OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[PoliticalChic]

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.



You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.



That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that they do not recognize moral behavior as somethign to be sought after, and they do not believe in the validity, the purpose, or the innate good in seeking perfection in thought and action. Perfection as it applies to goodness, that is.

They'll all about maintaining things like perfect numbers of humans on the planet, and perfect health and perfect babies and perfect removal of all references to religion....but when it comes to the concept of perfect humanity and a perfect God, they put their feet down..because those concepts interfere with their desire to exert power over the masses in order to bring things about to their OWN definition of perfection.

Total Bull shit which is typical for you. You have no idea what it is to be Christlike.
You are a witch.
My neighbor is an atheist and I never knew it until 20 years after I knew him. He was always the first one out to clear the road of downed trees, taking food to elderly neighbors and other chores.
You dumb asses talk a mean game but you are all HOT AIR.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time!
Can't you ever get anything right???

Heck.....if you were a politician you'd probably be honest!!



Now, here's the low-down.


1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."

3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.

4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."

6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.

7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."

8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."

"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap - Reason.com


How ya' feel now?

Wanna wipe that egg off your face.

 

[Gadawg73]

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that they do not recognize moral behavior as somethign to be sought after, and they do not believe in the validity, the purpose, or the innate good in seeking perfection in thought and action. Perfection as it applies to goodness, that is.

They'll all about maintaining things like perfect numbers of humans on the planet, and perfect health and perfect babies and perfect removal of all references to religion....but when it comes to the concept of perfect humanity and a perfect God, they put their feet down..because those concepts interfere with their desire to exert power over the masses in order to bring things about to their OWN definition of perfection.

Total Bull shit which is typical for you. You have no idea what it is to be Christlike.
You are a witch.
My neighbor is an atheist and I never knew it until 20 years after I knew him. He was always the first one out to clear the road of downed trees, taking food to elderly neighbors and other chores.
You dumb asses talk a mean game but you are all HOT AIR.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time!
Can't you ever get anything right???

Heck.....if you were a politician you'd probably be honest!!



Now, here's the low-down.


1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."

3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.

4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."

6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.

7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."

8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."

"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap - Reason.com


How ya' feel now?

Wanna wipe that egg off your face.

Nothing in any of that is relevant to you holding your political ideology primary to your religious beliefs.
And no Christian does that.

 

[Gadawg73]

As an example, let's take the following two statements:

A.) "Evolution proves that the Bible is wrong"

B.) "The Bible proves than evolution is wrong"

Which of those two statements is a more commonly held belief?

I would say B.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real.
Beliefs are not science.

 

[koshergrl]

Total Bull shit which is typical for you. You have no idea what it is to be Christlike.
You are a witch.
My neighbor is an atheist and I never knew it until 20 years after I knew him. He was always the first one out to clear the road of downed trees, taking food to elderly neighbors and other chores.
You dumb asses talk a mean game but you are all HOT AIR.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time!
Can't you ever get anything right???

Heck.....if you were a politician you'd probably be honest!!



Now, here's the low-down.


1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."

3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.

4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."

6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.

7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."

8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."

"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap - Reason.com


How ya' feel now?

Wanna wipe that egg off your face.

Nothing in any of that is relevant to you holding your political ideology primary to your religious beliefs.
And no Christian does that.

If only alcoholism and coherent sentence structure went hand in hand.

 

[Gadawg73]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time!
Can't you ever get anything right???

Heck.....if you were a politician you'd probably be honest!!



Now, here's the low-down.


1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."

3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.

4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."

6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.

7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."

8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."

"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap - Reason.com


How ya' feel now?

Wanna wipe that egg off your face.

Nothing in any of that is relevant to you holding your political ideology primary to your religious beliefs.
And no Christian does that.

If only alcoholism and coherent sentence structure went hand in hand.

Wish I had time to be an alcoholic. That would be fun for a while.
Too busy working and running 3 companies.
Time for a few beers as I do not drink liquor.
The broom out of gas?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As an example, let's take the following two statements:

A.) "Evolution proves that the Bible is wrong"

B.) "The Bible proves than evolution is wrong"

Which of those two statements is a more commonly held belief?

I would say B.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real.
Beliefs are not science.

I think you might have missed my point.

 

[Gadawg73]

As an example, let's take the following two statements:

A.) "Evolution proves that the Bible is wrong"

B.) "The Bible proves than evolution is wrong"

Which of those two statements is a more commonly held belief?

I would say B.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real.
Beliefs are not science.

I think you might have missed my point.

I did, sorry.
Was too busy finishing that half gallon of Popov!

 

[PoliticalChic]

As an example, let's take the following two statements:

A.) "Evolution proves that the Bible is wrong"

B.) "The Bible proves than evolution is wrong"

Which of those two statements is a more commonly held belief?

I would say B.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real.
Beliefs are not science.

Jeessshhhh.....bet there may even be some who believe you possess an intellect.

 

[Underhill]

As an example, let's take the following two statements:

A.) "Evolution proves that the Bible is wrong"

B.) "The Bible proves than evolution is wrong"

Which of those two statements is a more commonly held belief?

I would say B.

Well now that's clearly conclusive.

I suppose the fact that most 4 year old children believe in Santa is relevant too?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing in any of that is relevant to you holding your political ideology primary to your religious beliefs.
And no Christian does that.

If only alcoholism and coherent sentence structure went hand in hand.

Wish I had time to be an alcoholic. That would be fun for a while.
Too busy working and running 3 companies.
Time for a few beers as I do not drink liquor.
The broom out of gas?

'Running'???

You must mean jogging round the mental hospital....on the psych path.

 

[Underhill]

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.



You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.

That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

Of course, you are incorrect.

And history has proven you so.

So...here is your remedial, complete with links and sourced material, so that you may continue your study.



1. The putative father of fascism, the French Revolution, turned politics into a religion, replacing Christianity with a secular faith in the Jacobin agenda. “The Jacobean atheism was integrated with rationalism, …and with the dismissal of Judeo-Christian scriptures.”
Differences between Left & Right in their Psycho-Philosophic background



2. Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics.
Rousseau: Political Economy




3. You say: "Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all."

Exactly the view of Robespierre and Rousseau!

“For the rulers well know that the general will is always on the side which is most favorable to the public interest, that is to say, the most equitable; so that it is needful only to act justly to be certain of following the general will.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract and Discourses,” trans. G.D.H.Cole, p. 297




4. And, what if any don't agree with the 'general will,' or your 'golden rule'?

Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will.
Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68



And, the sentence for any who disagree?

c. Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.” Himmefarb, , Ibid.


Such is morality without God.



5. The comparison? The American Revolution, with the protagonists who were religious.

“The French Revolution occurred almost simultaneously with the American Revolution. While sharing many similarities, there was one glaring difference. The French were not Christian and attempted to introduce a godless humanistic government. The result is amply recorded in history books. Instead of the liberty, justice, peace, happiness, and prosperity experienced in America, France suffered chaos and injustice as thousands of heads rolled under the sharp blade of the guillotine.” Religion and Government in America: Are they*complementary? ? The Mandate


I hope you enjoyed, and reflect on, this history lesson.

I admit, I did get a laugh out of it.

 

[Underhill]

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.



You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.

That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that they do not recognize moral behavior as somethign to be sought after, and they do not believe in the validity, the purpose, or the innate good in seeking perfection in thought and action. Perfection as it applies to goodness, that is.

They'll all about maintaining things like perfect numbers of humans on the planet, and perfect health and perfect babies and perfect removal of all references to religion....but when it comes to the concept of perfect humanity and a perfect God, they put their feet down..because those concepts interfere with their desire to exert power over the masses in order to bring things about to their OWN definition of perfection.

I don't talk to assholes. Crawl back in your hole.

 

[Underhill]

Of course, you are incorrect.

And history has proven you so.

I hope you enjoyed, and reflect on, this history lesson.

I'm not going through all that. It's obviously taking one event, almost entirely unrelated, and ascribing characteristics that simply aren't true.

The American Revolution and the French were completely different in a dozen different ways.

So the Christians of America were morally superior?

I would bet the American Indians saw things a bit differently.

 

[Newby]

Of course, you are incorrect.

And history has proven you so.

I hope you enjoyed, and reflect on, this history lesson.

I'm not going through all that. It's obviously taking one event, almost entirely unrelated, and ascribing characteristics that simply aren't true.

The American Revolution and the French were completely different in a dozen different ways.

So the Christians of America were morally superior?

I would bet the American Indians saw things a bit differently.

I think the problem is that you look at this whole discussion as Christian's insisting they're 'morally superior' to others whenever that's not, or shouldn't be, the case. Christ's salvation is exactly because we are incapable of being 'morally superior', regardless of what background or culture you come from. Christian belief is that everyone falls short, and needs salvation. Are some people 'more moral' than others, conduct their lives with more integrity? Yes, that is the case, but in the end, it doesn't matter, you still fall short. And it doesn't matter what culture or society you live in, whether or not your culture is more moral than anothers. It's about each individual and what's in their heart and what they do with their own lives. So you can argue back and forth all day long about cultures who don't believe in God still being 'moral' societies if you want too, but it's meaningless because you seem to lack the basic understanding of what salvation through Christ really means.

 

[koshergrl]

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.



You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.



That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that they do not recognize moral behavior as somethign to be sought after, and they do not believe in the validity, the purpose, or the innate good in seeking perfection in thought and action. Perfection as it applies to goodness, that is.

They'll all about maintaining things like perfect numbers of humans on the planet, and perfect health and perfect babies and perfect removal of all references to religion....but when it comes to the concept of perfect humanity and a perfect God, they put their feet down..because those concepts interfere with their desire to exert power over the masses in order to bring things about to their OWN definition of perfection.

I don't talk to assholes. Crawl back in your hole.

Oh you talk to assholes alright...you just refuse to converse in an intelligent manner with anyone who points out the myriad flaws in your juvenile and disorganized prattling. Which comes down to this...when you get caught in a logical fallacy, outright lie, or just being ignorant, you will claim you are superior to the conversation and thus end your part in it.

It's a common tactic of atheists who are ignorant of the subject matter, as I believe I already pointed out.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course, you are incorrect.

And history has proven you so.

I hope you enjoyed, and reflect on, this history lesson.

I'm not going through all that. It's obviously taking one event, almost entirely unrelated, and ascribing characteristics that simply aren't true.

The American Revolution and the French were completely different in a dozen different ways.

So the Christians of America were morally superior?

I would bet the American Indians saw things a bit differently.

I think the problem is that you look at this whole discussion as Christian's insisting they're 'morally superior' to others whenever that's not, or shouldn't be, the case. Christ's salvation is exactly because we are incapable of being 'morally superior', regardless of what background or culture you come from. Christian belief is that everyone falls short, and needs salvation. Are some people 'more moral' than others, conduct their lives with more integrity? Yes, that is the case, but in the end, it doesn't matter, you still fall short. And it doesn't matter what culture or society you live in, whether or not your culture is more moral than anothers. It's about each individual and what's in their heart and what they do with their own lives. So you can argue back and forth all day long about cultures who don't believe in God still being 'moral' societies if you want too, but it's meaningless because you seem to lack the basic understanding of what salvation through Christ really means.

And that in turn springs from the innate understanding that they are morally bereft, as all are who reject the person and teachings of Christ..and attack those who abide (or try to abide) by them. If we attempt to follow a godly path, then by rights (according to atheist hysterics) we must despise them, because they reject Christ, and refuse to recogize morality as anything except a chance grouping of societal norms that have no value except the value afforded them by the people who abide by them.

 

[Underhill]

Of course, you are incorrect.

And history has proven you so.

I hope you enjoyed, and reflect on, this history lesson.

I'm not going through all that. It's obviously taking one event, almost entirely unrelated, and ascribing characteristics that simply aren't true.

The American Revolution and the French were completely different in a dozen different ways.

So the Christians of America were morally superior?

I would bet the American Indians saw things a bit differently.

I think the problem is that you look at this whole discussion as Christian's insisting they're 'morally superior' to others whenever that's not, or shouldn't be, the case. Christ's salvation is exactly because we are incapable of being 'morally superior', regardless of what background or culture you come from. Christian belief is that everyone falls short, and needs salvation. Are some people 'more moral' than others, conduct their lives with more integrity? Yes, that is the case, but in the end, it doesn't matter, you still fall short. And it doesn't matter what culture or society you live in, whether or not your culture is more moral than anothers. It's about each individual and what's in their heart and what they do with their own lives. So you can argue back and forth all day long about cultures who don't believe in God still being 'moral' societies if you want too, but it's meaningless because you seem to lack the basic understanding of what salvation through Christ really means.

No, you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. It had nothing to do with a king who repeatedly starved his people while living in palaces. By comparison our complaints of over high taxes and restrictive rule was a meager one.

I simply pointed out that the fact that the US was supposedly a 'christian' nation didn't stop them from exterminating the indians. If you don't like the term morally superior, it doesn't really change anything.

Now if you have a reasonable response as to why christianity was such a big help with one and not the other situation I will listen.

 

[Underhill]

I'm not going through all that. It's obviously taking one event, almost entirely unrelated, and ascribing characteristics that simply aren't true.

The American Revolution and the French were completely different in a dozen different ways.

So the Christians of America were morally superior?

I would bet the American Indians saw things a bit differently.

I think the problem is that you look at this whole discussion as Christian's insisting they're 'morally superior' to others whenever that's not, or shouldn't be, the case. Christ's salvation is exactly because we are incapable of being 'morally superior', regardless of what background or culture you come from. Christian belief is that everyone falls short, and needs salvation. Are some people 'more moral' than others, conduct their lives with more integrity? Yes, that is the case, but in the end, it doesn't matter, you still fall short. And it doesn't matter what culture or society you live in, whether or not your culture is more moral than anothers. It's about each individual and what's in their heart and what they do with their own lives. So you can argue back and forth all day long about cultures who don't believe in God still being 'moral' societies if you want too, but it's meaningless because you seem to lack the basic understanding of what salvation through Christ really means.

And that in turn springs from the innate understanding that they are morally bereft, as all are who reject the person and teachings of Christ..and attack those who abide (or try to abide) by them. If we attempt to follow a godly path, then by rights (according to atheist hysterics) we must despise them, because they reject Christ, and refuse to recogize morality as anything except a chance grouping of societal norms that have no value except the value afforded them by the people who abide by them.

Answer me this fuck nut. Why would a morality based in rules handed down by god be superior to rules based upon the good will of the people?

I mean supposedly that is why god handed down his rules right? For the good will of the people...?

 

[Newby]

I'm not going through all that. It's obviously taking one event, almost entirely unrelated, and ascribing characteristics that simply aren't true.

The American Revolution and the French were completely different in a dozen different ways.

So the Christians of America were morally superior?

I would bet the American Indians saw things a bit differently.

I think the problem is that you look at this whole discussion as Christian's insisting they're 'morally superior' to others whenever that's not, or shouldn't be, the case. Christ's salvation is exactly because we are incapable of being 'morally superior', regardless of what background or culture you come from. Christian belief is that everyone falls short, and needs salvation. Are some people 'more moral' than others, conduct their lives with more integrity? Yes, that is the case, but in the end, it doesn't matter, you still fall short. And it doesn't matter what culture or society you live in, whether or not your culture is more moral than anothers. It's about each individual and what's in their heart and what they do with their own lives. So you can argue back and forth all day long about cultures who don't believe in God still being 'moral' societies if you want too, but it's meaningless because you seem to lack the basic understanding of what salvation through Christ really means.

No, you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. It had nothing to do with a king who repeatedly starved his people while living in palaces. By comparison our complaints of over high taxes and restrictive rule was a meager one.

I simply pointed out that the fact that the US was supposedly a 'christian' nation didn't stop them from exterminating the indians. If you don't like the term morally superior, it doesn't really change anything.

Now if you have a reasonable response as to why christianity was such a big help with one and not the other situation I will listen.

I didnt make any such claim, you have your posters confused.

 

[Underhill]

I think the problem is that you look at this whole discussion as Christian's insisting they're 'morally superior' to others whenever that's not, or shouldn't be, the case. Christ's salvation is exactly because we are incapable of being 'morally superior', regardless of what background or culture you come from. Christian belief is that everyone falls short, and needs salvation. Are some people 'more moral' than others, conduct their lives with more integrity? Yes, that is the case, but in the end, it doesn't matter, you still fall short. And it doesn't matter what culture or society you live in, whether or not your culture is more moral than anothers. It's about each individual and what's in their heart and what they do with their own lives. So you can argue back and forth all day long about cultures who don't believe in God still being 'moral' societies if you want too, but it's meaningless because you seem to lack the basic understanding of what salvation through Christ really means.

No, you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. It had nothing to do with a king who repeatedly starved his people while living in palaces. By comparison our complaints of over high taxes and restrictive rule was a meager one.

I simply pointed out that the fact that the US was supposedly a 'christian' nation didn't stop them from exterminating the indians. If you don't like the term morally superior, it doesn't really change anything.

Now if you have a reasonable response as to why christianity was such a big help with one and not the other situation I will listen.

I didnt make any such claim, you have your posters confused.

Woops, my mistake.