Why I don't believe in God

[forkup]

Look, of course i cherry pick, so do you.It proves my point that morality is fluid right? You pick and chose what are valid moral lessons from the bible trough 21st century eyes.I do the same .There is one big difference. I don't pretend that my view of morality is the only valid one,you do. And you feel you have a right to do so, because you think your view is sanctioned by god.The first post I've stated what my problem with religion is," I hate how being religious means that your view of morality and even truth has to take presedence above all others." In the few reply's you gave me you have equated my view of morality, to that of Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden and Pol Pott.While the only thing I claimed was that I'm fine with a rational approach to it ,where I don't nessecarily feel I need to be the one doing the judging. Hence proving my point, you being religious makes you feel that the only valid view of morality is yours.

Morality is only fluid if you don't believe in the God of Jacob. Every one of the verses you posted are attempts to distort, just as I showed.

Doesn't seem to trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Hitlers.

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Why does it not trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Timothy McVeigh's?

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I knew you'd cherry pick to keep things out of context.

1 Peter 3:3-4 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

Look, of course i cherry pick, so do you.It proves my point that morality is fluid right? You pick and chose what are valid moral lessons from the bible trough 21st century eyes.I do the same .There is one big difference. I don't pretend that my view of morality is the only valid one,you do. And you feel you have a right to do so, because you think your view is sanctioned by god.The first post I've stated what my problem with religion is," I hate how being religious means that your view of morality and even truth has to take presedence above all others." In the few reply's you gave me you have equated my view of morality, to that of Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden and Pol Pott.While the only thing I claimed was that I'm fine with a rational approach to it ,where I don't nessecarily feel I need to be the one doing the judging. Hence proving my point, you being religious makes you feel that the only valid view of morality is yours.

Morality is only fluid if you don't believe in the God of Jacob. Every one of the verses you posted are attempts to distort, just as I showed.

Doesn't seem to trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Hitlers.

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Pulling one sentence from a letter does not distort? I could have fun with your posts.
For example:
Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message

I’m sending (the slave Onesimus) back to you… I wanted in the worst way to keep him here… But I didn’t want to do anything behind your back… Maybe it’s all for the best that you lost him for a while. You’re getting him back now for good—and no mere slave this time, but a true Christian brother!

A. Slavery in that time was for 7 years, initiated when you could not pay someone back. There were strict rules that slaves were not be abused.
B. Onesiimus stole from his master and fled. He ran into Paul who converted him to Christianity. He then convinced him to go back to his master and work things out. Philemon is a letter to his master appealing that the two reconcile the issue as Christians.

Perspective.

emale Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently from males. Parents could sell their daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

7If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

And?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Morality is only fluid if you don't believe in the God of Jacob. Every one of the verses you posted are attempts to distort, just as I showed.

Doesn't seem to trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Hitlers.

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Why does it not trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Timothy McVeigh's?

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

 

[forkup]

Look, of course i cherry pick, so do you.It proves my point that morality is fluid right? You pick and chose what are valid moral lessons from the bible trough 21st century eyes.I do the same .There is one big difference. I don't pretend that my view of morality is the only valid one,you do. And you feel you have a right to do so, because you think your view is sanctioned by god.The first post I've stated what my problem with religion is," I hate how being religious means that your view of morality and even truth has to take presedence above all others." In the few reply's you gave me you have equated my view of morality, to that of Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden and Pol Pott.While the only thing I claimed was that I'm fine with a rational approach to it ,where I don't nessecarily feel I need to be the one doing the judging. Hence proving my point, you being religious makes you feel that the only valid view of morality is yours.

Morality is only fluid if you don't believe in the God of Jacob. Every one of the verses you posted are attempts to distort, just as I showed.

Doesn't seem to trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Hitlers.

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Pulling one sentence from a letter does not distort? I could have fun with your posts.
For example:
Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message

I’m sending (the slave Onesimus) back to you… I wanted in the worst way to keep him here… But I didn’t want to do anything behind your back… Maybe it’s all for the best that you lost him for a while. You’re getting him back now for good—and no mere slave this time, but a true Christian brother!

A. Slavery in that time was for 7 years, initiated when you could not pay someone back. There were strict rules that slaves were not be abused.
B. Onesiimus stole from his master and fled. He ran into Paul who converted him to Christianity. He then convinced him to go back to his master and work things out. Philemon is a letter to his master appealing that the two reconcile the issue as Christians.

Perspective.

emale Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently from males. Parents could sell their daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

7If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

And?

Slavery was morally accepted in biblical times. Do we agree? If yes. Then how exactly do you feel you have a right to question my morals in any way if you use his book as a guide?

 

[forkup]

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Why does it not trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Timothy McVeigh's?

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to tell me what those morals are. And unlike you I'm aware that these are my morals and I have no problem accepting that some ppl don't feel the same as me. It is not a problem for me as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.If someone steals from a old lady. He breaks the law and my own personal moral code. If someone I know cheats on his wife that's his business. I personally wouldn't, but it's also not my business, that person needs to live with himself He in other words breaks my personal moral code, but i don't feel I have the moral authority to judge him.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why does it not trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Timothy McVeigh's?

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Morality is only fluid if you don't believe in the God of Jacob. Every one of the verses you posted are attempts to distort, just as I showed.

Doesn't seem to trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Hitlers.

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Pulling one sentence from a letter does not distort? I could have fun with your posts.
For example:
Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message

I’m sending (the slave Onesimus) back to you… I wanted in the worst way to keep him here… But I didn’t want to do anything behind your back… Maybe it’s all for the best that you lost him for a while. You’re getting him back now for good—and no mere slave this time, but a true Christian brother!

A. Slavery in that time was for 7 years, initiated when you could not pay someone back. There were strict rules that slaves were not be abused.
B. Onesiimus stole from his master and fled. He ran into Paul who converted him to Christianity. He then convinced him to go back to his master and work things out. Philemon is a letter to his master appealing that the two reconcile the issue as Christians.

Perspective.

emale Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently from males. Parents could sell their daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

7If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

And?

Slavery was morally accepted in biblical times. Do we agree? If yes. Then how exactly do you feel you have a right to question my morals in any way if you use his book as a guide?

And who are you to judge if slavery is wrong?

 

[forkup]

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

 

[ChrisL]

How do they distort? They are correct quotes right,chapter and verse just like you asked. The only way they distort is the simple fact that the NT was written almost 2000 years ago. A time very different from our own. Yet you feel that not only are the lessons valid but they are the ONLY valid lessons. Theres nothing in the NT condemning slavery, there's nothing saying you can't marry a 12 year old being an adult male. I think it's safe to say we don't agree with either of those things. Here again your equating my beliefs with another atrocious historical figure. It would be annoying if every time you did it, you wouldn't be making my point; Let's examine that statement. Hitler was a nationalistic, xenofobic, narcissistic, mass murderer. I've literally stated in every post here that my view of morality doesn't need to be your view of morality. I've been nothing if not non- judgemental.My morals are formed by society, my parents, friends, family, fairy tales, past experiences, my own common sense and even.... the NT. That's right I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed. You know what the most important lesson was I got from it. The parable of the good samaritan. Where Jesus thaught, that being religious doesn't nessecarily mean moral and not religious nessecarily means sinner. And that is how you get morals and it's not the same for everybody.

Why does it not trouble you that your version of morality is just as valid as Timothy McVeigh's?

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

Typical from those who need a "guide" to be moral. Lol.

 

[forkup]

lol. My turn to ask a question.Why do you feel, you're the supreme authority on morals?

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

 

[Slyhunter]

Universal Morality = Do No Harm! Do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Unless you're a sadist.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And when did I ever say I was an authority with morals? I'd much rather be violating all the 10 Commandments. But I've seen to much to know the God of Jacob exists so I do my best to follow the guidelines stated in THE supreme authority.

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

 

[ChrisL]

RELIGION


What is the basic purpose of religion?
Religion is designed to focus the people's attention and energy on a single, unchanging, uncompromising and invisible supreme being who allegedly created an inferior human race just for some extra companionship and love for himself and then supposedly foisted a set of oppressive and in some cases arbitrary rules on them, which if broken would be met with unimaginable punishment.



This keeps the followers in a continuing state of fear and compliance.



They are afraid to question the intentions of this invisible being and they are afraid of even expressing their own individuality in many cases. Christians and others are taught that they have virtually no power to do anything except pray, worship and do good deeds.



They are taught to practice self denial and are told that their own will is totally irrelevant. Religious followers believe that they are yielding their will over to a benevolent cosmic individual who has single-handedly created the whole universe and has their best interests at heart when in fact they are handing over their will and freedoms to hidden groups of religious elites for the elites own personal gains.

It appears that religion must constantly degrade and humiliate its followers in order to glorify and elevate its god. Unfortunately many people appear eager to give away their power to authority and seem to have a need and even a desire to be ruled and disciplined by it.



Worshipping gods is futile and is nothing more than an ancient primitive custom practiced by weak minded and superstitious people. It has no place in the 21st century. The reason we have life in this world is to experience life in this world, not to spend our entire lives studying an old book, looking up to the sky and worshipping an invisible ruler in another realm.

The main method by which Christians in particular are trapped and deceived is with the messiah or saviour story. This is linked to the 'original sin' story which is designed to impose a large amount of guilt onto the whole of humanity. The believers are then so grateful that they have been saved by the son of God nearly 2000 years before they were born that in some cases they abandon all reason, logic and good judgment to obey and worship this god and his son.



Anyone who believes this story is indeed lost because to believe that a god would send his only son to help us, only to see his son get tortured and murdered, and then instead of unleashing all his wrath, simply absolve us from all crimes past and present, is pure madness to say the least.



Where is the lesson for us in that? What has been achieved? There is no lesson or purpose because it's all about mass psychological enslavement and disempowerment.

The so called god that we are expected to worship is undoubtedly just a dictator strawman concocted by the religious elites for the purpose of controlling the masses.



If there is a prime creator in this universe then it is unlikely that he would interfere and impose on us by foisting his arbitrary laws, let alone need and demand our frivolous worship and blind obedience. Neither of those things requires any level of mental aptitude or creativity. The intelligence and skills that's been given to many has gone totally to waste.



Many have lowered themselves to the pointless practice of hero worship.

Furthermore, Christianity, Islam and a few other religions are polarized religions. They are polarized against each other. One is believed to be good and the other is seen as bad. The funny thing is, is that each one thinks that their's is good and the other's is bad. In most ways they're both bad. The only good kind of religion is a neutral and all loving one.



Polarized religions have been devised by influential elite leaders to play the people off against each other. That way the elite can defeat and enslave the population practically without lifting a finger.

Religion is like a drug to some. And they need a 2000 year old hero to save them - from themselves that is!


The churches don't permit their followers to have any real truth and knowledge because that would empower the people too much so they spoon feed them kiddie stories, half truths, distortions and even lies and the followers value it highly even though they must spend the rest of their lives just making sense of it.


The irony is that religion is pretty much man made, so mankind has really brought this onto themselves.


The religious elites are not totally to blame because many people actually enjoy listening to mystical sounding stories, performing rituals, customs and traditions, playing polarity roles and dramas and waging battles against what they perceive to be a devil boogie man. They also have a secret fetish to be dominated and ruled with an iron fist by a supreme ruler or king.


After all these centuries people still haven't learned to take back their power and start taking responsibility for themselves .

The Horrible Truth About Religion

 

[forkup]

The supreme authority to you. I rather take my guidance not from a book that's at a minimum 2000 years old and is contradictiry and in large parts unusable as a moral guide to anything.

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

I see your dodging every single one of my statements. Do you support capitalism? Do you feel someone who commits adultery needs to go to jail? What's the more meaningfull giving?

 

[Weatherman2020]

That's my point. You'd rather decide what's right or wrong depending upon your mood at the moment. Cheat on your wife? No problem. Steal from that old lady? No problem. People can justify murder.

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

I see your dodging every single one of my statements. Do you support capitalism? Do you feel someone who commits adultery needs to go to jail? What's the more meaningfull giving?

No, it's you who continue to ignore moral relativism is grossly flawed and always leads to what I know as evil.

 

[forkup]

You simply haven't been listening or you don't want to listen.My morals are all the morals you have minus some minor differences. I just don't need the bible to

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery.

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

I see your dodging every single one of my statements. Do you support capitalism? Do you feel someone who commits adultery needs to go to jail? What's the more meaningfull giving?

No, it's you who continue to ignore moral relativism is grossly flawed and always leads to what I know as evil.

I'm kinda getting bored with this. I've had the courage to state my ethical world to you. I've been civil altough you have compared me to everybody but the devil himself.You have given me alot of direct question I've given you a direct answer to most of those questions. Now so far you have been very very eager to judge every single aspect of my morals, on the other hand you have given me precious little to your own ethical believes. Now I think there's some quote saying something like don't judge unless you'dd be judged so if you are not willing to go out on a limb and keep on contenting yourself to try to find little holes in my logic I see no point in continuing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Your morals as as of right now. Tonight you may justify to yourself stealing from that old lady is justified.
Me on the other hand have that damn thou shall not steal that denies me from justifying stealing from her. I may still do it, but I cannot say it was the right thing to do.

There are good people who are atheists, and bad people who say theyre religious, but the point is I have documented guidelines of good and evil.

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i

Really? When has anyone been arrested for adultry? Spending your day coveting your neighbors new boat? Is there some law that tells you to take care of the widows and orphans?

And the law only forbids slavery because Christians put it there.

Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

I see your dodging every single one of my statements. Do you support capitalism? Do you feel someone who commits adultery needs to go to jail? What's the more meaningfull giving?

No, it's you who continue to ignore moral relativism is grossly flawed and always leads to what I know as evil.

I'm kinda getting bored with this. I've had the courage to state my ethical world to you. I've been civil altough you have compared me to everybody but the devil himself.You have given me alot of direct question I've given you a direct answer to most of those questions. Now so far you have been very very eager to judge every single aspect of my morals, on the other hand you have given me precious little to your own ethical believes. Now I think there's some quote saying something like don't judge unless you'dd be judged so if you are not willing to go out on a limb and keep on contenting yourself to try to find little holes in my logic I see no point in continuing.

You continue to make this about you and I, despite me driving home it is about ethical systems, one based upon the Bible, the other based upon an individual's feelings at the moment. If you can ever get past this is not about you, let me know.
Have a good day.

 

[ChrisL]

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i
Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

I see your dodging every single one of my statements. Do you support capitalism? Do you feel someone who commits adultery needs to go to jail? What's the more meaningfull giving?

No, it's you who continue to ignore moral relativism is grossly flawed and always leads to what I know as evil.

I'm kinda getting bored with this. I've had the courage to state my ethical world to you. I've been civil altough you have compared me to everybody but the devil himself.You have given me alot of direct question I've given you a direct answer to most of those questions. Now so far you have been very very eager to judge every single aspect of my morals, on the other hand you have given me precious little to your own ethical believes. Now I think there's some quote saying something like don't judge unless you'dd be judged so if you are not willing to go out on a limb and keep on contenting yourself to try to find little holes in my logic I see no point in continuing.

You continue to make this about you and I, despite me driving home it is about ethical systems, one based upon the Bible, the other based upon an individual's feelings at the moment. If you can ever get past this is not about you, let me know.
Have a good day.

Bye-bye now!

 

[forkup]

You don't think a secular law books aren't documented guidelines? They aren't just guidelines they are designed to leave as little room for interpretation as words can make them. They also adjust with the times, all advantages the bible doesn't have. That's also the answer to the second question. I condemn slavery but that's besides the point. The LAW forbids slavery. And as long as the law isn't completly oposed to my beliefs I will follow i
Ah and here we are again with the original point. Being religious makes you feel like your moral compass is the only moral compass. If you feel that adultry is an actual crime, fine that's your right. It is thank god not the law of the land. Because society deemed matters of the heart out of his purview and certainly not worthy of arrest. Greed is the basis of american capitalism, unless you can now say you are a Bernie supporter, you are in violation of that moral law you say you cling to. As to the last one being generous is something you are not something you are because the bible told you to be. What's more meaningfull? Giving because it's the right thing to do, or giving because it's a way to heaven?

How many millions will fudge on their taxes and the government won't catch them?

How many commit adultry and never get caught?

I don't have the delusion I can trick God.

I see your dodging every single one of my statements. Do you support capitalism? Do you feel someone who commits adultery needs to go to jail? What's the more meaningfull giving?

No, it's you who continue to ignore moral relativism is grossly flawed and always leads to what I know as evil.

I'm kinda getting bored with this. I've had the courage to state my ethical world to you. I've been civil altough you have compared me to everybody but the devil himself.You have given me alot of direct question I've given you a direct answer to most of those questions. Now so far you have been very very eager to judge every single aspect of my morals, on the other hand you have given me precious little to your own ethical believes. Now I think there's some quote saying something like don't judge unless you'dd be judged so if you are not willing to go out on a limb and keep on contenting yourself to try to find little holes in my logic I see no point in continuing.

You continue to make this about you and I, despite me driving home it is about ethical systems, one based upon the Bible, the other based upon an individual's feelings at the moment. If you can ever get past this is not about you, let me know.
Have a good day.

Then answer the damn questions. Do you believe in Capitalism? Is adultry a crime? is slavery morally right? And here's the most important one do you feel your interpretation of the bible Trumps secular law?None of those questions are about me, I've answered your questions to what I believe, just so you could equate them to the beliefs of some of the most unetical ppl who ever walked the earth.But you can't show me the same courtesy.