Donate To Discover The Truth
How many times have you heard something along lines of, “When Muslims do something horrific, how come other Muslims don’t speak out against it”, or the saying, why aren’t ‘moderate’ Muslims denouncing or speaking against their own extremists in their own ranks?
That is a good question. Muslims have been condemning any killing. Many Imams, in America, Canada and around the World have denounced and condemned the Orlando shooting.
Here is the question, how come Christian fanatical Pastors don’t get condemned for their extremism? Here is a pastor, who according WashingtonPost.com refuses to mourn Orlando victims, and stated, “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die”:
Following the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, a preacher stood at his pulpit Sunday night in Northern California and delivered an impassioned sermon praising the brutal massacre at a gay nightclub in Florida.
Pastor Roger Jimenez from Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento told his congregation that Christians “shouldn’t be mourning the death of 50 sodomites.”
“People say, like: ‘Well, aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died?’ ” Jimenez said, referencing the initial death toll in Orlando, which authorities later clarified included 49 victims plus the gunman. “Here’s the problem with that. It’s like the equivalent of asking me — what if you asked me: ’Hey, are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?’
“Um, no, I think that’s great. I think that helps society. You know, I think Orlando, Fla., is a little safer tonight.”
He added: “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job!”
Here is your chance Evangelical Christians, condemn this.
Adding, some Media outlets have claimed that the Orlando incident was the deadliest in U.S. history, this is incorrect. Please see the following article: “U.S.’s Deadliest Mass Shootings Against African Americans“.
Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.
Related Article:
(1) “Texas GOP Candidate Cites ‘Biblical Law’ on Homosexuals and Vows to ‘Gladly Execute a Convicted Sodomite’” https://www.alternet.org/lgbtq/texas-gop-candidate-cites-biblical-law-homosexuals-and-vows-gladly-execute-convicted-sodomite
Pastor Roger Jimenez, Screen grab Youtube, Verity Baptist Church
Discover The Truth 
I am an atheist.
The problem is not the liberal Christians, they already pick and choose from the bible like children at a toy store. They are expected to chuck the meat and emphasize only the ice cream.
The problem is also not the fundamentalists, their refusal to mourn the deaths of gays is no less biblical than God’s own commandment that gay men suffer the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13). What, are they going to ‘mourn’ that God’s will was done on earth as it is in heaven? What fool does that?
The problem is the modern neo-fundamentalist who mistakenly thinks one can be godly to sympathize with families who lost a gay relative to murder, while also believing God wants to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). They cannot deny that God takes credit for the Orlando nightclub massacre (Deuteronomy 32:39).
I suggest that the neo-fundamentalist quit worrying about proving that Mormons and atheists are wrong, and start conforming themselves to things in the bible that they likely think are nothing but the ravings of a sadistic lunatic. Deuteronomy 28:15 ff. Notice how the disobedience to God drives Him to a raging insanity, so opposite to the caring attitude of neo-fundies toward gays. Pay close attention to the gleeful sadism in v. 63, before you tell me about how your unchanging God changed his attitude since the days of Moses.
And don’t forget that verse which says rape was also part of what God wished to happen to any Israelite women who disobey his laws. Deuteronomy 28:15, 30.
Those idiots who love the sinner but hate the sin, are separating the inseparable. God himself is the ultimate example to follow, and God’s hatred is not upon the sin only, but on the person themselves. Psalm 5:5, 11:5. Fundies conveniently forget that if those Psalms came from David, then David surely had God’s same attitude as well, in which case the neo-fundamentalist cannot argue that as humans we cannot always take God’s exact attitude toward sin.
Deuteronomy 7:16, God forbids his people to pity gross sinners who suffer death.
Jesus himself came not to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34), god kills people within the church solely for lying about how much they can afford to tithe (Acts 5), and Jesus threatens death upon those who defy his standards (Revelation 2:23).
The neo-fundamentalist simply does not appreciate what an awesome god they really serve. So maybe their blindness, being inexcusable, argues that they aren’t true believers after all, since how could a true believer be so immune to the teaching of the Holy Spirit for so long?
I read that confused reply from the atheist who failed to recognize that God does not want to loose what, but that all should repent. Second and most importantly, under atheism, all we can really say is gives a XXX what happened to anyone. As gays they are en evolutionary dead end anyway. Most importantly who cares. That is atheism for you, it has nothing to offer in a time of tragedy except self/willfull deception.
Marvin apparently thinks he he can skate by the horrific Old Testament by simply drawing attention to the more politically correct New Testament perspective. I disagree.
Unless you claim to reject the Old Testament, you are never going to reconcile God’s wrathful requirement of the death penalty on gays (Lev. 20:13) with the modern liberal Christian expression of sorrow and grief over the death of gay men.
And before you quote Ezekiel 33:11 to argue God shares your liberal “give them a a chance” viewpoint, don’t forget the bible bible verses where God ‘rejoices’ to kill disobedient people just as much as he rejoices to prosper those who obey him. Deuteronomy 28:63.
Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68, then tell me you think that is compatible with your version of Christianity.
If God wants those gays dead, then why are you mourning for them? What fool Christian mourns over seeing God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven?
I think you simply do not appreciate what it really meant, back in biblical days, to know the “fear of the Lord”. It was far more serious than getting a flat tire on the way to work.
In the OT, God’s Holiness was a very fearful thing, he was no ‘buddy’
12 “You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. (Exod. 19:12 NAU)
Do you serve a god who would strike a person dead for touching a forbidden mountain, yes or no?
You call the murder of gays a tragedy, I do not. Men who genuinely feel effeminate are no less afflicted with a birth defect than the baby with eyes growing out of its toes.
Jesus expressly stated that his purpose was to bring a sword, which, in case you forgot, was considered in the first century the weapon of death just like guns are today. Matthew 10:34. Your refusal to take that seriously and instead live by modern civilized standards tells me you aren’t a Christian, you are just a modern unbeliever who has chosen to take the good from the bible and chuck the rest. Feel free, but don’t claim consistency in your faith.
For the love of God, stop being sorry when you witness the will of God being done on earth, you idiot!
You write that Marvin thinks he can skate by the OT and instead focus on the more politically correct New.
You ought to know more about the Bibe you critique. Does not Jesus’ death do away with the Old Testament laws, in so far as they have been abrogated. That is how Theologians have understood Christian theology for over 2000 years.
So when you cherry pick Scriptures you need to look carefully at the context.
Second, for all you verbosity, the greatest atheist thinkers have understood that ‘it’ offers no solace and is at base pitiless. The death of gays is meaningless under atheism, I feel you are not embracing that reality. Instead you want to perceive the splinter in your brother’s eye, while carrying a log in your own. Further, according to atheism, gays are a waste anyway, for they can add nothing to the gene pool.
Christianity offers hope-atheism offers as Nietzsche stated nihilism, or as Daniel Dennett writes a universal acid. They both writes that al value and meaning under true atheism, is illusory.
First, Paul certainly taught the abrogation of the law with the death of Jesus, but a) Jesus’ gospel was legalistic (Matthew 5:20, the ‘righteousness’, interpreted in the immediate context, is one’s personal following of the Law, v. 19; the death of Jesus or imputed righteousness are nowhere near the immediate context), and b) according to the resurrected Jesus, future gentile followers are to obey ‘all’ that he previously taught the apostles. The legalism in Matthew 5:20 was one such previous teaching. For unknown reasons, you just cannot imagine that apostle Paul might have got something wrong, but as a spiritually dead atheist, my foolish and worthless opinion is you have it exactly backwards. You test Paul’s doctrines with what Jesus said. You do not test what Jesus said with Paul’s doctrines. That’s because the proper Christian view says Jesus is the ultimate authority on the gospel, nobody else.
Second, it doesn’t matter if your argument is correct. As long as you believe the Old Testament is the inspired word of God, then you are forced to believe that God’s alleged goodness can be reconciled with the lunatic ramblings in Deuteronomy 28:15-68, where God, knowing how horribly immoral the pagans were (bestiality, rape, child molestation, idolatry, etc), nevertheless empowers them to win wars against Israel and take Hebrew children captive (v. 32, 41), who were then likely subjected to aforesaid pagan atrocities, one of which being rape of married Hebrew women (v. 40). I can buy that maybe God is good and has a higher purpose in ‘allowing’ evil. What I cannot buy is the idea that it can ever be ‘good’ for somebody to arrange and facilitate child-molesting idolaters and rapists to kidnap your children. If that kind of act can be ‘good’, then I insist language is utterly irrelevant to your beliefs.
You do not have the option of pretending lunacy isn’t lunacy merely because you know the end of the story and it sounds better than the beginning. Deuteronomy 28:15-68 exists, and you think it is the word of God. Deal with it, or admit you lost this debate. Or better, stop believing that passage is inspired by god.
Third, atheism does not make a statement the value of life. It is mere denial of god. If you think atheism is something more merely because denial of god logically leads to nihilism, keep reading.
Fourth, little kids are the ultimate proof that we can find purpose in life without ever having one single thought about God. They run and play and find plenty of purpose in life, and most of them do it without thinking about god. It is also clear that higher order mammals such as dogs and cats find purpose and happiness in life, especially if they are in a loving home. Now what? Did you suddenly discover that cats and dogs believe in god? Or must you admit purpose in life doesn’t require belief in god?
Fifth, maybe I’m just too intellectual for you. I care less about offering ‘hope’, and care more about what is actually real.
If as a society we cared more about what’s real and what actually works, more than we care about ‘hope’, it is highly unlikely our country would be so saturated with freaks and misfits of nature, like homosexual men. It was no accident that until very recently, American law criminalized homosexual sex, and the earliest American laws called for the death penalty thereto. I do not support killing gays, but like the murders that go on in other sick countries, I’m also not going to grieve over it.
I can be succinct I don’t need to be so verbose.
Jesus said that he has come to do away with the law, I’m glad you recognized that.
Second, the way people acted in the Old Testament was in respect to the permissive will of God.
He allowed people to commit acts consistent with their natures’ until the most profitable time to send the one who would usher in a new age-that was Jesus. So what people did was what they wanted to do not what God forced them to do, on this point according to most theologians you are wrong.
Further, as has been pointed out by Alvin Plantinga, God may have perfectly good reasons for allowing evil.
Third and the one I love is this, you write,” atheism does not make a statement the value of life. It is mere denial of god.”
Well it should be obvious to you that if atheism doesn’t make statements about the value of life, then why in heavens name are you arguing that God is immoral, since he didn’t value life in the Old Testament.
“Fifth, maybe I’m just too intellectual for you. I care less about offering ‘hope’, and care more about what is actually real.”
You are right you can offer no hope, but that doesn’t mean that no hope exists. If you think that yours is an argument in favour of truth, you are naive, yours is a worldview among many, and one that doesn’t work. For example, it offers no hope, and people cannot live hopelessly.
You write:”You call the murder of gays a tragedy, I do not. Men who genuinely feel effeminate are no less afflicted with a birth defect than the baby with eyes growing out of its toes.”
Yes I call it a tragedy because I can. You call them defective because its consistent with your belief. And yes because you cant say anything meaningful in respect to rightness, wrongness or solace.
Barry, you make credible points. It is time for change. There are countless examples where belief in God assists many. I would offer that one from infancy is inherently selfish, and that is only through teaching and good example that one rises above simple self interest. God’s word and his family, the church, has provided the basis for children to grow in character, to love and care for others. I believe that world is, in general, very positively affected by believers in God. I see Christians, and I believe Muslims, do much good in this world, and I wonder how much a living hell this place would be without this direction in many lives. As children grow, they respect that parental teaching to look beyond themselves is advanced not merely by their parent’s desire, but by a higher power. That all said, it is time to remove scriptures that instruct believers to kill others for their non-belief, and/or their sins. I understand the difficulty in changing the scriptures, however, this is the logical path, as it is basis upon which the ‘radicals’ proceed with their heinous acts. The scriptures were collected, inclusion/exclusion decisions made at a certain time and circumstance, and now is the time for us to advance. It is clear that political leaders response to these acts, e.g. greater gun control, eased surveillance restrictions, immigration due-diligence, etc. that they are merely appeasing the masses for their own cause. The ones who can get at the root of this problem are religious leaders, as they have the core cause in their hands. I call for them to step forward and show a God of love.
How about an authentic scripture that doesn’t instruct believers to kill others for their non-belief and personal sins? One that brings attention to meddling with God’s words in prior revelation and so challenges this behaviour with an immutable sealed communication?
I couldn’t agree more that we are born selfish and only learn from others what we now call civility. I also agree Christianity does much good. I’m not militantly atheist. If religion is the only thing keeping junior on the straight and narrow, more power to him. I think it would be great if conservative Christians took your view, namely, that the Bible should be more like a founding document, subject to change. Nobody says the Constitution is inspired, but it sure seems to be sufficient for getting the country up and running. The bible doesn’t need to be perfect to rationally justify those who choose to obey it. So removing the hateful portions of the bible cannot be any worse than our founding fathers removing certain sections from the earlier drafts before they came up with the final constitution. We always try to take the good from some great past person and reject the bad, so I don’t see the problem in recognizing that Jesus had some good ideas, and focusing solely on those.
I personally believe that America, like all nations, will fall if for no other reason than the inevitable collapse due to complexity. Google Joseph Tainter. Nations can become only so complex before their solutions begin to accelerate the degrading process. We cannot just keep becoming more happy and more diverse and more jobs and more kids and more people and more laws and more consumerism and more capitalism. Exactly what would have been “best” to found this country in a way that would have guarded against the stupid crap in it today, is nearly impossible to say, but I think there can be no doubting that homosexual men are mentally ill. Homosexuality only got kicked from the DSM because of great pressure and outlandish behavior of homosexuals and their lobbying. It was by no means a scientifically based decision. I think the fact that they are genuine freaks needs to be kept separate from the question of what to do with them.
“You call them defective because its consistent with your belief. And yes because you cant say anything meaningful in respect to rightness, wrongness or solace.”
————I accuse homosexuals of having birth defects for the same reason I would say the same of a person who cannot obtain sexual satisfaction except through disgusting tabooed methods. The question of whether homosexuality is morally acceptable or not needs to be kept separate from the scientific facts. Anal sex is a filthy practice against nature, whether a nation of fools decides to legalize the behavior or not. And I think a bit less solace might do us some good. You and I will never see eye to eye as long as you continue foolishly and baselessly believing that people have inherent worth. They don’t. Worth is a subjective thing. Listen to people haggling at a garage sale over the price of a used dvd player, and you’ll know what I mean. We are entirely free change what’s subjective and see if the new thing makes for a brighter future.
You write “I accuse homosexuals of having birth defects”. That was the line taken by the Nazis, and I’m sure you understand why and where that led.
Now gay sex is wrong according to you because it is a filthy dangerous practice. Thus a person in engaged in such an activity is endangering themselves and others, how is that not a moral issue please explain?
People have inherent worth, and the person who cant see that is as atheist philosopher, Kai Neilson states, just as wrong as the person who thinks 2 plus 2 + 5.
First, you do not fault a belief or form of politics by showing where it “leads”, otherwise, the fact that every nation in history has fallen at one time or other, proves that their politics or ideologies were corrupt. Which would mean that all possible political ideologies are corrupt.
Second, that homosexuality is a birth defect hardly needs arguing, but it is a scientific argument that nature did not intend anal sex anymore than it intended that you detect light with your elbows.
Third, I don’t know what you mean when you ask me to explain how gay sex is ‘not’ a moral issue. It surely is, I’ve argued nothing else.
Fourth, you offer no evidence that people have inherent worth, so fallacy of argument by assertion. Inherent worth is a value that by its nature does not go away with circumstance. If people have inherent worth, then the convicted pedophile has just as much worth as a the woman who put herself through college, raised a family, and is now a community leader. When you hear about a community leader being gunned down, you grieve. When you hear about a convicted pedophile being gunned down, somehow, the tears just can’t quite get flowing, amen? You forget that we live in a meritocracy. We are always denying benefits to people who don’t manifest objective evidence of their worth. If Johnny drops out of high school, he will never get a good job. If the welfare mother doesn’t get her act together within 5 years, the welfare runs out and she goes homeless. Murder of a cop carries more punishment than murder of a private citizen. We clearly do not treat people as if they all have equal inherent worth.
Fifth, you foolishly and blindly presume that morality cannot be justified in the absence of God. Well God never said what time kids had to go to bed on a school night, do you think that gives the kids rational justification to disobey the bedtime enforced in their respective homes? Of course not, so apparently, the fact that a value judgment is subjective and relative, doesn’t argue that it makes sense to disagree with it. That being the case, yes, my low view of homosexuals stems from my subjective value judgments, but that hardly means that in an atheist universe all opinions are equally worthy of serious consideration. In a godless universe, we can tell that the parent who requires their kids to go to bed 7 hours before school the next day is trying to make sure the kids are capable of giving full attention when they arrive at school. We can also see in a godless universe that the parent who doesn’t care if the child disobeys the same bedtime and ends up sleeping in class as a result, has done worse for the child. Homosexuality is not immoral merely because somebody says so, but because it can be demonstrated to involve a practice that all doctors find to be unhealthy, anal sex.
First one is well within their rights to highlight social Darwinism, which is exactly what you espoused.
Second, anal sex is not natural, but the injunction not to do it, is moral pronouncement, and that’s what you yourself said an atheist can’t do a moral pronouncement that is grounded.
Third, see two.Please explain?
The old book of fallacies defence. Ok here’s an argument.
It is always wrong to torture babies for fun. That is because all people have intrinsic moral worth.
Notice you have offered no argument that people do not have intrinsic worth-and what’s further you will not be able to offer any argument or evidence.
Fifth, you very naively wrote morality is subjective and relative. Well what on earth are you complaining about the behaviour of Muslims, and the beliefs of Christians for.
All those arguments aside, back to the first point.
Atheism can offer no solice, and is indifferent to suffering. At least Christians can offer hope and mourn with those who mourn.
First, I wasn’t arguing whether you have a right to highlight social Darwinism or whatever. I was arguing that your logic of highlighting where a certain belief or form of politics “leads” requires that every society that “led to” disappearance must have had bankrupt morals or politics. A society’s morals or politics can be good even if they fall or disappear.
Second, we already engage in mild forms of social Darwinism, such as denying military and employment to people who drop out of high school, and forcing unwed welfare mothers into homeless when the welfare gets cut off after 5 years. We obviously believe certain people have a limit to their worth. And like the history of sex in movies from the 1940’s to today, we can expect that as time goes on, we will become more animalistic about it. Think about it: allowing societal rejects and mentally disabled people to reproduce is rather stupid, wouldn’t you say? Isn’t the stability of our future as a nation more important than allowing nature’s freaks and leeches to become more numerous? If we take away a normal man’s constitutional rights and put him in jail for stealing, I see nothing wrong with following that logic and also making determinations that people who have the least probability of contributing their fair share be prohibited from reproducing. “Three generations of imbeciles is enough”. Our welfare system wasn’t intended to be exploited the way it currently is. It is designed to help working people get through hard times or lack of work. I agree with the biblical ethic “he that would not work, neither should he eat”, as true for all able-bodied persons who can work but simply refuse to for no other reason than freely chosen laziness. 2nd Thess. 3:10
Third, you still aren’t getting the point about atheism and morality. I happily confess that atheism preempts the possibility of absolute morals. But that doesn’t do anything to show that the subjective opinion that requires putting kids to bed at least 7 hours before school is equal to subjective opinion that says we can ignore bedtimes and simply let kids stay up until 3 a.m. before school. The former ensures the kids will be as alert as they can be at school the next day, something nobody finds fault with, while the latter does worse, with kids falling asleep in class. The fact that both are subjective does not mean the atheist is unable to demonstrate that one makes more sense than the other.
Stop wasting your brain cells mindlessly repeating to yourself that all morality is equal in every way under atheism. I just proved some non-absolute moral opinions make more sense than others. You don’t make half the moral decisions you do merely because God has something to say about it. God has absolutely nothing to say about how you should dress, whether you should have a gun, how much soda pop is acceptable, etc, etc., so apparently, your ability to make moral decisions on these things arises from something other than god.
And if you serve the god of the bible, then you cannot make any moral statements on the basis of divine authority. You cannot say abortion, or killing children, or letting people starve to death, or helping child-molesters kidnap children is absolutely immoral, because your bible god does all those things. And when you say God is allowed to them but we aren’t, that simply proves that morality is not absolute.
Fourth, I don’t see your point in saying we shouldn’t torture babies for fun; a) why are you asking me? If I agree with you on that point, I’m just a human being, my agreement with you does not show that moral to be absolute, because I am not the standard for absolute morality.
b) I do not refrain from torturing babies due to a belief that babies have intrinsic worth. I refrain because, given my genetics and the way I was raised, I do not find torturing helpless life forms to be fun or productive in the least. If I had been born with different genetics and different childhood environment, I might think differently and perhaps be a monster. If you seriously thought babies have inherent worth, you would regard abortion as murder and subsequently attempt to enact laws criminalizing the procedure. You’ve done no such thing, so your alleged belief is not something you seriously carry out into practical life. Its just a position you take in a debate. You will know a tree by its fruits.
Fifth, I don’t need to prove people have no intrinsic worth. There was never any evidence that they did, so that I would have some position to negate in the first place. I also don’t go around proving that space aliens DON’T live on the dark side of the moon. And “inherent worth” is an oxymoron, because “inherent” in that context refers to reasons outside human judgment, but “worth” is necessarily something tied to human subjective judgment. The value of human beings differs in the opinion of various people, for the same reason people cannot decide whether a used dvd player at a garage sale is worth more or less than $10. What something is “worth” can never be decided in absolute terms, not even the value of money. And its pretty clear that when we form bonds with other people, we react more emotionally when they suffer than when we hear about total strangers enduring the same fate. We will run more hastily to the rescue of loved ones before we run to rescue those who don’t know, such as giving a ride to our friends, but denying same to total strangers. Clearly, we assign different worth to different human beings, for reasons having nothing to do with ‘god’.
Sixth, my belief that morality is subjective, does not automatically require that all morals to be equally compelling or good for society. The dad who tells his kid “you shouldn’t ride your tricycle on the freeway” obviously has a better moral than the dad who allows his child to ride a tricycle on the freeway. God’s existence or non-existence has nothing to do with why one of those moral statements is better that the other . Hence, plenty of subjective morals can be demonstrated to be better than others even within a totally godless universe.
Seventh, solace is often very personal and emotional. I’ve successfully offered solace to plenty of people in my personal life, and a bond was maintained because of shared emotion having nothing to do with god. When I go to a funeral of a friend and extend my condolences to the surviving family members, that is a rational legitimate thing, no fool says only a theist has logical or rational justification to manifest sorrow and sharing in the plight of another person.
Eighth, being grieved at the sight of suffering is a very natural reaction of a typical social person, which has nothing to do with their belief in God. People naturally react with greater horror when an adult hurts a child, than when an adult hurts another adult, because children are the future and are more helpless and that type of harm has greater potential to harm society’s interests overall. The basis for social compassion obviously does not require belief in god. In fact, some Christians have told me that if I am nice to others and follow the golden rule, that doesn’t count since I only do so for selfish reasons. In other words, those Christians were acknowledging that being nice to others can be consistent with atheism. Therefore, atheism is consistent with being nice.
Ninth, I make a decision on whether to keep explaining things to you. I will not explain further than I wish since I think I’m getting through to you, and your claimed failure to understand me, is false. You understand perfectly well, you just don’t like the idea that your god is a lot less necessary to life than you previously thought. Conversion from religion takes time.
Tenth, it is not just Americans who are divided on birth and gun control, but CHRISTIANS. Catholics say using birth control in marriage disrupts the natural order just as much as homosexuality, but Protestants say birth control in marriage is not against God’s will. Some Christians think “turn the other cheek” applies to all situations, other Christians are sure it does not apply to defending loved ones from harm, nor does it apply to times of war. You are incorrect, the morality issues I named were those that specifically CHRISTIANS disagree on, not just “Americans”.
Thanks for the reply, I will keep it succinct:
You need to check your first point, all I said is that you shared views with Nazis-and their brand of social Darwinism. That’s true.
Second, Social Darwinism as you lay it out is an American phenomenon, and as I have mentioned before I am not American, nor do I live in America. It would help if you could think beyond your borders, think of universal principles.
I definitely agree with 2nd Thess. 3:10.
I get your point that some things are worse than others, I just don’t see the relevance to this discussion. Sure you can make moral pronouncements, but that is going beyond your system as it were. Notice I never said atheists can’t judge between competing instances or morality, that has been entirely your construction in this conversation.
My point is simple you think that certain behaviour should be prohibited, because its “wrong” and that is a moral choice.
If you are trying to tell me you make decisions aside from their moral worth, i.e how an individual ought to behave please explain.
Stop wasting your brain cells mindlessly repeating to yourself that all morality is equal in every way under atheism..
I have a feeling that you are confusing subjectivism with moral choice, e.g ” The fact that both are subjective does not mean the atheist is unable to demonstrate that one makes more sense than the other.” True, but each is a moral judgement, based on what-what you think is best.
Well, you are dead wrong, for the Christian moral choices are teleological design oriented so-they all full under the umbrella of being good to others and looking after yourself At that point one is following Christian morality. Love the Lord God with all your mind and others as yourself.
As an aside we think with our minds not brain cells as you disparagingly and incorrectly opine.
The God of the Bible does none of the immoralities you mention. He commands us to behave like Jesus, and that is moral, behaving in a way contrary to His teaching is immoral. Read an early exchange, as I stated those things that occurred God allowed to happen, he did not force other to act in such a way. I called that God’s permissive will.
More tangents. I have shown atheist philosophers are trying to show you that we have inherent intrinsic value, something which you denied earlier. Hence, the proof was given. (Babies).
I’ll leave it here. Your posts are too long-winded and tangential, if you want to pick a point and stick to it,let’s go for it. If you want to waffle on when arguments are given, even though you offer none. I just don’t have the time sorry for that.
My original points stand. You complained that Christian’s should be happy that gays were killed. Aside from that being utterly wrong, you as a professing atheist have no foundation for saying it’s wrong. What you mean is you don’t fancy doing it, not that its wrong. And that is my point.
Further, to those grieving all you can really say is-so wat we all die anyway. Any solace you try to give is a sham, a lie, or a willful delusion.
According to you, the universe is without purpose and so are we. We all die, as will the universe.
As Jean-Paul Sartre’ said-well let’s just get on with it.
You ought to revise your earlier statement about being too intellectual for me, I urge you to consider.
First, you apparently confirm that you committed the poisoning the well fallacy. You somehow think that if some of views were also believed by Nazis or otherwise sound like social Darwinism, then obviously my views are incorrect. If you weren’t trying to make me guilty by association, then why did you bother noting that I hold beliefs shared by Nazis?
Second, YOU were the one that brought up social Darwinism, and its no more an American phenomenon than it is German or Japanese. That viewpoint emerged in the late 1800’s in both the US and Europe.
Third, you have repeatedly said that atheists cannot ground morality, and I proved to you with the example of competing instances, that some moral judgments make more rational sense than others, for reasons having nothing to do with god. That wouldn’t be possible if god was the basis for morality. I have perfectly rational selfish reasons for not sleeping around and for eating healthy, none of which has anything to do with god. So stop pretending morality cannot be decided without god.
Fourth, because of the way I was raised, and because of my genetics, which I share with everybody else, i recognize the survival value of suppressing my desire to kill or maim. So I can show a rational basis for my moral statements in which I advise that somebody “should” or “shouldn’t” do something. The fact that those bases are ultimately subjective does not falsify them. It is your burden to show that what “ought” to be done cannot be rationally decided without appeal to god, and you’ve failed that task magnificently. But if you agree atheists can rationalize why they make certain moral judgment, then what was your point in criticizing an atheist’s ability to ground morality?
Fifth, I never argued that all morality is equal in every way under atheism, you fool. I specifically argued how I could show, assuming a godless universe, that the atheist parents who strictly enforce a bedtime for kids at least 7 hours before school the next day, is “better” morality then the atheist parents down the street who never enforce such bedtime, whose kids are always falling asleep at school.
I don’t need any god to demonstrate that some moral judgments clearly have more rational justification than others.
Sixth, I’m not confusing subjectivism with moral choice, moral choices only arise from subjective value judgments. That’s why people constantly disagree about gun control, birth control, death penalty, and years ago disagreed on slavery and voting rights for women and minorities. You couldn’t demonstrate the existence of an absolute moral if your life depended on it. If you argue that not torturing babies is absolute beacuse most people agree with it, then you are basing absolute morals in majority human viewpoint, not basing them on ‘god’, and atheists can easily account for why people all over the world generally agree on a basic morality. It just so happens that what they generally agreed “should” and “shouldn’t” be done, would, if obeyed, ensure the survival of the species more than disobeying those precepts would.
Seventh, being good to others and yourself also makes sense in a godless universe where the goal is the survival of the species, it isn’t just a Christian or theistic idea.
Eighth, I’ve already argued that brain injury changes the mind in proportion to the severity of the injury, for the same reason muscle injury impairs physical strength in proportion to the physical injury. Your belief that the mind can exist apart from a physical brain is utterly irrational and without any evidentiary foundation. Under your logic, bugs must have an immaterial spirit since they too have brains and they make intelligent decisions that increase their chances of survival, even if less intelligently than a human being would. Why don’t you argue that bugs have an immaterial aspect to their existence which goes on for all eternity? Or did bugs conveniently remind you that an intelligent mind is based on nothing more than a physical brain?
Ninth, your view of God ‘permitting’ evil to happen might be biblically true, but does not prove true in all cases, it explodes under Deuteronomy 28:15 ff, where God directly causes evil, rape, child-molestation and most other horrors. It also explodes under Ezekiel 38:4, where the “hook in your jaws” metaphor is entirely inappropriate if God respects human freewill.
Tenth, I already explained that inherent value is a contradiction in terms, because “inherent” means “within itself, not derived from outside considerations”, while “value” is entirely subjective, and anything you can point to as valuable, somebody else can deny the value of with equal rational justification. the fact that you know some atheist philosophers who didn’t catch that problem hardly shields you from that criticism. Babies do not have inherent value, because people rabidly disagree about how much and in what way to value them. One mother says she would fight forever for custody of her kids. Other moms often give up the fight. Examples could be multiplied. In other countries, many moms often subject their newborns to death by exposure, such as in China. Such people would never subject a wad of cash to such exposure. Clearly to what extent babies have value is something that differs from person to person, and we in civilized countries don’t see it that way simply because decades of history making have caused us to become likeminded as a group.
“My original points stand. You complained that Christian’s should be happy that gays were killed. Aside from that being utterly wrong, ”
—–No, all murder was done by God’s hand, Deuteronomy 32:39, so when you mourn gay murders, you mourn the accomplishment of God’s will on the earth. You are irrational.
“you as a professing atheist have no foundation for saying it’s wrong.”
———You continually confuse lack of absolute foundation with lack of any foundation. Yes, I do not have an absolute foundation to say any moral is wrong, but I’ve already shown have god is not necessary to rationally justify some morals over others. I DO have a foundation for saying some morals are wrong, you just don’t like the fact that the foundation isn’t absolute. I turn that back in your face: You also have plenty of moral judgments about modern life, such as birth control and gun control, yet you disagree with plenty of other bible believing Christians when you do so. Somebody has to admit their moral judgment on something did not come from god, but neither of you will admit any such thing.
“What you mean is you don’t fancy doing it, not that its wrong. And that is my point.”
———you are again baselessly insisting that what’s ‘wrong’ cannot be rationally determined in a completely subjective way. You are stupid. It’s wrong for parents to never enforce bedtime for kids on a school night for kids who disobey that rule, since they end up too sleepy in class to learn. that’s a rational justification for calling such lazy parents “wrong” wholly apart from god.
“Further, to those grieving all you can really say is-so wat we all die anyway.”
———-And the only biblically justified response you can give to gays is that God recompensed them for their error. Romans 1:26-27. If you can offer more than bible verses, you’ll have to allow me to offer more than my atheist views to my own friends who suffer loss.
“Any solace you try to give is a sham, a lie, or a willful delusion.”
———–How many times have you said “how you are today?” without actually caring? How many times have you said “thank you” when you didn’t mean it? How many times have you said your wife is pretty when you don’t think so? Apparently, even Christians engage in daily shams, lies and willful delusions. Or maybe, since I’ll never know who you are, you can pretend to be some absurdly ideological human being who never talks contrary to his true feelings?
“According to you, the universe is without purpose and so are we. We all die, as will the universe.”
——No, humans can have temporal purpose that is genuinely and rationally fulfilling despite its non-absolute non-eternal nature. Unless you want to say that atheist children who naturally find it fun to play on monkey bars without thinking about god, are just being irrational?
“As Jean-Paul Sartre’ said-well let’s just get on with it.”
——–I agree, I started teaching Christians all their errors years ago. Nice to see your starting to come around.
“You ought to revise your earlier statement about being too intellectual for me, I urge you to consider.”
——–Never. Doesn’t matter if it wasn’t true, the answers you were giving were desperately false. Maybe you picked the wrong victim?
That will be the last time I respond to you point by point. You asked me to focus on one issue, so here it is: You claim atheists cannot ground morality. I would like to know why you think atheist morality that tells kids “you shouldn’t play in the street” cannot be ‘grounded’. I ground it in the desire of the parent for the child to live, and the common sense notion that the street poses more dangers to kids than other areas. If you meant atheists cannot ground their morality in an absolute sense, then you are correct, but so what? You cannot ground your beliefs about gun control in any absolute sense either, since some Christians quote Jesus’s comments about bringing a sword (Matthew 10:34) to justify gun ownership, and other pacifist Christians quote “turn the other cheek” and presume Jesus wanted his followers to emulate that pacificism in all areas of life.
You cannot even say murdering two year old kids is absolutely wrong. Your god has ordered that before (1st Samuel 15:2-3), so you cannot automatically call it wrong, you must ask whether god wanted that person to murder those kids, and with stuff in the bible like Deuteronomy 32:39, the correct answer is “god wills any murder that occurs”.
Now should a spiritually mature Christians praise God for ALL of his mighty works? Or only some of them? Do you want God to accomplish ALL of his will, or only some of it?
Ill reply to some points but your too long winded and off topic to warrent a reply to all:
First, you apparently confirm that you committed the poisoning the well fallacy. You somehow think that if some of views were also believed by Nazis or otherwise sound like social Darwinism, then obviously my views are incorrect. If you weren’t trying to make me guilty by association, then why did you bother noting that I hold beliefs shared by Nazis?
The point that I am making is that your Social Darwinist ideology in respect to the homosexuality, is every bit as disgusting as the views held by the Nazis. That those who didn’t’ conform are but an aberration fit for extinction. And that you partially admit.
Second, YOU were the one that brought up social Darwinism, and its no more an American phenomenon than it is German or Japanese. That viewpoint emerged in the late 1800’s in both the US and Europe. What are you talking about?
Third, you have repeatedly said that atheists cannot ground morality, and I proved to you with the example of competing instances, that some moral judgments make more rational sense than others, for reasons having nothing to do with god. That wouldn’t be possible if god was the basis for morality. I have perfectly rational selfish reasons for not sleeping around and for eating healthy, none of which has anything to do with god. So stop pretending morality cannot be decided without god.
No you haven’t grounded morality. All you have said is that one behavior is more beneficial than another, this doesn’t show one is right, or that we ought to follow it, and third even if it were true you could never know in the long run which is better and thus which we should follow. Yours is a crude attempt and what we call consequentialism..
Fourth, because of the way I was raised, and because of my genetics, which I share with everybody else, i recognize the survival value of suppressing my desire to kill or maim. So I can show a rational basis for my moral statements in which I advise that somebody “should” or “shouldn’t” do something. The fact that those bases are ultimately subjective does not falsify them. It is your burden to show that what “ought” to be done cannot be rationally decided without appeal to god, and you’ve failed that task magnificently. But if you agree atheists can rationalize why they make certain moral judgment, then what was your point in criticizing an atheist’s ability to ground morality?
The great atheist philosopher taught us this one maxim, ‘You cant derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. And that is what you are trying to do.
Fifth, I never argued that all morality is equal in every way under atheism, you fool. I specifically argued how I could show, assuming a godless universe, that the atheist parents who strictly enforce a bedtime for kids at least 7 hours before school the next day, is “better” morality then the atheist parents down the street who never enforce such bedtime, whose kids are always falling asleep at school.
I don’t need any god to demonstrate that some moral judgments clearly have more rational justification than others.
Now the insults come out-theres a surprise. You said all moral choices are not equal, I repeat what you said-go back and read your post.
Sixth, I’m not confusing subjectivism with moral choice, moral choices only arise from subjective value judgments. That’s why people constantly disagree about gun control, birth control, death penalty, and years ago disagreed on slavery and voting rights for women and minorities. You couldn’t demonstrate the existence of an absolute moral if your life depended on it. If you argue that not torturing babies is absolute beacuse most people agree with it, then you are basing absolute morals in majority human viewpoint, not basing them on ‘god’, and atheists can easily account for why people all over the world g because we wouldenerally agree on a basic morality. It just so happens that what they generally agreed “should” and “shouldn’t” be done, would, if obeyed, ensure the survival of the species more than disobeying those precepts would.
That torturing babies for fun is wrong is intuitive and you know it. Even athesist though it was OK, I would no its not. O according to your point of view, if most people decided that torturing babies was OK, it would be OK because we would have widespread agreement.
Seventh, being good to others and yourself also makes sense in a godless universe where the goal is the survival of the species, it isn’t just a Christian or theistic idea.
Here’s another off topic statement.
Eighth, I’ve already argued that brain injury changes the mind in proportion to the severity of the injury, for the same reason muscle injury impairs physical strength in proportion to the physical injury. Your belief that the mind can exist apart from a physical brain is utterly irrational and without any evidentiary foundation. Under your logic, bugs must have an immaterial spirit since they too have brains and they make intelligent decisions that increase their chances of survival, even if less intelligently than a human being would. Why don’t you argue that bugs have an immaterial aspect to their existence which goes on for all eternity? Or did bugs conveniently remind you that an intelligent mind is based on nothing more than a physical brain?
Now your starting to sound like a child. Obviously people have more complex brains than insects.
But its another off topic statement from you, I said minds its you who mentioned souls.
Ninth, your view of God ‘permitting’ evil to happen might be biblically true, but does not prove true in all cases, it explodes under Deuteronomy 28:15 ff, where God directly causes evil, rape, child-molestation and most other horrors. It also explodes under Ezekiel 38:4, where the “hook in your jaws” metaphor is entirely inappropriate if God respects human freewill.
Your reading of Scripture is erroneous.
Tenth, I already explained that inherent value is a contradiction in terms, because “inherent” means “within itself, not derived from outside considerations”, while “value” is entirely subjective, and anything you can point to as valuable, somebody else can deny the value of with equal rational justification. the fact that you know some atheist philosophers who didn’t catch that problem hardly shields you from that criticism. Babies do not have inherent value, because people rabidly disagree about how much and in what way to value them. One mother says she would fight forever for custody of her kids. Other moms often give up the fight. Examples could be multiplied. In other countries, many moms often subject their newborns to death by exposure, such as in China. Such people would never subject a wad of cash to such exposure. Clearly to what extent babies have value is something that differs from person to person, and we in civilized countries don’t see it that way simply because decades of history making have caused us to become likeminded as a group.
We know what inherent means in this context. Like leading atheist philosophers state, anyone who doesn’t believe we have worth is a sociopath. Aside from which, if you truly thought that is the case, then why comment on an atrocity anyhow?
“My original points stand. You complained that Christian’s should be happy that gays were killed. Aside from that being utterly wrong, ”
—–No, all murder was done by God’s hand, Deuteronomy 32:39, so when you mourn gay murders, you mourn the accomplishment of God’s will on the earth. You are irrational.
That is more nonsense, so when the Bible states that the Jews and Gentiles killed Jesus, or that the Jews killed the prophets its not true?
“you as a professing atheist have no foundation for saying it’s wrong.”
———You continually confuse lack of absolute foundation with lack of any foundation. Yes, I do not have an absolute foundation to say any moral is wrong, but I’ve already shown have god is not necessary to rationally justify some morals over others. I DO have a foundation for saying some morals are wrong, you just don’t like the fact that the foundation isn’t absolute. I turn that back in your face: You also have plenty of moral judgments about modern life, such as birth control and gun control, yet you disagree with plenty of other bible believing Christians when you do so. Somebody has to admit their moral judgment on something did not come from god, but neither of you will admit any such thing.
I keep telling you gun control and such nonsense are American arguments and Im not interested in them, neither am I American.
“What you mean is you don’t fancy doing it, not that its wrong. And that is my point.”
———you are again baselessly insisting that what’s ‘wrong’ cannot be rationally determined in a completely subjective way. You are stupid. It’s wrong for parents to never enforce bedtime for kids on a school night for kids who disobey that rule, since they end up too sleepy in class to learn. that’s a rational justification for calling such lazy parents “wrong” wholly apart from god.
“Further, to those grieving all you can really say is-so wat we all die anyway.”
———-And the only biblically justified response you can give to gays is that God recompensed them for their error. Romans 1:26-27. If you can offer more than bible verses, you’ll have to allow me to offer more than my atheist views to my own friends who suffer loss.
“Any solace you try to give is a sham, a lie, or a willful delusion.”
———–How many times have you said “how you are today?” without actually caring? How many times have you said “thank you” when you didn’t mean it? How many times have you said your wife is pretty when you don’t think so? Apparently, even Christians engage in daily shams, lies and willful delusions. Or maybe, since I’ll never know who you are, you can pretend to be some absurdly ideological human being who never talks contrary to his true feelings?
“According to you, the universe is without purpose and so are we. We all die, as will the universe.”
——No, humans can have temporal purpose that is genuinely and rationally fulfilling despite its non-absolute non-eternal nature. Unless you want to say that atheist children who naturally find it fun to play on monkey bars without thinking about god, are just being irrational?
“As Jean-Paul Sartre’ said-well let’s just get on with it.”
——–I agree, I started teaching Christians all their errors years ago. Nice to see your starting to come around.
“You ought to revise your earlier statement about being too intellectual for me, I urge you to consider.”
——–Never. Doesn’t matter if it wasn’t true, the answers you were giving were desperately false. Maybe you picked the wrong victim?
That will be the last time I respond to you point by point. You asked me to focus on one issue, so here it is: You claim atheists cannot ground morality. I would like to know why you think atheist morality that tells kids “you shouldn’t play in the street” cannot be ‘grounded’. I ground it in the desire of the parent for the child to live, and the common sense notion that the street poses more dangers to kids than other areas. If you meant atheists cannot ground their morality in an absolute sense, then you are correct, but so what? You cannot ground your beliefs about gun control in any absolute sense either, since some Christians quote Jesus’s comments about bringing a sword (Matthew 10:34) to justify gun ownership, and other pacifist Christians quote “turn the other cheek” and presume Jesus wanted his followers to emulate that pacificism in all areas of life.
You cannot even say murdering two year old kids is absolutely wrong. Your god has ordered that before (1st Samuel 15:2-3), so you cannot automatically call it wrong, you must ask whether god wanted that person to murder those kids, and with stuff in the bible like Deuteronomy 32:39, the correct answer is “god wills any murder that occurs”.
Now should a spiritually mature Christians praise God for ALL of his mighty works? Or only some of them? Do you want God to accomplish ALL of his will, or only some of it?
Yes aside from trivial issues aethist cannot ground morals, they collapse into personal preference. The man who thinks that there are too many children and some ought to die, is just correct in letting them play in the street as you are in keeping them inside. I can state that it is wrong, because we should value life and teat others as ourself.
But the best is, yes its just a lie, a self deception to pretend we have purpose, you can PRETEND that life is meaningful. But that is willfully putting of the inevitable, the truth of your worldview.
You are far too long winded and constantly confuse and make tangential points. Once again, if you want to bring up a point-that means one-and stick to it. Lets go for it.
Since you have made clear that you’d rather hide behind the false “you are too long-winded” excuse, apparently because you picked the wrong victim, sure, I can pick one subject. You have accused me on several occasions of misinterpreting your bible. That’s because I had directed you back to specific bible verses that indicated what you are mourning in Orlando is the carrying out of God’s will, and the absurdity of a Christian trying to comfort those upon whom the bible-god has executed judgment.
Apparently, you don’t believe God ever wills that homosexuals be murdered. So I have a concern that maybe some of your basis for offering solace to the families of those who openly defy God’s will, springs from the fact that you simply aren’t anywhere near as familiar with the “fear of the Lord” as ye ought.
Is there biblical justification for the premise that God takes personal responsibility for all murders and all healings, yes or no?
39 ‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU)
Now remember, I don’t believe in biblical inerrancy, therefore, I strongly oppose any Christian who uses inerrancy as a hermeneutic (i.e., insisting that a bible interpretation must first harmonize with the rest of the bible before it can possibly be correct).
You call yourself a victim not me. Aside from which you havent even grasped the basic issue yet, that is you want to make moral pronouncements, and yet, as you rightly point out there is no basis for morality under atheism. You keep repeating some behaviour is worse than others. So what under your view there is no way that we should follow what you think is correct.
Plus you really are avoind the points such as the lack of meaning and worth.
I will thanks you for not waffling on this time though.
Here is a standard Bible commentry on the passage in question:
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
See now that I, even I, am he,…. Which words are directed to the people of God in their low estate, to look to Christ, and expect deliverance and salvation from him; or to their enemies that insult them, to the despisers, to look, and wonder, and perish, as they will, when the witnesses slain by them shall arise, and go up to heaven in their sight, Revelation 11:11; they are spoken by the Word and Son of God, to whom the Father has committed all judgment, and who will now rise up and execute it; so the Targum of Jonathan,”when the Word of the Lord shall reveal himself to redeem his people, he will say to all people, see now, &c.”and who will declare himself to be the great Jehovah, the self-existent Being, the eternal and immutable I AM; for this phrase is expressive of his existence, eternity, immutability, and sovereignty; and which the above Targum paraphrases thus,”see now that I am he that have been, and am, and I am he that shall be,”which, as it is a deciphering the word “Jehovah”, is what is applied to Christ, Revelation 1:8. The repeating the word “I”, as it may denote the strong affection of the speaker, and the certainty of what he would do, so it may have respect to both sorts of persons the words are directed to, and to the several sorts of things to be done, hereafter related; signifying that it is the same I, that does the one, does also the other, kills and makes alive, &c.
and there is no god with me; this the Redeemer and Saviour says elsewhere, Isaiah 44:6; see Deuteronomy 32:12; there is but one God, and Christ the Word, with the Father and the Spirit, are that one God, 1 John 5:7; and there is no other with him; he is the true God, in opposition to all factitious and fictitious gods; he is not a made god, nor a god by office, nor by name and title only, but by nature the one, true, only, and living God; and so it may be most truly believed of him, that he is able to do, and will do, what he next says:
I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I:heal: Christ is the sovereign disposer of life and death, of sickness and health, in a temporal sense; and in a spiritual sense he wounds and kills, by the law in the hand of his Spirit; and he heals and makes alive by his Gospel, as it is accompanied by his Spirit and grace also: this is by some referred to the resurrection from the dead, which will be by Christ the resurrection and the life, the earnest, exemplar, and efficient cause of it; so the Targum of Jerusalem,”I am he that kills the living in this world, and quickens the dead in the world to come:”but it refers to another resurrection previous to that, namely, the reviving of the witnesses after they have been slain three days; who, as they will be killed in a civil sense, in the same sense they will be quickened by the Spirit of life from Christ; that is, they will be raised from that very low estate into which they will be brought, into a glorious one, signified by their ascending up into heaven; which will be done by Christ when he takes to himself his great power, and reigns; then as he suffered his witnesses and people to be wounded and killed, he will make them alive, and heal them, and restore comforts and happiness to them, see Revelation 11:11,
neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand; for, at the same time that he saves his people, he will take their enemies into his hands, out of which there will be no escape; at this time seven thousand names of men, or men of name, will be slain; see Gill on
If you want to dialogue, please keep it short and stick to the point. If there is one point you want to dialogue over lets do it. Please dont wander all over the place with tangential points. Blessings.
In fact, there is a real irony in what you say-you just need to look at the big picture.
You argue:
1. That homosexuals are an aberration.
2. Behaviour such as anal sex does not aid humankind.
3. Anything that does not aid the furtherment of mankind’s evolution, by causing danger should be rejected in favour of behaviour that does aid.
4. Homosexuals do not aid the furtherment of mankind, since they practice non-evolutionary advantageous behaviour.
Therefore: You should rejoice that there are less homosexuals, degrading human gene pools.
If you add up your post, this is your overall view. And to think you had the gall to complain about the perception of homosexuals in Christianity.
By the way you say that practices are disgusting, but that’s a moral pronouncement isn’t it-you rightly understood that atheist can’t make grounded moral pronouncements, yet you struggle not to.
Hidden in your statement is the belief that without god, all moral judgments are equal. Not true. Some moral judgments harm society (unsafe sex), and others less so (safe sex). I can make many moral judgments that most people would agree with, and have through their civil and criminal laws, and this rationally justifies those morals over opposing morals, even if there is no god.
I would also turn your criticism against you: Christians are divided on birth control, gun control, the minimum rites god requires for a man to be married to a woman, whether god wants them to kill abortion doctors, etc, etc. Apparently, believing in God does exactly nothing to help one argue one’s morals are objective or absolute. You people are no less plagued with moral disagreements than atheists are.
You write:
Hidden in your statement is the belief that without god, all moral judgments are equal. Not true. Some moral judgments harm society (unsafe sex), and others less so (safe sex). I can make many moral judgments that most people would agree with, and have through their civil and criminal laws, and this rationally justifies those morals over opposing morals, even if there is no god.
That is not even remotely plausible, show me how so?
You write:
I would also turn your criticism against you: Christians are divided on birth control, gun control, the minimum rites god requires for a man to be married to a woman, whether god wants them to kill abortion doctors, etc, etc. Apparently, believing in God does exactly nothing to help one argue one’s morals are objective or absolute. You people are no less plagued with moral disagreements than atheists are.
Not so. Those are largely American cultural problems. And most of the Western civilised world, people don’t walk around packing a strap.
Pastor Jimenez was dead-on correct with what he said in that sermon of his. Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”. If preaching the ENTIRE Word of God makes Pastor Jimenez a bad guy, he’d be the worst person around. Step aside, Ted Bundy! 😆😂🤣