"Good without G*d" / not a mandate, just food for thought
May 17, 2014 11:44:32 #
I have been told a couple times this week that atheists are immoral, that atheism is equivalent to immorality, and there is a general consensus that religious people are "better" or "better off" than nonbelievers. While the historic torture and ostracism of "heretics" has eased, there is still widespread unwarranted false criticism and downright bigotry expressed regarding nonbelievers which is based on denial or lack of factual information.
I absolutely do not ask or suggest anyone should be required to abandon religious faith if you find your life and future to be enriched by such (and for some of the self identified Christians on OPP and the world at large, religion may be the only force restricting their psychopathic hate and violence... not the majority of course, but everyone knows what or who this refers to...) but I do ask you to consider that if you are to avoid bearing false witness, you should educate yourself about the facts...
Here are a couple resources to suggest further questions.
NOTE: I will NOT respond to personal attacks or responses which ONLY ridicule or denigrate any other persons belief or lifestyle. Religious professions of faith and defense thereof are expected but not necessary. Note that I in no way dispute your right to believe and cling to any idea you choose.
*******************************
http://natskep.com/
People Who Believe You Cant Be Good Without God Who Are they?
September 28, 2013 By NatSkep Staff
Given that a great number of religious people actually believe atheists are immoral, because you need God to guide you to be Good, it was important to find out who these people are and why they think so, despite no real basis in fact and reality to substantiate their assumption. A new study by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that religious conservatism decreases the younger the population gets, and non-religiosity increases the younger the population gets. The study also found that demographics and psychographics defined how people responded to the idea that morality can only be guided by God and that basically you must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values. The people who disagreed with this were young, educated, liberal, not religious and rich. Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist from Pathos, argued that what all these people have in common, is that they are often surrounded by non-religious people, and that hey have more exposure to people who are good without God.
But in a deeper analysis, these people are also people who are more likely to have much more information, scientific or social in nature, to be more open-minded, critical thinkers, more outgoing, with a greater variety of experience, individualists and not that integrated in religious communities.
And those who believed that without God, people cant be good, were the oldest, the less educated, the conservatives, the religious and the poor, people who are less likely to be well-informed about atheism, as well as the idea of a cultural influence in the creation of human morality.
A delicate and touchy subject in the study was the racial group, and/or the social status, as well as the kind of religious affiliation, people who did not believe in Good without God pertained to.
The Hispanics, The Blacks, The Southerners, were more likely to believe that the non-religious lack a sense of morality. In terms of religions, the Hispanic Catholics, the Black Protestants, and the White Evangelicals were more likely to agree with the statement (that it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values). These racial, geographic, and religious groups are in fact the groups that are more likely to live their lives more intertwined with their religious communities, and get their moral grounding, and make their decisions in life based on the church where they belong to. For this very purpose they are less likely to meet non-religious people, or have any kind of positive interaction with them, leaving them oblivious to the fact, that there are no facts, nor data that proves atheists to be immoral whatsoever.
******************************
As atheists know, you can be good without God
By Jerry A. CoyneUpdated 8/1/2011 12:40 PM
One cold Chicago day last February, I watched a Federal Express delivery man carry an armful of boxes to his truck. In the middle of the icy street, he slipped, scattering the boxes and exposing himself to traffic. Without thinking, I ran into the street, stopped cars, hoisted the man up and helped him recover his load. Pondering this afterward, I realized that my tiny act of altruism had been completely instinctive; there was no time for calculation.
We see the instinctive nature of moral acts and judgments in many ways: in the automatic repugnance we feel when someone such as Bernie Madoff bilks the gullible and trusting, in our disapproval of the person who steals food from the office refrigerator, in our admiration for someone who risks his life to save a drowning child. And although some morality comes from reason and persuasion we must learn, for example, to share our toys much of it seems intuitive and inborn.
In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith or no faith at all. This series of weekly columns launched in 2005 seeks to illuminate the national conversation.
Many Americans, including Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian, see instinctive morality as both a gift from God and strong evidence for His existence.
As a biologist, I see belief in God-given morality as American's biggest impediment to accepting the fact of evolution. "Evolution," many argue, "could never have given us feelings of kindness, altruism and morality. For if we were merely evolved beasts, we would act like beasts. Surely our good behavior, and the moral sentiments that promote it, reflect impulses that God instilled in our soul."
So while morality supposedly comes from God, immorality is laid at the door of Charles Darwin, who has been blamed for everything from Nazism to the shootings in Columbine.
Why it couldn't be God
But though both moral and immoral behaviors can be promoted by religions, morality itself either in individual behavior or social codes simply cannot come from the will or commands of a God. This has been recognized by philosophers since the time of Plato.
Religious people can appreciate this by considering Plato's question: Do actions become moral simply because they're dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral? It doesn't take much thought to see that the right answer is the second one. Why? Because if God commanded us to do something obviously immoral, such as kill our children or steal, it wouldn't automatically become OK. Of course, you can argue that God would never sanction something like that because he's a completely moral being, but then you're still using some idea of morality that is independent of God. Either way, it's clear that even for the faithful, God cannot be the source of morality but at best a transmitter of some human-generated morality.
This isn't just philosophical rumination, because God at least the God of Christians and Jews repeatedly sanctioned or ordered immoral acts in the Old Testament. These include slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46), genocide (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18), the slaying of adulterers and homosexuals, and the stoning of non-virgin brides (Leviticus 20:10, 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
Was God being moral when, after some children made fun of the prophet Elisha's bald head, he made bears rip 42 of them to pieces (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Even in the New Testament, Jesus preaches principles of questionable morality, barring heaven to the wealthy (Matthew 19:24), approving the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48), and damning sinners to the torments of hell (Mark 9:47-48). Similar sentiments appear in the Quran.
Now, few of us see genocide or stoning as moral, so Christians and Jews pass over those parts of the Bible with judicious silence. But that's just the point. There is something else some other source of morality that supersedes biblical commands. When religious people pick and choose their morality from Scripture, they clearly do so based on extrareligious notions of what's moral.
Further, the idea that morality is divinely inspired doesn't jibe with the fact that religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time. Slavery was once defended by churches on scriptural grounds; now it's seen as grossly immoral. Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood, also on religious grounds, until church leaders had a convenient "revelation" to the contrary in 1978. Catholics once had a list of books considered immoral to read; they did away with that in 1966. Did these adjustments occur because God changed His mind? No, they came from secular improvements in morality that forced religion to clean up its act.
Where, then?
So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we'd expect if human morality, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors.
And the conditions under which humans evolved are precisely those that would favor the evolution of moral codes: small social groups of big-brained animals. When individuals in a group can get to know, recognize and remember each other, this gives an advantage to genes that make you behave nicely towards others in the group, reward those who cooperate and punish those who cheat. That's how natural selection can build morality. Secular reason adds another layer atop these evolved behaviors, helping us extend our moral sentiments far beyond our small group of friends and relatives even to animals.
Should we be afraid that a morality based on our genes and our brains is somehow inferior to one handed down from above? Not at all. In fact, it's far better, because secular morality has a flexibility and responsiveness to social change that no God-given morality could ever have. Secular morality is what pushes religion to improve its own dogma on issues such as slavery and the treatment of women. Secular morality is what prevents ethically irrelevant matters what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with from being grouped with matters of genuine moral concern, like rape and child abuse. And really, isn't it better to be moral because you've worked out for yourself in conjunction with your group the right thing to do, rather than because you want to propitiate a god or avoid punishment in the hereafter?
Nor should we worry that a society based on secular morality will degenerate into lawlessness. That experiment has already been done in countries such as Sweden and Denmark that are largely filled with non-believers and atheists. I can vouch from experience that secular European nations are full of well-behaved and well-meaning citizens, not criminals and sociopaths running amok. In fact, you can make a good case that those countries, with their liberal social views and extensive aid for the sick, old and disadvantaged, are even more moral than America.
Clearly, you can be good without God.
Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
Posted 7/31/2011 5:14:25 PM | Updated 8/1/2011 12:40 PM
I absolutely do not ask or suggest anyone should be required to abandon religious faith if you find your life and future to be enriched by such (and for some of the self identified Christians on OPP and the world at large, religion may be the only force restricting their psychopathic hate and violence... not the majority of course, but everyone knows what or who this refers to...) but I do ask you to consider that if you are to avoid bearing false witness, you should educate yourself about the facts...
Here are a couple resources to suggest further questions.
NOTE: I will NOT respond to personal attacks or responses which ONLY ridicule or denigrate any other persons belief or lifestyle. Religious professions of faith and defense thereof are expected but not necessary. Note that I in no way dispute your right to believe and cling to any idea you choose.
*******************************
http://natskep.com/
People Who Believe You Cant Be Good Without God Who Are they?
September 28, 2013 By NatSkep Staff
Given that a great number of religious people actually believe atheists are immoral, because you need God to guide you to be Good, it was important to find out who these people are and why they think so, despite no real basis in fact and reality to substantiate their assumption. A new study by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that religious conservatism decreases the younger the population gets, and non-religiosity increases the younger the population gets. The study also found that demographics and psychographics defined how people responded to the idea that morality can only be guided by God and that basically you must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values. The people who disagreed with this were young, educated, liberal, not religious and rich. Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist from Pathos, argued that what all these people have in common, is that they are often surrounded by non-religious people, and that hey have more exposure to people who are good without God.
But in a deeper analysis, these people are also people who are more likely to have much more information, scientific or social in nature, to be more open-minded, critical thinkers, more outgoing, with a greater variety of experience, individualists and not that integrated in religious communities.
And those who believed that without God, people cant be good, were the oldest, the less educated, the conservatives, the religious and the poor, people who are less likely to be well-informed about atheism, as well as the idea of a cultural influence in the creation of human morality.
A delicate and touchy subject in the study was the racial group, and/or the social status, as well as the kind of religious affiliation, people who did not believe in Good without God pertained to.
The Hispanics, The Blacks, The Southerners, were more likely to believe that the non-religious lack a sense of morality. In terms of religions, the Hispanic Catholics, the Black Protestants, and the White Evangelicals were more likely to agree with the statement (that it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values). These racial, geographic, and religious groups are in fact the groups that are more likely to live their lives more intertwined with their religious communities, and get their moral grounding, and make their decisions in life based on the church where they belong to. For this very purpose they are less likely to meet non-religious people, or have any kind of positive interaction with them, leaving them oblivious to the fact, that there are no facts, nor data that proves atheists to be immoral whatsoever.
******************************
As atheists know, you can be good without God
By Jerry A. CoyneUpdated 8/1/2011 12:40 PM
One cold Chicago day last February, I watched a Federal Express delivery man carry an armful of boxes to his truck. In the middle of the icy street, he slipped, scattering the boxes and exposing himself to traffic. Without thinking, I ran into the street, stopped cars, hoisted the man up and helped him recover his load. Pondering this afterward, I realized that my tiny act of altruism had been completely instinctive; there was no time for calculation.
We see the instinctive nature of moral acts and judgments in many ways: in the automatic repugnance we feel when someone such as Bernie Madoff bilks the gullible and trusting, in our disapproval of the person who steals food from the office refrigerator, in our admiration for someone who risks his life to save a drowning child. And although some morality comes from reason and persuasion we must learn, for example, to share our toys much of it seems intuitive and inborn.
In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith or no faith at all. This series of weekly columns launched in 2005 seeks to illuminate the national conversation.
Many Americans, including Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian, see instinctive morality as both a gift from God and strong evidence for His existence.
As a biologist, I see belief in God-given morality as American's biggest impediment to accepting the fact of evolution. "Evolution," many argue, "could never have given us feelings of kindness, altruism and morality. For if we were merely evolved beasts, we would act like beasts. Surely our good behavior, and the moral sentiments that promote it, reflect impulses that God instilled in our soul."
So while morality supposedly comes from God, immorality is laid at the door of Charles Darwin, who has been blamed for everything from Nazism to the shootings in Columbine.
Why it couldn't be God
But though both moral and immoral behaviors can be promoted by religions, morality itself either in individual behavior or social codes simply cannot come from the will or commands of a God. This has been recognized by philosophers since the time of Plato.
Religious people can appreciate this by considering Plato's question: Do actions become moral simply because they're dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral? It doesn't take much thought to see that the right answer is the second one. Why? Because if God commanded us to do something obviously immoral, such as kill our children or steal, it wouldn't automatically become OK. Of course, you can argue that God would never sanction something like that because he's a completely moral being, but then you're still using some idea of morality that is independent of God. Either way, it's clear that even for the faithful, God cannot be the source of morality but at best a transmitter of some human-generated morality.
This isn't just philosophical rumination, because God at least the God of Christians and Jews repeatedly sanctioned or ordered immoral acts in the Old Testament. These include slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46), genocide (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18), the slaying of adulterers and homosexuals, and the stoning of non-virgin brides (Leviticus 20:10, 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
Was God being moral when, after some children made fun of the prophet Elisha's bald head, he made bears rip 42 of them to pieces (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Even in the New Testament, Jesus preaches principles of questionable morality, barring heaven to the wealthy (Matthew 19:24), approving the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48), and damning sinners to the torments of hell (Mark 9:47-48). Similar sentiments appear in the Quran.
Now, few of us see genocide or stoning as moral, so Christians and Jews pass over those parts of the Bible with judicious silence. But that's just the point. There is something else some other source of morality that supersedes biblical commands. When religious people pick and choose their morality from Scripture, they clearly do so based on extrareligious notions of what's moral.
Further, the idea that morality is divinely inspired doesn't jibe with the fact that religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time. Slavery was once defended by churches on scriptural grounds; now it's seen as grossly immoral. Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood, also on religious grounds, until church leaders had a convenient "revelation" to the contrary in 1978. Catholics once had a list of books considered immoral to read; they did away with that in 1966. Did these adjustments occur because God changed His mind? No, they came from secular improvements in morality that forced religion to clean up its act.
Where, then?
So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we'd expect if human morality, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors.
And the conditions under which humans evolved are precisely those that would favor the evolution of moral codes: small social groups of big-brained animals. When individuals in a group can get to know, recognize and remember each other, this gives an advantage to genes that make you behave nicely towards others in the group, reward those who cooperate and punish those who cheat. That's how natural selection can build morality. Secular reason adds another layer atop these evolved behaviors, helping us extend our moral sentiments far beyond our small group of friends and relatives even to animals.
Should we be afraid that a morality based on our genes and our brains is somehow inferior to one handed down from above? Not at all. In fact, it's far better, because secular morality has a flexibility and responsiveness to social change that no God-given morality could ever have. Secular morality is what pushes religion to improve its own dogma on issues such as slavery and the treatment of women. Secular morality is what prevents ethically irrelevant matters what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with from being grouped with matters of genuine moral concern, like rape and child abuse. And really, isn't it better to be moral because you've worked out for yourself in conjunction with your group the right thing to do, rather than because you want to propitiate a god or avoid punishment in the hereafter?
Nor should we worry that a society based on secular morality will degenerate into lawlessness. That experiment has already been done in countries such as Sweden and Denmark that are largely filled with non-believers and atheists. I can vouch from experience that secular European nations are full of well-behaved and well-meaning citizens, not criminals and sociopaths running amok. In fact, you can make a good case that those countries, with their liberal social views and extensive aid for the sick, old and disadvantaged, are even more moral than America.
Clearly, you can be good without God.
Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
Posted 7/31/2011 5:14:25 PM | Updated 8/1/2011 12:40 PM
May 17, 2014 11:54:00 #
To reply to me regarding this lengthy post without reposting it a ridiculous number of times for no reason, use quote reply to this shorter post. Of course if you really want to repost any or all of the above to clarify what you are responding to, you may, of course. Just making this option available as well.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
May 17, 2014 11:56:09 #
Singularity wrote:
I have been told a couple times this week that ath... (show quote)
What I don't get is how people are so threatened by people who don't look, act, or believe like themselves.
I happen to believe in God. My wife is an agnostic. My oldest daughter is an atheist. I'm not sure what my youngest daughter believes. I can tell you this. None of us have ever initiated an attack against another human being. All of us, if we encounter hungry people, will open our wallets. None of us mock or belittle anyone due to their race, ethnicity, or gender preferences.
None of us care about the less fortunate because we think it guarantees us a place in heaven. We just do it because it is the right thing to do.
May 17, 2014 13:12:41 #
Singularity wrote:
To reply to me regarding this lengthy post without reposting it a ridiculous number of times for no reason, use quote reply to this shorter post. Of course if you really want to repost any or all of the above to clarify what you are responding to, you may, of course. Just making this option available as well.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
I agree with your post in its entirety, Singularity. I am an atheist, and I have known lots of atheists in my lifetime. Bad people come in both the believer and nonbeliever varieties. The same is true for good people. I think most people would agree with those statements. And, if true, that means that goodness precedes belief in a deity. Good people are good because it has been bred into them by ancestors that pre-date organized religion by many thousands of years. Human babies, as well as the young of many other species, exhibit traits of fairness, goodness and love without ever having been exposed to religious beliefs.
Like you, I never try to convince believers that they should not believe. If believing in a deity brings them comfort and provides order to their lives, good for them! My only problem with religion is when its followers try to dominate others with their beliefs as if believing in a deity somehow makes them superior or more moral and ethical. They are neither. I, especially, do not try to influence the beliefs of older people. If they have lived their whole lives drawing comfort from the belief that they will live for eternity after their bodies die, I do not want to deny them that comfort. Likewise, I prefer that they allow me the freedom to want nothing more when I die than to be satisfied with the life I have lived, surrounded by people who love me and will have fond memories of me after I am gone. I just hope that when I go, I know it is happening so I can say goodbye to myself!
May 17, 2014 14:32:58 #
Singularity wrote:
To reply to me regarding this lengthy post without reposting it a ridiculous number of times for no reason, use quote reply to this shorter post. Of course if you really want to repost any or all of the above to clarify what you are responding to, you may, of course. Just making this option available as well.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Every single person on this earth (excepting infants) has committed sins to some degree. In a sense we are all immoral. From my Christian standpoint, I believe that mine are forgiven. Agnostics and atheists probably don't care - it isn't relative to their beliefs. That does not make me better - but it does give me an inner peace - for myself.
If you look at some of the best examples of Christianity... the Billy Grahams and Mother Theresa ... they would tell you (when they were alive anyway) that as much as they try to follow in Christ's footsteps, they too fail and need forgiveness.
For all their faults, at least Christians don't feel all non-believers should be put to death - as Islam teaches.
That being said, advice I received from my parents (devout Christians) was to be very careful when doing business with fellow Christians... too many times they use the religious angle to cover up their transgressions. Some of their worst business experiences were with fellow church members.
May 17, 2014 14:34:50 #
Singularity wrote:
To reply to me regarding this lengthy post without reposting it a ridiculous number of times for no reason, use quote reply to this shorter post. Of course if you really want to repost any or all of the above to clarify what you are responding to, you may, of course. Just making this option available as well.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Singularity: Thank you for posting. I enjoyed a fresh perspective, and you never cease to amaze me with your posts. As I have stated, I try to live a moral and spiritual life, but I do NOT follow the dogma of any religion, some of the reasons stated in your posts. I do not have any feelings one way or another for those who are religious (in fact if it TRULY works for them, good on them). However I do have a problem when their beliefs are forced onto me by any means. I have heard it said, and have come to believe that "Religion is for those who are afraid of Hell, and Spirituality is for those who have been there".
I have asked the question of the seemingly religious (and don't get me wrong, there are a very few that "walk the walk") on this forum why, from the outside looking in, why they appear to be so full of fear? Afraid of those who are different from them or believe differently than them? Fear of being persecuted. Fearful that someone is going to "take away" their beliefs? And yes, fear that someone is going to take away their money. on and on. Is it not supposed to be that one of faith believes God will take care of them no matter what? Thus far, I have been called names or ignored, but have not received an answer.
I truly believe that actions speak louder than words. It seems (no I KNOW) I recall you were treated extremely disrespectfully by some who claim to be a faithful, religious people. From reading you posts, I believe you to be a good hearted moral person. I would take your morals over some of the "religious" people any day! And it was not singly their disrespect for you, but their behavior and attitudes everyday on every post. As Tyster stated in the post previous to mine, I too have had some very unpleasant business dealings with "Christians", and today actually avoid business with them if I can. Do they rely on being "forgiven of their sins" as justification for improper behavior? One can only speculate. Honestly, I do believe my dogs have better morals than some people, and they do that without religion.
May 17, 2014 14:37:48 #
Singularity wrote:
To reply to me regarding this lengthy post without reposting it a ridiculous number of times for no reason, use quote reply to this shorter post. Of course if you really want to repost any or all of the above to clarify what you are responding to, you may, of course. Just making this option available as well.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
Thank you in advance for any thoughtful respectful reponses intended to increase knowledge and harmony among good hearted people.
The thing that frightens me is that people who believe that non believers are immoral must in some way have a built in disposition to do evil or wrong and the only thing stopping them is a perceived threat of eternal damnation. Scary stuff.
May 17, 2014 14:38:05 #
Btfkr wrote:
Singularity: Thank you for posting. I enjoyed a ... (show quote)
What! Continue in sin that grace may abound? G*d forbid! - Paul the Apostle of JC, formerly Saul of Tarsus.
May 17, 2014 15:44:56 #
Tyster wrote:
..
..
..
..
For all their faults, at least Christians don't feel all non-believers should be put to death - as Islam teaches.
..
..
..
For all their faults, at least Christians don't feel all non-believers should be put to death - as Islam teaches.
Perhaps you should check out the murderous prescription two separate Christian's posts suggest, and not one criticizes for dealing with STD's on one of today's threads!?!?
May 17, 2014 15:56:24 #
Singularity wrote:
What! Continue in sin that grace may abound? G*d forbid! - Paul the Apostle of JC, formerly Saul of Tarsus.
:P :P
May 17, 2014 15:58:09 #
Singularity wrote:
Perhaps you should check out the murderous prescription two separate Christian's posts suggest, and not one criticizes for dealing with STD's on one of today's threads!?!?
I missed those, but get the drift! Yup. Heard that kind of talk many times before!
May 17, 2014 16:40:40 #
Singularity wrote:
Perhaps you should check out the murderous prescription two separate Christian's posts suggest, and not one criticizes for dealing with STD's on one of today's threads!?!?
You are referring to individuals, not the tenets of the religion.
May 17, 2014 17:16:38 #
Tyster wrote:
You are referring to individuals, not the tenets of the religion.
Yes.
Brief summary: Increased incidence of syphilis among homosexual men, what to do?
Christians -- gag, righteous disgust, Quarantine them, 3S solution(shoot, shovel, shut up) in other words, MURDER!!!!! G*d will judge, sniff!
Singularity -- shot of penicillin, pack of condoms and brochure about STD's
Amazed disbelief that I am then taking abuse for using one vulgar word numerous times to make a point, while the 2 individuals advocating murder were not addressed by anyone else, as they blithely passed up numerous opportunities to decry murder as a treatment for syphilis for sodomites! I guess they want to save the penicillin for the likes of.... now I can't choose which ultra conservative heterosexual Christian public figure tragically seduced by some sodomite but now restored to the bosom of the lord and reborn again person's name to put here.
Later edit: To be honest, I did also suggest that conservative Christians have nothing to worry about here as long as they keep their panties on or their dick in its holster unless in a G*d approved/protected space.
May 17, 2014 17:22:36 #
Singularity wrote:
Yes. br Brief summary: Increased incidence of sy... (show quote)
I have only read a few of your posts in this thread and have come to a quick study about you: one very witty and intelligent person. New York?
May 17, 2014 17:29:32 #
numenian wrote:
I have only read a few of your posts in this thread and have come to a quick study about you: one very witty and intelligent person. New York?
I have often wished! I was reared in the backwoods of Tennessee. Schooled in Southern Illinois and employed professionally in Nashville, TN.
Essentially always a stranger in a stranger land....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.