Members banned from this thread: aboutenough


Page 4 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 369
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: Christianity has no ethical foundation

  1. #31
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,960
    Thanks
    27426

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

    If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

    Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

    Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

    So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

    It's that simple.
    Depending on which sect's dogma you refer to, Christianity is often a valuable aid to development as an ethical person. To that degree, I don't think your thread title is accurate.

    But unlike a philosophy, Christianity lacks any possible interpretation that is consistent.

    How can anyone develop as a kind and trustworthy person if the rewards for that are all "next life", rather than the actual rewards NOW of becoming a better person? How can anyone resist the urge to harm others if there are 1,001 ways to evade owning that choice each and every time you make it?

    Add the nonsense factor -- the Ascension of Mary, the Holy Spirit, the Antichrist, etc., IMO it's not a great path to spiritual development.

    I look at intelligent, ethical people who are still practicing Catholics as examples of the enormous human ability to bullshit ourselves.

    And I actually like Pope Francis.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,802
    Thanks
    3599

    From
    East coast USA
    One doesn't need religion to be ethical or moral.
    If religion calms the human beasts, so be it, perhaps they " need to believe there is punishiment "
    Interesting is the most intelligent don't beleive.
    Interesting is when the stupid come to power, they want to kill the intelligentsia.
    Fact is, the lower the IQ the more devout. See proof here in this forum. Lolol
    Thanks from Madeline and RNG

  3. #33
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,960
    Thanks
    27426

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    One doesn't need religion to be ethical or moral.
    If religion calms the human beasts, so be it, perhaps they " need to believe there is punishiment "
    Interesting is the most intelligent don't beleive.
    Interesting is when the stupid come to power, they want to kill the intelligentsia.
    Fact is, the lower the IQ the more devout. See proof here in this forum. Lolol
    Of course not. But a shared frame of reference allows for greater sophistication in your ethics. That's easily seen as to medical ethics, war crimes, police discipline, etc.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,960
    Thanks
    27426

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Not about politics. Purely religion. It's your Bible. It is simple fact that is indisputable. If you accept the Bible to be a true, and accurate account of history, then you worship a God that commanded Genocide, and the slaughter of children, and infants. Period. Full stop. Once you acknowledge, and accept that fact, you have no moral high ground left.
    There's some gruesome passages in the bible.

    The slaughter of Jewish babies in hopes Jesus would also be killed.

    Ugh.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    32,240
    Thanks
    15734

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Depending on which sect's dogma you refer to, Christianity is often a valuable aid to development as an ethical person. To that degree, I don't think your thread title is accurate.

    But unlike a philosophy, Christianity lacks any possible interpretation that is consistent.

    How can anyone develop as a kind and trustworthy person if the rewards for that are all "next life", rather than the actual rewards NOW of becoming a better person? How can anyone resist the urge to harm others if there are 1,001 ways to evade owning that choice each and every time you make it?

    Add the nonsense factor -- the Ascension of Mary, the Holy Spirit, the Antichrist, etc., IMO it's not a great path to spiritual development.

    I look at intelligent, ethical people who are still practicing Catholics as examples of the enormous human ability to bullshit ourselves.

    And I actually like Pope Francis.
    The point of this discussion is not about the contradictory ethical mores that the religion teaches. Rather than simply responding to the thread Title, and assuming that you know what the premise of my OP is, how about you go back, actually read my opening post, and respond to the premise that I present therein.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    32,240
    Thanks
    15734

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    There's some gruesome passages in the bible.

    The slaughter of Jewish babies in hopes Jesus would also be killed.

    Ugh.
    Nope. Not talking about things that humans did, in the name of their king. I am talking about the direct, unequivocal command of the God that Christians claim to worship. So long as Christians insist that the God they worship is, in fact, that same God that was worshipped throughout the Old Testament, then Christians have no choice but to acknowledge that they worship a genocidal God. Not the Jews were "icky people", but that the God. They. Worship is genocidal God who order the complete destruction of an entire race, right down to the children, and livestock. And then, must reconcile that genocidal God, with their message of "love, peace, and acceptance".

    Otherwise, there is no rational ethical foundation for their religion.
    Thanks from Madeline

  7. #37
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,447
    Thanks
    333

    From
    Yesod

    Sun Sole Son Soul

    " Sun Sole Son Soul "

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:
    If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.
    Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.
    Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.
    So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.
    It's that simple.
    * Utilities Among Ranks Searching Survival *

    Before social civil agreements are established , moral relativism of good versus evil may continue to be an expected quality of nature .

    As torahnism supposes its adherents to assimilate within a bounded region of land to secure continuance of a patriarchal lineage including a religious polity , it could be supposed aggression of descendants to repatriate reigns over that domain would be a consideration for survival according to success criteria of nature .

    As qurayshism supposes its adherents to assimilate within a bounded region of land to secure continuance of a patriarchal lineage including a religious polity , it could be supposed aggression of descendants to repatriate reigns over that domain would be a consideration for survival according to success criteria of nature .

    Each genetic religion is ascribed a patriarch and a religious polity , while neither genetic religion supposes its edicts to apply outside of their designated city states , and violent expectations could perhaps be rationalized as somewhat legitimate given the scopes of geographic limits .

    Could a stipulation for designated boundaries be considered compliance with informed consent , while self restraining limits afford mutual accords ?


    * Lauding Democracy Four Its Tyranny By Buy Majority *

    In contrast , fictional ishmaelism supposes that statutes of qurayshism are to be " manifest over all religion " both inside and outside of hejaz .

    Now standards for non aggression principles are not a requirement of nature , rather they are a deduction to secure standards for individualism .

    It is a presumptions of fictional ishmaelism to include expectations for aggression outside of hejaz that are equivalent with expectations to establish qurayshism within hejaz .

    As fictional ishmaelism remains complicit to implement directives that include expectations for violating a standard of non aggression principles , even with informed consent , such would be disqualified from membership in a social civil contract with a tenet of agreement based within non aggression principles and even subject such adherents to natural freedoms of self defense .

    Clearly , " out of hand " , directives and actions to implement torahnism and qurayshism in the respective city state of each precluded aggression given arcane settings .


    * Uniform Fetish Standards Gone Out Off Bounds *

    As is stipulated , christianity is akin with antinomianism ; and , however it has previously been communicated , or presented , or implemented , antinomianism extols that invoking a law by any name is contradictory with its standards of creed .

    Such a stipulation expects both an absurdity and a surety that all written laws are to be removed as a standard for society of utopia .

    Those other libertine aspects of christianity aspire to include selfless support of others , rather than selfish greed often embedded in cautionary libertarian measures for individual survival .

    The criteria for genetic continuance as a standard of nature for success does not disappear because christianity is antinomian .
    Thanks from Puzzling Evidence

  8. #38
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,960
    Thanks
    27426

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The point of this discussion is not about the contradictory ethical mores that the religion teaches. Rather than simply responding to the thread Title, and assuming that you know what the premise of my OP is, how about you go back, actually read my opening post, and respond to the premise that I present therein.
    I thought I had..........

    Would you rather I unsubscribe?

  9. #39
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,949
    Thanks
    7094

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Not about politics. Purely religion. It's your Bible. It is simple fact that is indisputable. If you accept the Bible to be a true, and accurate account of history, then you worship a God that commanded Genocide, and the slaughter of children, and infants. Period. Full stop. Once you acknowledge, and accept that fact, you have no moral high ground left.
    Where did Jesus tell anyone to kill babies. oh wait he didn't.. Now the only Baby killing church in the US is the First Church of Convenience

    Kill the baby because it is inconvient for me to pay raise it

    Kill the Baby, I have to give up time out of my life to care for it, because it is inconvenant

  10. #40
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,960
    Thanks
    27426

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Nope. Not talking about things that humans did, in the name of their king. I am talking about the direct, unequivocal command of the God that Christians claim to worship. So long as Christians insist that the God they worship is, in fact, that same God that was worshipped throughout the Old Testament, then Christians have no choice but to acknowledge that they worship a genocidal God. Not the Jews were "icky people", but that the God. They. Worship is genocidal God who order the complete destruction of an entire race, right down to the children, and livestock. And then, must reconcile that genocidal God, with their message of "love, peace, and acceptance".

    Otherwise, there is no rational ethical foundation for their religion.
    OIC. Well, not every Christian sect focuses on the OT, although all of them seem to incorporate that. The idea appears to be, God was horrible, so he decided to try a gentler, kinder approach.

    I don't think you can take issue with the actual sermons or acts ascribed to Jesus, apart from the sexism and anti-human sex phobia. He/they seems obsessed with celibacy and virginity in adults, which I think is unethical.

    He also left the Jews in a completely vulnerable position, after the Crucifixion. Apparently, God's "kinder, gentler" approach to humans did not extend to them. Which might have been excusable, except the whole reason they were in peril to begin with was they followed what God wanted in the OT.

Page 4 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump Foundation faces troubling legal, ethical questions
    By DemoWhip in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14th September 2016, 07:02 PM
  2. Should Business Be Ethical Or Just Profitable?
    By Devil505 in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 11th February 2011, 11:34 PM
  3. That Ethical Democrat Speaker
    By Migi e! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 8th August 2007, 10:04 PM
  4. Pelosi's Democrats most ethical? Right....
    By conservative in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30th January 2007, 11:27 AM
  5. Ethical question?
    By conservative in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 7th August 2006, 08:31 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed