Post Christian ethics

[22lcidw]

And by 'spouts', you mean history. Everything I cited actually happened while Christianity was far more influential and culturally dominant than it is now.

And all were perfectly compatible with a society that is far more influenced by Christianity than ours is now.

Unsurprisingly, you ignore our history entirely.

The same type of people you are following in today's Europe were in charge. The globalists are the power brokers. The Church may have een with them with a little influence or to be accepted by the peasants. You are blaming the church. Not the true elitists.

 

[Skylar]

The same type of people you are following in today's Europe were in charge. The globalists are the power brokers. The Church may have een with them with a little influence or to be accepted by the peasants. You are blaming the church. Not the true elitists.

And as predictable as clockwork, you ignore our actual history.

If Christianity innoculates us from such atrocities, why didn't it?

 

[The Irish Ram]

What law are you referring to?

And I don't need to prove Christians backed a law. I need to demonstrate the horrors of our past when Christian influence was stronger.

And anything from lynchings to redlining to women not being allowed to vote to syphilis experiments to segregation to jim crow laws to forced sterilization, to the execution of gays, to child slavery.....demonstrates what happens when Christian influence is stronger.

Euthanasia laws.
Do you really believe that Christians are killing people? In church maybe? Both Christians and atheists committed crimes in the past.
Has the Pope shot anyone recently? We live here and now, are still a Christian nation and no one is executing gays. The evil Democrats have a lock on child slavery. Biden just "lost" 85,000 of them Oopsie.

 

[Skylar]

Euthanasia laws.

You get that the 'Euthanasia laws' being discussed in the OP are polls?

Do you really believe that Christians are killing people? In church maybe? Both Christians and atheists committed crimes in the past.
Has the Pope shot anyone recently? We live here and now, are still a Christian nation and no one is executing gays. The evil Democrats have a lock on child slavery. Biden just "lost" 85,000 of them Oopsie.

No one is executing gays......after Christianity's influence on our society waned.

No one is banning interracial marriage.......after Christianity's influence on our society waned.

No one is banning contraception or outlawing divorce......after Christianity's influence on our society has waned.

No one is practicing state sanctioned slavery.....after Christianity's influence on our society has waned.

Human experimentation, the mutilation of people as property, state sanctioned child rape, state sanctioned rape of women, women being denied the vote, forced sterilization, red lining, all banned........after Christianity's influence on our society has waned.

 

[OldFlame]

So.....what's the moral utility of a belief system that is perfectly compatible with child slavery? Or the mutilation of people as property? Or denying women rights? Or executing gays?

Or any of the centuries of atrocities that occurred in our nation when Christianity was far more influential than they are now?

You're blaming secularists.......for things that were dwarfed in their evil and morally indefensible acts that were perfectly compatible with our society when Christianity had far more influence.

Gee, I must be a psychic, cause I predicted exactly what you would respond to that post. You can ask what the moral utility of it is when you show that the severity or times atrocities committed are not lower because of those belief systems. How do you know the atrocities wouldn't have been far worse or occurred far more often without them, how do you prove that people that were true to their belief systems were the ones committing the atrocities? You want to make it simple when it's far from simple. I haven't 'blamed' anyone, but you're clearly blaming Christians and their faith for your litany of 'crimes', and offer no proof whatsoever that there is a correlation there at all. You'd be able to prove your arument simply by pointing to a secular socity that is free from any atrocities, and you can't.

 

[OldFlame]

And as predictable as clockwork, you ignore our actual history.

If Christianity innoculates us from such atrocities, why didn't it?

No one has ever claimed that Christianity inoculates everyone from atrocities, even the Bible itself states exactly the opposite. When everyone is 100% Christian and 100% following the commands of Jesus Christ, then you may have a case. But that will never happen, it can't happen, man is corrupt. You really don't understand much about the Christian faith at all.

 

[Skylar]

Gee, I must be a psychic, cause I predicted exactly what you would respond to that post. You can ask what the moral utility of it is when you show that the severity or times atrocities committed are not lower because of those belief systems. How do you know the atrocities wouldn't have been far worse or occurred far more often without them, how do you prove that people that were true to their belief systems were the ones committing the atrocities? You want to make it simple when it's far from simple. I haven't 'blamed' anyone, but you're clearly blaming Christians and their faith for your litany of 'crimes', and offer no proof whatsoever that there is a correlation there at all. You'd be able to prove your arument simply by pointing to a secular socity that is free from any atrocities, and you can't.

So you recognize that these atrocities, including rape and child slavery.....were perfectly compatible with a society more heavily influenced by Christianity.

And now can't demonstrate the moral utility of a belief system that is perfectly compatible with rape and child slavery.

So where do we disagree?

 

[OldFlame]

So you recognize that these atrocities, including rape and child slavery.....were perfectly compatible with a society more heavily influenced by Christianity.

And now can't demonstrate the moral utility of a belief system that is perfectly compatible with rape and child slavery.

So where do we disagree?

You’re a broken record, you know you’ve been bested when all you can do is repeat the same tripe you’ve been saying the entire thread and can’t address one point I’ve made. Sucks to be you.

 

[Skylar]

You’re a broken record, you know you’ve been bested when all you can do is repeat the same tripe you’ve been saying the entire thread and can’t address one point I’ve made. Sucks to be you.

I'm simply stating points that neither of us disagree with.

So with you conceding my every point, what are we disagreeing on?

 

[OldFlame]

I'm simply stating points that neither of us disagree with.

So with you conceding my every point, what are we disagreeing on?

No, we don’t agree on anything, your logic leaves little to be desired.

 

[Skylar]

No, we don’t agree on anything, your logic leaves little to be desired.

When I said my point that the all the atrocities I cited were perfectly compatible with a society that has a far stronger Christian influence than it does now.

Your response was 'So what'.

That doesn't sound like we disagree at all.

 

[Skylar]

When I asked you what moral utility of a belief system that is perfectly compatible with child slavery? Or the mutilation of people as property? Or denying women rights? Or executing gays?

You had none.

I don't have any either.

Again, it doesn't look like we disagree.

 

[OldFlame]

When I said my point that the all the atrocities I cited were perfectly compatible with a society that has a far stronger Christian influence than it does now.

Your response was 'So what'.

That doesn't sound like we disagree at all.

Yeah, that’s all I said… but I understand why you only select certain parts to pay attention to, you have no response to the rest.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, that’s all I said… but I understand why you only select certain parts to pay attention to, you have no response to the rest.

You may want to read what you actually wrote. At no point do you disagree with me.

 

[Skylar]

So we're in agreement that all the atrocities I cited were perfectly compatible with a society that had a much stronger Christian influence than we do now.

So next question: what's the moral utility of a belief system that is perfectly compatible with child slavery? Or the mutilation of people as property? Or denying women rights? Or executing gays?

You can't find any moral utility for such a belief system.

Neither can I.

We agree again.

 

[OldFlame]

You may want to read what you actually wrote. At no point do you disagree with me.

View attachment 783961

I know exactly what I said, you ignored 90% of it because you can’t address it. So now you have to lamely attempt to divert the discussion. Your debating skills suck.

Ever come up with a secular society that doesn’t have atrocities? I didn’t think so.

Ever prove that said atrocities were committed by faithful Christian’s? I didn’t think so.

Ever prove that if religion was banned, said atrocities would disappear? I didn’t think so.

So based on your logic, laws don’t work, they don’t keep atrocities from occurring, so they’re worthless and useless, why have them?

Based on your logic, atrocities happen when democrats are in power and influence, so they also have zero positive impact on society, so should be outlawed.

How many other things can we correlate to having zero impact on ‘atrocities’ in our society, She according to your ‘logic’ are of no use?

Your attempt at correlation also sucks.

 

[Coyote]

It is something I disagree with because the mental state of the person seeking to have assisted death may not be a rational state of mind due to a lot of factors. I also disagree with the statement it is individualism coming to its ultimate conclusion. One can still have compassion and understanding for one's fellow man. Self-preservation is a natural state of mind so ''wanting to die'' is not a''' rational state''.

I think we have reached a point where we can be kept alive far longer in a state where the quality of life is greatly diminished. Is it irrational to be allowed to let it go?

It is a difficult question, and one we can only make for ourselves individually.

 

[Skylar]

I know exactly what I said, you ignored 90% of it because you can’t address it. So now you have to lamely attempt to divert the discussion. Your debating skills suck.

Ever come up with a secular society that doesn’t have atrocities? I didn’t think so.

We have a society that is more secular than the eras in which those atrocities occurred. And there's no state sanctioned slavery today, far less forced sterilization, no mutilation of people as property, no executions for being gay, no criminalization of homosexuality, no banning of contraceptives, no wholesale slaughter of native Americans, far less state sanctioned segregation, no prohibitions of women voting, no state sanctioned rape.

When you go back into our past when Christianity's influence was stronger, you see MORE atrocities. When you move into our present, where Christianity's influence has waned and secularism has more influence than in the past....you have LESS atrocities.

Why then would I want more Christian influence, given that slavery and child rape was perfectly compatible with a society with a strong influence of Christianity.......when either are forbidden in our society with a weaker Christian influence and a greater secular influence than in the past?

 

[Skylar]

I think we have reached a point where we can be kept alive far longer in a state where the quality of life is greatly diminished. Is it irrational to be allowed to let it go?

It is a difficult question, and one we can only make for ourselves individually.

They don't want that decision made by the individual. They want it made by their 'god'. Or at least what they have decided their god wants today.

The puritans executed gays and adulterers. The founders just gays. Today's Christians, neither.

Did God change his mind? Or did Christians?

 

[g5000]

'Post-Christian social ethics': Alarming number of young Canadians think the poor and mentally ill should be eligible for voluntary extermination by the state | Blaze Media

Canada is one of several Western nations rushing to loosen the laws around euthanasia. While its expansion of access to voluntary extermination by the state can be attributed in part to a concerted campaign in recent years by the leftist Trudeau government, it is clear that a significant portion...

www.theblaze.com

An alarming number of secular citizens are gravitating towards supporting elective euthanasia for the mentally ill and poor.

Understandable really since morality 50 shades of Marxist gray for many secular humanists.

How many here support it as well?

We've been seeing post Christian ethics for some time now, willfully blind monkey.

It is now cool with certain Christians to cheat on three wives. You get MULTIPLE mulligans for that.

It is now cool with certain Christians to **** porn stars.

It is now cool with certain Christians to steal the life savings of the elderly at a fake university.

It is now cool with certain Christians to make your fortune by exploiting every human weakness, particularly with gambling houses, vodka, and contests of the flesh.

It is now cool with certain Christians to bust into the dressing rooms of women to catch them naked.

It is now cool with certain Christians to sexually assault women.

It is now cool with certain Christians to covet married women for sex.

It is now cool with certain Christians to bear false witness against others on a daily basis.

I really don't understand how you have not noticed all this by now.

All in the name of making America great again. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!