The religion of atheists is socialism

[ding]

we only needed, ten social commandments, for free.

No. That's not what that means. You don't know what it means because it means nothing.

You simply, understand nothing.

If you were good enough to have social morals for free you could have explained it.

social morals for free is usually, self-explanatory.

Only by people who were good enough to have social morals for free.

 

[ding]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

 

[WillReadmore]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

 

[ding]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy.

how trite can you get ...

 

[WillReadmore]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong about that.

Joshua slaughtered every man, woman, child and even animal in the name of acquiring land by military force. Christians of the very recent past would teach kids to sing about that!!

Tens of thousands of Midianite captives were slaughtered, saving only the virgin girls to be divided among the old testament victors, with God blessing that result.

Even the NT supports slavery.

Today, those who believe in God do not see those acts as legitimate. Their morality CHANGED.


Also, multiculturalism is a MORAL TRANSGRESSION now???

Come on, dude. You're post just went WAY off the rails in every way possible.

 

[ding]

.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy.

how trite can you get ...

Trite enough to know you have no morals.

 

[ding]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong about that.

Joshua slaughtered every man, woman, child and even animal in the name of acquiring land by military force. Christians of the very recent past would teach kids to sing about that!!

Tens of thousands of Midianite captives were slaughtered, saving only the virgin girls to be divided among the old testament victors, with God blessing that result.

Even the NT supports slavery.

Today, those who believe in God do not see those acts as legitimate. Their morality CHANGED.


Also, multiculturalism is a MORAL TRANSGRESSION now???

Come on, dude. You're post just went WAY off the rails in every way possible.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. I can't think of a more dangerous group of radicals than humanists.

 

[WillReadmore]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong about that.

Joshua slaughtered every man, woman, child and even animal in the name of acquiring land by military force. Christians of the very recent past would teach kids to sing about that!!

Tens of thousands of Midianite captives were slaughtered, saving only the virgin girls to be divided among the old testament victors, with God blessing that result.

Even the NT supports slavery.

Today, those who believe in God do not see those acts as legitimate. Their morality CHANGED.


Also, multiculturalism is a MORAL TRANSGRESSION now???

Come on, dude. You're post just went WAY off the rails in every way possible.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. I can't think of a more dangerous group of radicals than humanists.

But, you suggested it was because of "moral relativism".

I don't believe you've thought about that enough.

It seems more likely that you differ on specific issues.

Like you may think that abortion is wrong, so anyone supporting choice is evil.

But, you may miss that ALL Americans want fewer abortions - they may well share your objective, but don't accept your methods for reasons you have no interest in learning about.

 

[ding]

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong about that.

Joshua slaughtered every man, woman, child and even animal in the name of acquiring land by military force. Christians of the very recent past would teach kids to sing about that!!

Tens of thousands of Midianite captives were slaughtered, saving only the virgin girls to be divided among the old testament victors, with God blessing that result.

Even the NT supports slavery.

Today, those who believe in God do not see those acts as legitimate. Their morality CHANGED.


Also, multiculturalism is a MORAL TRANSGRESSION now???

Come on, dude. You're post just went WAY off the rails in every way possible.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. I can't think of a more dangerous group of radicals than humanists.

But, you suggested it was because of "moral relativism".

I don't believe you've thought about that enough.

It seems more likely that you differ on specific issues.

Like you may think that abortion is wrong, so anyone supporting choice is evil.

But, you may miss that ALL Americans want fewer abortions - they may well share your objective, but don't accept your methods for reasons you have no interest in learning about.

Moral relativity is an artefact of the deification of man and satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts.

 

[RWS]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

My morals will never change. They're pretty basic and simple. Nothing can change them. Yours however, are subject to the religion of the time. If the Pope changes his mind about something, it changes your morals.

Your morals are relative to the changes made in your religion. Which means you are an unstable person, morally. And subject to the whims of another human being that tells you what's right and wrong.

 

[ding]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

My morals will never change. They're pretty basic and simple. Nothing can change them. Yours however, are subject to the religion of the time. If the Pope changes his mind about something, it changes your morals.

Your morals are relative to the changes made in your religion. Which means you are an unstable person, morally. And subject to the whims of another human being that tells you what's right and wrong.

We had a big long discussion on this already, you sure seemed like believed that morals were relative. So now you claim your won't change. Which is it?

Nope, the religion is fixed. Popes aren't like presidents. They don't write executive orders to change dogma or the CCC. But nice try. Besides, I don't worry about that or secular laws, I follow the dictate of my conscience.

If I'm an unstable person that would mean you were less than an unstable person. So, I can't be an unstable person.

 

[RWS]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

That's like the 3rd time you've posted that, that I've seen. And you're still so incredibly wrong. Repeating it does not make it true....

I do not believe in Socialism, nor does anybody that we have encountered. That is your lie, that you reflexively use when confronted by logic that you refuse.

I know much more about good and evil than you ever will, because my knowledge is learned through experience and study, rather than being brainwashed by a birth-religion.

Your value of good and evil, is relative to what your leader tells you. You don't really know what is good or bad. You just do what you're told, and hope it's good.

 

[ding]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

That's like the 3rd time you've posted that, that I've seen. And you're still so incredibly wrong. Repeating it does not make it true....

I do not believe in Socialism, nor does anybody that we have encountered. That is your lie, that you reflexively use when confronted by logic that you refuse.

I know much more about good and evil than you ever will, because my knowledge is learned through experience and study, rather than being brainwashed by a birth-religion.

Your value of good and evil, is relative to what your leader tells you. You don't really know what is good or bad. You just do what you're told, and hope it's good.

lol, I've posted it way more than three times. It's my sig on every post.

I know it's a shock to the system, but the truth usually hurts before it helps.

Can you tell me what my leader tells me? I should probably know that, right?

About that knowledge you allege to have, I looked up some of your non-religious posts. There weren't a lot. You have thing for religious discussions it seems. Anyway, no offense, but I don't see a lot of mental firepower here. I can even see some socialists underpinnings.

We need a new ideas to "trump" the other parties next election. Emily has some great ideas, but those ideas cannot get implemented until we change the electoral system.

Will we allow this type of ballot to happen again in the future?

Yes we will!

Unless we do something about it... The only reason I wanted Trump is to change the electoral system going forward.

Before we figure out how the government should be run next time, we need to figure out how to get a trustworthy person elected...

And we have to obliterate the party system.

I mean, I understand why it's necessary. But, it is not really necessary if we use our brains...

We have to devise a way to get honest people on the ballot and in national view, on a simple budget.

So maybe we have a lot of parties.

And each party is allowed X amount of dollars for their campaign. Those funds are provided by the fed, and set in stone. No party can go over, and no contributions are allowed by interested parties.

I don't know, it's a thought to think about... There's problems with that too, getting it approved for next election... not happening... but it's something to work towards

Here's a simple idea...

If global warming is an issue to you, why not have CO2 converters planted around the planet like AC units? And then the by-products can then be recycled as another fuel source? Every house should have a CO2 converter along with their air-conditioning unit. Why aren't we doing it?

Probably because the oil companies won't allow it....

So we need honest politicians to ignore those influences. And there's only one way to do it, and that's by not allowing them to contribute to electoral interests. And that's only done by an electoral system with a fixed budget.

Let's get honest politicians who care about our world, elected into government

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Nope, the religion is fixed. Popes aren't like presidents. They don't write executive orders to change dogma or the CCC.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacramentals

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1679 In addition to the liturgy, Christian life is nourished by various forms of popular piety, rooted in the different cultures. While carefully clarifying them in the light of faith, the Church fosters the forms of popular piety that express an evangelical instinct and a human wisdom and that enrich Christian life.

you have no morals at all claiming a religion as a sole conscript "not of your own making" that has demonstrated through history the true nature of your church. you and your kind from the 4th century to this date have been a blight on humanity and the antithesis of the events that occurred during antiquity by disguising your immorality as a religion you knowingly confiscated using your errant, self deluding book.

 

[ding]

.

Nope, the religion is fixed. Popes aren't like presidents. They don't write executive orders to change dogma or the CCC.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacramentals

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1679 In addition to the liturgy, Christian life is nourished by various forms of popular piety, rooted in the different cultures. While carefully clarifying them in the light of faith, the Church fosters the forms of popular piety that express an evangelical instinct and a human wisdom and that enrich Christian life.

View attachment 106924


you have no morals at all claiming a religion as a sole conscript "not of your own making" that has demonstrated through history the true nature of your church. you and your kind from the 4th century to this date have been a blight on humanity and the antithesis of the events that occurred during antiquity by disguising your immorality as a religion you knowingly confiscated using your errant, self deluding book.

I'm sure God will question my morals. Will God question yours? Or do you believe that you are sinless?

I'm pretty happy with how history records Christianity. By any objective measure it has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.

If you believe the Bible is corrupt or deluded, what book isn't?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Nope, the religion is fixed. Popes aren't like presidents. They don't write executive orders to change dogma or the CCC.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacramentals

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1679 In addition to the liturgy, Christian life is nourished by various forms of popular piety, rooted in the different cultures. While carefully clarifying them in the light of faith, the Church fosters the forms of popular piety that express an evangelical instinct and a human wisdom and that enrich Christian life.

View attachment 106924


you have no morals at all claiming a religion as a sole conscript "not of your own making" that has demonstrated through history the true nature of your church. you and your kind from the 4th century to this date have been a blight on humanity and the antithesis of the events that occurred during antiquity by disguising your immorality as a religion you knowingly confiscated using your errant, self deluding book.

I'm sure God will question my morals. Will God question yours? Or do you believe that you are sinless?

I'm pretty happy with how history records Christianity. By any objective measure it has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.

If you believe the Bible is corrupt or deluded, what book isn't?

.

Or do you believe that you are sinless?

that is the goal, the Triumph of Good vs Evil to become a Free Spirit and after Judgement be admitted to the Everlasting ... that is the religion -

quit lying your book is anything different than what you have made up to suit your own lifestyle. sinner.

 

[danielpalos]

according the right; Jesus the Christ was "just a Troll" asking for trouble.

 

[ding]

.

Nope, the religion is fixed. Popes aren't like presidents. They don't write executive orders to change dogma or the CCC.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacramentals

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1679 In addition to the liturgy, Christian life is nourished by various forms of popular piety, rooted in the different cultures. While carefully clarifying them in the light of faith, the Church fosters the forms of popular piety that express an evangelical instinct and a human wisdom and that enrich Christian life.

View attachment 106924


you have no morals at all claiming a religion as a sole conscript "not of your own making" that has demonstrated through history the true nature of your church. you and your kind from the 4th century to this date have been a blight on humanity and the antithesis of the events that occurred during antiquity by disguising your immorality as a religion you knowingly confiscated using your errant, self deluding book.

I'm sure God will question my morals. Will God question yours? Or do you believe that you are sinless?

I'm pretty happy with how history records Christianity. By any objective measure it has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.

If you believe the Bible is corrupt or deluded, what book isn't?

.

Or do you believe that you are sinless?

that is the goal, the Triumph of Good vs Evil to become a Free Spirit and after Judgement be admitted to the Everlasting ... that is the religion -

quit lying your book is anything different than what you have made up to suit your own lifestyle. sinner.

Yes, I am a sinner alright. I wish I could be the saint that you are but alas I am following a book of lies. Please tell me which book I should follow so that I won't be following lies anymore and I can become like you. Well? Can you help me out or not?

 

[ding]

according the right; Jesus the Christ was "just a Troll" asking for trouble.

Yes, some people do say and believe that.