A Loving Defense of Christian Morality: Why Opposing Abortion, Euthanasia and Sexual Immorality Promotes Human Welfare
At first glance, some may think that the title of Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality, is misguided. She is a Christian, after all. Aren’t Christians the ones who despise the body and the physical world?
Pearcey replies with a resounding: No! She then turns the tables by showing that today it is secularists who reject the physical world and the body. How do they do this? By exalting consciousness or feelings above the physical body. They desire liberation from the shackles of the body. They want to choose their identity, no matter how much it conflicts with physical reality.
Transsexualism is an obvious example. Those promoting the transsexual agenda insist that the physical body doesn’t matter. What matters is solely one’s subjective feelings. Objective biological facts are not only ignored, but are deemed oppressive. They see greater freedom in one being able to choose one’s gender. Who cares what the DNA says?
One of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial.
Pearcey considers this false “body-person” dichotomy the root of many moral ills. It motivates those supporting abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. It also promotes casual, impersonal attitudes toward sex in our “hook-up culture.”
Pearcey knows that, by taking on these hot-button topics, she is walking into a minefield. Anyone bold enough to challenge the entrenched immorality of our day is often dubbed intolerant or hateful.
However, one of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial. She explains how Christian morality fits reality. Thus it enables us to fulfill the purpose for which we were created. It is not a set of arbitrary rules to restrict us. Rather, it helps us flourish and achieve happiness and fulfillment.
Secular morality, on the other hand, is damaging and destructive. It puts us in opposition to reality. We end up destroying ourselves and others. All the promises to the contrary end up being empty.
Who Qualifies as a Person?
Consider the debate over abortion. Advocates for abortion know that the fetus is a human life. Just a few weeks after conception, an unborn baby has a beating heart. A human body with its own distinct DNA is developing inside the mother. So how can pro-choice proponents justify killing a human being? By denying that the developing fetus is a person. This notion, known as personhood theory, is a powerful force in bioethics today.
Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »
Personhood theory claims that humans are not persons unless they have a certain level of consciousness. Having a human body doesn’t matter, they say. One has to have specific mental traits. Never mind that these traits are arbitrarily chosen. Never mind that bioethicists don’t agree among themselves as to which traits make someone a person. The point is that the fetus doesn’t qualify.
Indeed, some bioethicists argue that the new-born infant doesn’t qualify as a person either. Thus, some promote what they call “after-birth abortion.” Adults with dementia may also lose their personhood status. Who cares if their bodies are functioning quite well? Euthanasia, here we come.
The Roots of the Problem
How did we come to this intellectual state? In confronting this question, Pearcey’s analysis shines. Building on her earlier works developing a Christian worldview, she provides a convincing answer. Throughout the book, she explains the philosophical roots of what she calls (using Francis Schaeffer’s phrase) a “two-story” worldview.
The two-story worldview treats the body as just a hunk of flesh without moral significance. The physical world has no intrinsic purpose. Thus, the only purposes that exist are ones we choose. This makes our choices primary and our bodies inconsequential. Pearcey explains how many secular ideas, including Darwinism, have contributed to this idea.
The two-story view of humanity not only affects pro-life issues. It also helps underpin the current climate of sexual immorality.
The two-story view of humanity not only affects pro-life issues. It also helps underpin the current climate of sexual immorality. In the hook-up culture on our college campuses, many view sex purely as a physical act. They spurn loving relationships or emotional attachments. Pearcey exposes the folly of this view. It simply does not correspond with the reality of how we are made.
In addition to her astute analysis, Pearcey offers many personal vignettes that lay bare the destructive nature of the two-story worldview she critiques. She ably defends the Christian view of human life and sexuality by demonstrating that Christianity has answers that fit reality. Christian morality promotes human welfare and fulfillment. https://stream.org/pearcey-love-thy-body-defense-christian-morality/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Secular society binds its sense of right and wrong to whatever is trending - the collective "gut feeling."
The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian code of law of ancient Mesopotamia , dating back to about 1754 BC ( Middle Chronology ). It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi , enacted the code, and partial copies exist on a 2.25 metre (7.5 ft) stone stele and consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth"
It's more than 500 years older than the bible.
Trade Law #265: "If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been entrusted, be guilty of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or sell them for money, then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten times the loss."
The duties of workers Law #42: "If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field."
Theft Law #22: "If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death."
Trade Law #104: "If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt from the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant."
Liability Law #53: "If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined."
Law #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina . If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price.
Doesn't seem like most secular laws are just a "trend" as they've existed free of religion for far longer than written religious laws have. Religion merely hijacked secular laws and added penalties that supposedly go beyond death to frighten people into obedience.
You seem to be making the assumption that Hammurabi was not a religious person and that Babylonians were not religious people - that somehow Hammurabi's code was a purely secular exercise. That's highly doubtful.
These laws address, very broadly, the timeless morality that if someone damages someone else's property, he should compensate the victim and if he assaults someone, he should be punished somehow. The details of our reactions may be adjusted over time, but are not important. Our moral sense of right and wrong about these things has not changed.
In contrast, the examples I gave are of things that were considered right or wrong by pretty much everyone and only 20 years later are characterized as having the exact opposite quality.
You seem to be making the assumption that Hammurabi was not a religious person and that Babylonians were not religious people
The Babylonians had dozens of faiths and worshiped many Gods and Goddesses. That's why they needed a secular law not steeped in religious doctrine that applied to all regardless of their faith. The morality was not derived from any one Gods wishes but from the general welfare of the populace as secular laws do.
The morality was not derived from any one Gods wishes but from the general welfare of the populace as secular laws do
Multiple assumptions here. e.g., that Hammurabi's code - like the U.S. Constitution, I guess - was designed to promote the general welfare. Where do you get that? Does the code say that? What makes you think the laws weren't simply to enforce order, thus preserving the stability of Hammurabi's reign? You make it sound like Hammurabi was some enlightened "man of the people" instead of a warlord and a despot. You are projecting your own values on to people who have been dead for 3,000 years.
The Code of Hammurabi dates to about 3750 years ago. Hammurabi was an Amorite (Semite) who became King of Babylon about the time that Abraham left his father’s house in Harran and settled in the land of Canaan. .....
The Code of Hammurabi was engraved on a stele more than 7 feet high. At the top of this stele of dark stone appears an image of King Hammurabi standing reverently before the seated Shamash, the god of justice. Shamash is dictating the law to his earthly representative. The Code of Hammurabi closes with this statement: “The righteous laws which Hammurabi, the wise king, has established . . .
Two Sumerian legal documents drawn up by Ur-Namma, king of Ur (c. 2100 BC) and Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c.1930 BC), precede the Law Code of Hammurabi. The Hammurabi Code—the most important legal compendium of the ancient Near East, drafted earlier than the Biblical laws—found its sources in these essays. The text, which occupies most of the stele, constitutes the raison d'être of the monument. The principal scene depicted shows the king receiving his investiture from Shamash. Remarkable for its legal content, this work is also an exceptional source of information about the society, religion, economy, and history of this period.
aaaaaaaaanndd
comment 300
ta da !!
I would argue there is no such thing. Secularism has no morality of its own. Morality is a code of principles to which one can turn in moments of crisis or uncertainty and find truth. Secular society binds its sense of right and wrong to whatever is trending - the collective "gut feeling." In concert with moral relativism, this means no one ever has to say they're sorry so long as the majority has decided to accept a given practice or philosophy.
Your (flawed) argument seems based on the idea that morality is unique or exclusive to religion or religious ideology.
Morality is linked to God and thus to religion. God is the basis for all morality. The so called morality that nonbelievers have all initially originated from God Himself. Atheists may deny the Godly origins of whatever morality they cling to but it all originally came from God.
For that (absurd) statement to have any merit, you have to first prove there's a god. Or are you saying you would be incapable of being a good/moral person If there was no god? Rather odd that god would be the basis morality, considering god is one if the most immoral ogre's ever imagined if the bible is to be believed.
I’m saved by grace through faith. I don’t have to prove anything to you. “Blessed are they who not seeing, believe.” When people chose not to believe for whatever reason, we don’t impose our belief on them, but move on to others who may listen and believe. So, we’ve moved beyond trying to reach you who has clearly declined to believe so a Christian seeding an article or opinion on some subject of interest to them would not have you or a like minded person in mind for the message. Yet you and your friends never cease to jump in on something presented without you or them in mind. It’s like you all have your own counter messianic message hoping to prevent or to persuade against a 3rd party/person from becoming a believer.
I’m saved by grace through faith.
You're free to believe that. Of course, that has nothing to do with my previous reply.
I don’t have to prove anything to you.
Because you can't! You also don't have any credibility and I have no reason to accept anything you claim or say.
“Blessed are they who not seeing, believe.”
Sounds more like deluded are they.
When people chose not to believe for whatever reason,
I already gave you a reason-no evidence.
we don’t impose our belief on them, but move on to others who may listen and believe.
Sorry, but not everyone is gullible enough to fall for your brand of BS.
So, we’ve moved beyond trying to reach you who has clearly declined to believe
Want to "reach" me, then provide the evidence!
so a Christian seeding an article or opinion on some subject of interest to them would not have you or a like minded person in mind for the message.
That doesn't mean your "message" won't be met with or is exempt from challenge or skepticism.
Yet you and your friends never cease to jump in on something presented without you or them in mind.
So you just want an echo chamber or everyone to agree with you or accept you BS, no questions asked, is that it? Considering this is a public discussion forum, we can "jump in" whenever we please, regardless of whether you have us in mind or not.
It’s like you all have your own counter messianic message hoping to prevent or to persuade against a 3rd party/person from becoming a believer.
It's called logic and reasoning. People can believe they want. But belief does not equal fact.
Morality is linked to God and thus to religion.
Not if people like Scumbag Child Diddler Roy Moore is one of your examples of being "linked to" this mythical being. Your entitled to hold any and every kind of twisted idea of morality (and you appear to do so) but we're entitled to call this horrific bullshit out.
Note that the author neglected to mention adultery or pedophilia that figures so prominently Comment removed TOS [ph]
I can only speak for myself, but my sense of morality came from the teachings of my parents and not from religion or the government. For the most part, I think I have followed their teachings over the past 60+ years. I am not perfect but if my parents were still alive I think they would be proud of the person I am.
I can only speak for myself, but my sense of morality came from the teachings of my parents and not from religion or the government.
I think many of us first adopt our sense of morality from our parents, as they have the earliest and most significant influence on us. Parents are probably a major reason why children become involved in religion or religious belief too. Religion might further refine our moral stance. But there's also the effect of socialization, societal mores, sense of empathy, and perhaps most unpredictably, our personal analysis of mores and morality. Of course, the Golden Rule makes for a good moral basis too.
I am not perfect
Don't sell yourself short Paula. 
I believe this NTer has perfected the Big Lie with this load of shit. It's his Opus Magnum of bullshit---until his next one, of course.
Those promoting the transsexual agenda insist that the physical body doesn’t matter.
Um, this is exactly what Christianity (and several other regliions) teaches but how I do love it when an alleged Christian moralist steps in her stupidity of her own faith's teachings in order to justify the hate she and those like here need to spread.
From a Trumpette and Pizzagate moron:
I Know Jesus Christ Is Real Because Demons Gave My Dog Bloody Diarrhea.
Who is online
245 visitors
“today it is secularists who reject the physical world and the body. How do they do this? By exalting consciousness or feelings above the physical body. They desire liberation from the shackles of the body. They want to choose their identity, no matter how much it conflicts with physical reality.
Transsexualism is an obvious example. Those promoting the transsexual agenda insist that the physical body doesn’t matter. What matters is solely one’s subjective feelings. Objective biological facts are not only ignored, but are deemed oppressive. They see greater freedom in one being able to choose one’s gender. Who cares what the DNA says?
One of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial.
Pearcey considers this false “body-person” dichotomy the root of many moral ills. It motivates those supporting abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. It also promotes casual, impersonal attitudes toward sex in our “hook-up culture.”
Pearcey knows that, by taking on these hot-button topics, she is walking into a minefield. Anyone bold enough to challenge the entrenched immorality of our day is often dubbed intolerant or hateful.
However, one of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial. She explains how Christian morality fits reality. Thus it enables us to fulfill the purpose for which we were created. It is not a set of arbitrary rules to restrict us. Rather, it helps us flourish and achieve happiness and fulfillment.
Secular morality, on the other hand, is damaging and destructive. It puts us in opposition to reality. We end up destroying ourselves and others. All the promises to the contrary end up being empty.”
How many times do folks like you have to be told that you cannot legislate morality? Mind your own business busybodies!
Actually it can be done and has been all through out history. And it will be done again.
In the US morality cannot be legislated without violating the separation of church and state. There are as many ideas of what is moral as there are of who is or isn't god, so keep your views of morality in the church or to yourself.
In the US our laws are based on rights and freedom, and being able to live as we choose, despite your religious beliefs is among the most important right that we have.
please explain and provide examples of legislated morality in this country throughout history.
that sounds like a thread
threat?
yes, thank-you. A threat
What's wrong with that? How does my lifestyle affect yours?
I know that yours doesn't affect me in anyway so live anyway you choose, but I would expect the same courtesy from you
Not at all. Religion is oppressive to individual thoughts and freedoms.
The various religious sects are always fighting to be the controlling denomination of their religion as had happened throughout the history of the Abrahamic religion. To verify this, read the Bible which tells of the history of Yahweh's followers massacring women and children of other faiths.
What do you mean by "morality?"
What do you mean by "morality?"
That is not anarchy. Anarchy means that there are no laws. I merely have a different moral code than you do because I am a Humanist. My moral code is the Golden Rule. Why should I live by your religious rule when you cant prove that your god exists and we have a separation of church and state that prohibits the state from enforcing religious ideas or enforcing the religious idea of one church over another. You can wear your hair shirt, a crown of thorns and set yourself on fire because you believe that the Bible tells you to do so, but don't expect me to take part in the festivities.
We don't have a single religious morality in the US because if we did then only the people who are members of that religion would have religious freedoms. Other people would have their religious freedoms trampled by the ruling religious group. That is a theocracy, which is inherently violent.
I dare you to prove that your moral code is inherently more moral than my Golden Rule, the Tao Te Ching, the Hindu Bhagavadgita, the 5 truths of Buddhism, or the principles of any other religion. You can that God wants you to live a certain way but the Bible was written by and has been edited by men so how can you possibly claim that it is the inherent and literal word of god?
You cannot prove that your god exists to an unbeliever. You cannot get rid of what doesn't exist.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
So you need a god to keep you in check? You're incapable of being a good person without a god?
When he was rambling about sex outside of marriage and same sex marriage - I asked him if he ever had sex outside of marriage - he stated yes - but felt bad about it or something along those lines. Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttt.
I'm betting he didn't feel bad about it at the time....
What do you mean by what do you mean by morality? LOL!
Nope. I'm asking you to explain what it is you think you are talking about.
Very simple. Explain what you think you are talking about.
I dont have time to school on the basics of moral thought. Why dodnt you start with this,
I'll add this link about religion and morality as well.
That is an odd notion yet people oft state it.
Do those who hold that fear of God is what keeps people good really think they (personally) would run rampant and start engaging in brutal / immoral acts if they discovered that there is no God?
Really? How so? Do you really expect that no law will ever be passed again that’s motivated by someone’s view of morality?
That's basically what they are saying. They'd all be out raping kids if it weren't for the risk/reward presented by their religion. They want to go to heaven and don't want to go to hell so they've decided not to rape children. You take that reward/risk away and it's rape town according to them. Sure, there are many societies that don't worship their God that don't regularly rape kids, but that must just be an anomaly...
I suspect those who make this claim exclude themselves. It is just 'others' who would go crazy if they discovered there was no God.
In short, I am challenging the logic of such a notion. I do not think it is well thought out.
Also, consider all the devout who engage in immoral acts anyway. I am reminded of the good Catholic members of the early 20th century mafia. Go to Confession in the morning and hit Vito that afternoon. (Nothing against the Catholic church here - just pointing out the cognitive dissonance at play.)
Connections to one's morality is coincidental. But laws passed are for the benefit of society and/or individual rights. Laws passed must also pass constitutional muster, regardless of one's "moral" views.
That doesn't answer my question. That sidesteps it. Especially since you ignored the second following question: "You're incapable of being a good person without a god?" A yes/no answer is sufficient.
Neither subjective nor a statement. But rather another yes/no based question.
Works for me. I already live as I choose. Why would I or anyone subject themselves to dogmatic slavery?
How so? It's both funny and sad how some people need the threat of a god to keep them in check, as if they're completely incapable of controlling themselves or being a good person in society.
What "behaviors" would that be, and how does it affect you exactly?
Are you incapable of instilling your own beliefs on your children? Are they incapable of thinking and deciding for themselves?
That doesn't mean change is negative.
Where is that happening? I'm glad we have bathroom police to keep tabs on such things. >sarc<
Your ad hom attack aside, Peoples beliefs are irrelevant to the law. As long as the law conforms to the Constitution and the Lemon Test, there's no problem.
Freedom is the idea that we can do as we wish without asking permission and you seem to oppose it when it goes against your religious beliefs or the beliefs of your particular Christian sect. It will be a blizzard in Phoenix the day that I will be forced by your or any other person to live by the rules of their sky fairy, especially when they can not prove to someone outside of their belief system that their deity exists. You seek the freedom to force others to live by your beliefs but there will be blood in the streets before that happens because myself and many others will fight before we will live in a corporate Christian theocracy.
Conservative Christians are outraged by the possibility of sharia Islamic law in the US but they want to force Americans to live by their own version of Christian religious law, despite the constitutional freedom of religion that we all enjoy. You voluntarily chose to be a Christian and now you think that because of your Christian beliefs that you can force others to live by your beliefs. Despite your religious beliefs, everyone else has the same freedom of religion to believe or not to believe as you enjoy, so your claim that they must live by your religious beliefs is trampling on their religious rights. You keep your religious beliefs and their rules that you choose to live by to yourself, unless you want others to force you to live by their religious beliefs, just as you wish to do to them.
The very fact that not all Protestant Christian sects have the same religious beliefs is proof that Christian beliefs more are far from uniform.
Maybe the best solution would be to ban Cretinists from public office? If you can't understand basic science and try to perpetuate primitive Bronze-age mythology to explain what happens in the real world (ie your primitive and erroneous mythology about gender), you simply don't belong in any public office.
Is this the same creature which murdered all the innocent first-born sons of Egypt (including farm animals) just because it was pissed at the Pharaoh? Your moral standard is a violent psycho with really bad aim.
One good example is when SCOTUS struck down the Christian sharia laws against "sodomy" which bible-babbling bigots had enacted:
.
Another good example is when the founding fathers (and later the 14th Amendment) made unenforceable all the Christian sharia laws which prohibited "blasphemy", and later when SCOTUS struck down all the Christian sharia laws against mixed-race and same-sex marriage.
The conclusion is that in a country which values and protects personal liberty, morality is a personal not a public matter at least to the extent that you're not harming other people. The hurt feelings of the Christian Taliban do not constitute a harm.
My mistake: perhaps it's more dogmatic Stockholm Syndrome.
No, you didn't. i didn't ask about accountability to god. I asked if you could or could not be a good/moral person without a god.
See previous statement.
Spare me the semantics! I think you know what is meant by "good."
And now yo9u're dodging.
Why not? Why would you need a god for things to have a "point" to anything?
That's right! It's called reality.
Whether it matters or not is up to you or those around you.
That is your prerogative.
That's nice. prove it! You merely assume/believe that. Because according to the bible, god himself kills people, causes harm, smites, sends plagues, ect.. Harldy what any rational individual would call "good."
Do you really believe that is what goes through the minds of atheists? Another way of asking the question is: do you really believe that human beings act morally strictly out of fear of God?
The Taliban agree with you 100%.
.
All sex has medical risks but I'm not surprised that you think the state should regulate sex by enforcing your comment removed TOS laws. And I suspect you're unaware that sodomy bans will prohibit blow jobs and most other common sexual behavior.
It shows that the moral standard of the creature which holds you "accountable" is very low indeed. It explains a lot.
I'll wait until your God drops a message in my yard to tell me that if you don't mind. Until then we can do as we wish, despite what you or your church believe.
All sex causes an increase in health risks, but it's curious that you think sodomy is synonymous with anal sex and are so obsessed with it. Equally curious that you think the government or medical science has any real interest in your consensual sexual practices. All doctors will tell you is how to safely engage in anal sex with your partner. So maybe you should ask them rather than fretting about it here?
If you're trying to make an analogy to your sky fairy, wouldn't a better one be that he/she/it murdered all the cows because he was pissed at the mailman?
You did not answer my question:
But never-mind. By evading my question you answered it.
An omnipotent, omniscient farmer could have avoided creating crops that would spoil.
So why would such a farmer plant these crops knowing full well they would spoil and then destroy them?
LOL
Com'on Trout, you know everything in the world revolves around the ultra-cons, and everything anybody does directly affects them.
to teach Creationism in public schools then you should have zero voice in public school curriculum.
If you protest and bully government into imposing your religion sect's doctrine as the law of the land, then you should have no voice in government because there is not ONE Christian religion, but if there was then we would all have to become Catholics and obey the Pope in Rome.
The Catholic Church has 1.285 BILLION members. The Southern Baptist Church has 15.2 million members.
So unless you are Catholic, after the Christian theocracy is established, everyone else in the US will have to change their beliefs and learn and live by the rules of a religion that they have never believed in.
and more on religious affiliation in the US government....
That does not answer the question. First, the question was to you. Second, this simply argues that God is justified in His actions. It does not address the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient God necessarily created human beings who He KNEW would do bad things. There is no getting around the logical fact that an omniscient, omnipotent being is in control of every last detail so everything that happens is exactly per His will.
My question was: "do you really believe that human beings act morally strictly out of fear of God?".
If we suddenly realized that there is no god (and thus no divine consequences) do you really think human beings would start running about raping and pillaging? Would you or anyone you know extemporaneously engage in immoral, sinful behavior once it is known there is no god to fear?
In other words, atheists (who have no fear of a god) are (for the most part, like any other demographic) decent, moral human beings. Do you think religious people would behave differently if they realized there is no god?
Atheists do not believe there is a god. They behave like any other demographic (mostly good social behavior). Why do you think religious people would behave differently if they realized no god exists and thus no divine consequences?
Not the point. Never was the point.
You are not comprehending. I suspect it is willful. This is not about me thinking I am smarter than 'God' but rather pointing out the inescapable logic based upon the meaning of the words we are using.
As it applies to God:
Thus, simple (and I mean simple Shepboy) logic holds that everything is a result of God's will. If God did not want something to happen then God could simply ensure it did not happen. Omniscience and omnipotence means everything is God's will.
Shep,
You are aware that Jews don't believe in original sin. This then throws away the idea of killing babies is OK because they are born with sin. The very people that the Israelites killed, they also believed had no sin, then. The only basis for this has been the sins of the father are the sins of the son, which to me seems unreasonable. Just an fyi point.
Yikes! You have no internal compass for morality?? I, personally, have no fear of eternal damnation, etc. The rules written by ancient men with pens thousands of years ago when they pretended to be God do not affect me in the slightest.
Yet, oddly, I do not follow my primal evolutionary makeup and savagery. I try to be fair to others, lend a hand when needed, etc. Somehow I suspect most everyone on NT would weigh in and say they try to be good because they wish to be and would do so even if they did not believe in a god.
Not really the subject, but let me go on record as saying I absolutely believe you on this point. You are indeed a gnostic theist.
Wanted to treat this separately since it is a different point.
You are joking, right? You do not 'believe in' evolution. You believe that God made human beings as they are (no evolution at play). So there is no primal savagery to speak of.
Yet you can look around and see endless examples of people being good because that is how they wish to run their lives. 'Good' of course does not mean 'perfect'.
Do you not rape her out of fear of God or do you not rape her because it is against your personal moral code? If you lost your faith, would you act on an opportunity to rape someone if you thought you would not be caught by human beings? I expect your answer is 'NO'. Ergo you are experiencing a personal moral code - just like an atheist.
I know a few Atheists who lead a much more moral and tolerant life than some who claim to be such pious Christians I also know.
Not at all. And my comment a was not in response to you, was it? Your comment is irrelevant as well.
Thank you, you beat me to that point.
I know it may be counterintuitive to the religious who place so much trust in their faith to keep them "good", but your claim is total nonsense. It's not more "fun" to be bad, immoral or chaotic, those choices have extremely negative consequences in a secular society. From childhood we are taught that actions have consequences other than any sort of "heaven" or "hell". Most children grow up recognizing that if they lie, cheat or steal and get caught they will face tough consequences in this life, losing friends, getting kicked out of school, ridiculed, and lose privileges. This is the same as adults with the addition of possible arrest and jail time or even death if our actions don't take into consideration others rights to life and liberty. Not believing in a God has nothing to do with those very real world motivations. Maybe you need the promise of heaven or threat of hell to keep you from raping and murdering, but most rational people do not. I suggest there are far more who claim to be religious in our prisons than those who claim to be atheists, so the immaterial threats or bribe of something after death don't seem to work all that great for the irrational persons anyway.
Raven is correct. Several times in this discussion it has been brought up if people who are religious are any better people than those who are faithless. The answer is very clearly no.
Logic. Bugs me when I see it trashed upon.
Funny how the mind works ... recalled this:
We live in a secular society where those kinds of actions are illegal because we believe in human rights. By doing any of those things you're violating others rights and will be arrested, thrown in prison or possibly put to death. No God required. So regardless of your "animal instincts" if you want to have the benefits of a social contract where humans live together and work together to provide safe environments for ourselves and our families, then you better keep those instincts to yourself. As for gay adults, they have every right not to follow what you consider the "norm" since they aren't affecting anyone else's rights to live as they wish. They are consenting adults who can choose to stay single which also doesn't "move society and generations forward", are we to force all humans to marry? Are we going to ban the elderly from marrying even though they are past child bearing age? That would be ridiculous, as ridiculous as trying to ban same gender relationships that hurt no one but overly sensitive busybodies noses when they stick them into other peoples business.
I'm sure our justice system will easily show you how wrong you are. Go ahead and try it, let your "primal" side out and see how long it takes you to get arrested and thrown in prison.
Oddly, i do the same thing as you do TiG - isn't that strange that i didn't revert to my primal instincts and i'm not out committing crimes or raping people or killing others etc ? gee, i wonder where my sense of "good" came from since it supposedly is only "absolute" with "God" ?
it's a bit frightening to know that without their god to keep them in check - we'd have a lot more criminals in our society since they don't have any other moral compass
I"m not 100% sure about this statement - since i know many people who do the opposite of what their parents taught (religious and non-religious)
wow... seriously ?? this is a very disturbing statement and thankfully the ones that i know who don't believe in any gods don't think this way - if they did i'd refer them to a mental health professional immediately
Skirting the CoC [ph]
More contradictions? Both of these statements cannot be true.
280 comments, your self imposed limit fast approaches.....
you've never heard of involuntary commitment, huh ? *sigh*
I though you didn't feel persecuted? Another contradiction?
smh
Peace.....concentrate on school.
You wrote that comment several times and now blame me for finding it to be surprising?
I am pleased you would not rape women indiscriminately if you lost your faith. So to avoid problems in the future don’t write it if you do not mean it. Or at least note that you are being sarcastic (or whatever you thought you were doing).
You do not understand how hypotheticals work. The question is hypothetical but the answer is expected to be truth.
Really?
So you believe in tens of thousands of gods and have rejected every single one of them. Why? How do you know that none of them exist?
Creationism is not scientific. Every religion has a creation myth. Nothing intelligent about creationism. All creationism takes is an imagination and not even necessarily a good one depending on the intended audience.
Why do you insist on this ridiculous notion that atheists reject God? Sounds like a disgruntled theist, not an atheist:
An atheist does not reject God. An atheist is not convinced that a god exists. See how that clears up your confusion? Now that you know atheists do not reject God you can now understand how atheists think - it is simply not being convinced a god exists. Not sinister. Not angry. No emotion required, just critical analysis and a profound lack of evidence for the greatest possible entity.
Maybe we should rename all of the days of the week, especially Wednesday (Wodin/Odin), Thursday (Thor) and Friday (Frigg). Gods of the Norse.
Maybe we should rename all of the days of the week, especially Wednesday (Wodin/Odin), Thursday (Thor) and Friday (Frigg). Gods of the Norse.
To hardcore believers, the notion that god doesn't exist is akin to a notion that the sun doesn't exist. They can't even imagine it, thus anyone who doesn't believe in god is simply rejecting god. It's ridiculous.
Why would the truth about our evolutionary past have caused you to commit suicide? You must be very old if evolution wasn't taught in your biology classes.
How do you know that there is a god when the Bible was written by ancient men who had even much knowledge about the world than you do? Believing in the bible as factual doesn't mean that it is belief is the opposite of fact. Belief is an emotional decision that is made in the absence of facts.
Especially since I have explained that atheism = not convinced there is a god probably a dozen times on NT alone and multiple times to SB. It is not because this has never been explained. What it is, is deliberate rejection of that which does not fit the narrative. Even to the point of changing the well established meaning of common words. IMO.
Absolute agreement.
This is the reason that a strict separation of church and state is the only way to create a stable and free country for all. Once one religion gains control of the government and begins to pass laws that support its beliefs there will be internecine rivalry among the various sects to determine which sect has the ultimate power of religious interpretation. Keeping all religious belief absolutely separate from taxpayers money and the government at all levels is the only pragmatic path.
This is something that really puzzles me about evolution vs creation.
From the Bible:
Genesis 1
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The evolutionists say that man evolved from the apes. In view of that theory, and in the words that God created Man in his own image, are we then to believe that God is the image of an Ape? ??
I have never been able to reconcile these two beliefs.
Religion is only one thing we've fought over, secular conflicts for control are nothing new, indeed America was born from such a conflict.
I threatened no one, I simply pointed out that if you were to give in to your so-called "primal instincts" and challenge the earthly consequences that our secular society has already put in place you would be putting your own freedoms at risk.
Intelligent design is the Christian creation story from Genesis wrapped up in a lab coat to give ut some sort of spurious credibility as a secular theory. Creationism is religious nonsense with no facts to support it so it should be relegated to the mythology museum where it belongs.
Intelligent Design should no more be taught in schools than the flat earth theory, miasma germ theory or teaching alchemy as an alternative in chemistry class.
Exactly. Biased beliefs have no use for facts.
If your claim of God being required in order to behave or "be good" was true, we can assume countries with a high percentage of atheists would be full of criminals and those who just do whatever they want, right? The reality is that some countries have as high as 49.9% atheism but have far less crime than here in the US which is chock full of supposed Christians. Here are the top six atheistic countries in the world and their crime statistics.
So with over 70% of the populace claiming to be Christian, the US has far more crime that any of the countries with large amounts of atheists. The facts simply do not support your gut conclusions.
I could make the very same claims about how religious belief affects me in a negative way and the costs to society that are involved in religious belief.
My claims have empirical proof, unlike yours that rely on religious faith, logical fallcies and belief.
Well said!
Thanks.
Logically we cannot get rid of what doesn't exist.
The right to live as we choose to do is the very essence of what freedom, so you cannot invoke your religious beliefs to trample on the inhertant freedom of others in the US.
Even if LGBT people are 5% of society and since half of the gay population are lesbians and .5% are transgendered. There are 20x more heterosexual people and if half of them are married. Possibly 20%+ of those hetero couples take part in anal sex, so gay couples are a small part of those people who take part in anal sex. Do you also plan to ban heterosexual anal with your church sex police or is your war to be waged on with gay men, regardless of the statistical facts?
Gay men who are married are part of a monogamous relationship, so I would think that you would support LGBT marriage.
Good points shep, well said.
Another great response. The people of Canaan had about 500 years from when Jacob went to Joseph in Egypt and they time of Moses and the exodus. They had 40 years when Israelites were wandering in the wilderness. All that time and the signs of the return of the Israelites and they repented not. I’m many cases their probation closed. Others in Canaan didn’t meet that fate.
Without God, we are animals. Of course we wouldn’t exist at all without him.
Amazing, isn’t it? I’d never trade what we have for what the atheist doesn’t have. Ever.
The southern states that are the most religious also have the highest rates of STDs. Can I blame their STDs on their god?
Without society we are animals. With society we are social animals who do our best to thrive by working together for common goals. But no matter how refined we make our societies, we can never rid ourselves of the fact that we are mammals and just another species along with the millions of others that exist on this planet with zero empirical proof of anything supernatural or divine.
Everyone on the planet who does not believe in God (assuming you are referring to the God of the Bible) is an 'animal' yet those who do believe are not?
Your declaration seems vague.
Not convinced there is a God is agnostic. Atheists have convinced themselves that they know there is not one.
Agnostics come in two varieties:
Most atheists (the super majority in fact) are agnostic atheists . The slim minority who claim certainty that no god exists are gnostic atheists . Their position is untenable. They are making a claim that a non-omniscient being simply cannot make.
And there is another group to complete this set: gnostic theists . The gnostic theist is certain that his/her God exists and does not accept even the possibility that they are wrong. There are quite a few gnostic theists. This is an untenable position too - again a certainty that no human being can have since none of us are omniscient.
Presuming Certainty
Morality has been observed in primates and other animals.
Your claim of a creator is not supported by facts.
What is it that I lack as a secular humanist that supposedly makes your life more meaningful?
Uh, we are animals. We are members of the animal kingdom. God is irrelevant to that.
That's nice. Prove it!
Wrong. Atheists are not convinced there is a god and reject claims for one due to the lack of evidence. Most are willing to change their position if there was evidence. But none is forthcoming.
you've got to be kidding me! You can't legislate morality? What do you think the homosexuals and transgenders are doing?
Living their lives as they see fit. Where do you get off thinking that you get to decide how another person/couple lives? How do how they live their life affect you in a negative way?
The secular government cannot legislate a religious definition of morality without ignoring a person's free speech rights, free exercise of religion and the right to privacy, beyond the obvious trampling of the separation of church and state when the government seeks to enforce a religious definition of what morality is.
Great reply. There are no morals and there is no true good without God.
That's nice. Prove it! Especially since god is one of the most immoral evil ogre's ever to be imagined. The bible itself makes that clear.
That is correct.
You tell us, what are they doing exactly?
And there never will be. People will believe in God by faith accepting the grace of Jesus dying on the cross and live their lives accordingly or they won’t. Everyone has that free will choice to believe by faith or not. There were those in the courts of the temple, King Herod, and Pilate who demanded proof before they crucified Him on the cross and they will be resurrected to witness the proof at the second coming.
Legislating immorality and perversion of morality.
Some people simply prefer evidence or proof over faith.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as free will. Why someone would not want proof of something is beyond me. After all, you would demand proof for claims of anything else before you accept it, right?
In other words, there was no proof. Got it.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
Preventing you or anyone else from tramping the rights of others in an attempt to enforce your religious beliefs is not legislating anything. Instead, that is enforcing the equal rights of a minority, who by the Bill of Rights enjoy the very same religious rights that you do, despite the fact that they differ from your own.
How has your life or your church been negatively affected in any way because LGBT people have the very same rights that you enjoy?
Does the fact that other religions exist and have the same equal constitutional rights to live and believe as they see fit also legislate perversion and immorality in your mind? Is race mixing a perversion? Is sex for pleasure a perversion? Are people like Gordy and myself who don't believe in your god immoral in your eyes?
Do you remember Matthew 25:40 or is that passage not in your interpretation of the bible?
Sounds like they (and all civil rights advocates) are putting your Christian sharia laws and Jim Crow laws in the garbage can of history where they belong.
My sincere condolences on your loss of special rights and privileged status. It must be very difficult for you and your ilk to cope on a level playing field.
This author is right on in the defense of Christian values being the backbone of a healthy society.
Values such as bearing false witness, adultery, incest, and pedophilia. America is a secular nation because of the Constitution. Promoting the opposite ideal is unamerican and an insult to every American that has sacrificed their lives or served defending it. As an American patriot, I will defend the Constitution against threats posed by religious radicals of any faith. Cross the 1st thumpers.
How does people living their own individual lives according to biblical principles particularly with regard to sexual relationships conflict with following the constitution? What exactly are you going to defend the constitution against here and how are you going to do it?
Because they keep trying to force their perspectives on other people. You don't approve of abortion? Don't get one. But don't try to force your own morals down anyone else's throat.
If something is clearly evil and wrong and abortion and those participating in one are both, there is nothing wrong with working to restore the law to where it once was. The same applies to same sex marriages.
If something is clearly evil and wrong and abortion and those participating in one are both, there is nothing wrong with working to restore the law to where it once was.
Most of them are Christians.
xtians - Comment removed TOS child molesters and adulterers with their enablers and defenders, hiding behind the truly faithful.
Ahhh, now the catch to your argument.....how do you define "evil and wrong"? You claim abortion as an example, yet in the Bible itself it gives examples of God causing abortions.
Numbers 5:16
I thought it was decided we are not calling any religion cult on this site due to the hateful and negative connotations of that word when directed at anyone here?
Your preferred sky fairy and your book of borrowed bronze-age mythology do not give you permissions to decide how others should live, so keep your beliefs to yourself and let others live as they choose to do.
Do you have a problem with the truth?
Removed TOS
Bible humpers as I like to call them.
That's just your opinion, and one which is not shared by everyone. What exactly is "evil and wrong" about abortion or SSM? And who are you to declare them evil? What is your basis for calling them evil and wrong? There were laws against both and the laws were declared wrong and/or unconstitutional through due process.
So "religion" itself does not have negative connotations associated with it? Besides, the only difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of real estate they own.
Some believe their Bible interpretations trump our Constitution interpretations.
And they would be wrong....if people agree to that they I suggest they move to where religion trumps government, say Iran, Iraq....take your pick.....no Sharia Christian Law here in the USA.
I've actually heard some fundamentalists say that.
They would be dead wrong.
The laws were declared unconstitutional. No law is going to be declared "wrong." That would be a moral judgment. It is not necessarily so that something that is Constitutional is "right" while unconstitutional matters are "wrong."
The fact is that our Constitution and the government it creates are secular institutions. As such, they are incapable of covering all the moral bases religious people might want for them to. Much of the time, our laws coincide with religious values, but not always. That leaves it for religious people to try to persuade other people of the rightness or wrongness of a thing and either convince them to behave a certain way voluntarily, or convince a majority to legislate the matter in a way that conforms to the constitution.
Too often we conflate secular law with moral law. Some things that are legal are nevertheless moral sins. Also, some things that are illegal are not moral sins.
That's good enough.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
On that , we agree.
As I said, morality is subjective. The Constitution is the basic objective guideline for our laws.
Purely coincidental. Laws cannot be based on religious ideology.
That's why certain religious people sometimes receive hostility.
Sin is just a silly religious concept and has no place or say in our secular law.
Glad you agree.
The fact that ministers cannot grant pardons is a hint that the Bible doesn't supercede secular law.
You clearly don't want concepts of sin and morality to have a say in our secular law, but they do whether you like it or not. Why? Because legislators are people and most of the time, they are religious people. They cannot help but support what they consider to be morally right and legislate against what they consider to be morally wrong. There might also be a good non-religious reason for a law, but these legislators won't support it if it violates their moral sense of right and wrong.
The Constitution doesn't want it either.
And you're wrong! Whether you like it or not!
They can try to legislate whatever they want. They'll simply have to deal with the possible political and/or legal backlash.
Those are the reasons that matter and apply. The Lemon Test makes this abundantly clear too.
Legislators also serve their constituents. If they don't support the wishes of their constituents, then their constituents won't support them. See 2nd previous statement. Of course, your statement also proves morality is subjective, which is why it cannot be legislated.
There are other words to describe a faith other than Cult, which carries negative connotations.
You are correct, but the definition of a cult DOES fit all religions.
Maybe we should change the defination of the word if it is offensive to some people.
Didn't Bill Clinton already try that or something very similar with the word "is"?
Why do you like to deflect the conversion by invoking the Clinton family? Are you obsessed with them?
What happens between 2 consenting adults is not your concern. Unless you are jealous...........
I could never be jealous of Bill Clinton.
Egads. Being married to Hillary would be one of my worst nightmares.
I was referring to Monica.
Ewwww.
I would never go where Billy did!
Ewwww.
I'm not wrong and I can prove it. Every law - even the very existence of government itself - is rooted in some moral value. Those values, which you might assume are universal, are actually different across the world and across time. Things like the worth of the individual and everything that spins out of it, for example. You just need to think about it a little deeper.
Don't fall too in love with the Lemon Test. It is one of only three tests currently employed by the Court in Establishment Clause cases. The other two are the Endorsement Test, which, if memory serves was articulated by Justice O'Conner, and the Coercion Test, which I believe is Justice Kennedy's baby. In my view, the Establishment Clause issue is a bit of a mess and is far from settled law. It may ultimately need a fix from Congress, which probably won't happen without an Article V convention.
Who, by and large, are religious people. There's no escaping it. Sorry (but not sorry).
Yes, you are!
The only thing that proves is that morality is subjective.
And the Lemon Test is a significant legal precedent which establishes a litmus test of secular legislation.
Key phrase there, "in my view," and that's not saying much.
You can speculate all you want.
Which is irrelevant to the law or the constitutionality of laws.
You still don't get it. I was hinting that you were jealous of Monica. You might be able to find that blue dress in your size on eBay.
You still don't get it. I was hinting that you were jealous of Monica. You might be able to find a blue dress in your size on eBay.
You still don't get it. I was hinting that you were jealous of Monica. You might be able to find a blue dress in your size on eBay.
Bummer that your sharia law was struck down by our secular courts. The same thing happened in 1967 when the racist sharia laws of southern bible-babblers were struck down.
I use the word cult to describe any superstitious group no matter how big or how small. Those who think it carries a negative connotation are using a very different definition like this one:
Not all people believe that either abortion or same-sex marriage is wrong, but you are content with trampling on their rights because you feel differently.
If you don't like abortion or gay equality then don't take part but keep your religious beliefs out of the lives of others. Other people don't have to ask your or your religion's permission before they act as they see fit.
I would expect the majority now view same sex marriage favourably, hence the changing legal standing.
Our laws broadly tend to reflect societies moral beliefs, this demonstrates the subjective nature of morality.
It isn't a case of absolute right or wrong, as neither exist. Today the pendulum has swung one way, tomorrow it may swing back.
I disagree that our laws are based upon society's 'morals' at the time. I think the laws are more based upon the legal rights of individuals according to the US Constitution. While many of the laws have changed as the world develops, IMHO it really has to do with the laws coming into compliance with the rights guaranteed every US citizen by the US Constitution. Society 'morals' do not equate with changing the laws of our country.
Just my own opinion.
My understanding of the US Constitution is as follows. It is a framework designed to protect individuals rights as per the Declaration of Independence, and to enhance and limit federal power.
It should be noted the so called " unalienable Rights" are an entirely subjective man made concept.
Society 'morals' do not equate with changing the laws of our country.
I beg to differ, societal mores drive alterations, as can pressure/special interest groups. Yes, in the case of a written constitution there are legal checks and balances, but as I understand it the Constitution can be legally altered.
While many of the laws have changed as the world develops, IMHO it really has to do with the laws coming into compliance with the rights guaranteed every US citizen by the US Constitution.
To a certain extent I agree, but take abortion as a case in point, note the influence a pressure/special interest group had.
It should be noted these rights you mention are themselves subjective in nature.
Just my own opinion.
This is a given, and is also true for my posts.
Indeed you are entitled to your own opinion, as am I. I can agree with part of what you said, but, not all. I consider abortion a personal decision, the same as each person to choose their own religious belief. Reagan had his own opinions like everyone else, that does not mean everyone else is wrong.
I have my own thoughts about abortion and I respect the right of others to their own.
My comments on abortion have nothing to do with my position on it. I'm using it as an example of how pressure/special interest groups can impact the law.
If you don't like the abortion example, then consider slavery. Political realities at the time meant that slavery continued, despite the well meaning claim that all men were born equal.
I will add I should have used the term intersubjective rather than subjective, we after after all dealing with a group.
Society improves every time it moves towards secularism and away from the sharia laws of superstitious cults. It will be a very sad day if we ever reverse that trend which was started during the Enlightenment era.
Society improves every time it moves towards secularism and away from the sharia laws of superstitious cults.
In your opinion, this is an important distinction.
Sharia only refers to Islamic law, whilst I realise you mean it as an insult, using it for other religions is incorrect.
The path of history is rarely smooth, it is a fairly safe bet that ultimately the society we know will either change or vanish.
It will be a very sad day if we ever reverse that trend which was started during the Enlightenment era.
I'm certain a Roman would have felt the same about the possible fall of Rome, it was to his/her mind the height of civilisation.
However it was simply another day.
It's not an insult it's a description for laws based in superstition and which lack a rational basis. And while I doubt very much that it matters which nutty cult a sharia law comes from, in the US the only real threat to liberty and civil rights has come from Christian sharia laws. That's been true since the colonial era.
An inaccurate description.
Yes, I can see you mean it simply as a description.
“today it is secularists who reject the physical world and the body. How do they do this? By exalting consciousness or feelings above the physical body. They desire liberation from the shackles of the body. They want to choose their identity, no matter how much it conflicts with physical reality.
Transsexualism is an obvious example. Those promoting the transsexual agenda insist that the physical body doesn’t matter. What matters is solely one’s subjective feelings. Objective biological facts are not only ignored, but are deemed oppressive. They see greater freedom in one being able to choose one’s gender. Who cares what the DNA says?
One of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial.
Pearcey considers this false “body-person” dichotomy the root of many moral ills. It motivates those supporting abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. It also promotes casual, impersonal attitudes toward sex in our “hook-up culture.”
Pearcey knows that, by taking on these hot-button topics, she is walking into a minefield. Anyone bold enough to challenge the entrenched immorality of our day is often dubbed intolerant or hateful.
However, one of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial. She explains how Christian morality fits reality. Thus it enables us to fulfill the purpose for which we were created. It is not a set of arbitrary rules to restrict us. Rather, it helps us flourish and achieve happiness and fulfillment.
Secular morality, on the other hand, is damaging and destructive. It puts us in opposition to reality. We end up destroying ourselves and others. All the promises to the contrary end up being empty.”
LOL. Apparently you're unaware that "rational basis" is a legal term. It's also why so many Christian sharia laws have been struck down since the 14th Amendment was passed and the Incorporation Doctrine adopted, because the vast majority of those Christian sharia laws have no rational basis whatsoever.
What it reveals is that bible-babblers rely far more on the rigid gender roles which their misogynistic, homophobic and patriarchal cult requires rather than rely on the actual science about sex differentiation of the brain during fetal development. Superstition trumps science every time for gullible believers.
.
Most people have no idea what their DNS "says" much less which of the 6 common genetic sex karyotypes they are. And only really ignorant people confuse genetic sex with gender.
I'd say that applies to most, if not all, religious based laws.
Exactly right.
I'm sorry, but can you not grasp Sharia isn't a Christian term, and yes, I'm certain you use it in the same way I use the term Sky Fairy.
It's meant as an insult, I know it, you know it, you just don't want to admit it.
That’s the truth. Unholy nightmare.
Apparently the analogy is so direct and apropos that it really bugs you. LOL.
No it's the misuse of an establish term.
I can call an elephant a mouse, and claim as they're both mammals it ok, but I'd still be wrong.
Feel free to call it whatever you like but our secular courts and secular constitution don't care which cult your sharia laws come from. Nor does it matter one bit.
You really shouldn't make assumptions, disagreeing with you doesn't make me a theist, it simply means I disagree with you.
I'm agnostic, so this isn't going to work with me.
Just as calling an elephant a mouse doesn't make it one, you are misusing an established term, whether you accept this or not doesn't alter the reality of the situation.
"Thus, some promote what they call “after-birth abortion.” Adults with dementia may also lose their personhood status. Who cares if their bodies are functioning quite well? Euthanasia, here we come."
Ah, the straw man argument of "If the law allows abortion up until viability or allows a person with a terminal illness to end their life, what's to stop people from killing born children and old people with dementia against their will?"
Such dishonest debate is proves that the religious will stop at nothing to impose their religious views on everyone and everything in an effort to validate their faith.
"Secular morality, on the other hand, is damaging and destructive. It puts us in opposition to reality. We end up destroying ourselves and others. All the promises to the contrary end up being empty."
More justification for their hate and discrimination while refusing to accept the tens of thousands of happy, productive same-sex couples and transgender Americans who are finally able to come out of the closet without fear of being physically attacked by a mob of hypocrites. They have to claim that their doing it for your own good, they're forcing their children to undergo vile and destructive "conversion camps" that attempt to belittle and destroy a persons feelings and emotional State so they can rebuild them in their own image. How sad that they often can't love their own children due to the indoctrination they received as children.
That's the only argument (and logical fallacy) certain individuals are able to ever come up with.
A libelous statement if there ever was one. Would you agree Patriot? It's like some people prefer to be regressive or stagnant. They seem genuinely threatened or frightened by societal progress. It boggles the mind.
Translation:
Everyone must agree with Shepboy regarding all topics most especially religion.
Do you like the constitution, Shep?
I won't apologize for being me
Nah, that would be NV not NT.
Some here might be trying to make it more like that but management here has them pretty well headed off at the pass.
For now .....
a "utopia" of everyone who locksteps with your thoughts and viewpoints - all the same... group think.... does everyone get free brown shirts or must they pay for them separately ?
It was "fine" as long as you were a straight white protestant who supported the status quo of discrimination and abuse of those you felt were "others", the minorities, gays and liberals fighting for civil rights and equality. I'm sure that many white supremacists felt "fine" while beating to death or hanging minorities they felt were getting "uppity" or had looked at them or "their women" wrong. It's not a utopia if society only works for the majority but steps on the necks of minorities.
When has it been hostile towards christians? That's a rather absurd statement too, given that the majority of the US population identifies as a Christian.
When was that?
So diversity is a bad thing, is that it?
I know! Let's make NT and America one big echo chamber! That'll solve all the problems
I know, right? America was so much better a place when bible-babblers were free to lynch blacks, witches and Papists, when they denied women and minorities the right to vote, and when they denied married women the right to own property or to hold their husbands accountable for rape. Those are all things which bible-babblers firmly endorsed.
Plus your blasphemy laws and other Christian sharia laws were always so charming, like the one in the Pennsylvania colony which required the death penalty for being a Catholic priest, and the ones which denied marriage to same-sex couples and mixed-race couples.
Give it up....that is old!
There is no such thing as secular morality as morality itself is a term originating within religion.
Wrong! Morality is not unique or exclusive to religion. Neither does religion have a monopoly on morality.
I will agree on that!
You like being wrong, don't you? The concept of the golden rule predates the existence of your religion and many others. The moral theory of utilitarianism is a recent idea and is very secular.
Rape, murder, and genocide are moral according to the Bible, so you have no claim that religious morality is the only source of morality. You may believe this to be true but facts do not need your agreement to be true.
Being wrong seems to be what he does best. Just look at some of his other posts.
Being wrong appears to a career for him. Is this something that he chose for himself or was it suggested to him by his high school counselor?
s/.
Those who just think they know #$@! are a trial those of us who do must endure...
You declare it to be dishonest with supporting the assertion. How is it dishonest to explore the potential consequences of a specific policy?
Because we've had 46 years of legal abortion as determined by the Supreme court and we haven't slipped at all towards killing babies that have been born. We've had decades of research available from other countries and now years of examples of certain States that have legalized euthanasia for terminal patients and there's never been any slide towards just murdering patients with dementia. That makes it a dishonest argument that ignores facts and creates an illusionary straw man that the religious love to attack.
But there are, in fact, people who support the things mentioned. The events of the last 46 years speak only for those years and do not predict the future. 15 years ago, not many people would have predicted that we'd have state sanctioned gay marriage, transgendered soldiers, or women in combat. In fact, it was only in 1994 that DOD officially banned women from combat. You'd think that would have been the end of it, but in 2013, the ban was lifted. So, I'm not impressed with the record of the last 46 years as some kind of bar to at least discussing all possibilities.
Anyone familiar with the history and status of civil rights rulings at the time certainly would have made that prediction. In fact it's inevitable that all persons have equal rights under the law - particularly since these Christian sharia laws were completely unsupportable since they had no rational basis whatsoever.
In fact the passage of misogynistic and anti-LGBT legislation guaranteed that these issues would be reviewed by the courts sooner.
Below is a link to Yahweh commanding murder. I will just cite the one dealing with Yahweh's commands for murdering children, but it is not a complete list.
I can understand the Great Sky Fairy wanting to murder all the innocent first-born infants, but it seems rather psychotic to take out one's rage on the farm animals.
The old convert (and stay converted) or die passage may be cited as an excuse to execute any of us outside of the Christian fold and divide our possessions among our executioners.
I would really consider the following to be very evil, but according to the Bible, this is how Yahweh wants his followers to deal with anyone who does not worship Yahweh.
Christians are NOT under the Law of Moses- we are under the Law of Christ (grace). The only ones who say the Old Testament laws of Moses apply to Christians are those who ignore the Scriptures.
"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." Acts 15:24-29
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:12,13
Jesus said: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:16,17
These two verses don't contradict because the Bible tells us the Law is obsolete
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:12,13
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:3,4
Neither is the majority of the world that does not believe in Moses and Yahweh. We prefer to keep it that way.
Have Mercy!
Some of these folks are really scary. If they truly get in power, I don't want to live here. I won't live in a theocratic America
This is why we are losing some of our most intelligent young adults to more secular nations that will shelter and accept them. Those societies will benefit from the talents that a theocratic US seeks to suppress and/or eliminate because intelligent, secular adults are a threat to the theocrats.
Unfortunately, us older adults will not likely be accepted as anything other than tourists with time limits on how long we can remain.
The capitalists benefit from a country that is controlled by theocrats who tell the masses that their god loves them for being impoverished slaves and that they will be rewarded in the "next life" if they are willing slaves in this life. I am serious. Google "poverty and theocracy", and/or how religious belief can cause poverty and/or how poverty can cause religious belief and/or poverty in theocratic nations. There is ample documentation on how religion is bad for one's economic health.
Where are you going to live cowgirl?
Probably right where I am now. I'm surrounded by mostly farm lands and rarely see people unless I go grocery shopping or to visit my daughter.
There are many issues in this country and the world because of an expanding aged population that is dependent on being supported by a large workforce that is working on decreasing wages in order to put the majority of world wealth into very few hands.
To keep the populace distracted by who the real winners (the less than 1 percent) and the losers (the more than 99 percent)are, we are kept at each other's throats in every way it is possible to divide us - age, gender, skin color, education, income, religion and whether we prefer dogs or cats.
It is a game that we are always going to lose and even though I realize it, it is damned difficult to quit playing.
No worries. The major sects would be annihilating each other long before they would ever agree to govern together.
But they do claim to worship the same supposedly unchanging God that made those laws, don't they?
So you can throw out the 10 Commandments, right? After all, those are from Moses and the Old testament.
The Ten Commandments came directly from God Himself, not Moses. They have always and will always be in effect
That's nice. Prove it! Moses supposedly delivered yhe 10 Commandments. BUT the Commandments are part of the OT. Therefore, they are OT laws, which some christians claim doesn't apply to them. The 10 Commandments certainly does not make or have say in our secular laws!
Mel Brooks:
I'm familiar with biblical history. And biblical BS as well.
Moses carried down what was written in stone by the hand of God. They are God’s eternal law.
That's nice. Prove it!
I do know better, more than you realize, and my statement stands.
Based on your statement, it's clear the only one who doesn't know what they're talking about here is you!
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:30-31
Many Christians believe Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law and brought a new covenant which is why they no longer observe the Sabbath. They believe he left them with only two laws mentioned by him there in Mark. You'd know this if you actually had any real biblical knowledge, so you might want to stop badgering Gordy as you've clearly lost the argument.
I don’t have to. I believe by faith. The proof demanders who refuse all belief based on faith will get their proof at the 2nd coming and not before then. People will believe based on faith and accept His saving grace or they won’t. Everyone has the free will to make that choice.
Belief does not equal fact.
Empty threats from your cosmic boogeyman is neither convincing or persuasive. I find it funny that believers do not require proof of a god they can't even prove exists, but would probably require proof for any other (especially extraordinary) claims made before they believe or accept it.
See first statement.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as choice.
We mere mortals on this tiny planet in this tiny part of the near infinite universe will never have proof as demanded by His deniers. There will never be the proof they seek though there are plenty of signs for those who believe and maintain a relationship with Him. As to the proof being the 2nd or 3rd coming, that is simply what the Bible says. As to the last point, God does exist and His creation, Lucifer rebelled against Him while actually in Heaven and in His presence. He had/has free will and 1/3 of all the angels used theirs to side with him. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the Garden of Eden and they did too. No one on any of Gods other created worlds used their free will to rebel. No one is going to force you to believe as clearly you and some of your FFRF like friends have no interest. On the other hand, there are many people who haven’t heard our message and have open minds so our message will go out no matter what the closed minded God haters say or do.
And they will never have any credibility for their claims either.
Because you have no proof other than wishful thinking.
Using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic-a logical fallacy.
That's nice. Prove it!
Amusing biblical stories.
I cannot believe something for which there is no proof. No proof = no belief.
I'm open minded to any evidence or proof you have of a god. Are you open-minded to the possibility there is no god and that your belief system is wrong? And not believing in a god is not the same as hating god. That's just absurd.
The only proof you will receive will be the 2nd coming. The righteous are saved by grace through faith. Those who deem themselves too good or to smart to believe by faith will not choose to do so. That is their free will choice to make. To believe by faith or not to.
So you have no proof! Just dogmatic nonsense. Got it.
Mark 12:30-31 refer to the 10 commandments. 30 to the first 4 dealing with mans relationship with God and 31 to the last 6 dealing with our relationships with each other.
Is this why conservative Christians quote Leviticus as a reason to oppose LGBT equal rights and marriage?
Isn't it fun to catch these people in what's either their massive hypocrisy or even more massive ignorance of their own faith's content? Or, maybe it's all based on their always massive dishonesty about everything. Ever notice that they seldom, if ever, quote their own founder's words from the gospels?
Apparently, we aren't supposed to notice that they are hypocrites of the first order. if the search engine for past posts was better I could catch much more in their hypocrisy. A few weeks ago a conservative claim that he wasn't Christian because I could him in his hypocrisy. if I could find that reply I could hoist him on his own sword, but I have been unable to do so. Vbulletin chat software makes those searches very easy to the point where you can shut a thread down just by exposing the hypocrisy of people.
I have said multiple times that conservative Christians would claim religious persecution if they were forced to live by the teachings of the man who they claim is their savior and the son of god. When was the last time that you saw a conservative quote the Sermon on the mount or the gospel of Matthew?
Will this Abrahamic annihilation be carried on HBO as a pay per view? It sounds like a mini-series that I might actually want to watch.
Will this Abrahamic annihilation be carried on HBO as a pay per view? It sounds like a mini-series that I might actually want to watch.
The other night I was watching a show on tv about people on death row. One was about a man that had made a deal that he would not get the death penalty. The jurors did not know this and one so called Christian man was pissed off because he could not put the guy to death. Another was about this Christian woman that would pray over it all yet couldn't wait to witness a man being put to death, even though the judge thought it was an accident.
After watching several of these stories, time and again, all I could think is that these so called Christians just seemed to have some sort of bloodlust and love revenge. They all seem to use stories and lines from the old testament while seeming to ignore the love and forgiveness that comes out of the new.
I would argue there is no such thing. Secularism has no morality of its own. Morality is a code of principles to which one can turn in moments of crisis or uncertainty and find truth. Secular society binds its sense of right and wrong to whatever is trending - the collective "gut feeling." In concert with moral relativism, this means no one ever has to say they're sorry so long as the majority has decided to accept a given practice or philosophy.
Of course, under this system, what constitutes "right" and "wrong" can - and does - change, not only from one generation to another, but even year-to-year. This is how Hillary Clinton can endorse a law-and-order crime bill and be forced to apologize for it a few years later. Or Barack Obama can hold the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then turn around and treat gay marriage as a moral imperative . This is why
In each of these cases, those with a firm religious moral grounding have not had to change their position because "right" remains "right" over time. However, those who get their sense of right and wrong from whatever is popular, will find their positions shifting in the wind.