Sodom and Gomorrah

[Newby]

If Christianity is so "moral", why did we steal the land from the Native Americans and almost wipe them all out?

Don't you know it had nothing to do with morals or religion? Most atrocities has been committed in the name of Christianity than any other organization. Those that set up Jamestown belived they were doing the natives a favor giving them christianity, blankets with small pox, influenza, pig that destoryed their crops and other animals and plants indigenous and dangerous. And fundamental christians beliefs have not change since the 1600s. They are still destroying countries and people.

Really??? Where would that be?

 

[logical4u]

If it weren't for Christianity, we never would have had the Dark Ages in order to NEED a Rennaissance.

The Dark Ages. The first "Faith-based Iniative". That book written by some pagan? BURN IT! it was written by a Pagan. It took 1000 years to get somewhere near where the ROmans were before the Christians mucked it up...

Based on your posts, I take it that you prefer to live where the majority is not Christian, say the ME (not Israel), an African nation or somewhere in the Orient? Just sayin', since Christianity is soooo bad, why did it bring the rest of the world kicking and screaming into the light?

It didn't do anything near that. For a while, the bad old Muslims were technologically ahead of the Christian world. So were the Chinese.

We white people really think we are all that smart, but all we are really enjoying is a few centuries at the top, and the party's coming to an end.

Islam isn't any better than Christianity, really. Christians for most of their history were just as brutal as the Muslims. Until they had an "enlightenment" that still involved religious wars over whether Jesus was really made of bread or not.

Check your history, dude. The Persians (that would be the people that Mohammed chose to slaughter and pillage) were more advanced and were the Z religion (Zoarists?sp). That is about the time the dark ages "started". The system of Sharia spreads deceit, destruction, death and dust to every place that it gains a foothold. The libraries were confiscated, or burned. The educated were subjugated or murdered. Islam is very similar to socialism/communism: it works great until the money of the subjugated runs out (kind of like the wealthy in this country will be after the entitlement mob takes over). When the educated and the learned are oppressed, growth slows or stops, wealth decreases, disease increases and people die at the "ruler's pleasure" (kind of like government run health care).


Where is your evidence that "Christians" were just as brutal as muslims? What Christian in the last 500 years took a bound man, had four men hold him while a fifth man sawed off his head chanting to the "god" they were following? Were there people murdered in the name of Christianity? No, Christianity was used as an excuse to gain power and the "religious" soon put a stop to barbaric and inhumane practices (has islam done that .... yet?). The religious "wars": please, again, check your history. The Christians had spread, peacefully, around the land surrounding the Mediteranian Sea, and further inland too by the 600s. Islam war campaigns started with Mohammed to "convert, kill, or subjugate" all "non-believers" (that would include Christians and Jews). "Christians" (the people that were being slaughtered and subjugated) fought for their lives and territory. When it appeared they could not stop the "marauders" they requested help from the only organized people of that time (the Christians had a pope and bishops in place with influence of the landowners/kings/dukes/etc). Those people went for the "church" to defend those that were being slaughtered (and yes they did act like armies of the day, claiming "spoils"). And people like you want to pretend that those poor muslims were just sitting there (between sawing peoples' heads off while chanting to their god, Allah), minding their own business (not subjugating the entire area) when this great "unified" (hardly) force came swooping in from Europe to "conquer" (totally different from defend) those poor bloodthirsty destroyers that worship Mohammed (why do they have a problem with drawing a man, if he isn't worshipped as a diety?).

Islamic wars (notice the word "conquest", are you getting it?)

1 History 1.1 Byzantine–Arab Wars: 634–750
1.2 Conquest of Persia and Iraq: 633–651
1.3 Conquest of Transoxiana: 662–709
1.4 Conquest of Sindh: 664–712
1.5 Conquest of Hispania (711–718) and Septimania (719–720)
1.6 Conquest of the Caucasus: 711–750
1.7 End of the Umayyad conquests: 718–750
1.8 Conquest of Nubia: 700–1606
1.9 Incursions into southern Italy: 831–902
1.10 Conquest of Anatolia: 1060–1360
1.11 Byzantine-Ottoman Wars: 1299–1453
1.12 Further conquests: 1200–1800
Then the followers of Shariah went terrorists and there is not a week that goes by where they don't murder people that do not follow the same faith (or even the same branch of islam) that they do.

Christian Wars

First Crusade (1095-1099)
Second Crusade (1145-1148)
Third Crusade (1187-1191)
Fourth Crusade (1198-1204)
Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)
Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)
Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)
Eighth Crusade (1267-1272)

Just in case you are really interested in facts.

 

[logical4u]

It appears you are focusing on the "fringe" and ignoring the majority. This is the country that changed the world (specifically because of Christian philosophy that people can govern themselves based on moral code; church is to maintain the community common values)

Are there wackos that do really bad stuff in the "name" of religion (not the faith itself)? YES! Do the followers have any responsibility in following a con? YES!

"No faith"? What is that? Do you go to other people to decide what your moral code is? Do you get to decide on your own what morals you follow, or what morals others follow?
You people that are so against religion amuse me, you want to talk of morals, but ignore the origination of "morals" (that would be the Lord). You want to pretend that everyone would be great without religion: newsflash: that has been tried (anarchy, communism, socialism, etc), every time it has failed with tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions murdered all for "morals" (another word for faith action).

Why is homophobia so terrible (Christians do not believe in killing those that participate)? I thought you were all about "morals"? Homosexual acts require one or more people involved in "corruption". I guess this gets back to each gets to define "which" morals they want to follow. I guess that would make "anarchy" your favorite "faith".

Sorry, I don't think "morals" come from imaginary sky pixies. Morals come from what society as a general rule thinks they are.

When I was a pre-teen, a couple living together outside of marriage was considered scandalous. Today, most married couples live together for a year or two before tying the knot and no one thinks twice about it. I suppose God is fuming about it, because the Bible calls for killing women who aren't virgins on their wedding day.

(Seriously, the bible is a treasure trove for atheists...so much to mock, so little time.)

Most gay people I know aren't living in "corruption". they just have different preferences in their sex. Nothing evil about it at all.

What is society? Isn't that people with similar beliefs supporting each other? Doesn't that take "morals" (so that corruption doesn't ruin trade and prosperity)? Before the Lord gave the Hebrews a set of rules that they could live by and please the Lord, the "ruler" set the morals, and the "morals" were different for the different classes (kind of like communism and socialism where the "common people" share the misery and the "rulers" (elites) share the wealth).

Yes, people think twice about sin. The whole "virgin" thing was for priests. The families wanted virgins because they wanted "their" bloodlines passed on, and not some ex-lover's child. The families were united in marriage, and in many instances an alliance was made for physical/economical protections. If a woman had "loyalties" to another family, it could cause the destruction of the family of her husband.

Yes, homosexuals are living in "corruption" they deceive themselves, and those around them into believing that they are not any different than a man and a woman living in matrimony. That is the most obvious "corruption of truth". After that the deceits just pile up, hurting families and children. Because you do not see that just makes you the willing accompliss of corruption (that is your choice).

 

[logical4u]

If Christianity is so "moral", why did we steal the land from the Native Americans and almost wipe them all out?

"We" are not all Christians. Many are Christians in name only. If you check your history, you will find that many of the very religious groups that settled here went out of their way to be fair and considerate to the "Native Americans", paying them for land and setting up trade. It was after the "middlemen" and politicians moved in that the Native Americans were abused. And yes, Christians would defend their property and their families from the Native Americans that decided it was easier to raid and murder than work and trade.

 

[JoeB131]

What is society? Isn't that people with similar beliefs supporting each other? Doesn't that take "morals" (so that corruption doesn't ruin trade and prosperity)? Before the Lord gave the Hebrews a set of rules that they could live by and please the Lord, the "ruler" set the morals, and the "morals" were different for the different classes (kind of like communism and socialism where the "common people" share the misery and the "rulers" (elites) share the wealth).

Yes, people think twice about sin. The whole "virgin" thing was for priests. The families wanted virgins because they wanted "their" bloodlines passed on, and not some ex-lover's child. The families were united in marriage, and in many instances an alliance was made for physical/economical protections. If a woman had "loyalties" to another family, it could cause the destruction of the family of her husband.

Yes, homosexuals are living in "corruption" they deceive themselves, and those around them into believing that they are not any different than a man and a woman living in matrimony. That is the most obvious "corruption of truth". After that the deceits just pile up, hurting families and children. Because you do not see that just makes you the willing accompliss of corruption (that is your choice).

I knew a couple of gay gals who raised three kids together that they conceived when they were pretending to be straight to please their religious relatives. The men walked out on them, and they found each other, and did a pretty darned good job raising those kids.

I know straight couples who muck it up so badly the kids would be better off with feral wolves.

The bible makes no determination between the families of priests and everyone else. And killing a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night is barbaric. Period. Killing a woman for not crying out during a rape is barbaric, but the bible calls for that, too. Killing people for swearing or gathering sticks on the sabbath is barbaric.

this is why I don't believe in your god. I simply refuse to worship imaginary assholes.

 

[JoeB131]

[Check your history, dude.

Sorry, guy, I'm a history major, and your hate speech disguised as history would probably get you thrown out of any major history program.

The Persians (that would be the people that Mohammed chose to slaughter and pillage) were more advanced and were the Z religion (Zoarists?sp). That is about the time the dark ages "started". The system of Sharia spreads deceit, destruction, death and dust to every place that it gains a foothold. The libraries were confiscated, or burned. The educated were subjugated or murdered. Islam is very similar to socialism/communism: it works great until the money of the subjugated runs out (kind of like the wealthy in this country will be after the entitlement mob takes over). When the educated and the learned are oppressed, growth slows or stops, wealth decreases, disease increases and people die at the "ruler's pleasure" (kind of like government run health care).

Bullshit. The myth was that the Muslims burned the Alexandria Library, but in fact, the Christians did it about couple centuries earlier. They also murdered the philosopher Hypatia, because she was guilty of being smart while having a vagina.

Where is your evidence that "Christians" were just as brutal as muslims? Islamic wars (notice the word "conquest", are you getting it?)


Christian Wars

First Crusade (1095-1099)
Second Crusade (1145-1148)
Third Crusade (1187-1191)
Fourth Crusade (1198-1204)
Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)
Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)
Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)
Eighth Crusade (1267-1272)

Just in case you are really interested in facts.

Are you like retarded? How about, just for starters-

the 30 Years War- fought entirely over religion- and the bloodiest war in Europe until World War I.
The conquest of the Americas
The genocide of Australian Aborigines
The Albigisenian Crusade in Southern France.
The "Reconquista" of Spain from the Muslims, followed by the Spanish Inquistion

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquistion!

 

[amrchaos]

I notice that those who say "they don't understand this" have offered no interpretations of the passage to explain how it should be understood. Marie offered a completely different and unrelated passage of scripture, and AmericanFirst offered nothing.

Here is the OP's interpretation in a nutshell:

1) Lot offered to let a crowd gang-rape his virgin daughters rather than his guests.

2) Lot, in a drunken daze, later had incestuous sex with those same daughters, apparently on their instigation so they could get pregnant.

3) Lot was described as a "righteous" man, which, given the above, calls into question just what standard of "righteousness" is being advocated.

Now: just exactly how and why is that interpretation wrong? No platitudes, no unsupported statements, no reference to "the Holy Spirit" -- explain why and how the OP got it wrong. If you can't, you're just dodging.

I guess the interpretation of righteousness is dependent on ones loyalty to their god versus all other things including self,family, home or reputation amongs men.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Righteous" in the Old Testament had nothing to do with morality or spirituality or good/evil. It had everything to do with obeying God. When the Bible, Old and New Testament, speaks of a 'righteous' God, it speaks of a God they know to be true to Himself and incapable of violating his own Law/His own Word. Things were a bit more cut and dried in Bible times and people didn't put morality on emotions or psychology or social theory like they do now.

 

[amrchaos]

"Righteous" in the Old Testament had nothing to do with morality or spirituality or good/evil. It had everything to do with obeying God. When the Bible, Old and New Testament, speaks of a 'righteous' God, it speaks of a God they know to be true to Himself and incapable of violating his own Law/His own Word. Things were a bit more cut and dried in Bible times and people didn't put morality on emotions or psychology or social theory like they do now.

So, how would one know that they were following the one true god instead of a charlatan or even the devil. In other, how did one identify the one and true God?

 

[Foxfyre]

"Righteous" in the Old Testament had nothing to do with morality or spirituality or good/evil. It had everything to do with obeying God. When the Bible, Old and New Testament, speaks of a 'righteous' God, it speaks of a God they know to be true to Himself and incapable of violating his own Law/His own Word. Things were a bit more cut and dried in Bible times and people didn't put morality on emotions or psychology or social theory like they do now.

So, how would one know that they were following the one true god instead of a charlatan or even the devil. In other, how did one identify the one and true God?

They had a relationship with the God they followed. Or at least they believed their leaders did. And they were taught generation to generation of what their God required of them. And given the promises made to Abraham, and how, no matter how desperate things came, the motif of creation, sin, judgment, redemption was a given. A remnant of the people continued to live and thrive, their history and lore continuing with them, it was probably not difficult for them to believe.

 

[Montrovant]

"Righteous" in the Old Testament had nothing to do with morality or spirituality or good/evil. It had everything to do with obeying God. When the Bible, Old and New Testament, speaks of a 'righteous' God, it speaks of a God they know to be true to Himself and incapable of violating his own Law/His own Word. Things were a bit more cut and dried in Bible times and people didn't put morality on emotions or psychology or social theory like they do now.

I've never understood the reasoning behind this kind of statement. How is an all-powerful, all-knowing god incapable of violating any law? Wouldn't it be more accurate that he won't violate it, rather than he can't?

 

[logical4u]

What is society? Isn't that people with similar beliefs supporting each other? Doesn't that take "morals" (so that corruption doesn't ruin trade and prosperity)? Before the Lord gave the Hebrews a set of rules that they could live by and please the Lord, the "ruler" set the morals, and the "morals" were different for the different classes (kind of like communism and socialism where the "common people" share the misery and the "rulers" (elites) share the wealth).

Yes, people think twice about sin. The whole "virgin" thing was for priests. The families wanted virgins because they wanted "their" bloodlines passed on, and not some ex-lover's child. The families were united in marriage, and in many instances an alliance was made for physical/economical protections. If a woman had "loyalties" to another family, it could cause the destruction of the family of her husband.

Yes, homosexuals are living in "corruption" they deceive themselves, and those around them into believing that they are not any different than a man and a woman living in matrimony. That is the most obvious "corruption of truth". After that the deceits just pile up, hurting families and children. Because you do not see that just makes you the willing accompliss of corruption (that is your choice).

I knew a couple of gay gals who raised three kids together that they conceived when they were pretending to be straight to please their religious relatives. The men walked out on them, and they found each other, and did a pretty darned good job raising those kids.

I know straight couples who muck it up so badly the kids would be better off with feral wolves.

The bible makes no determination between the families of priests and everyone else. And killing a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night is barbaric. Period. Killing a woman for not crying out during a rape is barbaric, but the bible calls for that, too. Killing people for swearing or gathering sticks on the sabbath is barbaric.

this is why I don't believe in your god. I simply refuse to worship imaginary assholes.

Ahhh, more of the "well that system isn't perfect" attitude. Your plan seems to be, well let's replace it with one that is known to fail, quickly, EVERY time it has been tried.

As far as the Lord goes, His ways are not our ways. When a being tells you that He created all the physical laws, the solar system, the earth and life, you don't start lecturing Him. He will answer questions for those that are patient and pious. What you imagine to be barbaric could have been saving the next generations from having sins (punishments) heaped on their shoulders by their ancestors (you are aware that the "new" Covenant with the Christ, changed that?).

Apparently you choose to worship false idols (intellect) without having much or using your gift from the Lord: the ability to reason. After thousands and thousands of years of men proving that left to their own devices are corrupted beyond "evil", you want us to do that again. Take that path that ends in total corruption, and destruction. Why? Because this time, "this time" it will some how, magically, turn out differently. Try that reason thing and write down your plan on how that works. Maybe you just haven't seen it on paper.

 

[logical4u]

[Check your history, dude.

Sorry, guy, I'm a history major, and your hate speech disguised as history would probably get you thrown out of any major history program.

The Persians (that would be the people that Mohammed chose to slaughter and pillage) were more advanced and were the Z religion (Zoarists?sp). That is about the time the dark ages "started". The system of Sharia spreads deceit, destruction, death and dust to every place that it gains a foothold. The libraries were confiscated, or burned. The educated were subjugated or murdered. Islam is very similar to socialism/communism: it works great until the money of the subjugated runs out (kind of like the wealthy in this country will be after the entitlement mob takes over). When the educated and the learned are oppressed, growth slows or stops, wealth decreases, disease increases and people die at the "ruler's pleasure" (kind of like government run health care).

Bullshit. The myth was that the Muslims burned the Alexandria Library, but in fact, the Christians did it about couple centuries earlier. They also murdered the philosopher Hypatia, because she was guilty of being smart while having a vagina.

Where is your evidence that "Christians" were just as brutal as muslims? Islamic wars (notice the word "conquest", are you getting it?)


Christian Wars

First Crusade (1095-1099)
Second Crusade (1145-1148)
Third Crusade (1187-1191)
Fourth Crusade (1198-1204)
Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)
Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)
Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)
Eighth Crusade (1267-1272)

Just in case you are really interested in facts.

Are you like retarded? How about, just for starters-

the 30 Years War- fought entirely over religion- and the bloodiest war in Europe until World War I.
The conquest of the Americas
The genocide of Australian Aborigines
The Albigisenian Crusade in Southern France.
The "Reconquista" of Spain from the Muslims, followed by the Spanish Inquistion

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquistion!

The 30 years war: wikkopedia says ..... " disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part" ......

The "conquest" of the Americas was not a religious war. It was people searching for liberty and freedom from ridgid laws over the denomination of Christianity one was "forced" to join.

Australian Aborigines: pretty much the same as the Native Americans in the west. Once the scammers figured out how to play the system (get "grants" from the gov't), there was no need to be considerate to the inhabitants of the land. (this is not religion, it is greed, pure and simple: part of that corruption that you want us all to embrace).

Albigisenian Crusade: can't find a mention of this one

At least you hinted at the cause of the Inquistion: islam

It does not look good for your "correction" on Christian wars.

Lets see what you can show for muslim wars????? Or is that where your fortitude, fails?

 

[logical4u]

"Righteous" in the Old Testament had nothing to do with morality or spirituality or good/evil. It had everything to do with obeying God. When the Bible, Old and New Testament, speaks of a 'righteous' God, it speaks of a God they know to be true to Himself and incapable of violating his own Law/His own Word. Things were a bit more cut and dried in Bible times and people didn't put morality on emotions or psychology or social theory like they do now.

So, how would one know that they were following the one true god instead of a charlatan or even the devil. In other, how did one identify the one and true God?

He actually spoke with many of the Biblical prophets. It wasn't until the "slaves" were led out of Egypt and in the desert with the Lord that the people went to Moses and asked him to petition the Lord not to dwell "among" them (they were afraid). The Lord was considerate and agreed to limit himself amongst the "slaves". (this is in Numbers)

 

[Foxfyre]

"Righteous" in the Old Testament had nothing to do with morality or spirituality or good/evil. It had everything to do with obeying God. When the Bible, Old and New Testament, speaks of a 'righteous' God, it speaks of a God they know to be true to Himself and incapable of violating his own Law/His own Word. Things were a bit more cut and dried in Bible times and people didn't put morality on emotions or psychology or social theory like they do now.

I've never understood the reasoning behind this kind of statement. How is an all-powerful, all-knowing god incapable of violating any law? Wouldn't it be more accurate that he won't violate it, rather than he can't?

In their view God could not be God and violate his own Law. That is why they called him 'righeous' which means obedient in every respect to what is required of us. So that is how they reconciled a wrathful God that was also the God of Creation, sin, judgment, redemption, and love. God, because He was God, could not be other than God. He could not be righteous and not fulfill his own Law. He was the Law. His wrath therefore was righteous because it was not determined by him but by those who disobeyed the law.

Fast forwarding to modern times, we see a tiny microism of that concept in our own judicial system. To issue a sentence for a violation of the law is not vindictive and is not in retaliation. It is the legal consequence of breaking the law. The ancients of Old Testament times would say that it is righteous.

 

[JoeB131]

The 30 years war: wikkopedia says ..... " disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part" ......

The "conquest" of the Americas was not a religious war. It was people searching for liberty and freedom from ridgid laws over the denomination of Christianity one was "forced" to join.

Australian Aborigines: pretty much the same as the Native Americans in the west. Once the scammers figured out how to play the system (get "grants" from the gov't), there was no need to be considerate to the inhabitants of the land. (this is not religion, it is greed, pure and simple: part of that corruption that you want us all to embrace).

Albigisenian Crusade: can't find a mention of this one

At least you hinted at the cause of the Inquistion: islam

It does not look good for your "correction" on Christian wars.

Lets see what you can show for muslim wars????? Or is that where your fortitude, fails?

Albigensian Crusade- Fought in France during the 13th Century. A "heretical" religion called Catharism showed up which mixed Christianity and Manichism. Due to the corruption of the Catholic Church at that time, lots of people signed up.

During the seige of the town of Beziers, the Crusaders asked the Papal Legate, "How do we tell a good Christian from a Heretic." and he replied, "Kill them all, for God knows his own!" (Sometimes translated as "Kill them all, let God sort them out!")

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rest of your point is that we can ignore the religious overtones of these murders and slaughters because, hey, there were political motives as well. (The same can be said of the Islamic Conquests).

So if Mitt Romney wins, you'll support him killing everyone who doesn't sign up for Mormonism, right?

 

[JoeB131]

Ahhh, more of the "well that system isn't perfect" attitude. Your plan seems to be, well let's replace it with one that is known to fail, quickly, EVERY time it has been tried.

Every system has failed, eventually. That's when you come up with a new system. Atheism as a system has worked fine for me for 30 years. I get to enjoy my Sundays and I don't feel guilty about things I shouldn't feel guilty about.

As far as the Lord goes, His ways are not our ways. When a being tells you that He created all the physical laws, the solar system, the earth and life, you don't start lecturing Him. He will answer questions for those that are patient and pious.

But "the Lord" has never told me anything of the sort. Ministers, Priests, and idiots on the internet have told me these things, but I just don't find them terribly credible.

What you imagine to be barbaric could have been saving the next generations from having sins (punishments) heaped on their shoulders by their ancestors (you are aware that the "new" Covenant with the Christ, changed that?).

Oh, the old "That's the Old Testement(TM)" argument. When god acts like a complete asshole in the Old Testement, that's because it's the Old Testement. The New Testement came along and God started being nicer, so that makes all the behavior he demanded (except the ones that support your bigotry and homophobia) now no longer important. So we don't have to stone those rape victims anymore. Whew.

Apparently you choose to worship false idols (intellect) without having much or using your gift from the Lord: the ability to reason. After thousands and thousands of years of men proving that left to their own devices are corrupted beyond "evil", you want us to do that again. Take that path that ends in total corruption, and destruction. Why? Because this time, "this time" it will some how, magically, turn out differently. Try that reason thing and write down your plan on how that works. Maybe you just haven't seen it on paper.

Actually, I put down a reasoned version of it a few posts ago.

It what I do doesn't hurt anyone, it's moral. If it does, without a good reason, it's immoral.

Examples- I choose to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with me. - Moral.

I cheat someone out of their house so I can make money- Immoral.

Someone attacks me and I beat them silly- Moral.

Person asks me if this dress makes her look fat. - Hmmm. That's a tough one. I could lie and spare her feelings, or I could tell her the truth and maybe she'll do something about her weight. Okay, that's a tough one.

But anyway, it's a moral system that works just fine, really. No need for a sky pixie, no reason to go to a church and lets some hypocrite who can't deal with his homosexuality lecture to me.
No reason to try to excuse or rationalize 3000 year old barbaric myths where being gay was bad but offering your daughters up for gang rape was acceptable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ahhh, more of the "well that system isn't perfect" attitude. Your plan seems to be, well let's replace it with one that is known to fail, quickly, EVERY time it has been tried.

Every system has failed, eventually. That's when you come up with a new system. Atheism as a system has worked fine for me for 30 years. I get to enjoy my Sundays and I don't feel guilty about things I shouldn't feel guilty about.

As far as the Lord goes, His ways are not our ways. When a being tells you that He created all the physical laws, the solar system, the earth and life, you don't start lecturing Him. He will answer questions for those that are patient and pious.

But "the Lord" has never told me anything of the sort. Ministers, Priests, and idiots on the internet have told me these things, but I just don't find them terribly credible.

What you imagine to be barbaric could have been saving the next generations from having sins (punishments) heaped on their shoulders by their ancestors (you are aware that the "new" Covenant with the Christ, changed that?).

Oh, the old "That's the Old Testement(TM)" argument. When god acts like a complete asshole in the Old Testement, that's because it's the Old Testement. The New Testement came along and God started being nicer, so that makes all the behavior he demanded (except the ones that support your bigotry and homophobia) now no longer important. So we don't have to stone those rape victims anymore. Whew.

Apparently you choose to worship false idols (intellect) without having much or using your gift from the Lord: the ability to reason. After thousands and thousands of years of men proving that left to their own devices are corrupted beyond "evil", you want us to do that again. Take that path that ends in total corruption, and destruction. Why? Because this time, "this time" it will some how, magically, turn out differently. Try that reason thing and write down your plan on how that works. Maybe you just haven't seen it on paper.

Actually, I put down a reasoned version of it a few posts ago.

It what I do doesn't hurt anyone, it's moral. If it does, without a good reason, it's immoral.

Examples- I choose to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with me. - Moral.

I cheat someone out of their house so I can make money- Immoral.

Someone attacks me and I beat them silly- Moral.

Person asks me if this dress makes her look fat. - Hmmm. That's a tough one. I could lie and spare her feelings, or I could tell her the truth and maybe she'll do something about her weight. Okay, that's a tough one.

But anyway, it's a moral system that works just fine, really. No need for a sky pixie, no reason to go to a church and lets some hypocrite who can't deal with his homosexuality lecture to me.
No reason to try to excuse or rationalize 3000 year old barbaric myths where being gay was bad but offering your daughters up for gang rape was acceptable.

But again, how was it decided what was moral or not? Is it moral for the government to take property from me and give it to you on the theory you need it more? Many here would say that yes, that is moral. But is it moral for you to help yourself to my property on the theory that you need it more? You say here that no, that is immoral. What makes the difference?

What determines what is moral and what is not? Where did such a concept come from in the first place? Some lies are immoral. Other lies are not. Why? If it is okay for you to beat senseless somebody who attack you, why isn't it okay for you to beat senseless somebody you know attacked somebody else? What instilled the foundation of your sense of morality in you? And what are its roots?

 

[JoeB131]

But again, how was it decided what was moral or not? Is it moral for the government to take property from me and give it to you on the theory you need it more?

Under certain circumstances, yes. And a good thing, too. Because as much as so-called Conservatives claim that they want to live in an "every man for himself" world, they would probably hate living in one when they could be killed over the stuff in their wallet. So they will whine about a bit of tax being taken out to feed the hungry, but it beats the hell out of them taking what they need.

Many here would say that yes, that is moral. But is it moral for you to help yourself to my property on the theory that you need it more? You say here that no, that is immoral. What makes the difference?

I think in the concept that we are social animals, and have to balance off social needs.

What determines what is moral and what is not? Where did such a concept come from in the first place? Some lies are immoral. Other lies are not. Why? If it is okay for you to beat senseless somebody who attack you, why isn't it okay for you to beat senseless somebody you know attacked somebody else? What instilled the foundation of your sense of morality in you? And what are its roots?

Well, I know it ain't a magic sky pixie, that's for sure.

To try to take this seriously, I think the measure has to be societal norms. But sometimes a soceital norm can be messed up, so we need to question them. People accepted slavery for thousands of years, until someone pointed out the unfairness of the whole thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

But again, how was it decided what was moral or not? Is it moral for the government to take property from me and give it to you on the theory you need it more?

Under certain circumstances, yes. And a good thing, too. Because as much as so-called Conservatives claim that they want to live in an "every man for himself" world, they would probably hate living in one when they could be killed over the stuff in their wallet. So they will whine about a bit of tax being taken out to feed the hungry, but it beats the hell out of them taking what they need.



I think in the concept that we are social animals, and have to balance off social needs.

What determines what is moral and what is not? Where did such a concept come from in the first place? Some lies are immoral. Other lies are not. Why? If it is okay for you to beat senseless somebody who attack you, why isn't it okay for you to beat senseless somebody you know attacked somebody else? What instilled the foundation of your sense of morality in you? And what are its roots?

Well, I know it ain't a magic sky pixie, that's for sure.

To try to take this seriously, I think the measure has to be societal norms. But sometimes a soceital norm can be messed up, so we need to question them. People accepted slavery for thousands of years, until someone pointed out the unfairness of the whole thing.

No. Slavery was ended when mostly Christian conscience won out over the economic considerations of the slave owners. And it was mostly Christian conscience that was the force behind ending segregation. The societal norm, even among those who opposed slavery, was that black people are somehow inferior beings and therefore could morally be treated as property rather than as ordinary human beings. And for awhile many of those who opposed slavery did not oppose segregation for the same reason. (And yes, I realize that many Christians were prejudiced too, but it was still Biblical teachings that changed enough hearts to force the change.) The Christian concept that in God's eyes we are all equally loved shaped the morality related to race and other considerations.

When you look at the 'morality' of those nations that do not promote or acknowledge a belief in God, the societal norms are pretty pathetic.

And I don't accept it a moral choice to make it mandatory to give people stuff so that they will be less likely to decide to steal it.

But that is neither here nor there. The source of moral choices is of course subject to widely diverse opinion, but to search one's soul as to why some things are right to do and some things are wrong to do can be instructive in shaping who we are as people.