Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Christian morals based on Obscene Immorality

bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 6:15:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?

You know, I want to look up this objective morality. Obviously God is out of the question. Does Google have an objective morality search function? I want to know what the moral position is on stem cell research. Where do I go? Lol.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 9:51:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?
I don't know, but you manage quite well.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:52:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 9:51:34 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?
I don't know, but you manage quite well.
I appreciate your attempt at brevity, witticism and sarcasm but you need to work on it.
Keep reading my posts and taking notes and who knows, one day you might get there.
But kudos for trying.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:55:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 9:51:34 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?
I don't know, but you manage quite well.

Ba-dum-pum!

*crickets chirping*
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:04:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyone who can read all the heinous acts committed and commanded by the God of Abraham and then say that He is a valid base for any moral system is (a) deranged, (b) deluded, (c) indoctrinated, or (d) just plain stupid. Anyone who slaughters children could never be a valid source of morality.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:15:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?

No, you simply do not understand. Genesis chapter 3.1 verse 4 "Do as I say, not as I do". Since god has said that murder is wrong, it is wrong. It does not matter that he broke the commandment he expects beings lesser than him to follow, what matters is what he tells the lesser beings to do.

You see, God knows what is wrong, he just doesn't care. After all, who will send God to hell?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:19:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:15:36 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?

No, you simply do not understand. Genesis chapter 3.1 verse 4 "Do as I say, not as I do". Since god has said that murder is wrong, it is wrong. It does not matter that he broke the commandment he expects beings lesser than him to follow, what matters is what he tells the lesser beings to do.

You see, God knows what is wrong, he just doesn't care. After all, who will send God to hell?

Oh I see.
Now I know what objective means.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:37:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:15:36 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?

No, you simply do not understand. Genesis chapter 3.1 verse 4 "Do as I say, not as I do". Since god has said that murder is wrong, it is wrong. It does not matter that he broke the commandment he expects beings lesser than him to follow, what matters is what he tells the lesser beings to do.

You see, God knows what is wrong, he just doesn't care.

God is therefore programming a robot that has no brain.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 8:48:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?

God's laws are the basis for morality.
As far as your ideas pertaining to infanticide (and other accusations you raise) --> you simply are not looking with ETERNAL vision...as God can, and DOES.

One simple example for you on your first accusation:

infanticide -- probably you are thinking of the Flood in Noah's time where you are concerned that the innocent little babies were drowned?

(if not --it doesn't really matter too much because the point I will make is universal in its application)

You have 2 possibilities for the children in Noah's time:

1. Let them grow up...in the wicked society, raised by wicked people who's every thought was wickedness continually.
OR
2. In cleansing the Earth from wickedness, the infants would also die.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In situation 1 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the kids LIVE TEMPORALLY, but many would most likely DIE ETERNALLY due to the wickedness of the teachings which they would receive, being indoctrinated fully into evil, even from their earliest years.

In situation 2 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the infants DIE TEMPORALLY, not even living many years...not experiencing much. but since infants and children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the highest kingdom, they will LIVE ETERNALLY.

So...my question is, who is the better judge of morality?
1. you = saying the it is better for the infants to live longer temporally (100years?), then go to hell eternally...
or
2. God = saying it is better for the infants to die temporally, but inherit eternal life eternally (eternity being billions upon trillions of years.... as just a beginning).
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:04:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 8:48:03 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?


God's laws are the basis for morality.
As far as your ideas pertaining to infanticide (and other accusations you raise) --> you simply are not looking with ETERNAL vision...as God can, and DOES.

One simple example for you on your first accusation:

infanticide -- probably you are thinking of the Flood in Noah's time where you are concerned that the innocent little babies were drowned?

(if not --it doesn't really matter too much because the point I will make is universal in its application)


You have 2 possibilities for the children in Noah's time:

1. Let them grow up...in the wicked society, raised by wicked people who's every thought was wickedness continually.
OR
2. In cleansing the Earth from wickedness, the infants would also die.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In situation 1 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the kids LIVE TEMPORALLY, but many would most likely DIE ETERNALLY due to the wickedness of the teachings which they would receive, being indoctrinated fully into evil, even from their earliest years.

In situation 2 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the infants DIE TEMPORALLY, not even living many years...not experiencing much. but since infants and children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the highest kingdom, they will LIVE ETERNALLY.

So...my question is, who is the better judge of morality?
1. you = saying the it is better for the infants to live longer temporally (100years?), then go to hell eternally...
or
2. God = saying it is better for the infants to die temporally, but inherit eternal life eternally (eternity being billions upon trillions of years.... as just a beginning).

What sort of compartmentalised brain is necessary to justify infanticide.
Anyone who can justify infanticide has no moral basis for life and unfortunately we see christians doing just that.
Proving the OP right.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:51:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 8:48:03 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?


God's laws are the basis for morality.
As far as your ideas pertaining to infanticide (and other accusations you raise) --> you simply are not looking with ETERNAL vision...as God can, and DOES.

One simple example for you on your first accusation:

infanticide -- probably you are thinking of the Flood in Noah's time where you are concerned that the innocent little babies were drowned?

(if not --it doesn't really matter too much because the point I will make is universal in its application)


You have 2 possibilities for the children in Noah's time:

1. Let them grow up...in the wicked society, raised by wicked people who's every thought was wickedness continually.
OR
2. In cleansing the Earth from wickedness, the infants would also die.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In situation 1 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the kids LIVE TEMPORALLY, but many would most likely DIE ETERNALLY due to the wickedness of the teachings which they would receive, being indoctrinated fully into evil, even from their earliest years.

In situation 2 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the infants DIE TEMPORALLY, not even living many years...not experiencing much. but since infants and children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the highest kingdom, they will LIVE ETERNALLY.

So...my question is, who is the better judge of morality?
1. you = saying the it is better for the infants to live longer temporally (100years?), then go to hell eternally...
or
2. God = saying it is better for the infants to die temporally, but inherit eternal life eternally (eternity being billions upon trillions of years.... as just a beginning).

You are not living in reality if you think there is EVER a good reason for infanticide. God or no God! Make excuses, give it a different name, but it's always going to be a horrid act to consciously commit.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 6:49:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 8:48:03 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 12/18/2014 5:28:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
Without any coherent thought, christians claim erroneously that an infanticidal, genocidal sociopath can actually be the basis of an objective and righteous moral system.

How silly can you get?


God's laws are the basis for morality.
As far as your ideas pertaining to infanticide (and other accusations you raise) --> you simply are not looking with ETERNAL vision...as God can, and DOES.

One simple example for you on your first accusation:

infanticide -- probably you are thinking of the Flood in Noah's time where you are concerned that the innocent little babies were drowned?

(if not --it doesn't really matter too much because the point I will make is universal in its application)


You have 2 possibilities for the children in Noah's time:

1. Let them grow up...in the wicked society, raised by wicked people who's every thought was wickedness continually.
OR
2. In cleansing the Earth from wickedness, the infants would also die.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In situation 1 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the kids LIVE TEMPORALLY, but many would most likely DIE ETERNALLY due to the wickedness of the teachings which they would receive, being indoctrinated fully into evil, even from their earliest years.

In situation 2 --from an ETERNAL perspective - the infants DIE TEMPORALLY, not even living many years...not experiencing much. but since infants and children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the highest kingdom, they will LIVE ETERNALLY.

So...my question is, who is the better judge of morality?
1. you = saying the it is better for the infants to live longer temporally (100years?), then go to hell eternally...
or
2. God = saying it is better for the infants to die temporally, but inherit eternal life eternally (eternity being billions upon trillions of years.... as just a beginning).

What happened to option 3, just killing the wicked? Too hard for God? Lol.

And what about the animals. Were they 'wicked' too, or did they get fast-tracked to heaven also?

The problem with your killing the infants argument, apart from how offensive it is, is that it could also be used to justify ongoing infanticide. Why does God not kill all infants now born to 'wicked' parents in 'wicked' societies and save the souls of the children? Why don't we (the state) do it since God has set us such a fine example. Same argument, same solution required. Do you see the slippery slope you are on?