syo
Well-Known Member
Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Words of Jesus.
- Thread starter Justanatheist
- Start date
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You say nothing about why the quality of my assumptions might lack quality. The only reply I could really give is something like, "is not!" Then I might tell our 2nd grade teacher you are making me feel unsafe. Now you're in trouble.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
One of the things I find stunning here at RF is how people can peg other people so much with incredibly little evidence. I mean, wouldn't you think we'd need to sit down a talk at some length before drawing any conclusions? Instead, people act as though they've known me for years and followed me around all day long. It's just amazing the conclusions people can come to with minimal information. Let's face it, you have next to no idea of what I may or may not understand and yet you make sweeping declarations of my lack of understanding.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
My standard, you are confusing not having morals with not having objective morals, subjective morals are situational, in this case we have religious bigotry and genocide. Now if you wish to argue that genocide is not wrong, by all means do so, after all the objective morals in the Bible does not say it is wrong.
I mentioned they were Christians because they believed in your objective morals and yet still slaughtered the Jews. I also mentioned it because the regime that did the most to defeat them was an atheist regime which had only subjective morality.
Finally it all ties in with my belief that might is right in reality.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
First of all, the folks who killed the Jews in Germany may have called themselves Christians. However if you look at the perfect example of Christianity, Jesus Christ, it becomes obvious that Hitler was nothing like Jesus.
I don't care what they called themselves, Hitler and the others did not believe what the scriptures said. That's pretty obvious. I mean, how does what Hitler did accord with the Biblical directive of love your neighbor?
China is atheist, and you know their human rights record. And yet, they can come up with very good subjective reasons to slaughter millions of people. Does that not make you feel icky to be an atheist, like you want me to feel about being Christian?
Hitler had the might on his side for sure, so why judge him?
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Well I know next to nothing about Jesus, we have no writings of his, no contemporary reports of him, my guess the only comparisons I can make are that they were both charismatic leaders and great orators.
I do not think Hitler was a christian despite the largest christian group on the planet never ex-communicating him. However the people in all occupied countries who denounced, rounded up, put in to cattle trucks, gassed, shot, starved, experimented on and treated the Jews as sub human, went to church just like you, believed in the same god as you, read the same bible as you, and grounded their objective morals in the same god you do. They identified themselves as Christian just as you do and I see no more reason to think they did not think of themselves as much of a Christian, doing gods work, as you do.
No it does not make me feel icky in the slightest, because I have no connection to them apart from from a lack of belief in gods, I do not worship what they do, I do not have their ideology, I do not believe in the same book they do and because my morals are subjective I do not ground objective morals in anything they might or might not do. What does make me feel icky is that you dared to ask me whether I thought Hitler was wrong, turning the greatest human tragedy into a cheap debating point, when you could of used an abstract argument. Shame on you.
No Hitler did not have might on his side, he ended up shooting his dog and wife and blowing his own brains out, leaving his country in ruins with over half of the women in Germany raped. Above everything else I can judge him because I had might on my side and he lost. But most of all I judge him because he dropped bombs on my mum and dad.
Last edited:
rrobs
Well-Known Member
One thing you may want to consider is that people who believe in the Bible do in fact have very concrete reasons for doing so. You are assuming all Christians accept the Bible by "blind faith" but that's not the case. The faith that most Christians have is based on actual experience that what the Bible says is trustworthy. Now just because you've not experienced the goodness of God in no way means that others have not.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
John 5:39,
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
The whole book is about Jesus. Do you not believe anything that is said about people who have died just because you've not heard them speak directly? Even criminal courts understand the value of eye witness accounts that somebody did something or another. The jury didn't actually see the defendant commit murder, but they convict based on others who testified that they did see the act. I don't understand the reticence of accepting what the Bible says Jesus said. We do it all the time in profane matters and nobody has a problem with it.
Again, compare their actions to the scriptures saying we should love our neighbors. The scriptures are perfect. People are not.
I just thought you might excuse Hitler's actions because you have no objective yardstick from which you can judge his actions. I though you might have allowed subjective thinking to allow for such tragedy. Turns out you do believe in some type of objective morality. I guess that's what you're saying anyway. Where do you get the objectivity?
Wait a minute there! Are you suggesting that Hitler raping half the women in Germany is wrong? By what moral code do you say that? I'm truly sorry about your mum and dad, but my mom and dad were not bombed by Hitler. Does that mean subjectively that I have no reason to condemn his actions?
I can tell you I do condemn Hitler's actions along with any person that has ever killed even one person. I use the scriptures as my standard for that. They clearly say it's not good to kill other people. That's a rather objective standard and it eliminates the reasoning someone may have for why it is OK to kill another human. Without a standard, anything goes and nobody would have the right to complain.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
The bible is just another story book only this one written by mostly anonymous authors why would I believe it?
You have no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, if you claim you do show it.
No, I do not, you may.
The scriptures are open to interpretation, they interpreted the scriptures differently to you.
I do not get objective morality from anywhere, I believe in subjective morality. I can call on the opinions of Kant, Hume, Mills, Confucius, Descartes, Oppy, Foucault and hundreds of others, I can use the morality of the religions, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and hundreds more. I can consult experts in Science and medicine to reach a better understanding of complex moral understanding. I can use my real life experiences and those of my families and friends and can come on RF and discuss moral issues with people from all sorts of communities and perspectives. I have an education, resources and access to information far beyond anyone who wrote the bible. I can make my own moral decisions and I will be held accountable for them by my peers, the justice system and even public opinion. Welcome to the 21st century, where we can all make better moral decisions than those written in the bible.
By my moral code, I do not need anyone else's. Yes you can decide Hitler was wrong subjectively, you can decide he was wrong because he had a silly moustache or that he did not bomb your mum and dad!
I do not think it is morally wrong to kill in some situations and guess what I have might on my side with that.
That is right you do not have to reason, you can just lay all the decision's on your god, just remember though it will not wash in a court of law.
No, we have justice systems and international law.
Last edited:
But you're clearly wrong, @rrobs. If I tell you that many pizzas are round because today is Saturday, you have every right to dismiss the claim as pathetically absurd irrespective of the length and depth of our relationship. To point to 2 Timothy 3:15 as evidence of the veracity of the Gospels is similarly nonsensical -- unless, of course, you claim:
- that the author of the epistle was a prophet capable of prejudging future text, or
- that the Gospels had been (1) in circulation and (2) known to the author at the time 2 Timothy was written.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
So love is invalidated by philosophy or opinion?
He was wrong, not because he violated an objective code, but your code? Kinda makes you god in your own eyes, which is the more interesting because you seem to hold an image of God in a rather negative way (to say the least)
.If we're going for subjectivity, what would be wrong with Hitler following his code and appearing virtuous for having followed his own heart and not some outdated standard in stupid book Christians call the Bible or what anybody else thinks? What gives one code more authority than another code?
The meaning of subjectivity is one of those words that have been hijacked by modern theories of the esoteric sort.
I think another word that has been hijacked, or maybe better put, has disappeared altogether is the word love. Anybody that has an inkling of what love means would understand that had Hitler followed the Scripture directive to love, he would not have done what he did. And no, that is in no way "my" interpretation of what love is. It's what anybody that was at all familiar with the term would say. Younger people have no idea of the power in love, because it's no longer taught. Woke is a poor substitute for Godly love. But, hey, you might think different. I would never denigrate a man or woman for doing what's in their heart. However, I sincerely hope they never get it into their heart to shoot me or something. Deal with that if and when it happens I guess. Ooops...off topic.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
I am fascinated by this, how on earth did you get that question from what I wrote?
And the moral codes agreed upon by millions and millions in civilised society, people coming to that conclusion by using both subjective and objective morals.
Absolutely not.
1. I can pretty much rely on the idea that I actually exist, which makes me much more than than any god I have ever read about.
2. I am responsible for my moral decisions, to my friends and family, to wider society and ultimately to my countries law and international law. Your god is responsible to no one.
My image of your god is held because of what I have read in your bible and in interactions with Christians, if it appears that I am negative to you it might be that you began by quoting scripture at me, proceeded to accuse me of a strawman and then brought up the most terrible genocide in world history in a debate about morality. Further you have dismissed the culpability of Christianity in the Holocaust by just saying they were not real Christians (or words to that effect. Here is what a Jew says about the Christian persecution of Jews, I hope it makes you feel icky, it should since all those Christians would tell you they had the same objective morals as you.which is the more interesting because you seem to hold an image of God in a rather negative way (to say the least)
There you go again, I do not call the bible a stupid book, indeed I point out I can use the morals of Christianity and therefore the bible in forming my own moral opinions. So rather than build on what we have in common you foster division and then wonder why I might have a negative image of your bible and god?
Might and history, just like it was once morally acceptable to burn witches it no longer is. Why because might got on the side of the largely Christian thinkers who thought it wrong despite what it says in the Bible. By might I mean society which came to accept the words of the Christian thinkers and enacted laws to stop it.
No subjective has always meant opinion. Objective has been hijacked by religious people to try and suggest that their morals are somehow grounded in an unseen god who has no moral responsibility to anyone, there is not much more esoteric than that. People fly aeroplanes into building believing they have objective morals on their side, how ****ing ironic!
You are using Hitler as a scapegoat for all the wrong carried out by Christians who believed the same scripture you do, with all its messages of love, you do not want to look at the culpability of your religion in the horrors that you brought up. I actually think that just blaming Hitler, just blaming Nazis and not looking at Christian culpability will gloss over mans terrible inhumanity to man.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
We could talk about Pol Pot instead. I think he killed more than Hitler. He was atheist. Am I then using him as a scapegoat for all the wrong carried out by atheist who do not believe the scriptures like you don't?
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
No, as I have explained apart from not believing in a god I have nothing in common with other atheists, now you have made an assertion Pol Pot did not believe in scripture, can you provide evidence for that claim. We could talk about Henry Viii he had a beard like I do, but you would struggle explaining the culpability of bearded men.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, apart from believing in God, I, as well as 99.9999% of Christianity, have nothing in common with Hitler. That's the whole point. Hitler is not representative of all Christians any more than Pol Port represents all atheist.
Pol Pot did believe in heaven, but not in God. I guess that would make him atheist. We could also site Stalin. He was atheist for sure and killed a bunch of folks. But, come on, he does not represent all atheist any more than Hitler represents all Christians. Judge a man by his character, not by the color of his skin (or his religion).
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
On the contrary millions of Christians followed Hitler, voted for him and killed Jews for him, but you want to separate yourself from any culpability your religion has for the murder of the Jews you were so keen to discuss.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Millions of people followed Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Stalin. All of them atheists. All atheists are therefore murderers? I don't think so. I doubt greatly you are for one. Hope so anyway.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Wrong, your not very aware of history are you, none were elected as Hitler was and Stalin brought religion back specifically so people would fight harder in WW2, but regardless of your attempts to link me with other atheists I do not share a common god, a common religion, common ideas, a common book or places of worship and most importantly you claim objective morality common to Christians, some atheists believe in an objective morality and some do not. Now you are doing what you accused me of and straw-manning my argument.Millions of people followed Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Stalin. All of them atheists. All atheists are therefore murderers? I don't think so. I doubt greatly you are for one. Hope so anyway.
Did you know Stalin told his people he flew a statue of a St around Moscow?
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Hang on there! I'm not accusing you of anything at all. In fact I'm trying just the opposite. I'm trying to show you that just because one or more members of a group do something unsvoury, it does not make every other member of that group culpable. That holds true for Christians, Atheist, Americans, Spaniards, carpenters, pilots, whatever, whatever. And it matters not whether the "bad apple" was elected or not. Again, judge a man by his character. I would guess that on a whole you are a fine person.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
You accused me of strawmanning here.
I have not said anyone is culpable, I said your religion was and your objective morality obtained from your bible. So far you have not made any rebuttal other than "they were not Christians" and look what he did.