Comparing morals

[Ivan Karamazov]

Yiu say the christian moral is better !
Prove it !
But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
redundance !

[Keith MacNevins]

The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion, charity, love and goodness.

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 10 nov, 18:22, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> charity, love and goodness.

Prove those are better values !
As i wrote, you don't judge a moral with another moral !

[Drafterman]

Well, so far you're 0 for 6. Unless you count love for yourself. Then
you get 1.

On Nov 10, 12:22 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> charity, love and goodness.
>

> On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > Prove it !
> > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > redundance !
>

> --
> Keith A. MacNevins
> Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

They are better values than would exist in a society without them. But I afford that secular humanists, and people from various diverse beliefs can embrace these same ideals. And I would emphatically add that observing those ideals is all that God, if he exists, expects of any of us. When Jesus said no one comes unto the father but through him, he did not exclude anyone who observes his ideals.

On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubin...@planet.nl> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

Jesus did not express tolerance, kindness, compassion, charity, love, or goodness towards demons. Nor do I.

[Drafterman]

Wow, backpedaling already.

On Nov 10, 12:38 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus did not express tolerance, kindness, compassion, charity, love, or
> goodness towards demons. Nor do I.
>

> On 11/10/07, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well, so far you're 0 for 6. Unless you count love for yourself. Then
> > you get 1.
>
> > On Nov 10, 12:22 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> > > charity, love and goodness.
>
> > > On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > > > Prove it !
> > > > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > > > redundance !
>
> > > --
> > > Keith A. MacNevins
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Keith A. MacNevins

> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 10 nov, 18:37, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They are better values than would exist in a society without them.

Is the society a goal ? Or the individual ?

But I
> afford that secular humanists, and people from various diverse beliefs can
> embrace these same ideals.

Which still don't mean they are better !

And I would emphatically add that observing those
> ideals is all that God, if he exists, expects of any of us. When Jesus said
> no one comes unto the father but through him, he did not exclude anyone who
> observes his ideals.

It would be for me a reason NOT to observe them !

[Keith MacNevins]

The Bible did say to love your enemies, that is true. But a demon is not to be counted as, "thy neighbor." Unless you are also going to also count a rabid dog as man's best friend. The sin of Sodom was literally the sin of inhospitality, of doing harm to others unjustly, of pursuing strife, deceit, thievery and along those lines. The good are not called upon to love the evil vipers of the world.

On 11/10/07, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, backpedalling already.

On Nov 10, 12:38 pm, "Keith MacNevins" < kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus did not express tolerance, kindness, compassion, charity, love, or
> goodness towards demons. Nor do I.
>

> On 11/10/07, Drafterman < drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well, so far you're 0 for 6. Unless you count love for yourself. Then
> > you get 1.
>
> > On Nov 10, 12:22 pm, "Keith MacNevins" < kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> > > charity, love and goodness.
>
> > > On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov < rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > > > Prove it !
> > > > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > > > redundance !
>
> > > --
> > > Keith A. MacNevins
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Keith A. MacNevins

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 10 nov, 18:50, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Bible did say to love your enemies, that is true. But a demon is not to
> be counted as, "thy neighbor." Unless you are also going to also count a
> rabid dog as man's best friend. The sin of Sodom was literally the sin of
> inhospitality, of doing harm to others unjustly, of pursuing strife,
> deceit, thievery and along those
lines. The good are not called upon to love
> the evil vipers of the world.

So, there are two sorts of enemies...

[Keith MacNevins]

You make no sense, unless you mean to affirm that you are a demon. In that case, you are opposed to good for the sake of evil. You have no redeeming qualities and are the equivalent of nothing at all, except for the dust to which you will return.

On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubin...@planet.nl> wrote:

[wiseclam]

On Nov 10, 10:22 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> charity, love and goodness.

What is your basis for making this claim? Can I assume you are using
the bible to derive these values - this "true essence of
Christianity"?

If you are using the bible can I go through and look for evidence that
the true essence of Christianity is NOT "tolerance, kindness,
compassion, charity, love and goodness"? I think we both know I'll
have an easy time making this case.

[Keith MacNevins]

Of course. When the United States was at war with Japan and with Germany it was not the regular soldiers or the common peoples of the warring nations that we truly hated. We are right, however, to hate people like Hitler or the mad ass Saddam Hussein.

On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubin...@planet.nl> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

If you stick to the New Testament, which is a New Covenant and supercedes the Old Testament, then I think you are wrong.

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 10 nov, 18:56, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You make no sense, unless you mean to affirm that you are a demon. In that
> case, you are opposed to good for the sake of evil. You have no redeeming
> qualities and are the equivalent of nothing at all, except for the dust to
> which you will return.

The subject of this topic is just what is good and what is evil.

[bonfly]

Are you referring to that "mad ass Saddam" that the USA installed in
Iraq in the first place?

On Nov 11, 4:03 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course. When the United States was at war with Japan and with Germany it
> was not the regular soldiers or the common peoples of the warring nations
> that we truly hated. We are right, however, to hate people like Hitler or
> the mad ass Saddam Hussein.
>

> On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 nov, 18:50, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Bible did say to love your enemies, that is true. But a demon is not
> > to
> > > be counted as, "thy neighbor." Unless you are also going to also count a
> > > rabid dog as man's best friend. The sin of Sodom was literally the sin
> > of
> > > inhospitality, of doing harm to others unjustly, of pursuing strife,
> > > deceit, thievery and along those
> > lines. The good are not called upon to love
> > > the evil vipers of the world.
>
> > So, there are two sorts of enemies...
>

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 10 nov, 18:56, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You make no sense, unless you mean to affirm that you are a demon. In that
> case, you are opposed to good for the sake of evil. You have no redeeming
> qualities and are the equivalent of nothing at all, except for the dust to
> which you will return.

The subject of this topic is just about what is good and what is evil.

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 10 nov, 19:03, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course. When the United States was at war with Japan and with Germany it
> was not the regular soldiers or the common peoples of the warring nations
> that we truly hated. We are right, however, to hate people like Hitler or
> the mad ass Saddam Hussein.

Love they enemies : then you are supposed to love both of them !

[Dev]

You are assuming that Christians have consciences. There is no
evidence of this.

Let's say x=compassion, y=fear and z=moral deeds. Now, we know that
nonbelievers do moral deeds with no fear of Hell. Christians almost
certainly fear Hell. So in the equation "x+y=z" x certainly implies no
evidence that "x" equals conscience as opposed to having a value of
zero.

Now, there are ways to test whether or not Christians are capable of
caring for anyone but themselves. For example, offer them an ideology
that kills people for no logical reason and see if they are for it or
against it. Oh, wait, that experiment has already been done.

[Dev]

You are taking the wrong path, Ivan. I think consciences can be
substantiated as real, and that the well-being of human beings is
inherently a moral stance from a human perspective. I just realize
that _all evidence_ shows that religion is fucking bad for people.
There is not _one_ sane argument to the contrary. Keith does have the
best argument that exists for theism, in that he has asserted that
without the carrot and stick he thinks caring for others is a waste of
time. We know for a fact, then, that Keith fits the definition of a
sociopath _precisely_. He has admitted to not being capable of caring
about other people for any reason other than that he cares about his
own dumb ass and that is evil. So the best argument _in favor_ of
theism would be, "Well, without religion, what would these insane
maniacs be doing?" The question we should be asking is not "Are
theists good people?" it is "How bad are they?" Are they really so
sick, so fucked up, that they need fairy tales to not go out killing
and raping? Honestly, if you look at the facts, the fairy tales don't
_seem_ to be helping but we don't know--it is possible that all
religious people are just born evil and gravitate towards evil
religions to help adapt to a society that requires certain moral
standards.

Thank God for the atheists--where would we be without them?

[Dave]

How can the christian morals be better when they have no morals? They
have rules they are to blindly follow under threat of punishment.
That's not morals.

[Dave]

On Nov 10, 10:03 am, wiseclam <wisec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 10:22 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> > charity, love and goodness.
>
> What is your basis for making this claim?

Especially since he shows none of those traits himself. That's not
unusual for a christian though. It's always do as I say, not as I do.

[Iamthesonofthedeviliam]

On Nov 10, 11:22 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> charity, love and goodness.

Keith, you're hardly tolerant.

Have you noticed that?

>
> On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > Prove it !
> > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > redundance !
>

[Keith MacNevins]

We did lend some support to the mad ass when he was doing us a favor. Like fighting against the Iranian tards. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. When the mad ass f'd that up we no longer had much use for him and his ever worsening arrogance.

[Keith MacNevins]

Good is that which contributes to the upward movement of society and humankind in a positive manner. The observance of the Golden Rule helps. Evil is the opposite. That is, when it is deliberate. Like choosing to be a mere parasite, or nonreformable criminal.

On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubin...@planet.nl> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

Thou shalt not kill.

 

Do not gargle with Listerine, as it kills germs by the millions.

 

On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubin...@planet.nl> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

You are the person they had in mind when they said an empty wagon makes a lot of noise.

[Kitty Hundal]

Keith. Just a quick question.

 

If someone is a serial killer, then becomes born again and asks God to forgive when he's in the Electric Chair, does he go to Heaven before someone who is an Atheist?

[Keith MacNevins]

Not blindly follow. There are liberal Christians who even eat ham sandwiches with extra mayo. Threat of punishment? Plenty of Christians exist today who do not believe in a literal Hell. Hell may simply be death. The believer has faith that he or she will not die, but will merely be changed with the death of the flesh and blood body.

[Kitty Hundal]

Let me just elaborate a little. We are assuming there is a Heaven. The Atheist has been a good honest person all his life.

[Keith MacNevins]

The Bible says that no one loves a filthy rag.

[Keith MacNevins]

I would not want to be the one to make that judgment. But I do have the opinion that God judges quite fairly. In fact, it is the existence of God which makes divine justice a reality. And BTW I am sorry to make my answer very complex, but I believe in reincarnation. I believe we have all been here before, and some of us many times. I believe we have all committed murder, sinned the worst kinds of sins and we all will be incarnated into a lesser or a more advanced life form in our next life. The nastiest of the atheists will all come back as skunks.

[Keith MacNevins]

I am very intolerant of ignorance, and stupidity. Guilty as charged.

[Kitty Hundal]

What has reincarnation go to do with whether God picks serial killers over Atheists and how does God implement this divine justice of his?

[Keith MacNevins]

I always say that if you are a good, honest person that you would go to Heaven then if there is a Heaven. I believe the message Jesus came here with was that we are all saved if we will just observe The Golden Rule. I think all of the major religions teach that BTW. But not many Christians or adherents of other faiths follow the Golden Rule. Few there be that follow the path that is straight and narrow. It does not make a person a Christian because he or she calls themselves a Christian. But some of what I have written here needs to be qualified. For instance, if you are reasonably intelligent you owe it to your fellow human being to seek truth, to search and discover by means of education and research. The more you learn about the way the world operates the better you will be able to form a more accurate concept of God, of reality and the meaning and purpose of human existence. Then you will be better equipped to contribute, to serve others and thereby to be lifted to a higher state of being. Pretty worthwhile in my humble opinion. But the absolutely nastiest of the atheists such as the nastiest atheists who post at this group are just dogs. Not all dogs go to Heaven I am certain of that.

On 11/10/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Kitty Hundal]

Either God judges by actions and not deeds and is tolerant or he isn't Keith. If one of your "nasty" atheists is a good person and has never hurt anyone shouldn't he/she get priority over the serial killer? According to your interpretation of Christianity, anyway. Frankly I haven't heard this one before.

[Kitty Hundal]

According to Revelations you have to be a believer to be saved. Where is the morality in this? According to Revelations, a serial killer can go to Heaven if he is a believer but an Atheist who has been a good and decent person, never committed any crimes cannot?

[Keith MacNevins]

In a few words I would just say that I have faith that there is divine justice. The secular humanist who lives a decent life and contributes in a good way is, in my opinion, welcomed with open arms into Heaven.

[Keith MacNevins]

I always say that you should be careful about taking things in the Bible literally. The Bible is a useful tool, but it is only the beginning of wisdom. Do not rely on it as a sole source for information about anything.

[Kitty Hundal]

True but that appears to be one of things that is consistent throughout the Bible. The only people going to heaven are believers. In my opinion, that, in and of itself, is immoral.

[random]

It depends who you are talking about.
Some people are indeed motivated only by fear of punishment and
promises of a reward, but most people simply behave that way because
they believe it's the right thing to do.

[Ivan Karamazov]

On 11 nov, 06:12, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good is that which contributes to the upward movement of society and
> humankind in a positive manner.

What is an upward movement ?
What is a positive manner ?

Judging a moral with moral arguments si circular logic !

(shhould have been read in my first post but my english is not that so
good)

[Iamthesonofthedeviliam]

On Nov 10, 11:29 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am very intolerant of ignorance, and stupidity. Guilty as charged.

So why is that part of Christianity off limits? Are you playing down
to the competition?

>
> On 11/10/07, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:22 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> > > charity, love and goodness.
>
> > Keith, you're hardly tolerant.
>
> > Have you noticed that?
>
> > > On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > > > Prove it !
> > > > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > > > redundance !
>
> > > --
> > > Keith A. MacNevins
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Keith A. MacNevins

> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Kitty Hundal]

On Nov 11, 2007 1:40 AM, random <rando...@gmail.com> wrote:

It depends who you are talking about.
Some people are indeed motivated only by fear of punishment and
promises of a reward, but most people simply behave that way because
they believe it's the right thing to do.

 

Which is exactly why we have laws and prisons and don't need Christian morality which changes everytime a Christian changes clothes.

[random]

Secular laws and morals also change in time. I see the dynamic changes
as a possible advantage, not as a disadvantage.
The problem with Christianity (and most other religions) is that while
their morals change, they keep claiming that there are absolute laws
more then 2,000 years old.

On Nov 11, 3:21 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Kitty Hundal]

Great thread to start.

 

I agree. This is one of the bones I have to pick with the Religious of All stripes.

 

They say they are moral because they follow God's laws. What exactly are those laws?

 

The Ten Commandments.

And something they call the New Covenant.

 

Now I don't have a huge problem with the Ten Commandments. I do have a problem with the way they're interpreted. For example, when you look deeper into the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" one, you will discover that the definition of Adultery in the Old Testament is that if a woman is divorced by her husband and remarries both she and her new husband have committed Adultery. The first husband is off the hook as long as he remarries a woman who hasn't been married before. Hmmm.

 

Can a Christian tell me where the morality is in that?

 

The New Covenant essentially says that the only law is faith in Jesus and actually tells people they are required to follow that law and may or may not follow the law of man. Sounds a little anarchistic to me and where is the morality?

 

It does tell slaves to obey their masters though and masters are told to be nice to their slaves. This implies that slavery is acceptable. Morality?

 

Now I get to the 20th century Christian. As Dev and others have mentioned the percentage of  Christians in jail compared to the percentage out of jail is much higher than others. Morality?

 

The same figures apply to Serial Killers not including those who became "born again" on Death Row.

 

And let's not forget all those Christian televangelists with their tax free incomes, mansions, yachts, etc.

 

Hmmm so far the Morality of the Christian side is failing miserably.

 

Atheists on the other hand, tend to be a well educated or at least intelligent lot, many are secular humanists who believe in social responsibility, rationality, science, personal responsibility amongst other things. While their politics range the entire political spectrum, no matter where they stand, these principles apply.

 

Secular Humanists have principles and ethics which are consistent and not mystical and do try to apply them in their lives.

 

Some of the worlds most respected citizens are in the camp of Atheism.

 

Now that's not to say that there aren't moral Christians. I've talked about Mother Teresa on this board in several threads. She qualifies. Interestingly enough she wasn't a proselytizer. She was active in helping people no matter who they were and didn't place conditions (like you have to be a Catholic) on her help.

 

However, sadly, people like her and rare in Christianity. My guess is that she would have done that no matter what her religion or lack thereof.

 

So on the morality scoreboard I'd have to say Christians 1 Atheists 9 where 0 is the lowest and 10 is the highest.

 

Atheists get a 9 because we're not perfect, know it, and there's always room for improvement.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> You are taking the wrong path, Ivan. I think consciences can be
> substantiated as real, and that the well-being of human beings is
> inherently a moral stance from a human perspective. I just realize
> that _all evidence_ shows that religion is fucking bad for people.
> There is not _one_ sane argument to the contrary. Keith does have the
> best argument that exists for theism, in that he has asserted that
> without the carrot and stick he thinks caring for others is a waste of
> time. We know for a fact, then, that Keith fits the definition of a
> sociopath _precisely_. He has admitted to not being capable of caring
> about other people for any reason other than that he cares about his
> own dumb ass and that is evil.

This, of course, has been applied by Hobbes and others to secular
concerns as well (see the Social Contract, for example). So this does
not seem to be a solely religious concern. And evolutionary theory
has yet to find any convincing reason why altruism would be
advantageous, and is in fact ALL ABOUT benefit to the organism.

So the best argument _in favor_ of
> theism would be, "Well, without religion, what would these insane
> maniacs be doing?" The question we should be asking is not "Are
> theists good people?" it is "How bad are they?" Are they really so
> sick, so fucked up, that they need fairy tales to not go out killing
> and raping? Honestly, if you look at the facts, the fairy tales don't
> _seem_ to be helping but we don't know--it is possible that all
> religious people are just born evil and gravitate towards evil
> religions to help adapt to a society that requires certain moral
> standards.
>
> Thank God for the atheists--where would we be without them?

Since the moral standards of most societies ARE based on religion,
much worse off, I'd say. And since atheism doesn't actually HAVE a
moral standard -- by its own admission -- I fail to see how you can
assign any credit for any morality to it.

You should be thankful for the philosophers; they're the only ones who
are looking at morality and trying to find a good one that should be
followed.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 10, 2:15 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 10, 9:16 am, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > Prove it !
> > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > redundance !
>

> How can the christian morals be better when they have no morals? They
> have rules they are to blindly follow under threat of punishment.
> That's not morals.

And atheism itself doesn't specifically promote any moral code at
all. So it doesn't have morals either.

Where should we get our morals, then?

[random]

That's half right.
Atheism itself is a narrow definition that doesn't include any form of
morality, but atheism leads to several possible philosophies about
morals.

On Nov 11, 4:03 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[Kitty Hundal]

We're grown ups Allan so we put our own moral codes together.

 

Mine is based on ethics, social responsibility, concern for others well being on an individual basis, and other secular humanist type principles.

 

Atheists take responsibility for themselves and don't require others to define these things for them as a group. We are part of society and our specific ethics, morals, and principles will come from how we define our place in that society.

I have yet to meet an Atheist that did not have a personal well-defined moral code.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 11, 8:44 am, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great thread to start.
>
> I agree. This is one of the bones I have to pick with the Religious of All
> stripes.
>
> They say they are moral because they follow God's laws. What exactly are
> those laws?
>
> The Ten Commandments.
> And something they call the New Covenant.
>
> Now I don't have a huge problem with the Ten Commandments. I do have a
> problem with the way they're interpreted. For example, when you look deeper
> into the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" one, you will discover that the
> definition of Adultery in the Old Testament is that if a woman is divorced
> by her husband and remarries both she and her new husband have committed
> Adultery. The first husband is off the hook as long as he remarries a woman
> who hasn't been married before. Hmmm.
>
> Can a Christian tell me where the morality is in that?

So the interpretation is incorrect.

Look, I believe that we, as humans, have the ability to figure out
what is and isn't moral, which is why following the Golden Rule is so
important. Note that in the New Testament -- which all Christians
should follow -- Jesus specifically intervenes to save an adultress
from stoning. So I guess that was immoral, too?

> The New Covenant essentially says that the only law is faith in Jesus and
> actually tells people they are required to follow that law and may or may
> not follow the law of man. Sounds a little anarchistic to me and where is
> the morality?

Um, you do realize that in ALL codes of morality is in fact identified
that something is not moral because it is legal and it is not
necessarily legal if it is moral. The consequence of this would be,
of course, that sometimes the moral thing to do is not the legal thing
to do. Thus, it is in fact precisely moral.

>
> It does tell slaves to obey their masters though and masters are told to be
> nice to their slaves. This implies that slavery is acceptable. Morality?

Well, answer me this: under what proven and absolute moral code is a
willing ownership of another person immoral?

(Yes, this IS a trick question; there is no proven and absolute moral
code, at least not one that we currently know)

>
> Now I get to the 20th century Christian. As Dev and others have mentioned
> the percentage of Christians in jail compared to the percentage out of jail
> is much higher than others. Morality?

Again, fallacy of the legal being the moral, and also a fallacy of
correlation or coincidence not being causal.

Prove to me that they are there BECAUSE they pay more than lip service
to Christianity or because of their morals, and then you can use it.

>
> The same figures apply to Serial Killers not including those who became
> "born again" on Death Row.

Same reply.

>
> And let's not forget all those Christian televangelists with their tax free
> incomes, mansions, yachts, etc.

I don't consider them particularly moral, but simply claiming to be
Christian does not mean that you follow it, in the same way as for
anything else in society.

And note that this isn't a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because it is
reasonable to argue that if you DON'T follow at least the minimum
demands for morality from Christianity you AIN'T a Christian no matter
WHAT you call yourself or what rituals you follow.

> Atheists on the other hand, tend to be a well educated or at least
> intelligent lot,

Education and intelligence do not equal morality. And I'm someone who
is probably over-educated and is quite intelligent, and I don't want
to claim that for myself either.

> many are secular humanists who believe in social
> responsibility, rationality, science, personal responsibility amongst other
> things.

But secular humanism does not follow from atheism, and thus cannot be
claimed as support for the morality of atheism, which by its own
admission has no set morality.

> While their politics range the entire political spectrum, no matter
> where they stand, these principles apply.

To all atheists? Unlikely.

>
> Secular Humanists have principles and ethics which are consistent and not
> mystical and do try to apply them in their lives.

But there is no requirement to be a secular humanist if one is an
atheist, and it does not follow from atheism.

>
> Some of the worlds most respected citizens are in the camp of Atheism.

And some of the world's most respected citizens are atheists. That
being said, respect does not equal morality either.

This last point might be a decent argument against the idea that
atheists can't be moral, but it is meaningless in support of a claim
that atheists are as or more moral than Christians.

>
> Now that's not to say that there aren't moral Christians. I've talked about
> Mother Teresa on this board in several threads. She qualifies. Interestingly
> enough she wasn't a proselytizer. She was active in helping people no matter
> who they were and didn't place conditions (like you have to be a Catholic)
> on her help.
>
> However, sadly, people like her and rare in Christianity. My guess is that
> she would have done that no matter what her religion or lack thereof.
>
> So on the morality scoreboard I'd have to say Christians 1 Atheists 9 where
> 0 is the lowest and 10 is the highest.

Atheism has no inherent morality, by its own admission; therefore, it
does not get ranked on the morality scoreboard. You could put secular
humanists there, but I'm not even sure those numbers would still work
out that way. Morality is a VERY tricky and complicated subject.

[Stephen]

On Nov 11, 3:58 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to Revelations you have to be a believer to be saved. Where is the
> morality in this? According to Revelations, a serial killer can go to Heaven
> if he is a believer but an Atheist who has been a good and decent person,
> never committed any crimes cannot?

S: Actually, I'm unaware of any passages in Revelations that
explicitly claim you must be a believer to enter Heaven. Can you
please give a reference?

It's just if it does, then it would be contradicted by the following
passages. (It'd be strange for an author of the same book to
contradict his own theology, although I suppose the "resolution" would
be to somehow believe that only believers are moral, which is absurd).

Rev 20:11-15, "Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated
on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place
for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the
throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the
book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as
recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and
death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person
was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were
thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If
anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown
into the lake of fire."

Rev 22:10-17, "Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the
prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does
wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile;
let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy
continue to be holy." "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me,
and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the
Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the
End. "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the
right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually
immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and
practices falsehood. "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this
testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David,
and the bright Morning Star." The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"
And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come;
and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life."

>
> On Nov 11, 2007 12:40 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I always say that if you are a good, honest person that you would go to
> > Heaven then if there is a Heaven. I believe the message Jesus came here with
> > was that we are all saved if we will just observe The Golden Rule. I think
> > all of the major religions teach that BTW. But not many Christians or
> > adherents of other faiths follow the Golden Rule. Few there be that follow
> > the path that is straight and narrow. It does not make a person a Christian
> > because he or she calls themselves a Christian. But some of what I have
> > written here needs to be qualified. For instance, if you are reasonably
> > intelligent you owe it to your fellow human being to seek truth, to search
> > and discover by means of education and research. The more you learn about
> > the way the world operates the better you will be able to form a more
> > accurate concept of God, of reality and the meaning and purpose of human
> > existence. Then you will be better equipped to contribute, to serve others
> > and thereby to be lifted to a higher state of being. Pretty worthwhile in my
> > humble opinion. But the absolutely nastiest of the atheists such as the
> > nastiest atheists who post at this group are just dogs. Not all dogs go to
> > Heaven I am certain of that.
>

> > On 11/10/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let me just elaborate a little. We are assuming there is a Heaven. The
> > > Atheist has been a good honest person all his life.
>

> > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:17 AM, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Keith. Just a quick question.
>
> > > > If someone is a serial killer, then becomes born again and asks God to
> > > > forgive when he's in the Electric Chair, does he go to Heaven before someone
> > > > who is an Atheist?
>

> > > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:14 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com>

> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Thou shalt not kill.
>
> > > > > Do not gargle with Listerine, as it kills germs by the millions.
>

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 11, 9:11 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's half right.
> Atheism itself is a narrow definition that doesn't include any form of
> morality, but atheism leads to several possible philosophies about
> morals.

So does the story in the Garden of Eden, since it states that we
learned the difference between right and wrong (or, at least, the
capability of it) and thus could come up with a comprehensive moral
code that would codify right and wrong.

[Stephen]

On Nov 11, 4:12 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True but that appears to be one of things that is consistent throughout the
> Bible. The only people going to heaven are believers. In my opinion, that,
> in and of itself, is immoral.

S: I disagree with your claim that the Bible consistently teaches that
only believers go to heaven; consider the following verses.

Romans 2:6-7, 13
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those
who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he
will give eternal life... For it is not those who hear the law who are
righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be
declared righteous.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his
angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has
done.

Matthew 19:17
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only
One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Matthew 25:31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,
he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be
gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another
as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the
sheep on his right and the goats on his left. "Then the King will say
to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take
your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of
the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was
thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you
invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you
looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the
righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed
you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a
stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When
did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will
reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of
these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "Then he will say to those on
his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave
me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I
was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you
did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after
me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or
thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did
not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did
not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then
they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal
life."

Luke 8:21
He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and
put it into practice."

John 5:28-29
"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in
their graves will hear his voice and come out-those who have done good
will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be
condemned.

Galatians 6:7-9
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will
reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the
Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good,
for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each
one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body,
whether good or bad.

1 John 2:3-7
We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man
who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar,
and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love
is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him:
Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. Dear friends, I
am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had
since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard.

1 John 2:9-11
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in
the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there
is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother
is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know
where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

1 John 2:17
The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of
God lives forever.

1 John 2:29
If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what
is right has been born of him.

1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is
right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

1 John 3:18-20
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions
and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth,
and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts
condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows
everything.

1 John 4:7
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us
and his love is made complete in us.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love.
Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

The soteriology of Jesus, in my opinion, was more about following the
"narrow path that leads to life" see Mat 7:12-14, rather than
believing a set of creeds (as tends to be the focus of evangelical
Christians and early Christians such as the author of Romans and John
3 etc).

>
> On Nov 11, 2007 1:07 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I always say that you should be careful about taking things in the Bible
> > literally. The Bible is a useful tool, but it is only the beginning of
> > wisdom. Do not rely on it as a sole source for information about anything.
>

> > On 11/10/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > According to Revelations you have to be a believer to be saved. Where is
> > > the morality in this? According to Revelations, a serial killer can go to
> > > Heaven if he is a believer but an Atheist who has been a good and decent
> > > person, never committed any crimes cannot?
>

> > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:40 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I always say that if you are a good, honest person that you would go
> > > > to Heaven then if there is a Heaven. I believe the message Jesus came here
> > > > with was that we are all saved if we will just observe The Golden Rule. I
> > > > think all of the major religions teach that BTW. But not many Christians or
> > > > adherents of other faiths follow the Golden Rule. Few there be that follow
> > > > the path that is straight and narrow. It does not make a person a Christian
> > > > because he or she calls themselves a Christian. But some of what I have
> > > > written here needs to be qualified. For instance, if you are reasonably
> > > > intelligent you owe it to your fellow human being to seek truth, to search
> > > > and discover by means of education and research. The more you learn about
> > > > the way the world operates the better you will be able to form a more
> > > > accurate concept of God, of reality and the meaning and purpose of human
> > > > existence. Then you will be better equipped to contribute, to serve others
> > > > and thereby to be lifted to a higher state of being. Pretty worthwhile in my
> > > > humble opinion. But the absolutely nastiest of the atheists such as the
> > > > nastiest atheists who post at this group are just dogs. Not all dogs go to
> > > > Heaven I am certain of that.
>

> > > > On 11/10/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > > > > Let me just elaborate a little. We are assuming there is a Heaven.
> > > > > The Atheist has been a good honest person all his life.
>

> > > > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:17 AM, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com>

> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Keith. Just a quick question.
>
> > > > > > If someone is a serial killer, then becomes born again and asks
> > > > > > God to forgive when he's in the Electric Chair, does he go to Heaven before
> > > > > > someone who is an Atheist?
>

> > > > > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:14 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com>

> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Thou shalt not kill.
>
> > > > > > > Do not gargle with Listerine, as it kills germs by the millions.
>

[random]

But the Bible is not just this story, it contain many other stories
that tell us very directly what is right and what is wrong.
There are many interpretations for some things, but others are pretty
clear.

On Nov 11, 4:31 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[wiseclam]

On Nov 10, 11:04 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you stick to the New Testament, which is a New Covenant and supercedes
> the Old Testament, then I think you are wrong.

I'm always impressed at how quickly some Christians are willing to
disregard (or out-and-out throw away) the Old Testament. Is this not
the source of original sin? And isn't original sin an essential
requirement for salvation? If you didn't have original sin there'd be
no reason for Jesus to die?

Regardless, I disagree. The New Testament introduces the idea of
eternal punishment and there is likely nothing more immoral than this
idea in the entire bible. It was the idea of Jesus that the unsaved
suffer for eternity. This takes us back directly to our "Is the
Christian God a loving god?" post. I say no. And to use words like
"tolerance, kindness, compassion, charity, love and goodness" to
describe this God or His message is equally absurd.

Tolerance? And infinite punishment for a finite crime and you want to
say God teaches tolerance?

[Kitty Hundal]

On Nov 11, 8:44 am, "Kitty Hundal" < kitty.hun...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Great thread to start.

> 

> I agree. This is one of the bones I have to pick with the Religious of All

> stripes.

> 

> They say they are moral because they follow God's laws. What exactly are

> those laws?

> 

> The Ten Commandments.

> And something they call the New Covenant.

> 

> Now I don't have a huge problem with the Ten Commandments. I do have a

> problem with the way they're interpreted. For example, when you look deeper

> into the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" one, you will discover that the

> definition of Adultery in the Old Testament is that if a woman is divorced

> by her husband and remarries both she and her new husband have committed

> Adultery. The first husband is off the hook as long as he remarries a woman

> who hasn't been married before. Hmmm.

> 

> Can a Christian tell me where the morality is in that?

 

 

Allan. So the interpretation is incorrect.

 

Kitty/Trance. Oh, Please! I got that interpretation from a Christian on this site. He supported it with various and sundry biblical passages. That interpretation was supported by another Christian. I believe they were Ranjit and OM.

 

It's just amazing to me how Christians always use that excuse. Every Christian you talk to changes the interpretation of the Bible when it suits them in an argument.

 

It would be really nice if you guys would argue honestly for a change.

 

Allan. Look, I believe that we, as humans, have the ability to figure out

what is and isn't moral,

 

Kitty/Trance. Agreed.

 

Allan. which is why following the Golden Rule is so

important. 

 

Kitty/Trance. Please provide me with Your interpretation of the Golden Rule so that we can discuss it based on that and not get into disputing interpretations which is a complete waste of time on both our parts.

 

Allan. Note that in the New Testament -- which all Christians

should follow -- Jesus specifically intervenes to save an adultress

from stoning.  So I guess that was immoral, too?

 

Kitty/Trance. No. That would be a good and moral thing to do. My problem is with the definition of an adultress in the Old Testament. It would be easier if we didn't hop back and forth between Testaments.

 

> The New Covenant essentially says that the only law is faith in Jesus and

> actually tells people they are required to follow that law and may or may

> not follow the law of man. Sounds a little anarchistic to me and where is

> the morality?

 

 

Allan. Um, you do realize that in ALL codes of morality is in fact identified

that something is not moral because it is legal and it is not

necessarily legal if it is moral.  The consequence of this would be,

of course, that sometimes the moral thing to do is not the legal thing

to do.  Thus, it is in fact precisely moral.

 

Kitty/Trance. The fact that Legal Morality is only one part of the code of Morality is true.

 

The fact that Sometimes it is moral not to do the legal thing is also true.

 

It is Not true that it is moral to Never follow the Law. Only Anarchists believe that.

 

> 

> It does tell slaves to obey their masters though and masters are told to be

> nice to their slaves. This implies that slavery is acceptable. Morality?

 

 

Allan. Well, answer me this: under what proven and absolute moral code is a willing ownership of another person immoral?

 

(Yes, this IS a trick question; there is no proven and absolute moral

code, at least not one that we currently know)

 

Kitty/Trance. Why are you playing tricks instead of dealing with the point?

Perhaps it's because you have no argument to support the Biblical acceptance of Slavery?

 

> 

> Now I get to the 20th century Christian. As Dev and others have mentioned

> the percentage of  Christians in jail compared to the percentage out of jail

> is much higher than others. Morality?

 

 

Allan. Again, fallacy of the legal being the moral,

 

Kitty/Trance. Responded to above.

 

Allan. and also a fallacy of correlation or coincidence not being causal.

 

Kitty/Trance. I'm not saying that being a Christian Caused them to be immoral and commit crimes.

 

I'm saying that they Are Christians and they do commit crimes.

 

Committing crimes is usually immoral because it violates the Legal part of the Morality code.

 

Allan. Prove to me that they are there BECAUSE they pay more than lip service to Christianity or because of their morals, and then you can use it.

 

Kitty/Trance. Not required because you misrepresented what I said in the first place.

 

> 

> The same figures apply to Serial Killers not including those who became

> "born again" on Death Row.

 

 

Allan. Same reply.

 

Kitty/Trance. Same reply.

 

> 

> And let's not forget all those Christian televangelists with their tax free

> incomes, mansions, yachts, etc.

 

 

Allan. I don't consider them particularly moral,

 

Kitty/Trance. Glad to hear that!

 

Allan. but simply claiming to be Christian does not mean that you follow it, in the same way as for anything else in society.

 

And note that this isn't a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because it is

reasonable to argue that if you DON'T follow at least the minimum

demands for morality from Christianity you AIN'T a Christian no matter

WHAT you call yourself or what rituals you follow.

 

Kitty/Trance. Then you have to define your terms and support them because unless you do it Is a No True Scotsman.

 

I have been provided with a lot of definitions of what a true Christian is, what their morality, values, belief system is. You guys can't even agree amongst yourselves on that definition.

 

> Atheists on the other hand, tend to be a well educated or at least

> intelligent lot,

 

 

Allan. Education and intelligence do not equal morality.   And I'm someone who is probably over-educated and is quite intelligent, and I don't want

to claim that for myself either.

 

Kitty/Trance. I agree. A person can be highly educated and be a moron or have little education and be quite brilliant or any combination of the above.

 

I'm just making the point that is the pool that most Atheists come from.

 

No snobbery intended.

 

> many are secular humanists who believe in social

> responsibility, rationality, science, personal responsibility amongst other

> things.

 

 

Allan. But secular humanism does not follow from atheism, and thus cannot be claimed as support for the morality of atheism, which by its own

admission has no set morality.

 

Kitty/Trance. Nice try Allan. Atheism is not the equivalent of Christianity.

 

Christianity is a structured belief system based on the Bible and a belief in God. Christians are supposed to be definable based on that Bible and belief system.

 

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheists are the first ones to admit honestly that we agree on one thing only and that is that we don't believe in God.

 

Christians on the other hand, just seem to love to obfuscate that point.

 

Atheists have a myriad of philosophical orientations. Like I said before we are grown ups and are perfectly capable of coming up with our own moral codes.

We don't need Sky Daddy to do it for us.

 

> While their politics range the entire political spectrum, no matter

> where they stand, these principles apply.

 

 

Allan. To all atheists?  Unlikely.

 

Kitty/Trance. See above explanation. Atheists have and make their own moral codes.

 

> 

> Secular Humanists have principles and ethics which are consistent and not

> mystical and do try to apply them in their lives.

 

 

Allan. But there is no requirement to be a secular humanist if one is an

atheist, and it does not follow from atheism.

 

Kitty/Trance. I was describing my moral code and didn't say there was a requirement that anyone else follow it, just that others do.

 

> 

> Some of the worlds most respected citizens are in the camp of Atheism.

 

 

Allan. And some of the world's most respected citizens are atheists.   That

being said, respect does not equal morality either.

 

This last point might be a decent argument against the idea that

atheists can't be moral, but it is meaningless in support of a claim

that atheists are as or more moral than Christians.

 

Kitty/Trance. Correct. That was badly phrased. Let me re-phrase.

 

Some of the worlds most respected and moral citizens are in the camp of Atheism.

 

> 

> Now that's not to say that there aren't moral Christians. I've talked about

> Mother Teresa on this board in several threads. She qualifies. Interestingly

> enough she wasn't a proselytizer. She was active in helping people no matter

> who they were and didn't place conditions (like you have to be a Catholic)

> on her help.

> 

> However, sadly, people like her and rare in Christianity. My guess is that

> she would have done that no matter what her religion or lack thereof.

> 

> So on the morality scoreboard I'd have to say Christians 1 Atheists 9 where

> 0 is the lowest and 10 is the highest.

 

 

Allan. Atheism has no inherent morality, by its own admission; therefore, it

does not get ranked on the morality scoreboard.   You could put secular

humanists there, but I'm not even sure those numbers would still work

out that way.  

 

Kitty/Trance. Read my entire response above for the answer to this.

 

Allan. Morality is a VERY tricky and complicated subject.

 

Kitty/Trance. Morality is only tricky and complicated to people who don't get it. That's not to say that there aren't certain issues that can be tricky and complicated. Morality as a whole? No. It's quite simple.

[Dave]

On Nov 10, 10:40 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends who you are talking about.
> Some people are indeed motivated only by fear of punishment and
> promises of a reward, but most people simply behave that way because
> they believe it's the right thing to do.

Many christians do not rob banks because they will be punished by
their god after they die.

Some people do not rob banks because it is against the law and will be
punished IF caught.

I do not rob banks because stealing money like that is wrong and
punishment is not an influence.

I see Atheists/Secular Humanists doing what they believe is the right
thing to do and not doing what they believe is wrong. Christians on
the other hand do only what their god, or what they believe their god,
tells them. Now, which way of thinking has put a disproportional
amount in prison?

[Dev]

You are so stupid. First of all, it doesn't matter that atheism
doesn't have a moral standard. Non-racism doesn't have a consistent
moral standard, either--no sane person would say this line of
"reasoning" was a defense for theism or racism. They are both wrong,
and anyone who supports them is wrong. You don't actually have an
argument. Christianity has a consistent system of morals? Based on
what? The Bible contradicts itself. It says a couple of times that you
shouldn't kill and then like a hundred times: "KILL". Learn to read
you retarded piece of shit.

On Nov 11, 7:02 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[Dave]

On Nov 11, 6:02 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>

> This, of course, has been applied by Hobbes and others to secular
> concerns as well (see the Social Contract, for example). So this does
> not seem to be a solely religious concern. And evolutionary theory
> has yet to find any convincing reason why altruism would be
> advantageous, and is in fact ALL ABOUT benefit to the organism.

Why would the fact that species change over time have anything to do
with altruism?

> Since the moral standards of most societies ARE based on religion,

Actually, it's the opposite. The religions incorporate the morals of
the society that created it. Even today those morals can change as the
society changes. Slavery is a good example. The bible condones it but
our modern society does not.

[Dave]

On Nov 11, 6:03 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>

> And atheism itself doesn't specifically promote any moral code at
> all. So it doesn't have morals either.

Atheism has never made such a claim. Why the strawman argument?

> Where should we get our morals, then?

Why do you have to go and "get" your morals from somewhere?

[Dave]

On Nov 11, 6:19 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>

> Look, I believe that we, as humans, have the ability to figure out
> what is and isn't moral, which is why following the Golden Rule is so
> important.

The so called "golden rule" is not a christian invention - although
many claim it is, and itself has problems.

> Um, you do realize that in ALL codes of morality is in fact identified
> that something is not moral because it is legal and it is not

> necessarily legal if it is moral. ...

That's nothing but semantics. Laws do not define morality. They define
what is to be done to someone that breaks a moral code. And not all
laws are based on morals but on political grounds.

> Prove to me that they are there BECAUSE they pay more than lip service
> to Christianity or because of their morals, and then you can use it.

The fact that christians are over represented in prisons proves that
just having a religion does not make one moral.

> Education and intelligence do not equal morality.

No, but the more educated and the more intelligent a person is the
less likely they are to be a theist of any stripe.

> But secular humanism does not follow from atheism, and thus cannot be
> claimed as support for the morality of atheism, which by its own
> admission has no set morality.

Why should a lack of belief in gods need a moral system?

> > While their politics range the entire political spectrum, no matter
> > where they stand, these principles apply.
>
> To all atheists? Unlikely.

Not a little biased there?

> Atheism has no inherent morality....

That does not mean that an Atheist cannot have morals.

[Dave]

On Nov 11, 6:31 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 11, 9:11 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's half right.
> > Atheism itself is a narrow definition that doesn't include any form of
> > morality, but atheism leads to several possible philosophies about
> > morals.
>

> So does the story in the Garden of Eden....

Which is a mythology, not real.

[Dev]

Which I think is the whole point. You could fill maybe two pages with
the nice verses from The Bible. The rest is just nasty, evil, self-
contradictory, racist, sexist, pro-child abuse, pro-slavery,
homophobic, anti-science, stupid bullshit. Do you _need_ The Bible to
justify doing something good? Of course not. When something is good it
is good with or without The Buybull. It's just a tool for evil and
nothing more.

[Kitty Hundal]

On Nov 11, 2007 9:29 AM, Stephen <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 11, 3:58 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to Revelations you have to be a believer to be saved. Where is the
> morality in this? According to Revelations, a serial killer can go to Heaven
> if he is a believer but an Atheist who has been a good and decent person,
> never committed any crimes cannot?

S: Actually, I'm unaware of any passages in Revelations that
explicitly claim you must be a believer to enter Heaven. Can you
please give a reference?

 

First point. John in Revelations is speaking to the 7 churches of Asia. He is speaking only to believers.

Second point. Everyone one the statements of the 7 Angels refers to the necessity to Believe. Note  passage 18 and 20.

 

Eg.

Quote.

To the Church in Laodicea

 14"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
      These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

 

15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!

 

16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

 

17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

 

18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

 

19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

 

20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

 

21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

 

22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

EndQuote.

 

Point 3. The trumpets of the Angels signal the destruction of most of the world and it's population After the Believers are Saved. The rest are tortured. Note passage 3.

 

Eg.

Quote.

Revelation 7

 

144,000 Sealed

 1After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

 

2Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea:

 

3"Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God."

 

4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. 

 5From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
   from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
   from the tribe of Gad 12,000, 

 6from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
   from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
   from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, 

 7from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
   from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
   from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, 

 8from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
   from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
   from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

EndQuote.

 

Point 4. And last but not least (I could go on if you wish). Note passage 18.

Eg.

Quote.

 

The Seventh Trumpet

 

 15The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:
   "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,
      and he will reign for ever and ever."

16And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,

17saying:
   "We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
      the One who is and who was,
   because you have taken your great power
      and have begun to reign. 
 

18The nations were angry; and your wrath has come.
   The time has come for judging the dead,
      and for rewarding your servants the prophets
   and your saints and those who reverence your name,
      both small and great—
   and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

 19Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

EndQuote.

I find it extremely interesting that when Christians quote from Revelations, they rarely, if ever, quote from The Actual Revelation. Maybe I should start on Thread on that :)

Any Questions?

It's just if it does, then it would be contradicted by the following
passages. (It'd be strange for an author of the same book to
contradict his own theology, although I suppose the "resolution" would
be to somehow believe that only believers are moral, which is absurd).

 

Surely you're kidding! Have you looked at the Biblical Contradictions thread?

The Bible is known to be full of contradictions and while there are a whole bunch of justifications for that even the justifications contradict each other frequently.

[Kitty Hundal]

By the way. it's Sunday morning. Aren't you guys supposed to be in Church or praying or something ;)

[Kitty Hundal]

Read my post on Revelations. I've already disproved this there.

[Kitty Hundal]

Nice post, wiseclam. I'm working at not arguing to agree with you ;) Are you sure you're not one of my ex husbands ;)

[Keith MacNevins]

I believe it is a mistake to take the Bible too literally. Jesus was talking to specific people at a specific time 2,000 years ago. Maybe for the most part what he was saying was just for their own good in particular. I sincerely do not believe Jesus came here to just save people who knew his name and did exactly what Paul, for instance, told them to do. On the contrary, I believe the essence of Christianity is salvation for all. But there are some who reject The Golden Rule and who prefer to live hedonist lives without regard to anything or anyone but their own selfish desires and lust. Such people are more like intelligent animals, and not spiritual at all. They are depriving themselves and it is in that way that they are truly depraved. They can't progress from their own choice and they condemn themselves. That is what evil really is -- to choose death. It is terribly unfortunate, and many do so out of ignorance. I would agree with atheists who criticize hypocrite Christians & other religious folk for turning people off to God and to religion. But the fact that hypocrites exist does not diminish the truth, whatever the truth happens to be. God is not stupid, if there is a God. The hypocrite "believers" will not fare well at all. There are some genuine, sincere theists and followers of the various major faiths who are truly rational and truly excellent people. Seek them out and their counsel before you reject God. Isn't it just because of the hypocrites that millions turn away from religious belief? Because of the people who preach that they alone have a monopoly on truth? Ignore them!

On 11/11/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty....@gmail.com> wrote:

True but that appears to be one of things that is consistent throughout the Bible. The only people going to heaven are believers. In my opinion, that, in and of itself, is immoral.

[Keith MacNevins]

Thou shalt not kill does not mean thou shalt not brush thine teeth.

Think of all the germs you kill when you rinse your mouth out!

 

On 11/11/07, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 10, 11:29 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I am very intolerant of ignorance, and stupidity. Guilty as charged.

So why is that part of Christianity off limits? Are you playing down
to the competition?

>
> On 11/10/07, Iamthesonofthedeviliam < bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:22 am, "Keith MacNevins" < kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The true essence of Christianity is tolerance, kindness, compassion,
> > > charity, love and goodness.
>
> > Keith, you're hardly tolerant.
>
> > Have you noticed that?

>
> > > On 11/10/07, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>

> > > > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > > > Prove it !
> > > > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is

> > > > redundance !

>
> > > --
> > > Keith A. MacNevins
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Keith A. MacNevins

> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Kitty Hundal]

Please see my post on Revelations which is considered Prophecy.

[Keith MacNevins]

Maybe they suffer for eternity as long as they choose to remain unsaved. The second they turn from choosing death and choose life instead then they no longer have to keep incarnating as merely intelligent humans without any spiritual awareness.

[Kitty Hundal]

Amazingly enough, I do get where you're coming from and have met other Christians from my hippy days who would have agreed with you. Their Christianity was simply to take the parts of the "message" they liked and adopt that. They actually didn't believe in the Bible or Christianity in it's formal form per se.

[Keith MacNevins]

The Bible is college-level reading, but even children read it and many children embrace religious faith because of their early exposure to Holy Scripture. If that suffices for them and for people like the Amish or maybe the average Joe on the street then good for them. For me, I want to know more. I reject the hypocrisy of The Roman Catholic leaders in the Vatican and the televangelists who live like billionaires. I study other religions, Buddhism, The Tao and the various major religions. I agree with the present Dalai Lama who said that all the major religions lead to the path of enlightenment. The trouble with most religious people is that they can't see far enough past their religion in order to get on the path.

On 11/11/07, random <rando...@gmail.com> wrote:

It depends who you are talking about.
Some people are indeed motivated only by fear of punishment and
promises of a reward, but most people simply behave that way because
they believe it's the right thing to do.

On Nov 10, 9:15 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 10, 9:16 am, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > Prove it !
> > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > redundance !
>

[Keith MacNevins]

If it turns out that there is a God then atheism is an illusion.

On 11/11/07, random <rando...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's half right.
Atheism itself is a narrow definition that doesn't include any form of
morality, but atheism leads to several possible philosophies about
morals.

On Nov 11, 4:03 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 10, 2:15 pm, Dave < dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 9:16 am, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > > Prove it !
> > > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > > redundance !
>
> > How can the christian morals be better when they have no morals? They
> > have rules they are to blindly follow under threat of punishment.
> > That's not morals.
>

> And atheism itself doesn't specifically promote any moral code at
> all.  So it doesn't have morals either.
>

[Keith MacNevins]

Why don't you write down the two pages that you think are nice and accept them for what they are worth? More than your philosophy of condemnation, that is for sure. But no, you are too stubborn, stiff-necked, stupid and set in your ways.

[Keith MacNevins]

"Wherever two or more are gathered in my name I am there in their midst."

On 11/11/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

You propose that your philosophy is superior to what any and all theists may believe? You are sick in the head. You try, try, try to provoke God to reveal himself to you personally and prove to you personally that you ought to cease your atheist rantings. It will not happen. Why don't you just spend all of your time watching cartoons and stick to your pornography websites?

On 11/11/07, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[omprem]

Atheists do not and cannot have moral codes or ethical codes as
without God they have no standard against which to measure anything.

All that atheists can manage is a self-centered utilitarianism. Quite
shallow and unsatisfying.

Atheists see themselves as being alone or individuated, if you prefer,
and must protect themselves at all times. This is why they reek of
fear and their actions reek of self-justification.

Because atheists are individuated and because there is no God,
according to them, it is each person for himself. One atheist's
actions, such as murder, cannot be judged any one else except that
person and only as to whether or not the action was successful in
satisfying desire and maintaining or enhancing their sense of
security. There is no and cannot be any morality or ethical
consideration for atheists. There can only be sensory satisfaction.
Pathetic indeed.

On Nov 11, 9:13 am, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're grown ups Allan so we put our own moral codes together.
>
> Mine is based on ethics, social responsibility, concern for others well
> being on an individual basis, and other secular humanist type principles.
>
> Atheists take responsibility for themselves and don't require others to
> define these things for them as a group. We are part of society and our
> specific ethics, morals, and principles will come from how we define our
> place in that society.
> I have yet to meet an Atheist that did not have a personal well-defined
> moral code.
> On Nov 11, 2007 9:03 AM, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 2:15 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Nov 10, 9:16 am, Ivan Karamazov <rubinst...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > Yiu say the christian moral is better !
> > > > Prove it !
> > > > But be careful, judging a moral with moral arguments is
> > > > redundance !
>

[omprem]

I may be wrong, but I do not think that Adam and Eve were atheists
particularly as they were in constant communication with God. What do
you think?

On Nov 11, 9:31 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 11, 9:11 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's half right.
> > Atheism itself is a narrow definition that doesn't include any form of
> > morality, but atheism leads to several possible philosophies about
> > morals.
>

[omprem]

Wiseass:

"And isn't original sin an essential requirement for salvation? If
you didn't have original sin there'd be no reason for Jesus to die?"

Omprem:

Another example of fractured atheist 'logic'. Original sin is merely
the tendency to allow the ego free rein and to be lead by sensory
impressions instead of maintaining a connection with God.

Original sin is taking pride in being a drop of water or a wave:
salvation is recognizing that you are the ocean.

[omprem]

Dev:

"it doesn't matter that atheism doesn't have a moral standard. '

Omprem:

At last we agree that atheism doesn't have a moral standard.

Dev:

"Non-racism doesn't have a consistent moral standard, either--no sane
person would say this line of "reasoning" was a defense for theism or
racism."

Omprem:

Non-racism and religion are indeed based on morality. It is racism
that is not based on morality but rather on the atheist preference of
self-interest.

[omprem]

Dave:

"Atheism has never made such a claim [to have a moral standard].

Omprem:

Now we are getting somewhere. Even the atheists are agreeing that
atheism has no moral or ethical standard and that atheism is just a
rag tag bunch of freebooters intent on indulging their egos and sense
impressions.

The case of state intervention vis-a-vis atheism grows larger each
time they open their mouths.

[omprem]

It comes as no surprise that you have a slew of them.

On Nov 11, 12:23 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice post, wiseclam. I'm working at not arguing to agree with you ;) Are you
> sure you're not one of my ex husbands ;)
>

[omprem]

Keith:

"I believe it is a mistake to take the Bible too literally. Jesus was
talking
to specific people at a specific time 2,000 years ago. "

Omprem:

Excellent points. The people that Jesus was talking to were for the
most part unlearned and illiterate. The way one presents wisdom to
them is different from how one leads others to wisdom.

In England during the Middle Ages, before widespread literacy,
printing presses or television, the Bible's messages had to be
dramatized and wagons went from town to town presenting these 'mystery
plays' in ways that were relevant to the people of the times.

On Nov 11, 12:26 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe it is a mistake to take the Bible too literally. Jesus was talking
> to specific people at a specific time 2,000 years ago. Maybe for the most
> part what he was saying was just for their own good in particular. I
> sincerely do not believe Jesus came here to just save people who knew his
> name and did exactly what Paul, for instance, told them to do. On the
> contrary, I believe the essence of Christianity is salvation for all. But
> there are some who reject The Golden Rule and who prefer to live hedonist
> lives without regard to anything or anyone but their own selfish desires and
> lust. Such people are more like intelligent animals, and not spiritual at
> all. They are depriving themselves and it is in that way that they are truly
> depraved. They can't progress from their own choice and they condemn
> themselves. That is what evil really is -- to choose death. It is terribly
> unfortunate, and many do so out of ignorance. I would agree with atheists
> who criticize hypocrite Christians & other religious folk for turning people
> off to God and to religion. But the fact that hypocrites exist does not
> diminish the truth, whatever the truth happens to be. God is not stupid, if
> there is a God. The hypocrite "believers" will not fare well at all. There
> are some genuine, sincere theists and followers of the various major faiths
> who are truly rational and truly excellent people. Seek them out and their
> counsel before you reject God. Isn't it just because of the hypocrites that
> millions turn away from religious belief? Because of the people who preach
> that they alone have a monopoly on truth? Ignore them!
>

> On 11/11/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > True but that appears to be one of things that is consistent throughout
> > the Bible. The only people going to heaven are believers. In my opinion,
> > that, in and of itself, is immoral.
>

> > On Nov 11, 2007 1:07 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I always say that you should be careful about taking things in the Bible
> > > literally. The Bible is a useful tool, but it is only the beginning of
> > > wisdom. Do not rely on it as a sole source for information about anything.
>

> > > On 11/10/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > According to Revelations you have to be a believer to be saved. Where
> > > > is the morality in this? According to Revelations, a serial killer can go to
> > > > Heaven if he is a believer but an Atheist who has been a good and decent
> > > > person, never committed any crimes cannot?
>

> > > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:40 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com>

> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > I always say that if you are a good, honest person that you would go
> > > > > to Heaven then if there is a Heaven. I believe the message Jesus came here
> > > > > with was that we are all saved if we will just observe The Golden Rule. I
> > > > > think all of the major religions teach that BTW. But not many Christians or
> > > > > adherents of other faiths follow the Golden Rule. Few there be that follow
> > > > > the path that is straight and narrow. It does not make a person a Christian
> > > > > because he or she calls themselves a Christian. But some of what I have
> > > > > written here needs to be qualified. For instance, if you are reasonably
> > > > > intelligent you owe it to your fellow human being to seek truth, to search
> > > > > and discover by means of education and research. The more you learn about
> > > > > the way the world operates the better you will be able to form a more
> > > > > accurate concept of God, of reality and the meaning and purpose of human
> > > > > existence. Then you will be better equipped to contribute, to serve others
> > > > > and thereby to be lifted to a higher state of being. Pretty worthwhile in my
> > > > > humble opinion. But the absolutely nastiest of the atheists such as the
> > > > > nastiest atheists who post at this group are just dogs. Not all dogs go to
> > > > > Heaven I am certain of that.
>

> > > > > On 11/10/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Let me just elaborate a little. We are assuming there is a Heaven.
> > > > > > The Atheist has been a good honest person all his life.
>

> > > > > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:17 AM, Kitty Hundal <kitty.hun...@gmail.com>

> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Keith. Just a quick question.
>
> > > > > > > If someone is a serial killer, then becomes born again and asks
> > > > > > > God to forgive when he's in the Electric Chair, does he go to Heaven before
> > > > > > > someone who is an Atheist?
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 11, 2007 12:14 AM, Keith MacNevins <

> > > > > > > kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Thou shalt not kill.
>
> > > > > > > > Do not gargle with Listerine, as it kills germs by the
> > > > > > > > millions.
>

[omprem]

I suppose a parrot, or perhaps one hundred parrots could be trained as
you have been to recite the Bible. But the level of comprehension
would be, shall we be generous and say, low.

On Nov 11, 12:16 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 11, 2007 9:29 AM, Stephen <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 3:58 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > According to Revelations you have to be a believer to be saved. Where is
> > the
> > > morality in this? According to Revelations, a serial killer can go to
> > Heaven
> > > if he is a believer but an Atheist who has been a good and decent
> > person,
> > > never committed any crimes cannot?
>
> > S: Actually, I'm unaware of any passages in Revelations that
> > explicitly claim you must be a believer to enter Heaven. Can you
> > please give a reference?
>
> First point. John in Revelations is speaking to the 7 churches of Asia. He
> is speaking only to believers.
> Second point. Everyone one the statements of the 7 Angels refers to the
> necessity to Believe. Note passage 18 and 20.
>
> Eg.
> Quote.
> To the Church in Laodicea
> 14"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
> These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the
> ruler of God's creation.
>
> 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were
> either one or the other!
>

> 16So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you

> both small and great-

[Kitty Hundal]

On Nov 11, 2007 2:01 PM, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

Atheists do not and cannot have moral codes or ethical codes as
without God they have no standard against which to measure anything.

All that atheists can manage is a self-centered utilitarianism.  Quite
shallow and unsatisfying.

Atheists see themselves as being alone or individuated, if you prefer,
and must protect themselves at all times. This is why they reek of
fear and their actions reek of self-justification.

Because atheists are individuated and because there is no God,
according to them, it is each person for himself. One atheist's
actions, such as murder, cannot be judged any one else except that
person and only as to whether or  not the action was successful in
satisfying desire and maintaining or enhancing their sense of
security. There is no and cannot be any morality or ethical
consideration for atheists. There can only be sensory satisfaction.
Pathetic indeed.

 

 

Have you heard of Social Philosophy Omprem?

 

Or have you spent so much time in your ivory tower that you have become incapable of understanding anything about the real world, philosophy, sociology, democracy and such things?

 

Do you have such contempt for the capabilities of humankind that you think that people are incapable of making intelligent moral decisions as a society and as individuals?

 

I am happy that you believe in God and that you believe your God is the one that keeps you moral because if you didn't and with your admitted belief that human beings (in reality meaning you and other Religionists who make the same assertions) are incapable of defining their morality independent of a belief in Sky Daddy I'm quite sure you'd be in jail without it.

On Nov 11, 9:13 am, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're grown ups Allan so we put our own moral codes together.
>
> Mine is based on ethics, social responsibility, concern for others well
> being on an individual basis, and other secular humanist type principles.
>
> Atheists take responsibility for themselves and don't require others to
> define these things for them as a group. We are part of society and our
> specific ethics, morals, and principles will come from how we define our
> place in that society.
> I have yet to meet an Atheist that did not have a personal well-defined
> moral code.

[Kitty Hundal]

As usual you have chosen to take Dev's remarks out of context.

 

Does it make you feel smart doing that?

[Keith MacNevins]

When the Bible was written they did not have movable type, printing presses or xerox machines. Atheists seem to conveniently overlook that, and the fact that people did not, as a rule, go to school for the three R's. Even in ancient Roman times people did not even live much past their thirties, usually. Most died younger. Most were not as concerned with learning to read as they were with having something to eat.

[Kitty Hundal]

Referring to yourself again? Did you have trouble comprehending my point?

[Kitty Hundal]

Unfortunately the Bible doesn't agree with either of you. If you are a said Christian presumably you at the very least believe that the Bible is telling the truth whether in parable or not.

[Kitty Hundal]

Your self-serving self-righteousness comes as no surprise to me.

[Kitty Hundal]

Does taking people's remarks out of context and using them for self-serving purposes make you feel smart Omprem?

[Keith MacNevins]

You have made up your mind not to accept anything in the Bible so that you do not have to worry about accepting anything in particular.

On 11/11/07, Kitty Hundal <kitty....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Kitty Hundal]

That's an easy out Keith. You can't on the one hand say you believe in the Bible and then when it's inconvenient truths get in the way say well that's misinterpreted or incorrect or he didn't mean that or whatever.

 

Well you can, but don't you think that's pretty hypocritical?

[Dave]

On Nov 11, 11:48 am, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your self-serving self-righteousness comes as no surprise to me.

What I find surprising is that anyone would actually believe that a
rational conversation with that guy is even possible. It's best to
just ignore the fool and concentrate on those that actually have a
working brain.

[Kitty Hundal]

Good point. Don't know why I allow myself to keep getting sucked in.

[Dave]

On Nov 11, 12:04 pm, "Kitty Hundal" <kitty.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good point. Don't know why I allow myself to keep getting sucked in.

That's his goal. To suck you in and manipulate your emotions. He's a
troll. That's what they do.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists do not and cannot have moral codes or ethical codes as
> without God they have no standard against which to measure anything.

Wrong.

>
> All that atheists can manage is a self-centered utilitarianism. Quite
> shallow and unsatisfying.

Wrong.

>
> Atheists see themselves as being alone or individuated, if you prefer,
> and must protect themselves at all times. This is why they reek of
> fear and their actions reek of self-justification.

Wrong.

>
> Because atheists are individuated and because there is no God,
> according to them, it is each person for himself. One atheist's
> actions, such as murder, cannot be judged any one else except that
> person and only as to whether or not the action was successful in
> satisfying desire and maintaining or enhancing their sense of
> security. There is no and cannot be any morality or ethical
> consideration for atheists. There can only be sensory satisfaction.
> Pathetic indeed.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

F-