talking about 

If you ask me, the abused wife should leave him, not murder him. That would still be wrong

Murder is always wrong.

the religions are not wrong, its the problem how you think of them its not about right or wrong these religions are different experiancable frequencies of reality.

regards

Lol I know you answered to af_newbie but that's a forum of public discussion so anyone can jump in the conversation you know? 

murder = premeditated attempt to take someone's life. Great.
So if a woman raped daily by her husband, beaten nearly to death everyday, finally decides one day to poison her husband, it's absolutely immoral? No difference with a psycho serial killer?

If someone is drunk and takes the wheel and crashes in someone else and kill them, it's not premeditated so it's not murder?

There are THOUSANDS of grey areas that don't fit your narratives. That's why there is nothing absolute.

I don't claim to know what happened in the Bible. From general chatting with you, I already know you are more knowledgeable about the Bible than I am.

My beliefs are independent of the bible, the bible is not any evidence of God. I don't understand why this book keeps being discussed.

We already did that.  Modern secular laws.  We have extended these good bits based on our modern understanding of human psychology, crime and punishment.  People who wrote those texts would be pissed if they knew the moral code we follow today.

Point is, the morality is relative and is not absolute.

What maxim is that?


Not objective, i.e. not absolute. That can really go out of hand.  The person who wrote it did not understand human psychology one bit.  Some of us are born psychopaths, some are narcissists, some of us are masochists, some of us lack empathy, some of us do not understand biology and animal suffering, including human suffering, some of us are not educated.  Do you see a problem?


Again, not objective.  What is hateful to one person might not be hateful to the other.

Dig deeper.

Instead of burning why not cherry-pick every good thing from these texts? 

So the Bible, Quran and Talmud are all wrong.  Thanks for agreeing.  Now, go burn these texts and try to be a better person than the people who wrote these books.

There is no such thing absolute truth/morality, including the very statement itself. Everything changes according to timeline or circumstances.

Sorry m0gliE, I wasn't referring to your post at all. I was answering af_newbie's question for examples of absolute morality.

Self-defense is not murder, murder is premeditated attempt to take someone's life, absolutely immoral. No gray area.

Lol, thanks Captain Obvious. You might not have thought about that but moral is exactly like fogs. Of course when you're in the center it's quite obvious where you are, but when do you decide when you're out of the fog? Where is the border? Where is the limit?

Killing someone without reason is a crime, quite obvious thanks. Now what about killing someone to save two people? What about stealing the rich to feed the poor?

Real life example: You find someone in your house at night while your kids are sleeping. What is considered as ok per your moral code? Hitting him? Shooting him? Well moral here is blurry and always difficult to deal with.
If the guy is armed with a knife and seems looking for trouble, everyone will be ok with you shooting him and it will be considered as self defense. Now what if the guy is drunked and obviously just a student having a heavy party who made a stupid bet? You still have the right to be scared so what is ok?


Of course 98% of the cases are simple. The problem is with the 2% perticular cases. That's the ones difficult where moral isn't all white or black.

I don't believe that I should be killing anyone for working on Saturday. Murder is immoral. Morality does not change over time, murder is always immoral and will always be.

Examples of absolute morality?
Do not commit murder
Do not steal
Do not lie
Do not cheat
Do not cause harm to others

These morals never change. Even a billion years from now, they remain true.

Hmm... You just litteraly saif that morality is relative...

Your sentences say "don't so to others what you don't want them to do to you". Which means each people will have a different definition of what should and should not be done as each person will consider something as acceptable or not...

Example: I consider ok to take parts of what's mine for the need of others. Some people do not consider it ok. Who is right here? Following your maxime no one is right or wrong, it just depends if you accept it or not.

Immanuel Kant
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Jesus
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Hillel the Elder
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Slightly varying accents all describing the same foundational absolute.

See: A Discussion on Superrationality

I will if you provide me with one absolute moral code.  Go ahead.  I give you 15 minutes.  Go.

I would suggest instead that you consider admitting that morality is absolute and eternal.

Sin ultimately is just error. We often forget this and get confused by our own emotions and feelings about particular errors that upset us more then others or from having a strong desire for error.

Don't change the subject.  I said "you", not "God".

If the morality is absolute and true as provided by God in the Bible, you should be killing everyone who works on Saturday or is gay.

If you don't, you are either immoral or get your morality from somewhere else, i.e. your morality is not absolute.

Just admit that morality is not absolute and it does change over time.

When was the last time we burned someone at the stake for criticizing the church?  Why are we not doing it now?
When was the last time we delivered electroshocks to gay people?  Why are we not doing it now?

God does not kill us for working on Sabbath. God loves us, why would he do that?

I do not believe in a God who murders people, promotes slavery, supports rape etc either 

When was last time you killed someone who worked on Saturday?  If you did not, you are the walking, breathing proof that morality is not absolute.  Full stop.

I am not sure I understand the difference between God and the creator

To me, they are synonymous. God created the universe, some call him God, others call him the Supreme Creator, they are the same. I am not trying to shift anything.

I believe that morality is absolute, not relative. This word "empathy" is highly relative. A meat eater has no empathy for the chicken or the cow he is eating, is this empathy only applied for human beings?

Look at you, you are running up the hills with your Jesus under your arm.  So now it is the creator, not God who will punish you in hell?

I thought you wanted to argue that you need religion or believe in God to be moral?

You are full of it like the rest of the apologetics.

Morality comes from the community, the society you grew up in.  Some of us are born with empathy, some of us learn it from our parents, our friends, other members of one's family.  Some of us end up breaking the moral rules regardless what some tombstone or a book says.

While others are good and moral people DESPITE what the scriptures say, i.e. own slaves, stone adulterers or kill gays etc.

So take your apologetic BS and shove it deep up your ass because that is where it belongs.

Be a good person, and stop being a moron.

This question has been answered by John Lennox in this interview

Time where he answered the question starts at around the 10:55 minute mark

Lennox is learnt in the study of ancient theology, I am not. He makes a clear differentiation between God the Creator and all those ancient gods.

Aren't we all?

You are an atheist with respect to 2999+ Gods humans invented over the years.  Some of us are atheists with respect to one more God than you.

You don't believe in Osiris, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or Mitra, do you?

Those child molesting priests are examples of people who use religion as a front to cover their hidden motives, they do not represent theists in any way. In fact, I believe that they don't know or believe in God, for they would never dare to do such a thing right in front of God.

Theists are people who know that God is always in their presence, those priests are clearly atheists.

When a person does not have any empathy for others and does not care about the law, nothing can stop such a person.  Ask all the priests who molested young boys.

You cannot convince such people that hell exists. If they are smart enough to avoid being caught, they are smart enough to figure out that religion is for suckers.  Fairy tales for old people.

Not sure what are you getting at?  

Yes af_newbie, we do have a great legal framework, incarceration, rehabilitation programs to deal with such people, but these would be effective only if the person gets caught.

The question is if the person could get away scot-free every time, let's say he is extremely clever, so clever that he is able to commit crimes without leaving any tracks and never gets caught, what is stopping him from being morally corrupt?

We have developed a secular legal framework, incarceration, rehabilitation etc. to deal with such people.  Notice that churches never run prisons or punish criminals.   Instead they "forgive them" as long as they join their cult, pay the price.  Truly sickening to see them protecting the rapists and pedophiles.

Raising a child is more than forcing him/her to memorize the 10 commandments and scare them with hell and eternal damnation.

How many MS13 gang members were born in Christian families? All of them.  Clearly, you need more than the imaginary hell to raise a well-adjusted child.

Yes, many of us are in fact, good humans with a sense of responsibility, care about others, have empathy etc.

I am not talking about us, I am talking about the humans who are criminals, thieves, murderers, how can morality be taught to them? They don't believe in our morality of empathy, they think it is weak.

Their morality is survival of the fittest etc. They will steal if they have to, lie if they have to, kill if they have to, in order to fulfill their needs. If they can get away with it every time, what is stopping them from continuing to do so?

Doesn't holidays but the way we celebrate is kinda more fun unlike the others, can't eat pork, can't drink beer wines, doesnt have christmas, celebrating ramadan just for the muslims, etc... We can celebrate all of them without any worries.

Nothing has been considered as holidays for us but we are the true nature of being neutral at all times, we dont even need holidays just to celebrate anything  as we also have birthdays, anniversaries and so on...

---

As for the OP.

[+1]

Nailed it.

Some of us are born with this thing called empathy.

I don't understand where atheism gets its morality from? What is stopping an atheist from stealing, lying, cheating etc? There is no karma, no God, no punishment.

The normal answer I get is that a person who cheats, steals, and lies would be condemned by the society that he is living in, so it would make sense that even an atheist would act moral.

But what if he can do it without the knowledge of anyone? What if nobody could ever catch him because he is simply too clever? If he could get away scot-free every single time, what is stopping the atheist from being morally corrupt?

Serious question, when did the proselytizing wing of atheism start? For people who are so against religion, you sure seem to be keen on forming your own.

It was supposed to be a joke but if one wants to upgrade an existing religion doctrine then start with the basics which OP pointed out in the descriptions 10-2. Christians can update easily if they really want to because the way I see it they are very much engaged in this type of discussion. so maybe in the next 100 years or so will see some modification in Christianity.

Coming to Islam, there is no space for any kind of upgrade or even discussion in Islam because according to Muslim it's perfect and doesn't need any modifications. so no discussion Period!
Founder of Islam played a long con when he said that he's the Last Prophet. 

Happy New Year. i hope you guys had fun with your loved ones.

Don't pollute water, air, and soil.

Hmm...

How to phrase this?

Hmm...

Is it really a divine rule and all? Yeah? M'kay

1. You only have one life to live, use it wisely.
2. Don't shit where you eat.
3. Be nice to nature, nature will be nice to you. 
4. Trust, but verify.
5. Be skeptical, don't trust your senses or gut feelings.

Please describe these upgrades, how are they different from the original?

Can we upgrade all religions if needed?  for example

Jesus Pro
Islam 2.0

Stalin's Birthday Celebrations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality

Christianity gives us happy christmas holidays, what holidays has atheism given us

re: trees
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
"Only the trees which you know are not fruit trees you shall destroy and cut down"

I added your point about the reinterpretation and redefinitions of words.

No one ever talks about the trees.  They had it bad too but are completely forgotten in history LOL!  

Dogma that exploits fear and encourages group think in any form is really dangerous. Religion is just the most successful and thus most horrific example because.  Fear keeps animals alive, it is our most primal of instincts to fight or flight and that decision is purely based on a fear expectation result.  In order to reduce a fear based reaction which we hate because they can lead to death if wrong, a lot of animals find protection in groups, it comforts them immensely.

How about adding to the list at 11 something like.

You think that "re-branding" words from the bible like slavery to a really good social security program for its time somehow changes the meaning of the words and texts!

I wonder how many "Christians" know the name Yaweh without looking it up! just a little buttress for #1

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above list can be also applied to Muslims or Jews with small corrections.  Just replace the atrocities, name of the holy book and the name of the religion.  All other details apply equally.

PS.  Few bonus signs:

1. You constantly reinterpret and redefine words like slavery, stoning, killing or murder to make sense of the sadistic passages in the Bible.
 ... more to follow ...