Righteousness, especially self-righteousness, isn't a religious concept.
-
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!
Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?
- Thread starter BilliardsBall
- Start date
Robert Vincelette
Member
Whole communities rationalize what they really believe is wrong and reify their morality. There are many examples: the surplus right to market tobacco products and destructive junk food today, the sodomizing of boys in ancient Sparta, football with its cumulative sub-clinical concussions that measurable lower IQ scores on half of high school players after one season, paying a basketball star one billion dollars while a quopa of the population are homeless.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
No one lives free of hypocrisy. We all got it in varying doses.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
And you're hinting that the New Testament renders the Old Testament obsolete. So if that is the case, why is that crap in there?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
And from your subjective view, you would condemn some of those things you listed. I get it. That doesn't make "God" any more probable. Doesn't make moral edicts handed down by a supernatural being any more real. Doesn't make it necessary to receive your vision of morality from a book.
You have an idea for a fair and acceptable/palatable system by which morality can be doled out to the masses? Let's hear it. I am all ears.
I've no faith in what I post either.I think you might be a little biased there but can't argue against it.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
A man marrying a women?!?!?!?!? Where is the moral line these days? Might was well just make pedophilia legal! Clearly God intended marriage to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
How about this post, do you have faith in this post?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
There is no "crap" in there.
Perhaps I can help you understand us heathens......
We both agree that rape is wrong.
You find it an inerrant moral absolute based upon scripture.
I find it wrong based upon personal & societal values.
We are likely both equally opposed to it, despite the fact that I have moral relativism.
Btw, not all atheists criticize the Bible for what the Bible says about it.
I've never read it, so I don't know what it says.
But given that it's been translated & edited a great deal, I'd never
be able to make certain claims about a specific message therein.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I don't knoiw qwhat it would do FOR ME in understanding the results of rape, I know more than most people from all perspectives. The allegation you made, and apparently forgot, is that the NT is misogynistic. You just saying it is like kim jung un saying N. Korea is a peaceful country bull wiuthout proof is just........................bull. You said you worked in corrections, how many rape victims, other than your charges being raped under your care have you dealt with ?
Complete faith!
But remember post #46.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Then I take it you adhere to the Old Testament as well as what is put forth in the New Testament? Be careful now, I reserve the right to call "crap" any parts that you discard or otherwise ignore.
The discussion was whether a moral value could be objectively true. Rape can be inherently bad, a societal misdeed, wrong, and either a subjective moral value, or if it is possible, an objective one. Only subjective and objectve are mutually exclusive here.
Why didn't the god of the Old Testament command rape if it is inherently bad?
You've introduced a second and independent topic: whether the Bible condemns rape.Like most such issues, one has a wide variety of contradictory scriptures to choose from. If you want to whitewash the Bible of its ambivalent and changing position on the matters, you pick the scriptures that seem to do that, and try to make the other ones not mean what they say. I gave you two such scriptures on that other thread, and to date, you have ignored them:
[1] Go to war, find a captive woman you like, she becomes your wife - no consent required:
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 - "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife."
[2] Rape a women, you must marry her - her consent is irrelevant - and all is well. No concern is shown here for the victim, who is punished by having to marry her attacker. Women were viewed as property ("you break it, you bought it").
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
To the unbeliever, it's not about what the last word was on the topic. It's asking what things like the above are doing in the Bible, and it's evidence of the evolution of values in the Bible,which was offered to undermine the claim that biblical values are objective, absolute, timeless, transcendent, constant, or any other such claim.
The process has the unmistakable fingerprint of humanity and cultural evolution all over it, not divinity, transcendence, or the supernatural. We're still going through the same very human process today. It abolition in the mid-19th century, women's suffrage in the early 20th century, civil rights in the mid-20th century,and same sex marriage in the early 21st century.
That's the process called rational ethics, and it is the humanist model. It advocates people applying reason to empathy (the Golden Rule). Humanists turn to humanity for answers, not to gods and holy books.
Straw man x 2. The claim wasn't that rape isn't inherently bad or that the Bible is inherently bad. The claim is that attitudes about rape don't have objective reality, and the Christian Bible can be used to demonstrate that. Where permitted, as in Old Testament days, considering rape inherently wrong would have been a minority position in conflict with the scriptures. Where was the objective reality of rape being inherently wrong there?
And where is the good in the Old Testament position? That you couldn't buy and sell your own, or that you couldn't beat a slave to death if it took two or fewer days for him to die?
These are the points that the skeptics made, not what you claimed.
We have no use for such words. Nor grace, sacred, holy, soul, blessed, blasphemy, evil, sacrilege, or salvation - at least not in the religious sense. We have other language for right and wrong, good and bad.
And who is being self-righteous here? It is you. You're making a moral judgment against people for having an objective, dispassionate discussion of ideas like moral theory and the evolution of the biblical moral code.
This is what the marketplace of ideas looks like. If you want to do more than just participate - if you want to compete - bring a proper argument. No straw men, no evading inconvenient truths, etc..
New Age Spiritual Leader
Member
What I find odd is that so-called "Christians" will use the Bible as a moral guide in certain ways, but will never answer the following three questions with complete honesty and truthfulness to show me that they are abiding by the "truth". If they had done so, then they would also realize that what they have been told is vague, unfounded, untrue, and quite far from what they "believe".
***********************
Where does "God" specifically states whom is inspired and whom is not?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are more holier than others?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are scripture and which are not?
***********************
A couple of other pertinent questions are:
***********************
Why do you think "God" could inspire only a handful of people out of millions and millions?
If you think this is possible, why do so-called "Christians" rebuke those who are trying to help inspire others with non-Christian values?
Do they limit "God" because they choose, because they are scared to know that "He" still may? Thus causing a conundrum within their minds - "How is this possible?"
**********************
Remember - so-called "Christian values" are based in unfounded stories written by men, approved by men to be presented, and then told to men to believe. Most so-called "Christians" HAVE NOT researched their religion in any amount, except what has been told to them in a certain way. If they had, they would not be "Christian".
Jesus warned the world with two key philosophical quotes - by an inspired original Apostle - Thomas, but those men who "created "Christianity" failed to realize what Jesus taught entirely, so they cut its followers short as well.
Gospel of Thomas - Patterson & Robinson Translation -- Nag Hammadi Library
(2) Jesus says:
(1) "The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.
(4) And he will be king over the All."
(3) Jesus says:
(1) "If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’
then the birds of the sky will precede you.
(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.
(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and outside of you."
(4) "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known,
and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.
(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty."
**********************
There is no smoking gun "against" so-called "Atheists" or non-believers - it is just another ruse that so-called "Christians" will advance, without proof of what they express. If one were to keep questioning these folks for their proof, you will only see avoidance, deflection, maybe a "shiny object" every now and then, or maybe some other BS that they know has no bearing to the end result, but will still present it as such. It is usually at this point in the game they are playing, that they will begin to include THEIR OWN QUALIFIERS, "alternative facts" in order to make what they say, "true".
It is quite simple....no religion is required to have wonderful morals like love, kindness, caring for others, helping others when they need it, being a friend or a friendly voice. etc....etc....etc.. Religion will not provide you with these traits......you have to. We as individuals CHOOSE to make a decision - whether right or wrong. We also have to take responsibility for the decision we make - right or wrong. So-called "Christians" put the blame upon "God" and "His Plan"....or will never be responsible for what they "preach". It is their way of life that we need to focus on and change, if there ever will be a peaceful world without religion trying to take control of people's lives.
We need to show them their dishonesty, hatred of others, and how it is affecting the world.
They have chosen the path we are all on now. For them it is a path of "truth and honesty". For me (us) it is one to help them realize that antiquated beliefs are no more helpful than throwing a coin into a fountain for luck.
I for one, will not allow my road to be dictated by false beliefs, rituals or "mystery". They will either be honest with me or I will expose their dishonesty to the public.
Self.
Peace and light to all.
***********************
Where does "God" specifically states whom is inspired and whom is not?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are more holier than others?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are scripture and which are not?
***********************
A couple of other pertinent questions are:
***********************
Why do you think "God" could inspire only a handful of people out of millions and millions?
If you think this is possible, why do so-called "Christians" rebuke those who are trying to help inspire others with non-Christian values?
Do they limit "God" because they choose, because they are scared to know that "He" still may? Thus causing a conundrum within their minds - "How is this possible?"
**********************
Remember - so-called "Christian values" are based in unfounded stories written by men, approved by men to be presented, and then told to men to believe. Most so-called "Christians" HAVE NOT researched their religion in any amount, except what has been told to them in a certain way. If they had, they would not be "Christian".
Jesus warned the world with two key philosophical quotes - by an inspired original Apostle - Thomas, but those men who "created "Christianity" failed to realize what Jesus taught entirely, so they cut its followers short as well.
Gospel of Thomas - Patterson & Robinson Translation -- Nag Hammadi Library
(2) Jesus says:
(1) "The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.
(4) And he will be king over the All."
(3) Jesus says:
(1) "If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’
then the birds of the sky will precede you.
(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.
(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and outside of you."
(4) "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known,
and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.
(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty."
**********************
There is no smoking gun "against" so-called "Atheists" or non-believers - it is just another ruse that so-called "Christians" will advance, without proof of what they express. If one were to keep questioning these folks for their proof, you will only see avoidance, deflection, maybe a "shiny object" every now and then, or maybe some other BS that they know has no bearing to the end result, but will still present it as such. It is usually at this point in the game they are playing, that they will begin to include THEIR OWN QUALIFIERS, "alternative facts" in order to make what they say, "true".
It is quite simple....no religion is required to have wonderful morals like love, kindness, caring for others, helping others when they need it, being a friend or a friendly voice. etc....etc....etc.. Religion will not provide you with these traits......you have to. We as individuals CHOOSE to make a decision - whether right or wrong. We also have to take responsibility for the decision we make - right or wrong. So-called "Christians" put the blame upon "God" and "His Plan"....or will never be responsible for what they "preach". It is their way of life that we need to focus on and change, if there ever will be a peaceful world without religion trying to take control of people's lives.
We need to show them their dishonesty, hatred of others, and how it is affecting the world.
They have chosen the path we are all on now. For them it is a path of "truth and honesty". For me (us) it is one to help them realize that antiquated beliefs are no more helpful than throwing a coin into a fountain for luck.
I for one, will not allow my road to be dictated by false beliefs, rituals or "mystery". They will either be honest with me or I will expose their dishonesty to the public.
Self.
Peace and light to all.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Attention all atheists,
As mentioned in my OP and demonstrated in subsequent posts:
a) you have self-righteous invective against the Bible's stance on rape
b) only one of you dared to say "rape is wrong", although this person did not say whether it was subjectively or objectively wrong
Self-righteousness implies that one is certain one is absolutely correct. Yet I have much trouble finding atheists who believe anything is absolute. In this vein, I recently convinced an atheist of the rightness of my position on morality and they soon fell into the old trap: "How do we know we and the universe even exist?" There are answers for that as well, but they hinge on absolutes regarding morals.
You atheists dislike miracles--miracles being anomalous to the laws of nature. That is, you feel the laws of nature are inviolate and sacrosanct, even by possible beings wielding great power (you know, like the great beings Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson have said exist out there).
How do you people live with your selves? "The laws of nature are inviolate and no thing or being may violate them, they are absolutely inviolate, but if someone rapes someone, who am I to say that absolutely, they have committed a wrongdoing, crime, evil, oops--I don't believe in those three things--a societal misdeed?"
THAT is a double standard indeed.
Watch--you can do it too--RAPE IS WRONG. After all, isn't THAT why you are making accusatory statements regarding your misunderstanding of the biblical stance on rape?
As mentioned in my OP and demonstrated in subsequent posts:
a) you have self-righteous invective against the Bible's stance on rape
b) only one of you dared to say "rape is wrong", although this person did not say whether it was subjectively or objectively wrong
Self-righteousness implies that one is certain one is absolutely correct. Yet I have much trouble finding atheists who believe anything is absolute. In this vein, I recently convinced an atheist of the rightness of my position on morality and they soon fell into the old trap: "How do we know we and the universe even exist?" There are answers for that as well, but they hinge on absolutes regarding morals.
You atheists dislike miracles--miracles being anomalous to the laws of nature. That is, you feel the laws of nature are inviolate and sacrosanct, even by possible beings wielding great power (you know, like the great beings Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson have said exist out there).
How do you people live with your selves? "The laws of nature are inviolate and no thing or being may violate them, they are absolutely inviolate, but if someone rapes someone, who am I to say that absolutely, they have committed a wrongdoing, crime, evil, oops--I don't believe in those three things--a societal misdeed?"
THAT is a double standard indeed.
Watch--you can do it too--RAPE IS WRONG. After all, isn't THAT why you are making accusatory statements regarding your misunderstanding of the biblical stance on rape?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I call baloney! I don't shirk these three questions:
Where does "God" specifically states whom is inspired and whom is not?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are more holier than others?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are scripture and which are not?
But you are so far afield of the OP, you'll have to invite me to a thread where these appear.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
When that sort of stuff is pointed out to you, it is because you guys are the ones with the hard and fast rules you don't follow yourselves.
Atheist is not a belief system. Someone can be unconvinced of your myth while simultaneously believing anything else, including the entire spectrum from 'kill all rapists' to 'lets spike her drink'.
