Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Per page:
Order:
Latest users (5): fehgatron, lulzformalaysiaair, ribocoon, shootemup, whatley, anonymous(5).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#85245 - delio (08/18/2014) [-]
Help me guys/girls. Im a christian, I donate money when I can, ive read some of the bible/watched all of it via media. I pray daily and truly believe in our lord and savior. However I have two major issues.
1) Im addicted to porn
2) I dont feel like im doing enough for God.

Ive tried several times to get over my addiction but all the times ive tried, ive failed after 2 weeks (during a my best). I dont really know of a good way to break this.

For the second part, I am openly religious and I will defend god both on the internet and IRL but im just not sure what exactly I should be doing to feel like im doing it right.

Can anyone here help me? I really want to get my life back on track before its to late.

>pic related is my favorite quote
User avatar #85411 to #85245 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
I guess you could just try to watch porn once a day, then next week once every other day, then once a week etc. until you aren't so dependant upon it. If you try everything and it doesn't work you should get proffessional help.
User avatar #85386 to #85245 - theluppijackal (08/20/2014) [-]
1) I'm not a counsler nor have any expierence with addiction so I dunno.
2) You're already doing plenty, way more than most do. Maybe read your bible more often, explore ways to enrich your sprituality
#85287 to #85245 - dehumanizer (08/19/2014) [-]
This may seem increadably bruteish but whenever i get the need to give my meat a goold old rubbin, i just unplugg my mouse then whip my back using the cabel cord, it works.

As for just watching porn i cant really last a minute without getting disgusted by the sheer degeneracy of its nature.

Its managable.
#85282 to #85245 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/19/2014) [-]
The Christian God is omnipresent. So he's supposedly sitting on your lap while you jerk it.
User avatar #85257 to #85245 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
When you become a Christian you crucify your body and all of its sin on the cross with Jesus. Because of this, you also have the promise to be resurrected with Him. This is what communion represents and why we Christians practice it--eating the broken body and drinking the blood shed is unification with Christ.

I say this because that crucifixion and your resurrection through the crucifixion has already been promised to you. When you became a Christian Jesus forgave all your sins past, present, and future. You are ensured salvation. It is grace. It is a gift. There is no earning it, so "not doing enough" does not endanger your salvation at all.

Now that that is established, if you are still feeling like you aren't doing enough then you should find ways to do more work for God. Beyond donating, doing hands on service is exceptional. You actually see where your labor is going and you get to contact people so you make sure what you do is actually helpful and not funding anything other than something helpful. Soup kitchens are great, volunteer at one! If you are involved with a church ask your pastor for a list of shut-ins (the elderly or sick that can't get to church or outside of the house often) and offer to go to their house to visit and pray with them. That one is very simple and still leaves an impact on lives who don't always have a lot of joy to go on in their day to day lives.

Finally, about the porn. Porn addiction is real. It is difficult. I recommend going to a counselor or therapy to get help about it. There's no shame in that. We, as Christians, know that we are to "put off our old self" and "put on a new self" through Christ who lives in us. Do this every day. Every day you wake up, pray that you have committed yourself to God and for His strength to follow Him through the day. This can help, but it isn't a substitute for actual therapy and it shouldn't be. Also, find someone you can trust to hold you accountable. That will also help.
#85255 to #85245 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
if you get down to it, it's actually pretty simple.
Be humane, but remember that it has to come form within (meaning that your humanity has to match with your conscience)
User avatar #85254 to #85245 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
If you've masturbated then you're already going to hell.
User avatar #85256 to #85254 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
kek
#85250 to #85245 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Porn addiction is a very real thing, but thankfully without the added chemical element it's much easier to manage than something like alcoholism.

Just make yourself busy, maybe set some goals.
User avatar #85246 to #85245 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/18/2014) [-]
if you genuinely have an addiction, you might want to see a therapist or try to find a healthier hobby
#85236 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/18/2014) [-]
Objectively, this website doesn't exist.
#85226 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
HE

HE WHO TOOK THY SEED AND MADE IT INTO A TREE

SO THY COULD CHOPETH DOWN LATER

HE WILL RETURN

24th AUGUST, 2014

#85227 to #85226 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
who?
User avatar #85229 to #85227 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
THY MAN WHO CHOPETH THY TREES THAT THY TURNED FROM SEEDS WILL REVEAL HIMSELF WHEN THY TIME HAS COMETH.

24th AUGUST, 2014
#85230 to #85229 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
kmon
#85113 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Ask a newly converted athiest anything
User avatar #85238 to #85113 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
Had any hell nightmares/fears?
User avatar #85239 to #85238 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Yes, but only when I was a delusional Christian
User avatar #85240 to #85239 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
What made you convert?
User avatar #85241 to #85240 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
The brilliance of Richard Darwin
#85215 to #85113 - dehumanizer (08/18/2014) [-]
Shcmuck biologist and a terrible debater/philosopher.
User avatar #85231 to #85215 - feelythefeel (08/18/2014) [-]
No lie, I once knew a kid who literally never went out without a trench coat and fedora. I'm an Atheist, and even I was embarrassed.
User avatar #85216 to #85215 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
praise darwin
#85217 to #85216 - dehumanizer (08/18/2014) [-]
darwin was a christian
User avatar #85218 to #85217 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
no
#85219 to #85218 - dehumanizer (08/18/2014) [-]
proove it
User avatar #85221 to #85219 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
evolution ;)
#85222 to #85221 - dehumanizer (08/18/2014) [-]
it prooves he was a christian ;)
User avatar #85223 to #85222 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
look at the data
User avatar #85225 to #85224 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
tehn you would kno
User avatar #85191 to #85113 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
Vsos is for fucking stoners. Why.
User avatar #85192 to #85191 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
because richard darwin makes more sense than a fony god
User avatar #85193 to #85192 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
Good now give me shekels. : ^ )
User avatar #85194 to #85193 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
go back to israel
User avatar #85195 to #85194 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
No thanks I kinda have enjoyed living the past 14 years here...
#85199 to #85195 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
you told me you were born in an american jewish neighborhood
User avatar #85200 to #85199 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
No i didn't and I don't live in America.
#85203 to #85200 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
I thought you said that in your neighborhood jews act white, jews dont act white in israel. Are you Canadian?
User avatar #85204 to #85203 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
Yes, here I live in a rich Jew-White community so very little minorities unless you go like 5km south, then you start hitting the outskirts of Toronto and it's nigger/asian central.
#85205 to #85204 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
oh. wait are you 14?

btw omar is coming back on sunday, he said he'd come back sooner if you said it was ok, he doesn't want to break a promise or something.
User avatar #85206 to #85205 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
No what I'm 18. I was born in Israel, my parents moved here when I was young.

And he promised he'd leave forever, no 1 week.
#85208 to #85207 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
I mean I've fought with omar plenty of times, but without him the board will fall back into the fedora bunches hands. At least when he was here there were plaenty of shitstorms and he annoyed the fuck out of the neckbeard alliance.
#85209 to #85208 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
Ok true, true Mr. Medicine Man. Let him back in.
#85210 to #85209 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Message him and say it's ok, he's got like a sand code that prevents him from coming here before you release him from his obligation. Just think of him like a scorched earth tactic, the atheists start getting annoying we'll just nuke the board with omar.
User avatar #85211 to #85210 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
Yes Omar is very interesting indeed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I will tell him.
User avatar #85196 to #85195 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
gay
User avatar #85198 to #85197 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
crimor
User avatar #85202 to #85201 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
muehehehe
#85187 to #85113 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Who are you mascot fagging?
User avatar #85188 to #85187 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
vsos
#85189 to #85188 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
he needs to shave
User avatar #85190 to #85189 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
yes
#85121 to #85113 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
why tho
User avatar #85122 to #85121 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Because of my Lord and Saviour Richard Darwin
#85123 to #85122 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
Dawkins
User avatar #85124 to #85123 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Poe-tay-toe Poe-taw-toe
#85125 to #85124 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
Pronunciation and spelling are 2 things.
User avatar #85126 to #85125 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Stop bringing God into this
#85128 to #85127 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/18/2014) [-]
stop shoving it down my throat
#85132 to #85128 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
i'm gonna shove a whole lotta other things down your throat.
User avatar #85133 to #85132 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
;)
#85136 to #85133 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
no homo tho
User avatar #85138 to #85136 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Homo is okay now because i am no longer christian
#85139 to #85138 - hesekiel (08/18/2014) [-]
so full homo?
User avatar #85140 to #85139 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
FULL HOMO
#85324 to #85105 - rebornpooper (08/19/2014) [-]
B^Uckley is more disgusting than any religion ever to grace the world.
#85069 - gameofpwned (08/18/2014) [-]
Sup religion board.

So my roommate in college (moving in soonish) is a Muslim, and I have no problems with that. I think it's kinda cool, and they're really nice. I just wanna know: what are some things to potentially look out for? What can I do or avoid doing to make living smooth? Thing is, I don't quite know how... devout(?) they are. They:

Don't eat pork or drink
They can't have a relationship with titles (no gf/bf)
They pray five times a day, say they're gonna bring a prayer mat and bodna.

What do?
User avatar #85242 to #85069 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
You should greet them with a friendly "Allah mish Akbar" or "Allah mu Akbar" if they are Syrian, that's how they greet each other.
User avatar #85212 to #85069 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
What do? WHAT DO? Are you telling me you want to change your way of life not to offend someone else? Are you fucking kidding me?

You do whatever the fuck you normally do, if his mudslime ass gets upset that is his fucking sandnigger fault. You don't need to change your ways to cater to this fuck. And if he is a regular person and he realizes this, he will accept it and respect you for it.
User avatar #85213 to #85212 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
gameofpwned, I feel its important you read this.
#85259 to #85213 - gameofpwned (08/19/2014) [-]
I feel it's important that you be less of an asshole (though what should I expect from a religion board on this site?).

I'm not talking about changing all of my ways to please a guy I've barely just met. I have boundaries, I have standards, and I will not tolerate him being an arse. Thankfully they're actually a normal person unlike the nutjobs on this site. I was asking about things I could do to make sure I didn't cause any problems without knowing it. I'm talking about not showing him the soles of my feet (which will get the shit beaten out of you in some parts of the world) or giving him a thumbs up when it could mean "fuck you".
User avatar #85106 to #85069 - Conquistador (08/18/2014) [-]
Hahahahaha! Sucks for you, chump.
User avatar #85087 to #85069 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (08/18/2014) [-]
Sounds like a pretty fucking boring roomate to me. How can they be a student if they can't have a title; the school calls them students...

Just try not to step on their toes, and maybe ask what you can do to not offend them?
#85092 to #85087 - gameofpwned (08/18/2014) [-]
Romantic relationships, not any relationships.
User avatar #85093 to #85092 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (08/18/2014) [-]
Ah, one of those people. As long as you're not dating them and not drawing Mohammed or something, they should be fairly normal and easy to get along with.
User avatar #85075 to #85069 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
Could be tricky if this person is devout. You shouldn't allow the beliefs of others to infringe on your daily life. And you should show that same respect in return.
So basically, if they don't eat pork or drink, then don't ever try to serve them pork or alcohol.
If they have a problem with you eating pork or drinking, explain to them that you don't share their beliefs and that your body is your own. If they still have a problem, it's best to get a new roommate.

Don't interrupt their prayer sessions unless it's an emergency.

Don't try and hook them up with anyone.

I mean really, leave them to their business, unless that business starts to impact your own life, in which case you'll have to stand up for yourself. Probably the best thing you can do is speak about these things with each other before you actually move in so you'll both know what to expect from your daily habits. Doing this could prevent a future crisis.
User avatar #85074 to #85069 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
but seriously based on what you have said they sound like devout muslims, do not mock the quran or any quotes from it, it is the literal words from God for them not peoples viewpoints like the Holy Bible and they take it very serious. Must muslims say an honorific after saying Mohammad name so you might want to ask about that.
User avatar #85073 to #85069 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
if you hear ticking run?
User avatar #85067 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
Perhaps feminists are right about some things RaeLynn - God Made Girls
#85100 to #85067 - dehumanizer (08/18/2014) [-]
*the devil
#85048 - thesaminator ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
hey guys, first time commenter on this board. To make a note here, the Christian belief holds many beautiful things in it, but also many flaws. this is simply because religion is manmade and since man is flawed, his religion is flawed. Christians aren't perfect, so please don't expect them to be
User avatar #85083 to #85048 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/18/2014) [-]
the religion touts that their holy book is the perfect word of God, so conceding that it is flawed is about the same as conceding that it is not true
User avatar #85258 to #85083 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
That's actually a bit of a misconception. The Bible never asserts that it is inerrant, but infallible, and a text can be divinely inspired without it being inerrant. One can assert the Bible is divinely inspired yet written within the scope of the understanding of the author at the time of the writing.
#85437 to #85258 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/20/2014) [-]
I understand that some Christians hold that the Bible is divinely inspired by imperfect men. But why couldn't God correct misunderstandings when people wrote stuff down? Or why would God even have trouble conveying his point? I mean he has all of time and space to pick people to tell his rules to. Wouldn't he know exactly how people react and understand what he tells them since he's all knowing? Also, why would other religiouns, especially ones based on judeo christian, exist at all? I mean isn't it kind of fucked up to send people to hell for being born into the wrong religion?
User avatar #85443 to #85437 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
There's a lot in there, so we'll see what I can do.

Perhaps the limitations are not on God, but on man. How does one convey a message when the people, in that time, have no mode of understanding that message? The best God can do is use metaphors that they would understand in that time--which he did do. That is why there is so much unique symbolism used over and over in the Bible--God used what he could that they would understand.

While God will know how they will react, that doesn't mean he can find a perfect sample for his message. Unless, of course, he sent himself...which he did through Jesus. And to answer your question about correcting the message, Jesus did quite a bit of that while his time on earth. As a Christian I will assert that Christ is the full revelation of God and Jesus did everything that you are askng God did with the Israelites.

Why would other religions exist--
God prefers to use humans whenever possible, it seems. So people would need to be evangelized rather than him sending a direct message of himself to everyone in the world. Each culture then will find God on their own. I am inclusivist, meaning I will assert that people born in other religions will not go to hell firstly, and secondly that while Christianity is the one true religion, it does not mean that the other religions don't have some truth to them. I'll say that when a religious man finds God, their religion resembles Christianity closely because it is the true religion, but they can still do it in their own religions way. Prime example: Ghandi, who when following "an inner voice" he reformed Hinduism to throw out their caste system and love the power. Hinduism became similar to Christianity. I think this will happen with all pure religions of the world if they actually find God.
User avatar #85260 to #85258 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
inerrant and infallible are synonyms
User avatar #85261 to #85260 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
False. Inerrant means "without error" while infallible means "never failing or always effective." Notice one of the only claims to the Bible being inerrant or infallible occurs in 2 Timothy 3:16--"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching , rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." The word "error" is never use, but what is used is "useful" with ties closely with "effective." Again I assert, the Bible is infallible while not inerrant.
User avatar #85262 to #85261 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
its semantics, the bottom line is if the bible errs, then it is disingenuous to say it is the perfect word of God because that means that God errs, and then he would not be God
User avatar #85263 to #85262 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
I am unclear where anything ever asserts the Bible is the "perfect word of God." Can you point this out to me?
User avatar #85264 to #85263 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
its implied by people of faith. besides, if you don't believe that the bible is the word of God, then why believe what it asserts about objective truth and morality?
User avatar #85265 to #85264 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
No, no. I can assert its the word of God. But why do I have to accept its the perfect word of God? And I need something a lot more solid than "implied by people of faith" for me to accept that its theology sound.
User avatar #85267 to #85265 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
what persuasive power would it have if it the thing you thought was the word of God admittedly had errors?
User avatar #85268 to #85267 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
You must make distinctions of what you think errors mean. Not every assertion has the same staying power. What does it change for Christianity if the Joshua conquest didn't actually happen? But now what changes if Christ didn't actually exist? They are completely different and have to be weighed as so. Not to mention there has to be a distinction between being wrong about history and being wrong about a moral assertion. These two have very different consequences.

If the Bible is wrong in some history, it is not inerrant. But if it is wrong in some history but right in all of its moral teachings which are there to help in "training of righteousness" then it is infallible--always effective. By giving up on inerrancy of the Bible I don't see it that I'm giving up on much of anything.
User avatar #85270 to #85268 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
also you're picking a convenient definition of infallible, the definition i was talking about that makes it synonymous with inerrant is "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong."
User avatar #85273 to #85270 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
Oh, also, all those links failed to cite anything in the Bible clearly saying that the Bible is the inerrant and perfect word of God.
User avatar #85275 to #85273 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
not all christian beliefs come directly from the bible
User avatar #85276 to #85275 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
I didn't say its blatantly wrong about many things, I said that it is possible for it to be wrong. And again, I don't see the connection between discrepancy of historical facts and moral teachings. If Jesus was found to be marrying 12 year olds, that would be a reason to suspect moral teachings. The Bible being wrong about what nation was where in 583 BC? I don't see how that applies to the Bible being a good moral guider at all.
User avatar #85277 to #85276 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
because it should put your trust in the book in jeopardy

if it is wrong about historical events, it certainly can be wrong about direct quotes from jesus christ, and christians of all people should know how damaging misquoting something can be
User avatar #85279 to #85277 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
And to go farther with the not all scripture should be doubted the same, I think every individual book of the Bible should be considered in vacuum. You can't throw out the whole Bible because one writer got one thing wrong 500 years before another author wrote his own book. The Bible is not one work, but a collection.
User avatar #85280 to #85279 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
this is wild rationalization

first of all, regarding doubting of scripture- if one error is found in a text that claims to be the word of God, even if it is a historical account, then the entire book should be brought into question. since the moral teachings in the books are hear-say from jesus, it is on the same level as a historical account.

also affiliated books that also claim to be the word of God can't be trusted either, since the same logic applies and claiming it is the word of God doesn't help it anymore

second, just because some of the moral teachings resonate with people doesn't mean they are objectively true. some people don't like peanut butter, does that mean peanut butter is objectively bad?
User avatar #85281 to #85280 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
Comparing corporeal things like taste to moral intuitions is ridiculous. They are radically different from each other.

You continue to miss the point. Take a fiction book like To Kill A Mockingbird. All of it is completely made up, but it doesn't minimize the significant truths it tells nor does it minimize its impact on people. Historical accuracy is simply secondary to anything of the moral question. All of Genesis could be mythology, but it wouldn't change that it is a great and truthful book. Guys like C.S. Lewis have held this view.

You also haven't asked a relevant question about the Bible being the word of God--is it the direct or indirect word of God? Did God dictate the scripture and literally write each word himself, or was something else at work? Or was it, perhaps instead, that the Holy Spirit led the writers of the Bible by inspiring them (divinely inspired ringing a bell?) with a message but left them to convey that message with their own creative capacities to make it more relateable and accessible to the original readers of the text?

Take the idea of selfless love. We have Christ as an image. We have Lily Potter as an image of it. We have the Giving Tree as an image of it. Could it be that all of these are telling the same story, but in a different way? There doesn't seem to be any significant connection between factual nature of a text and message it sends.

These writers, by the way, can err on the history, but it does not mean the spirit of the message is not in tact, just as you can gather what someone is saying in most cases even if the punctuation is wrong.
User avatar #85509 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
i don't care about correct readings, you are ignoring what im saying.

the fact that the bible can be wrong does mean that you should doubt 100% of it in the same way that the fact that it can be and has shown to actually be wrong about certain things means that you shouldn't believe anything is the "word of God" 100%

the fact is, since the bible was written by men, there is no way to check if the words in it match up to what God "said" and that does not create a good enough foundation for a belief system that claims to preach the word of God
User avatar #85365 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
you're completely missing the point

the fact is, you're using the bible as a moral guide, but the bible, you admit, can be errant.

so, it's fine to use the morals you find if they're good, but it's not fine to say that your morals are the morals of God because it might be wrong about what it claims is god's word
User avatar #85418 to #85365 - Cambro (08/20/2014) [-]
No, we're actually getting somewhere now. The Bible can be errant, but there are a laundry list of ways to check its message and symbols because they're so consistent throughout most of the Bible. There are things like biblical hermeneutics that help us read the Bible better, deciphering what is God and what is mankind's rendition of things. Furthermore we have a thing called the Christ Hermeneutic, which takes Christ (easily the most factual basis we have for anything in the Bible) and we can read and interpret the rest of the Bible through the lens of Christ, who actually is the Word of God, the full revelation of God.

Simply because the Bible can be wrong does not mean it has to be doubted 100% and in every instance. There are plenty of tools to verify and come up with correct readings. If you want to read more about people who have these types of views, you should look up Eric Seibert and the books he has written.
User avatar #85330 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
im not sure if any of that actually confirms anything and im not sure if there is as much accuracy as you claim there is.

moral intuition means nothing. som people don't like peanut butter, if they all got in a room and told each other they didn't like peanut butter and each one thought "i knew there was something wrong with peanut butter" would they be objectively right about peanut butter? no. this is because not everyone's "moral intuition" is the same

a central message between books is fine. lots of fiction books share themes. does that mean i should use the great gatsby as my holy book because it teaches a good moral?

and i wish you'd stop trying to steer the discussion to other topics, it's really annoying
User avatar #85334 to #85330 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
Its not other discussions, its important to this discussion because you just made another positivist assertion--that moral intuition has no more claim to truth than taste does. It seems you're using a positivist framework to find what matters. This is interesting, because holding the positivist views would have you reject Kant, but you've been fairly Kantian before. Its important because we may not be even on the same framework on which we judge things.

There is accuracy between manuscripts and copies. This is very well documented. You can research that for yourself if you want. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was huge for this because it was ancient manuscripts that we know weren't doctored that still connect to 97% accuracy to the manuscripts we have today. This means that over time there hasn't been a corrupting in the manuscript or copying in the manuscripts and nothing has been added by anyone (like the Catholics like some conspiracy theorists wanted to insist) either to fulfill prophecy or to fit prophecy to Jesus. There is great accuracy in these texts.

And if you want to know the accuracy of the Gospel accounts themselves (judging each as 1--all the copies of Luke, for example, as one sample size) the accuracy actually increases. There is also a huge amount more of copies of the Gospel so its even easier to check for accuracy because of the large sample size.

We aren't talking about one book, but a series of books with a central message. If a bunch of fiction books held a central message, we could probably take that central message to be truth--that say, racism is wrong. I don't see any issue with that. We can hold the Bible is a moral guide in the same way.

I don't have much space left here, do I really need to explain to you why something like taste is wildly dissimilar to moral intuition?
User avatar #85325 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
but why would you hold something as the truth when it can be erroneous without any way to check?
User avatar #85328 to #85325 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
There are plenty of ways to check. I had already mentioned accuracy between manuscripts and copies of manuscripts of specific books, I have already mentioned moral intuitions, and then there are the strong literary connections and symbols that work between books written hundreds of years apart from each other, some times in different languages, which gives a strong indicator of some central message uniting all the books even if each book has its own author and thus should be judged on its own merits.

And as a side question because we seem to be going down in this direction: You seem to be holding a positivist view here. That view being something must be factual and to be verified as factual to be valued. Would you agree with that?
User avatar #85322 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
why not?
User avatar #85323 to #85322 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
Because if the Bible is the word of God but composed through human hands then there is an opening for error. Furthermore, it should be noted that Christianity is one of the world religions that holds up their scripture to be less divine than the other world religions. The Bagavagida and the Koran are both held to be divine in themselves, literally the divine, and that is why you should not translate them outside of the original language. There is no such stature being held in Christianity for the Bible.
User avatar #85320 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
here's the logic im going with

if the bible is the word of God, and the word of God is absolute truth, then the bible should be absolute truth
User avatar #85321 to #85320 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
But again you never answered if the Bible is the direct word of God or the indirect word of God. The argument doesn't hold if the Bible is the indirect word of God.
User avatar #85286 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
you should be skeptical of every book in the first place. anything that touts itself as absolute truth should be looked at with scrutiny
User avatar #85304 to #85286 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
Skeptical doesn't mean equal amounts of skeptical in every case. That's the non-sequitur.

Furthermore, you continue to say things like "perfect" and "absolute truth" without convincing me the Bible needs to be either of those or even if the Bible claims to be that itself. You aren't arguing, you're making assumptions.
User avatar #85283 to #85281 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
no, you're missing the point.

im not saying that good morals don't ever come from the bible, but bad morals sometimes come too (even if you disagree) and that doesn't even really matter.

the point is, if it errs on history, it can err on repeating things that jesus supposedly said, corrupting his teachings and misinterpreting his words. sure, good morals can still come, but saying those morals are form God when they could be misquoted is misleading
User avatar #85285 to #85283 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
To which I would again respond that different scripture needs different levels of strenuous tests. The Gospels check out very well from an error standpoint, and furthermore we have a wide enough basis of different writers saying what Jesus said or portraying Jesus and coming up with what appears to be the same character (with a few twists done for literary reasons) that we can judge if his quotes are accurate are not. The possibility of them being wrong doesn't mean we have to throw it out, it just means it needs more testing. Case and point, most study Bibles will note that the story about Jesus and the woman being stoned has less historical basis for it than anything else in all the Gospels. This is because there is enough things to look at that we can judge what appears accurate or not through accuracy between manuscripts and manuscript copies, language accuracy between manuscripts and manuscript copies, grammar accuracy between the above, as well as literary analysis and literary accuracy (does this fit the central theme that Jesus has put forth so far? Is it coherent?), and this doesn't even mention collaboration between Gospels but only manuscripts of the same Gospel.

My point is that its non-sequitur to say that because the Bible can be wrong in one book that we must equally doubt everything in every other book of the Bible.
User avatar #85278 to #85277 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
As I said before, certain errors are heavier than others and thus should be considered more seriously should it be found to be in error or not. I find it much, much less likely that the Gospels are wrong than the book of Joshua is inaccurate and there is a good bit of scholarship to back up this judgment. Not all scripture should be doubted the same.

Furthermore, we use an entirely different judgment system to judge moral teaching to historical teaching. Moral teaching rings true with our own moral intuitions, while we have no such historical intuitions. Because of this faculty of moral intuition, we have more reason to trust Jesus' teachings because they seem to check out with the moral beliefs of most people. Suspect moral teachings are much more obvious than suspect historical fact.
User avatar #85272 to #85270 - Cambro (08/19/2014) [-]
I wasn't picking the convenient definition, I was using the definition that actually applies to what we're talking about.

The 1st and 3rd links are suspect and I wouldn't take any of the three to be a general voice of Christianity in any point of authority. It be like me citing a 17 year old's liberal blog and saying its what Obama holds.

Anyway, none of the three establish what they mean by "perfect." Because of this, none of the three actually belong in our conversation because they've done nothing to respond to me saying that the Bible can be infallible while not being inerrant.

I don't see why the Bible being errant brings moral teachings into doubt. If a history teacher is wrong about a fact about history you must suspect him of being a bad history teacher, but the Bible isn't concerned with history. If Obama is making a speech about why we should avoid war but cites the wrong date for WWII, it doesn't make me doubt his decision making about the war, it just means he can be wrong about history. One applies to knowledge while another applies to wisdom. They also are not equal.
User avatar #85274 to #85272 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
at this point it feels like you're just ignoring what im saying and rationalizing your beliefs over and over. if you want to accept a holy book's teaching while admitting that the holy book is blatantly wrong about many things, be my guest
User avatar #85269 to #85268 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/19/2014) [-]
www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html

bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/gods-perfect-word/

christiannews.christianet.com/1247749122.htm

here are some things i found

also, if the bible is errant, it puts the moral teachings into question
User avatar #85059 to #85048 - thebritishguy (08/17/2014) [-]
As I've said before, it's not the people themselves which make me dislike Christianity, it's the fundamental concepts and principles of Christianity. Like punishing people for what their ancestors did or blood sacrifice.
User avatar #85070 to #85059 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
i.e what in the world are you talking about?
User avatar #85068 to #85059 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
Like punishing people for what their ancestors did or blood sacrifice.

What?
User avatar #85071 to #85068 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
//punishing people for what their ancestors did// = Punishing people for what Adam and Eve did or cursing peoples families like the curse of Ham

//blood sacrifice// = I'm reffering to Jesus being sacrificed. It has been explained to me that this isn't actually fundamental and there are different interpretations in which Jesus wasn't a sacrifice but it was purely for symbolism. But the idea held by some religious people that Jesus took the punishment instead of me, I find morally compromising. I don't think it is just that someone can take my punishment, I don't get what I deserve, the innocent sacrifice doesn't get what they deserve. It's contrary to justice.
#85430 to #85071 - hesekiel (08/20/2014) [-]
"Jesus being sacrificed"
That's actually where you're wrong, Jesus sacrificed himself.
User avatar #85440 to #85430 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
I mean the act of Jesus being crucified by the soldiers.
User avatar #85072 to #85071 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
Well no arguing with the first point but when you break rules you suffer the consequences.

For the second, if you could take a punishment meant for your child wouldn't you? The big thing with Jesus dying is that he came back to life, he paid for all of our sins and then defeated death and in doing so also saved the souls of all the people who had already died that never had a chance to receive his salvation to that point.
User avatar #85110 to #85072 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
I agree that when you break rules you suffer consequences, that's exactly what's wrong with human sacrifice and family curses, you either suffer consequences because someone else broke the rules or you break rules and someone else suffered the consequences.

No because our justice system would not allow me to take my childs punishment. As you said "When you break the rules you suffer the consequences." not "When you break the rules someone else will get punished for you so fuck it". If a murderer kills someone then they deserve to go to prison, if the murderers Mum goes to prison then you have a murderer on the streets who got away with murder and an innocent women in jail. That's fucking dumb. Did Jesus deserve to die? no. Did we deserve salvation? no. So if justice is people getting what they deserve, this system is contrary to justice, nobody gets what they deserve.
User avatar #85326 to #85110 - rebornpooper (08/19/2014) [-]
tmstyrant, it's fair to warn you that you're arguing against a euphoric duo who circlejerk each other.

British, that's a silly and juvenile approach to "deserving" that you're proposing. Does the murderer's mother consent to the agreement of redirecting the damage? Most importantly, does the murderer guilt from the mother's sacrifice?
You seem to be forgetting one thing, Jesus cheated death.
User avatar #85344 to #85326 - thebritishguy (08/19/2014) [-]
Replied to the wrong person.
He was asking whether I would consent, I wouldn't. If the mother would consent though it would make her even less deserving of prison and it would be more of an injustice.The murderer does not just deserve guilty feelings for killing someone! he deserves to be locked up to keep the public safe.
Did Jesus deserve to be crucified or not?
User avatar #85346 to #85344 - rebornpooper (08/19/2014) [-]
>Did Jesus deserve to be crucified or not?
Fuck you. We've already had this discussion.
User avatar #85347 to #85346 - thebritishguy (08/19/2014) [-]
Can't remember it, I find you forgettable as your comments are so unsubstantiated, I filter out the insults which means that when you write 500 words only 20 of them are actually taken in.
#85349 to #85347 - rebornpooper (08/19/2014) [-]
Hypocrisy on the "unsubstantial" commenting, since you're excuse could easily be turned to claim something along the lines of "you chose to ignore them because you filter out anything you disagree with."
Let me me break it down for you why exactly this whining is full of shit, (pay attention tmstyrant, this examined proposal isn't atypical from what's proposed here, and why you're probably better off leaving this silly place) .
Premise: Justice is absolute for what is "deserving."
Questioned: Therefore, justice is punishment on convicted.

Case 1: Jesus' sacrifice is real. Christianity is true.
Outcome: God is real by extention. Morality and justice are both created and judged by omniscient being. Ergo, british has no argument because british does not dictate morality and justice.
Case 2: Jesus' sacrifice is real. Christianity is false.
Outcome: Morality is judged towards a society that had a completely different view on morality than modern times. People chose to follow the teachings of one man who had no problem with his martyrdom because he believed that he was going to benefit humanity. Should god exist, this death is questionable for what the current stance on morality is, and can be viewed as justified, divine punishment because of Jesus' preachings claiming himself to be in close relation to god. Should god not exist, this death is meaningless in the scale of the universe. Either way, Jesus dies as he expected to. Ergo, british has no stance that both relates to the situation, nor holds any worth.
Case 3: Jesus' sacrifice did not happen. Christianity is false.
No event is analyzed. If God exists, the answer for morality fall outside of the scope of Christianity. If God does not exist, then morality and justice are subjective matters, which hold no place in formal argumentation outside of an opinion.

Most importantly, try to count the word-to-insult ratio, faggot, before you try to make excuses for being an ignorant moron.
User avatar #85385 to #85349 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
Hypocrisy wouldn't negate my claim, it is within the realms of possibility that we are both forgettable and offensive. I said I filter out the insults, not that I filter out anything I dissagree with. I filter out the insults because they are irrelevant to the subject matter.

We all have subjective morality independant of a God, if a God is real it doesn't mean I must negate my own morality. If God exists though and I must negate my own morality and become a slave to his then I can work with that to. God says that Jesus is innocent, therefore he was not deserving of torture.
//Had no problem with his martydom// “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”
Just because someone wants to be tortured doesn't mean they deserve to be tortured.

It's not simply justified because Jesus was closely related to God or was divine, how does that make you deserving of crucifiction? God himself said that Jesus was innocent, so if God exists he agrees with me, Jesus did not deserve to be crucified.
I'm asking you for your subjective opinion so that I can apply it logically to justice, but you never answered, I'll try again, "Did Jesus deserve to be crucified?" yes or no.
User avatar #85398 to #85385 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>how does that make you deserving of crucifiction?
This one clashes with your common tripe about hell, oddly enough. Christians believe that redemption through Jesus and repentance from sin will allow them into heaven, with his raising above man both literally showing the power that he is claimed to have over mortals and symbolic for the successful defeat over death that his followers are promised. You're right in that simple justice isn't at play here. The black and white justice you're proposing though puts every human facing hell. Oddly enough, if this wasn't the case, you'd have little to complain about in other posts.

>so if God exists he agrees with me, Jesus did not deserve to be crucified.
Remember that whole "that's not your call to make" argument? What exactly makes god agree with you anyway?
"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things." -Romans 2:1-2
Really, would a christian who follows the teachings of the bible trust the words of a boy who puts his own judicial reasoning above god's when the same text they follow prohibits this behavior?

Also, restating the same damn empty point about what's "deserving" doesn't make the argument correct.

>I'm asking you for your subjective opinion
No. Shut the fuck up,and, for what's probably the fifth time I've said this, stop asking me.

>so that I can apply it logically to justice
Surprisingly, there's little logic that you've proposed besides your own subjectivity. You've failed to understand the conditions of all scenarios in which your question was asked, and you failed to correctly understand the conditions that the party asked adheres by.

>I'll try again, "Did Jesus deserve to be crucified?" yes or no.
My answer is still the same. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Stop. Asking. Me.
User avatar #85397 to #85385 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>Hypocrisy wouldn't negate my claim
No, but the whole "unsubstantial" plays a large role in why your claim doesn't hold.

>I filter out the insults because they are irrelevant to the subject matter.
It's all to easy to insult you when the main tactic of your argument is to abandon one of the few cases where objectivity can be discussed in religion, instead trying to persuade someone who doesn't think highly of you into a subjective reasoning, despite said person knowing that the opinion of the presenter is meaningless.
I'm not arguing to persuade, I'm arguing to point out truth (or lack of).

>if a God is real it doesn't mean I must negate my own morality.
Wow, you're pulling this out of your ass. God is said to be the default force of good and present an objective morality. Should the case be true that a christian god exists, morality is not only not dictated by man, but such home-brewed morality is useless by comparison.
A man holding his morality above a defined objective set does so for a few reasons. What's yours, then?

>“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”
Matthew 17:22-23
He knew he was going to be killed. He claimed that he would get past it.
User avatar #85399 to #85397 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
God is said to be, yes, it doesn't mean that a God existing would mean I must abandon my own morality though. If God exists I would still have subjective morality. I also think that there is objective good and bad though, if the good is relative to reducing suffering or increasing well being. I don't see why Gods morality would be better than any of ours considering his track record.
Why is my morality better than Gods? I don't demand people worship me or face consequences.

I don't know what your position is because you won't answer the yes or no question. So I can't comment on your position when I don't knoe what it is. I'm not going to argue that Jesus doesn't deserve to be crucified if you already hold that position.

I say that Jesus didn't deserve crucifiction, God says that Jesus was innocent, therefore God agrees with me. I obviously didn't mean that God agrees with me about everything. I'm questioning whether God is moral, so to say "but God is moral" doesn't actually do anything for you, your just asserting the claim which I'm questioning. If you have no morality as you have negated it, then you can't even question this.

I've defined justice as people getting what they deserve, so if you agree that Jesus didn't deserve to be crucified then logically it would be unjust.
User avatar #85401 to #85399 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>your just asserting the claim which I'm questioning.
Shut the fuck up. I personally never appreciate the "because subjectivity, therefore you secretly agree with me" approach.

>I'm questioning whether God is moral, so to say "but God is moral" doesn't actually do anything for you
You're right. It doesn't. You seem to be forgetting (at this point neglecting or ignoring seem to be the more fitting terms) that if god exists, what actually defines morality isn't set up to the authority of humanity, let alone the opinion of one teenager with internet access.

>I've defined justice as people getting what they deserve
I've also taken a look through the definitions because of my personal lack of trust towards you. Justice was defined as being just, with the specific context of just meaning to be morally fair. Logically, the problem of whether or not this is just falls onto whether or not god exists and whether or not god would be as described by christians. This is the logical approach, because the definition for what is moral is defined either by man or by god, depending on which case is true. If god exists and is as described, then what is morally correct aligns with the will of god in the grand scheme of the universe, outside the call of one teenager with internet access. If god does not exist, then morality and justice are concepts evolved purely through evolutionary thinking, meaning that unless they have some sort of survival benefit, they're useless. Christians aren't going to sacrifice humans for no reason, nor were they according to their texts the ones who crucified him. Therefore, not only would this disagreement have no place in logic, but it would also be misdirected away from the group that actually committed the sacrifice. If god exists but doesn't isn't as described, then the question for whether or not Jesus' crucifixion was moral depends on how this god is defined.
User avatar #85406 to #85401 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
If it doesn't do anything to question the claim of God being moral why are you saying it? If someone asks me to talk about whether evolution is false I don't just repeat "Evolution is true, evolution is true". If you aren't going to question whether Gods moral because you just believe it like unquestioning dogma then you have no place in this discussion.

Although you don't like direct questions so perhaps I should just assume that you aren't going to question it. In which case I'll fuck off.
User avatar #85419 to #85406 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>so to say "but God is moral" doesn't actually do anything for you
>You're right. It doesn't.
>If it doesn't do anything to question the claim... why are you saying it
The answer is simple, because you asked me regarding the case that god exists, not because you assume that I adhere to your definition of "moral," which does nothing to me.
You're at this point not asking "is god moral," since, logically, if god exists, god is the ultimate authority and has established morality long before either of us were born. The answer of "because god is moral" is a perfectly valid one with the elaboration and roots of the concept of morality brought into the discussion (which ironically, is being portrayed as a mirror to your "is jesus' sacrifice not justice? Yes, because it is not justice.").
You're not asking if god does a trait that god defines, you're asking "should a man listen to his own judgement or listen to god's?" What's worse is that you've already answered this question by claiming that your own definition is would be more important and fair than that of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being. For all of the reasoning and thought (or lack of, in this case) that you've put in behind the judgement, I don't believe that you are in a valid position to try to convince anybody of morality, much less hound anyone else for believing otherwise.

>Although you don't like direct questions
>Rebornpooper doesn't answer loaded questions, therefore it must be rebornpooper's fault.

>In which case I'll fuck off.
Please do so.
User avatar #85441 to #85419 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
[on the question of whether God is moral] "The answer of "because god is moral" is a perfectly valid one" - Rebornshitter
User avatar #85442 to #85441 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>I'm going to take a quote out of context because I don't have a counterargument.
User avatar #85572 to #85442 - thebritishguy (08/21/2014) [-]
There's no context in which a claim is true because a claim is true, it's completely illogical.
User avatar #85576 to #85572 - rebornpooper (08/22/2014) [-]
British, I've tried to keep my insults to a relatively low amount throughout this discussion unless the nature of the insult's structure or meaning was directly related to something that you've stated.
Please, tell me then, what is your excuse this time for the stubbornness in pushing forward your failed and already defeated criticism?
User avatar #85400 to #85399 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>If God exists I would still have subjective morality.
Which, for what has got to be the fifth time, would be completely worthless and irrelevant.

>I don't see why Gods morality would be better than any of ours considering his track record.
You've got to be kidding me... really, british?
Your statement is that, in the case that an omniscient being that brings to the table objective, default morality existing that you would consider your own feelings above it.
I'm struggling to word a reply to this. This is beyond shortsighted for what the scenario means! This is beyond arrogant. Why should anyone listen to the words of a boy who thinks that his morality would be, if that comparison were able to be made, is worth more than objectivity?

>I don't demand people worship me or face consequences.
And what's more, we're back to this topic. You seem to be forgetting just what we're talking about, and please read carefully because you seem to be forgetting this quite a lot, if god exists, then what is "good" within the world is what god has set the default "good" to be.
As for your own question, yes, I would trust god's judgement more than yours (should god exist). God doesn't whining that he thinks everyone should go to hell, then turns around and tries haphazardly to claim that one situation which slacks the justice applied to humanity is invalid.
Aside from that, you've just given me an open opportunity to insult you to my heart's content and actually present it as a valid argument, regardless of the insult's relevance. I don't trust your subjectivity because this illustrates the amount of thought put into the posts you create (very little, since you were complaining about his practice earlier).

>I don't know what your position is because you won't answer the yes or no question.
If you weren't seeking to personally attack me or weren't try to persuade me with subjective reasoning, then why would this be an issue?
User avatar #85405 to #85400 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
I don't think it would be because I wouldn't want to just be under an unquestioning dogma in which every subject is "God says it's good, therefore it's good." I want to look at the situation and determine whether the response would be good or bad if the aim is to maintain wellbeing.

I don't know what you mean by default, as toddlers we don't know of Gods morals or understand God, so we use subjective morality, later on you might accept Gods objective morality. So subjective morality would be the default position. It's not my feelings, it's what I determine with my thoughts is the most appropriate thing in the objective of maintaining well being. To turn to Gods morality I would have to use my subjective reasoning anyway as that is default. To determine "God is good and I should follow his morals" I would have to use my subjective reasoning. I don't find God to be moral, I'm questioning it. Objectivity may not be good, God could order people to kill their own children, that's not a good thing. Absolutism is often bad, u a muthafukin sith?

If God is in the world I won't have to change my morality, I would be a maltheist. Just because somethings subjective doesn't mean that everyones opinion is even, some subjective opinions are better than others because they have basis in fact. You insulting me has no relevance to this issue, whether I'm whiney or not doesn't change anything about objective or subjective morality.

Well if you answered, you wouldn't have had to use subjective reasoning because even God says Jesus was innocent, then I could have gone on to say why it was unjust.
User avatar #85422 to #85405 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
>determine whether the response would be good or bad if the aim is to maintain wellbeing.
Once again, your shortsighted and childish premise holds no ground.
If bible is true: Jesus is to provide humanity with a symbol of hope and a method of obtaining eternal afterlife, benefiting all of humanity who can come to terms with their flawed nature and turning towards a being that, is the default and established good of the universe. Benefits humanity
If bible is not true: Well being of humanity is in speculation if event never occurred. "What if Napoleon was never born" speculations occur. No comparison between how "good" the world would have turned out and the current state of it can be made because of the lack of the former.

>As toddlers we don't know of Gods morals or understand God, so we use subjective morality, later on you might accept Gods objective morality.
Jeremiah 17:9
As for what this has to do with objectivity, let's go back to your comparison. The argument from reason is one that was primarily advocated by C.S. Lewis. It claims that, because abstractions such as natural rule exist and hold constant, God is likely to have created the universe. Swap this principle for morality; a toddler's brain develops over the course of its life. Yet, its rationality will often be skewed unless corrected. The toddler will assume that an object that is not in sight no longer exists. The toddler grows and learns that people have long since discovered that the ball did not disappear forever once out of sight and out of mind.
The toddler eventually learns that the existence of the ball is independent of the view of the child. Perhaps the ball existed before the child was born. Of course, I don't expect you to object to this scenario, but you've surprised me with stubbornness in the past.
This is what the terminology for when I state "default" morality, what god is claimed to have established as good and evil since the universe's inception, altered in view by man later.
User avatar #85421 to #85405 - rebornpooper (08/20/2014) [-]
I appreciate the equivocation, but at least try to use analogies that don't betray the point.

>find God to be moral, I'm questioning it. Objectivity may not be good...
Begging the question at its finest.

>God could order people to kill their own children, that's not a good thing.
You neglect that there may be a benefit to the death of the children. Besides, could is not a deciding factor.

>If God is in the world I won't have to change my morality, I would be a maltheist.
That would be your problem then.

>Just because somethings subjective doesn't mean that everyones opinion is even, some subjective opinions are better than others because they have basis in fact.
Ironically, this is exactly why your argument fails. Your opinion has no more worth than anyone who claims that the sacrifice is justified. What makes this special is the fact that the scenario is either set up that the question is irrelevant to the lives of both debaters, therefore pointless to try to claim victory, or excluding the force that would decide it. You've ignored this, instead promoting a shortsighted bleeding heart argument to try to propose that your judgement is equal to that of a being who if existed, would have already decided what is moral in the universe that it created at least thousands of years before you were born. (In the case of god existing, I would personally rather trust omniscience to decide what is right than the words of someone who is almost resorting to dismissing counterarguments because "muh ad hom").
I elaborated this because it's truly ridiculous to read everything that's been implied.

>Well if you answered, you wouldn't have had to use subjective reasoning because even God says Jesus was innocent, then I could have gone on to say why it was unjust.
Actually, I would have had to use subjective reasoning. Just behavior is rooted in judgement in morality. Your judgement of what is "unjust" is entirely based on your subjective reasoning. Do as I say, not as I do?
User avatar #85076 to #85072 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
" if you could take a punishment meant for your child wouldn't you?"

I wouldn't. That's a distorted system. Even though it would be my child that I'd love, if my child is responsible for the crime, then that child should pay for it and nobody else. And to add to this, the punishment should fit the crime. Eternal hell is not really a just punishment for all finite crimes.

"The big thing with Jesus dying is that he came back to life, he paid for all of our sins and then defeated death and in doing so also saved the souls of all the people who had already died that never had a chance to receive his salvation to that point. "

Well, he didn't really die. You can't kill God. The whole idea of sacrifice isn't really a sacrifice is you get to come back to life (or in this case never actually die at all). And it gets creepy when you start to think who Jesus was "sacrificed" to anyway...himself. So God sacrificed himself, to himself to save mankind from sins he created, allowed to flourish and didn't bother to correct for roughly 4000+ years?

Then God decided that that the best way to achieve salvation is through the spilling of blood and the torture of a presumably innocent version of himself? That's kind of psychotic.

People should not be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. That's a bad system. The idea that sin is passed on from the father to the son is just ludicrous.

User avatar #85077 to #85076 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
The thing you have to remember is that God loves you more than anything and would gladly take that punishment for you.

Sacrificed is probably not the best word, He came down in human form and lived a perfect sin free life and then took all of God's wrath on the cross because someone had to and in doing so created a bridge for salvation that was previously non existent by paying for all of our sins but only requiring that we acknowledge him as our savior . You also need to remember that God exists as Jesus, and the Holy Spirit at the same time.

User avatar #85078 to #85077 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"The thing you have to remember is that God loves you more than anything and would gladly take that punishment for you. "

You used the parent to child analogy before, so you shouldn't be angry when I do the same here.
If you loved your children, or even anyone for that matter, would you ever construct a torture chamber in your basement so that they could be punished and eternally at that?

Would a loving person slaughter all of their loved ones? Would you order the people you loved to slaughter others, including innocents such as the infant children?
Would a loving person advocate slavery or stoning?
Is it moral and just for an innocent person to take on the crimes of the guilty? Of course not.

How did you even come to the conclusion that god loved you?

"Sacrificed is probably not the best word, He came down in human form and lived a perfect sin free life and then took all of God's wrath on the cross because someone had to and in doing so created a bridge for salvation that was previously non existent by paying for all of our sins but only requiring that we acknowledge him as our savior ."

Lets not beat around the bush, human form or not, it's still God. And God has demonstrably broken his own rules, according to the text, rules that he punished and condemned others for committing, which would suggest that not even God is sin-free.

Why did someone have to die on a cross, specifically himself, for his own screwups in the beginning which he rather selfishly forced blame onto mankind? If God is truly a god, couldn't he have done it anyway he pleased? Or is his power limited...?

So anyone that lives a good life, kind and loving towards others, but fails to believe in God, deserves eternal punishment? And you consider that a good, just system?

User avatar #85079 to #85078 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
No one sends you to hell you send yourself, all you had to do to stop it was accept Jesus as your savoir. There is a good metaphor about how if the trip(life) to heaven or hell was a bus ride the people destined to hell would go willingly it's their own choice.

Dont confuse the old testament with the new testament also, Jesus greatest commandment is to love God with all your being and to Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. What rules did God break when he sent his only son to die for our sins?

He gave Adam and Eve a very simple command to follow and they disobeyed it knowing the consequences, but our sins our still our own and a debt has to be paid. If your friend hit your...I guess fence with his car and damaged it someone has to pay for it. Now you could just pay for it yourself or your friend could pay for it but the debt has to be paid by someone. So either we could have paid for our sins and gone to hell or He could send his son to pay for our sins in our stead and he choose to send his son.

God first choose that people be judged by their sins but no one could live a sin free life (anger is the same as murder, lust the same as adultery, there is no such thing as a white lie sin all sins are equal), so instead He choose the vehicle to be the acceptance of Jesus as our savior. Also good works don't matter even for Christians, it is all about the acceptance of Christ in to your life.
User avatar #85084 to #85079 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"So either we could have paid for our sins and gone to hell or He could send his son to pay for our sins in our stead and he choose to send his son. "

Or you know, snap his magic fingers and correct the fucked up system.

"God first choose that people be judged by their sins but no one could live a sin free life (anger is the same as murder, lust the same as adultery, there is no such thing as a white lie sin all sins are equal), so instead He choose the vehicle to be the acceptance of Jesus as our savior. "

All sins treated equal? Again, this is an immoral and unjust system you are defending.

"Also good works don't matter even for Christians, it is all about the acceptance of Christ in to your life. "

So then God's judgement isn't based on a persons moral character, but rather their belief and worship. Does God have an ego problem? What kind of god rewards blissful ignorance and condemns healthy skepticism? Yet another reason why this belief system is immoral. Your God just needs people to stroke his cock, he cares nothing about the good and bad deeds in peoples lives, he just needs people to give him handjobs. And if you're unwilling to wrap your hands around the shaft, he punishes and tortures you forever. What a delightful, loving person God is.
User avatar #85086 to #85084 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
He can't, like you said he created the system and the rules so we have to live by them.

I dont see it as immoral or unjust, if you can live a perfect life go for it but you can't so all you have to do is accept Jesus in to your life and be saved.

If good deeds earned your way in to heaven then you would be doing them for selfish reasons, if you are Christian you should want to do good deeds to help people and show people God's love through you. Like I said, He does not send you anywhere you were given a choice and when you die (If you never change your mind) you will go to hell based off your own choice until Judgement Day.
User avatar #85094 to #85086 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"He can't, like you said he created the system and the rules so we have to live by them. "

So you don't think God is all powerful? And you accept that God is responsible for all things, including the judgement of souls?

"I dont see it as immoral or unjust, if you can live a perfect life go for it but you can't so all you have to do is accept Jesus in to your life and be saved. "

You say that as if it were a bus ride...You actually think that a God that rewards blind faith over moral attributes is a good God? A just God? You actually think that is a moral system? How can a system even begin to be moral if it doesn't even reward morality??

"If good deeds earned your way in to heaven then you would be doing them for selfish reasons, if you are Christian you should want to do good deeds to help people and show people God's love through you."

I could just as easily say that the only reason why you believe in God is so that you can selfishly get into heaven and avoid eternal damnation. At least when you do good deeds, for whatever reason it might be, it's benefiting others.

And I think you;re foolish to imply that someone who doesn't believe in God or heaven or hell, but does good deeds, is doing it out of pure self interest. That's insane.

"Like I said, He does not send you anywhere you were given a choice and when you die (If you never change your mind) you will go to hell based off your own choice until Judgement Day. "

Give me a reason to believe and I'll gladly do so. I may not know what would convince me, but God would. And he can present that confirmation at any point. Until then, I feel as though I am justified to reject any and all God claims until the proper evidence and reason can support the claims.
User avatar #85097 to #85094 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
It's a catch 22 honestly lol, if you are a true believer than you dont need to do good deeds but if you are a true believer than you should want to do good deeds.

If you do good deeds only to get to heaven then you are going to hell Revelation 3:16

Never said you would do good deeds purely from self interests, people do them all the time because they do want to help people but it does not matter if you don't have faith and love in Christ.

This is going to come off as bad sorry, I already said it once in another post I dont think you read it yet though concerning free will. You will come off as a petulant child with that argument in the end "It's not fair! You gave me no evidence!" well you were told about Jesus and what he did for you, if any more was given you would not actually believe you would have no free will you will do what you were told when you were told. You need to make up your own mind which you have done, neither one of us will convince the other but honestly I would just make a pro and con table.

Whats the worst If I am wrong? I spent my life helping and loving my fellow man, and trying to do my best for the people around me and when I die welp that's it.

What's the worst if your wrong? Well let's just say that eternity is a very long time to be wrong wouldn't you agree?

What's the worst if your wrong?
User avatar #85101 to #85097 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"It's a catch 22 honestly lol, if you are a true believer than you dont need to do good deeds but if you are a true believer than you should want to do good deeds. "

Good. I don't believe heaven exists, nor God, so any good deed I do is more out of wanting to be good than it would be for selfish purposes. If God condemns me to hell for being a good person just because I wasn't willing to believe in him in the face of evidence, then that God isn't moral or just as far as I'm concerned.

"Never said you would do good deeds purely from self interests, people do them all the time because they do want to help people but it does not matter if you don't have faith and love in Christ. "

Then God is immoral. He prioritizes belief over character and in retrospect, doesn't consider character at all. If God was truly moral, he would save people because of how they lived their life, not because of their willingness to accept a belief.

"This is going to come off as bad sorry"

The way you framed it, yes. How much of your time do you spend worrying about the hells of other religions? Probably not much, if at all. Well, I take it just one step further. I see a lot of claims of punishment if I don't believe certain religions. But none of these religions can offer any justification for belief. If God can't understand that, then he isn't God.

Don't be so sure you can't be convinced of something. I used to be Christian. It was discussions just like these that helped me to reject religion and god based claims.

"Whats the worst If I am wrong?"
You sacrifice your dignity and humanity in pursuit of things you can achieve otherwise. Plus, a lot of wasted time in devotion to something that doesn't exist. And you;re not helping humanity to overcome ignorance.

"What's the worst if your wrong?"
First off, pascals wager is a bad argument. And here's why...What about the hells of other religions? If you;re wrong, you will end up in them...for eternity!
User avatar #85103 to #85101 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
That would make sense if people's character was not already flawed, so yes He does choose faith over our flawed character since if He choose that then we would all just do to hell.

I dont believe in the other religions, and I have done a lot of studying in to them, they all lack one thing and that is love. Christianity is the only religion that has the golden rule "do on to other as you would have them do on to you" all the other only have " dont do to other what you would not want them to do to you", there is a whole lot of difference there.

Honestly your faith must have been pretty weak if these types of convos could rock your foundation. Yeah I see the logic behind not believing but I read tons of books from all sides, multiple "holy" books, and talked to pastors, priests, imams, etc to come to my conclusions.

I am not sacrificing my dignity nor my humanity by helping people, and believing in God has been shown in studies to really help people with their confidence, self esteem ect since it provides you with a very good support group. Any Christian who does not believe in evolution and scientific progress is a twat, and most educated Christians do take evolution as fact.

The problem with you being wrong is still the same, all those different hells still means going to hell.
User avatar #85214 to #85103 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"That would make sense if people's character was not already flawed, "

No flaws = perfection which means no reason to judge us morally. The fact that we can still be good people despite being horribly flawed shows a lot about the human race.

"I dont believe in the other religions, "

I hope you realize that the golden rule was not original to Christianity. You are aware of this right? People thought of the general idea of the golden rule long before Christianity came around. Saying that other religions lack love is also silly. Of course other religions have love. Just strike up a conversation with an actual believer in that religion and they'd tell you. People aren't generally interested in religions that they don't perceive to be loving. So, you spent time studying other religions and weren't convinced, so why should you worry about those hells? Well, that's me with Christianity.

"Honestly your faith must have been pretty weak "
It took many years, it didn't happen over night, and these conversations were hardly the sole reason for my change of opinion, but they did help, because they made me think.

"I am not sacrificing my dignity nor my humanity by helping people"
If you're beliefs aren't true, then yes, that is exactly what you're doing. Your beliefs inform your daily actions. Your actions have an effect on the people around you.

"believing in God has been shown in studies to really help people with their confidence, self esteem ect since it provides you with a very good support group. "

Common with most religions or even non religious support groups. Not a good reason to believe in fantasy over reality.

"most educated Christians do take evolution as fact. "

If only most were educated.

"The problem with you being wrong is still the same, all those different hells still means going to hell. "

So all those other hells exist? So you should be scared of them too, right? I'm not sure you understood my point here...
User avatar #85080 to #85079 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"No one sends you to hell you send yourself, all you had to do to stop it was accept Jesus as your savoir."

That's absurd. How can you if you don't even believe hell or God exists?

Regardless, God created hell, God is responsible for the criteria for which souls are judged, and therefore God is directly responsible for the consequences of those judgements, his own judgments, his system...that he created...

"There is a good metaphor about how if the trip(life) to heaven or hell was a bus ride the people destined to hell would go willingly it's their own choice. "

Why would anyone willingly go to hell? That's just silly.

"Dont confuse the old testament with the new testament also, Jesus greatest commandment is to love God with all your being and to Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. What rules did God break when he sent his only son to die for our sins? "
The Old Testament laid the groundwork for The New Testament, don't give it up so easily. Besides, God words stands forever, according to The Bible, If it doesn't, this would suggest that God, the all knowing, supreme being somehow got it wrong the first time around...Not so godly, it would seem.

"He gave Adam and Eve a very simple command to follow and they disobeyed it knowing the consequences, but our sins our still our own and a debt has to be paid. If your friend hit your..."

God gave a commandment to two idiots that didn't know better, as they hadn't ate from the tree of knowledge yet. They were then told the truth by the serpent that they wouldn't die, contrary to what God told them both. If anyone's to blame, it's God or the serpent. Although, at least the serpent was honest.

" If your friend hit your...I guess fence with his car and damaged it someone has to pay for it. Now you could just pay for it yourself or your friend could pay for it but the debt has to be paid by someone."

Has to pay according to whom? And how is this even comparable to a crime spanning thousands of years.


User avatar #85085 to #85080 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
Then you go hell if you have the information, you chose not to believe I fail to see how that is absurd.
God created hell for the judgement of the fallen angels it was not intended for humanity.Matthew 18:9; 25:41 and it is actually divided where not all be are being tortured Luke 16:19–31). BUT if you reject Christ you go to the same place as the "wicked one" 2 Peter 2:4–9

You do not believe in God nor his son Jesus thus you are deciding to go to hell, I fail to see how that is silly.

The old testament is full of good stories and moral guidance but since I am Christian I place more importance on what Jesus said and He said I am to love people as I would love myself. This is way I do not think homosexuality is a sin, not saying I am gay lol just that we are supposed to love one another not hate.

And they decided to believe a talking snake rather than the God that created them opening the way to sin.

It's called an analogy, there is a debt to be paid we messed up and sinned and we would have to answer for it but Jesus picked up the debt for us.

User avatar #85090 to #85085 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"And they decided to believe a talking snake rather than the God that created them opening the way to sin.
"
They didn't eat from tree of knowledge, they were less intelligent than infant children in that regard. They had no understanding of right and wrong, they were blissful, ignorant little people if you accept the story. Secondly, God lied to them and said they'd die. The serprent told them honestly that they would not. If they had no knowledge of right and wrong, how are they to know that defiance is wrong? And is it unreasonable that two people were deceived? If God didn't want them to eat from the tree, he should have made sure the serpent couldn't take advantage of them.

"It's called an analogy, there is a debt to be paid we messed up and sinned and we would have to answer for it but Jesus picked up the debt for us. "
It's a poor analogy. It's hardly comparable to something spanning thousands of years. If your grandfather murdered someone in the past, should you be placed in jail on death row if he escaped punishment? Your analogy is flawed at a fundamental level.

If God is all knowing, he knew we'd "mess up". And I hardly think that being lied to initially, then deceived by some random, honest subject of God's is warrant enough to doom humanity for eternity. If it is, then God and his plans are immoral. And you're immoral for following them.

User avatar #85095 to #85090 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. Thus he leaves us to make are own choices

His promise that they would die if they ate of the fruit would have been broken (Genesis 2:16), making God a liar–and God never lies (for example, see 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2).

God makes people right with himself through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is true for all who believe in Christ, because all people are the same: Everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glorious standard, and all need to be made right with God by his grace, which is a free gift. They need to be made free from sin through Jesus Christ. God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And God gave Jesus to show today that he does what is right. God did this so he could judge rightly and so he could make right any person who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22-26, NCV) * Shameless copy paste, I aint got time to type all that out from memory.
User avatar #85098 to #85095 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. Thus he leaves us to make are own choices "

If God knows that he built flaws into his creatures, he is ultimately responsible for not correcting those flaws.

"His promise that they would die if they ate of the fruit would have been broken (Genesis 2:16), making God a liar–and God never lies (for example, see 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2). "

You have a passage demonstrating that he lied. And you have a passage saying that God never lies. Contradiction.

"God makes people right with himself through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is true for all who believe in Christ, because all people are the same: "

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say here. Obviously, I have no reason to accept that any of it is true.

"Everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glorious standard, and all need to be made right with God by his grace, which is a free gift. They need to be made free from sin through Jesus Christ. "

That's great. Have any evidence?

"God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins."

I think it shows that your God is either a psychopath or a moron. Possibly both.

"And God gave Jesus to show today that he does what is right. God did this so he could judge rightly and so he could make right any person who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22-26, NCV) "

I've already explained why I object. Now you're just preaching.
User avatar #85088 to #85085 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"Then you go hell if you have the information, you chose not to believe I fail to see how that is absurd. "

I have the information for many different hells, not just that of Christianity. Which of those hells should I fear? And why should I fear them at all?

You don't seem to understand that I have no reason to accept your beliefs as being accurate or valid. And if God is going to punish someone who disbelieves but for good reasons, then that God is an ass and not deserving of my belief to begin with.

I choose not to believe because the claim isn't convincing. It's no different than claims of bigfoot, fairys, or lochness monsters.

"God created hell for the judgement of the fallen angels it was not intended for humanity"

But it is now according to scripture. Did that happen separate from God's will? No, so then your point is null and void. Tortured, deleted from existence, eternal darkness, whatever version of hell you state, it is all immoral, because there are still people that get an eternal reward while others are eternally punished and for awful reasons. Now, eternal torture does happen to be worse and some interpret the book that way.


"You do not believe in God nor his son Jesus thus you are deciding to go to hell, I fail to see how that is silly. "

I have no good reason to believe. Aside from that, right now I've made the choice that I'm not going to hell. I place the ball in God's court, now he knows my will, it's now up to him to decide what to do with me. And again, I've already demonstrated that God is ultimately responsible for all things, all choices all consequences including the criteria for which souls are judged which either send you to heaven or hell.

"The old testament... "

Regardless, the book states that God's word will last forever. If you accept the book, you have to accept that, otherwise you're cherry picking.
User avatar #85091 to #85088 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
I always think it is funny when people say He does not deserve my belief, like are you going to say that when you see Him and Christ weeping for your soul?

not cherry picking you obviously do not know much about the Bible
Old Cov failing
Deu 5:27-29
Deu 31:16
Rom 9:31-33

Paul talking about the differences
2 Cor 3:6-9
Other people
Heb 9:28
Heb 10:1-4

According to Christ
Heb 9:14 -17

You have a lot of ego I see, I believe that God does exist I realize I will never fully understand his plans but if there was concrete proof God exists then there would be no faith and honestly no free will, everyone would live according to His commands to get in to heaven not because they actually want a personal relationship with God.
User avatar #85096 to #85091 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"I always think it is funny when people say He does not deserve my belief, like are you going to say that when you see Him and Christ weeping for your soul? "

If he does exist and I see no reason for why he would, then yes, I'll present all my questions and deductions about his moral character. If he gets pissed about my questions and complaints, then he's just as flawed as me.

"not cherry picking you obviously do not know much about the Bible "
Matthew 5:18-19
Luke 16:17
These two versus suggest that the old testament is always standing, now and forever. And even if there were no verses, you're still met with the idea that God, the ultimate being with all knowing, encompassing knowledge and intelligence somehow got it all wrong the first time around and had to revise his system...That itself should tell you that these beliefs are flawed on a fundamental level.

"You have a lot of ego I see,"

I have the ego? I'm not the one demanding worship and threatening anyone who doesn't worship me.

"I believe that God does exist I realize I will never fully understand his plans but if there was concrete proof God exists then there would be no faith and honestly no free will, everyone would live according to His commands to get in to heaven not because they actually want a personal relationship with God. "

Ehhh wrooong. I was hoping you'd go here. First off, faith is a demonstrably inaccurate, unreliable belief system. Simply look at any of the religions that contradict your own and look at all the faithful to see why.

Secondly, I'm assuming you think God doesn't intervene with free will. What about Saul's Damascus road experience? That conflicted with his free will.
What about prayer? That is a violation of free will. Ask and you will receive is flawed under the free will argument...

Thirdly, look at Satan. Satan knows for sure that God exists, and yet he lives in willful disobedience to God. Knowing God exists doesn't remove the free will to reject him.
User avatar #85099 to #85096 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
Well I guess you will just have to wait and see on that one lol

You might want to reread those passages and think about what the Law says has to come to pass for it to end.

You are not the creator of the universe and of all things in it, what have you done to demand worship? Have you saved my immortal soul?

God does act in people's lives directly if that is what he planned, free will does not have to be all the time you can be given a command but it's still your choice to follow it.
Yes but Satan is not human like us so the comparison really does not work he was the fairest angel who believed that humans had no place to exist and he wanted control so God cast him down for disobedience. Are you an angel was mighty powers and have seen the creation of everything, I feel like perspective is in order here.

User avatar #85102 to #85099 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"Well I guess you will just have to wait and see on that one lol "

This is called fear mongering. I don't know why Christians resort to it, it really isn't convincing.

"You might want to reread those passages and think about what the Law says has to come to pass for it to end. "

Don't worry, I've read them again and again. A literal reading suggests exactly what I've said. If you want to try and interpret it differently, be my guest. I'm just pointing out that your book contradicts itself, or at least could be interpreted to contradict itself. In truth, I'm just waiting for someone to present reason and evidence for why the book should be taken seriously at all. Quoting scripture to prove scripture is redundant.

"You are not the creator of the universe and of all things in it, what have you done to demand worship? Have you saved my immortal soul? "

God shouldn't be demanding worship at all, that's the point...unless he has an ego problem. The creator of the universe wouldn't worry about being believed in or liked, especially when he's not providing sufficient reason and evidence for his subjects to believe in him. This isn't a dictatorship where the leader must be acknowledged by all and loved through force....not if it's moral.

"God does act in people's lives directly if that is what he planned, free will does not have to be all the time you can be given a command but it's still your choice to follow it. "
Then there should be no problem with God presenting himself to the world.

"Yes but Satan is not human like us so the comparison really does not work he was the fairest angel who believed that humans ...Are you an angel was mighty powers and have seen the creation of everything, I feel like perspective is in order here. "

Sure it works. It's just a matter of belief and will. Why would it be any different just because he's something else? Can you even define what that something else is? And how could you know?
User avatar #85104 to #85102 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
Well I can't give you an answer since you know I am not God so I told you to wait and see then, not really fear mongering.

No, you need to read it again then, the Law is about making sacrifices to symbolize the innocent lamb and once the lamb comes the Law is completed. Jesus is the Lamb and a literal reading of those two passages only tells you about how the Law will still until it is completed so I am not sure what you are even talking about here. I mean come on that's the whole difference between Judaism and Christianity.

User avatar #85220 to #85104 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"Well I can't give you an answer since you know I am not God so I told you to wait and see then, not really fear mongering."

If you don't have an answer, then don't pretend to know something. You've been telling me again and again about hell and how in the end, if I don't believe I'll spend eternity in hell and then you tell me I'll just have to wait and see...that is all fear mongering. You are using the threat of hell to try and convince me it exists. Otherwise you wouldn't bother.

"No, you need to read it again then, the Law is about making sacrifices to symbolize the innocent lamb and once the lamb comes the Law is completed. "

Perhaps you should read it again. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished." Jesus didn't accomplish all, nor did he try to. All has not yet been accomplished.

It says nothing about accomplishing a law, it says something about accomplishing ALL. It specifically states that the law will always be in effect until ALL is accomplished. If ALL was accomplished we'd all be in heaven right now(if these beliefs had any truth). If you are interpreting this differently, fine, but what makes you think you're the authority on it? Are you seriously going to claim that no one else reads it literally and accepts it to mean that OT law is still in effect? Do you not still follow the commandments?

" I mean come on that's the whole difference between Judaism and Christianity. "
Judaism doesn't accept Christian teachings. Christianity is supposed to accept both. That's the difference.

And are you still going to continue to ignore the fact the under your argument, God, the supreme, all knowing being was somehow wrong? I've been waiting for your response on this, but it never comes. Are you intentionally dodging it?
User avatar #85228 to #85220 - tmstyrant (08/18/2014) [-]
While a lot of what you say is valid I am not going to continue a conversation about religion with someone who does not know the basic differences between Christianity and Judaism and how they came to be, go read the verses I posted for a explanation. You claim to have been a Christian but your statments about some pretty basic stuff throws that in to doubt
User avatar #85364 to #85228 - eight (08/20/2014) [-]
"Expect for I have listed verses that show you why as a Christian ... jewish people and completed with the Resurrection of Christ"

You say you follow The New Testament, but when characters from the new testament explain that God's commandments are in effect until the end of time, you choose not to accept them in favor of something else. In other words, you are cherry picking. You prefer one over the other, despite being instructed to follow both.
I can probably guess why, the real reason why you don't accept the OT laws and refuse to acknowledge that you're technically still supposed to abide by those laws is that you find it all to be morally unappealing. It truly is repulsive and it's no wonder apologists bend over backwards with interpretation atop interpretation to make every excuse to keep from obeying it.

I did read your verses, it was one of the first things I did, but you assumed that I didn't. The thing is, they are supportive for Christ and his salvation, but they don't say anything about throwing the old law out the window and as I've demonstrated, there are biblical verses that make it a point to say that you still need to follow the old law. So why suddenly are these verse incorrect? They come from The Bible, the thing you supposedly trust, and yet, here you are, dismissing them.

And to add to this, you still have prophecies that need to be fulfilled from the OT. You don't get to throw 99% of it away and reach back just for those. It's dishonest. This idea of throwing out the OT law is flawed by literal scripture and from a philosophical point of view as God cannot be omniscient and be wrong about his own law.

And I conclude, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Every word. Not whatever word suits you best at the time.
User avatar #85232 to #85228 - eight (08/18/2014) [-]
"I am not going to continue a conversation about religion with someone who does not know the basic differences between Christianity and Judaism and how they came to be, go read the verses I posted for a explanation. "

I know the basics, sir. I just hold a different opinion as to what those basics mean. You don't get to throw out the source material that is the Old Testament. That's the bottom line. Without the Old Testament, you have no New testament. The Old law still stands, unless directly contradicted by new teachings as noted by those two verses, and there are more.

I challenge you to demonstrate what I've said about Christianity that is wrong. You can list verses, I can list verses, it would seem the verses contradict one another. So how do we establish which verses are right and which aren't? Which are reliable...if any at all? That's something you have to sort out, as it is my opinion none of it is truthful. But really, if you have a book that's claiming two different things or even saying things that can be interpreted in more than one way, it speaks volumes about it's reliability, or in this case lack of reliability.


User avatar #85362 to #85232 - tmstyrant (08/20/2014) [-]
Expect for I have listed verses that show you why as a Christian I can base my belief off of the New Testament and not have to follow what is in the old testament to the letter since it was a covenant made with the jewish people and completed with the Resurrection of Christ, you have given two verses that state that the Law shall not be forgotten and shall always stand until it comes to pass.
User avatar #85052 to #85048 - teoragnar (08/17/2014) [-]
And these flaws are?
#85051 to #85048 - dehumanizer (08/17/2014) [-]
>flawed

homosexsual detected
#85050 to #85048 - hesekiel (08/17/2014) [-]
Point out the flaws and we can talk.
#85030 - youregaylol (08/17/2014) [-]
The reason I support the continued use of the fedora stuff is because without it athietsts on this site are unbearable.

Case in point
www.funnyjunk.com/slightly+funny+title/funny-pictures/5259438/

This is cancer, this is made up, this perpetuates the idea that modern day atheists are persecuted in anyway shape or form, this justifies a bullshit victimization complex for atheists, and this isn't funny or interesting. Without shaming atheists they become narcissistic babies who will put bs like this on front page.

Religious people don't do this, at least online. It's annoying, and if associating atheism with overweight manchildren will get them to stfu I have no problem with it.
User avatar #85234 to #85233 - feelythefeel (08/18/2014) [-]
And historically speaking we've had it about as bad as most other minorities.
User avatar #85237 to #85235 - feelythefeel (08/18/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

"Those labeled as atheist, including early Christians and Muslims, were as a result targeted for legal persecution"

" John Locke, a founder of modern notions of religious liberty, argued that atheists (as well as Catholics and Muslims) should not be granted full citizenship rights."

"During the Inquisition, several of those accused of atheism or blasphemy, or both, were tortured or executed."

"Those unwilling to swear Christian oaths during judicial proceedings were unable to give evidence in court to obtain justice until the requirement was repealed by Acts passed in 1869 and 1870."

"Atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected as a Member of the British Parliament in 1880. He was denied the right to affirm rather than swear his oath of office, and was then denied the ability to swear the oath as other Members objected that he had himself said it would be meaningless. Bradlaugh was re-elected three times before he was finally able to take his seat in 1886 when the Speaker of the House permitted him to take the oath."

And so on.
#85247 to #85237 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Still doesn't prove that atheists face any persecution in the modern world, especially the west and definitely not on the same level as other minorities like blacks.
User avatar #85248 to #85247 - feelythefeel (08/18/2014) [-]
I'm not saying that atheists still have it notably bad, all I'm saying is we're still not quite on even footing (Refer to my original links as citation). Not that I care, though. It's honestly not bad enough to make a fuss over.
#85249 to #85248 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
All I see is one study about that claims to accurately measure perceived trustworthiness and something that reflects who americans might like to lead them, nothing that proves atheists face any real persecution.

You do stand on equal footing, people won't take you seriously if you imagine up discrimination when none exists (look at al sharpton). Also if it's not big enough to make a fuss over, it's not discrimination, simple as that.
User avatar #85251 to #85249 - feelythefeel (08/18/2014) [-]
Discrimination; the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Treating atheists like rapists and keeping them out of office sounds a lot like that to me.
#85252 to #85251 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
I question the validity of the study, but lets say it's true. A lack of trust can be considered being apprehensive of someone, it doesn't mean that you will treat them negatively like you would a known rapist, it just means that you're wary of them. But like I said the study is probably bullshit and I don't put that much stock to it.

And americans will pick want a leader who reflects their values and principles. This is still a largely christian country, like it or not. Blame democracy.
User avatar #85253 to #85252 - feelythefeel (08/18/2014) [-]
I suppose.
User avatar #85061 to #85030 - thebritishguy (08/17/2014) [-]
//this perpetuates the idea that modern day atheists are persecuted in anyway shape or form//
At no point did it say that modern atheists are persecuted, it said that Christians persecuted them in the past. I find it ironic that you call us narcissistic babies while having a rant over a quote being on the front page. I'm sure a lot of Christians thumbed it up also, a youth pastor said it, so evidently at least some Christians agree with the message.

//Religious people don't do this// Yes they do, I've seen many claims of persecution by religious people, most recenty by a born again complaining that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, which was actually a social media stunt that went viral. I saw it on facebook many many times. Before by a reverend complaining that religious books weren't allowed in the library. Jews and Muslims famously complain about persecution, rightly so in many cases.

I don't think the fedora shit is really going to stop anyone, I embrased it, perhaps it's just my level of euphoria.
#85062 to #85061 - youregaylol (08/17/2014) [-]
The way it's phrased makes it seem like modern day atheists are being persecuted right now and you know it, read the comments. A bunch of whiners complaining about religious bigotry, which I'm guessing amounts to nothing more than a disapproving look when they wear their "God is dead" T shirt. Yes atheists on the this site are narcissistic babies who do nothing but bitch and shove their lack of belief down the sites throat, and I compel you to find one religious post on here thats made it to the front page recently. Religious people don't do it, because religious people on this site aren't dickbags.

I didn't say irl, I said online, more specifically on this site. It never happens. Btw that shit wasn't from a youth pastor, it's an obvious fake. It's about as real as this quote.

"Atheists just need to accept that we're annoying shitbags who like to pick fights"-Atheist professor

And thankfully the fedora stuff did shame some euphoric fags, the front page was without this cancer for a few months. You can even see some neckbeards in the comments coming out and saying "Is the fedora stuff over? Can I come out now -insert atheist rant-". Thats why I posted this.
#85063 to #85062 - thebritishguy (08/17/2014) [-]
There really isn't a lot of nuance or complexity, it just says "the way Christians have treated them", I don't see how this is somehow insinuating anything else than what it says. The comments were mainly people just people saying how they get along, I couldn't find an instance of someone whining about persecution. If you have found some then give me the quotes.

The very quote is a religious person you fucking idiot. It's a youth pastor, his quote got to the front page, the user who reposted it doesn't really matter. However seeing that over 3/4 of users on this site aren't religious it just makes sense that religion isn't on the front page all the time. Out of the 23.5% of religious people on this site a lot of them probably have no interest in preaching to funnyjunk anyway.

I think some religious people on this site are dickbags. Syrianassassin is just a mention away.

I really don't think it makes a tremendous difference whether it's online or not, as I've mentioned though there are many facebook groups and campaigns as well as youtubers who claim persecution. I don't see whether it's on this site is important either. Obviously your quote was invented on the spot, it is not obvious that the other quote was invented on the spot. This is a fallacy but I can't remember the shitting name of it.

Obviously you imagined them saying "is it over? can I come out now" to suit your agenda. I don't think many people are really scared of adhominems on a site with anonymisity.
#85064 to #85063 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/slightly+funny+title/funny-pictures/5259438/29#29
Thats where I got the basic idea from, theres other stuff in there with atheists rejoicing but i can see that you're to ignorant to actually look for them and I couldn't be bothered to find them all for you, so oh well. I didn't make it up is the point, and it's certainly not as questionable as stamping "youth pastor" to a quote. Maybe once you get out of high school your teacher will beat some sense into that thick skull of yours about what is and isn't a reliable source, as well as being objective and questionable.

""herrr u fuckin idiot"
I can tell that what I'm saying is hitting close to home because you're raging. I guess that means I can stop holding back out of courtesy. I'd just like to point out that I didn't call you specifically any names first, so you lost your cool. Anyway, you're so fucking dense that you can't even consider the fact that the "youth pastor" shit is made up, you really are an ignorant jizz drain.

The problem is atheist dickbags are in a much larger number here, which is why you'll never see a religious post here. And the fact that it's on the site matters because I'm annoyed that it's on the fucking site you simple little cock squeeze, I didn't know you were this retarded. I posted it on this site because we're talking about this site, please remove your protective helmet and bang your head against the nearest wall so we can be free of your stupidity.

Omar is a minority, the neckbeard fags have the traction to pull bs stunts like this shit that got front page, I can even see the religion board start to revert back to shit after he left. As you've "proven" with your totally legit chart atheists have the capability to bs way more than religious fags, and they are more active in their desire to be fuck heads about it.

Do you have anything else for me or are we done here? I can't waste much more time on your pimple chinned ass.
User avatar #85066 to #85064 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
You don't even know if that person was an atheist. I said I did look for them, I went through a few pages. It's obviously questionable because you've clearly invented it in response to this case, also the quote is explicitly compromising, the atheist proffessor wouldn't call himself annoying. If it's so obviously fake disprove it rather than usng falacious analogies. I don't care that much whether he's real, if someone did invent it then it would still demonstrate that a Christian could get front page.

Why do you care whether it's "hitting close to home" or whether your mocking is subduing people? evidently you don't care about objective truth, you just want to dick measure and see who's the loudest. One of the comments was true about this fedora nonsense.
"the only defense religious people have against having to think. So I think it's here to stay. "

The irony is clear now, you call us whining babies and then pull this shit over a quote getting front page and consistently use ad hominen attacks. Call us narcissistic while putting me so far below you, that's narcissism.

There are religious posts on the site, I can demonstrate that:www.funnyjunk.com/channel/christianity

Even if he is a minority it still refutes your claim that there are no religious assholes.

I'm laughing so fucking hard right now.
#85108 to #85066 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Okay, last reply because I enjoy making you look like a idiot. You see what you want to see because you're an ignorant shitbag, anybody with half a brain cell could see the bitching in the comments, and I've already proven that i didn't make up the quote about is this fedora stuff over, so you're wrong there, whether the poster is an atheist or not doesn't matter. I admitted that it was unlikely for an atheist professor to say, which is why I used it as an example you 15 year old cum squirt. It's about as realistic as a youth pastor saying that shit, you only believe it because you're a prepubescent child.

I said christian posts that can reach front page you Mongoloid, all of the ones that did reach front page are there because they mocked religion or because they are funny, unlike the atheist post which wasn't funny or interesting. Show me a christian post demonizing atheism that gets front page and then I'll take you seriously you fuck nugget.

You're proving the fedora shit right now, which is kinda ironic in a way. You're stubborn, idiotic, and you think you're smarter than you are.

I already said omar was in the minority, thats the whole point, you neckbeards are breeding like rabbits and ruining shit.

In short, youre a baby, you're a whiner, and you're an idiot. i'm done humoring you, go eat paste fuckwit.

User avatar #85111 to #85108 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
if you stop replying that means you lose
#85112 to #85111 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
internet rule #67, never stop replying until the other person quits or dies.
User avatar #85114 to #85112 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Yes that is what I said
#85115 to #85114 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Yes that is what I said
User avatar #85116 to #85115 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
I seriously hope you aren't going to do this
#85117 to #85116 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
do what
User avatar #85118 to #85117 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
keep commenting until I stop
#85119 to #85118 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
nah man, we cool dude
User avatar #85120 to #85119 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
;)
User avatar #85186 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
;)
#85185 to #85184 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
I have no regrets
I have no regrets
#85183 to #85182 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
if i did it would you think less of me comp-sama
if i did it would you think less of me comp-sama
User avatar #85180 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Was that you
#85178 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
think eh was banned
#85176 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
fag pretended he had cancer got +10000
#85177 to #85176 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
good times, im trying to find the post
good times, im trying to find the post
#85174 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
ruski.webm
ruski.webm
#85175 to #85174 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
<newfags wont be able to remember the origin of this
#85160 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
out of vikings so fast?
#85161 to #85160 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Well I could google some but I think that would be cheating.
#85154 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
I'll match it with my black downs collection
#85152 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
my le mustash man is better
#85153 to #85152 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
i have to dip into my overweight viking collection
#85150 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
lets see how many non-traditional reaction images we can post
User avatar #85146 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
;)
User avatar #85144 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
Link or it didnt happen
#85145 to #85144 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
My ISP said that there were so many replies that if they kept a record of it it would literally kill the internet sry.
User avatar #85142 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
He stopped replying to me
#85143 to #85142 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
Probably because he started to talk to me.

You got cuckolded boy.
User avatar #85137 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
I've once kept replying to a dude for 2 weeks
#85141 to #85137 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
I know that dude, after you stopped replying to him I talked to him for 2 months.

Did you know that he collects insects?
User avatar #85134 to #85131 - ecomp (08/18/2014) [-]
so we are gonna do this, huh
#85135 to #85134 - youregaylol (08/18/2014) [-]
it's on bitch
User avatar #85109 to #85108 - thebritishguy (08/18/2014) [-]
Amazing you can write such a large reply with absolutely no substance or reason at all!
User avatar #85056 to #85030 - majormayor (08/17/2014) [-]
>2 pages
>400+ comments
Oh my.
#85057 to #85056 - hesekiel (08/17/2014) [-]
And all of it is the usual shit.
User avatar #85058 to #85057 - majormayor (08/17/2014) [-]
Thanks for telling me it's typical ahead of time.
#85060 to #85058 - hesekiel (08/17/2014) [-]
Well, it's not like I'm saying anything surprising.
User avatar #85038 to #85030 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
I'm an atheist and I hate both of those, I despise the fedora thing because if I ever told people on the internet I was an atheist their immediate thoughts of me would be a fedora wearing neckbeard, when in reality those people are all that I despise on this planet.

And while we aren't persecuted, I've certainly had people be assholes to me for being atheist (I live in a town that's 99% hardcore Catholic and I've had my car egged and people basically hate me because I didn't think there was a god), but it's ridiculous to be preaching about it.
User avatar #85055 to #85038 - eight (08/17/2014) [-]
Egging your car and hating you for being atheist? Christianity, they're doing it wrong.
#85046 to #85038 - dehumanizer (08/17/2014) [-]
egged car, the shoah 2.0
#85039 to #85038 - youregaylol (08/17/2014) [-]
>"And while we aren't persecuted, I've certainly had people be assholes to me for being atheist (I live in a town that's 99% hardcore Catholic and I've had my car egged and people basically hate me because I didn't think there was a god)"

If someones egging your car it's probably not because you're an atheist, and maybe people hat you for some other reason.
User avatar #85040 to #85039 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Well I should have been more specific, most of the town is totally fine, my family and I are a fairly well known and respected family so most of the town is actually super cool. But you get people who are super super religious, and once they know you are atheist they don't enjoy your company very much. It was these same people kids that egged my car, I know who they were. Most people don't care or even bring it up.
#85041 to #85040 - youregaylol (08/17/2014) [-]
Like I said, it's probably something else. One single thing never causes someone to hate you, it's a culmination of things. For instance in my I would say a good portion of those I study with are more left wing, I am openly right wing with them. That doesn't cause any real friction between us.

But if I were to be abrasive and confrontational with them it would cause them to dislike me. I doubt you just said "I'm an atheist" and they just decided to hate you. Something else was probably in play.
User avatar #85042 to #85041 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
I understand what you are saying, what I'm saying is that people around here thrive on rumors and will judge someone based upon them. I'd have someone ask me if I believe in God during some kind of discussion, and I'd say "well I think it's unlikely", then other people get word that I don't believe in god and make their assumptions of me if they didn't know me. 90% of people I know I get along with, so it isn't like I'm an unlikable person. These people that do this are usually in high school, and were raised super religious. So it isn't like a majority of people hate me or anything. I've had a few of them actually become friends of mine once they talk to me. It's an ignorance thing, not a hate thing.
#85043 to #85042 - youregaylol (08/17/2014) [-]
I'm telling you, whatever it was it wasn't caused by your atheism, or at least it wasn't a major cause. High school is a weird time, but it's pretty easy to understand in retrospect. They find the kid whose different, peculiar, strange, weak, and anti-social and they pick on him/her. Look, I don't know you personally and I have nothing against you, but from what you're telling me it sounds like you were a kid on the outs with the regular students. Maybe not hated or anything, you probably said hi to a few popular kids, but you were never one of them (believe it or not im not trying to offend you here).

Admittedly I'm speculating, but that's just the feeling I'm getting. It reminds me of my time in high school, there was an overweight kid who got bullied alot and he basically blamed it on his weight. Well the thing is there were overweight kids who were considered cool. See, it wasn't just the weight, but also his demeanor.

People mainly respond to the way you act, instead of what your beliefs are.
User avatar #85044 to #85043 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
I was skinny, but not weak (I hold a power clean record for the school for under 150 pounds), and I was on the football team, basketball team, did track, and got good grades. I wasn't an outsider, but I didn't go to parties and drink myself into a coma either, I am a pretty balanced person. My whole point is that there are people who will dislike you purely because of one thing. I know, I have met them personally (there was one guy who didn't like me purely because I had a camaro). These people are idiots, but they exist. It's just like atheists who hate people because they are christians, they're ignorant.

Realize that I live in a very rural community and people here are hated just for being gay as well, regardless of personality. So having a few people not like someone because they aren't christian isn't far fetched.
#85045 to #85044 - youregaylol (08/17/2014) [-]
I mean in the end I can't really dispute what you're telling me, I don't know you, it just seems unlikely to me.
User avatar #85047 to #85045 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Well in my experience people do it, although they are a minority. Most people were cool with me regardless of what I thought, and I exaggerated a bit, those kids who egged my car could have egged me on random, but they were generally the kids who were dumb about that shit.

But my whole thing is that extremes of both can be super annoying. Christians constantly quoting bible verses on facebook or talking about how good God is every 3 seconds are painful, and atheists who wear fedoras and talk of uphoria are absolutely cringe-worthy. I don't believe that either of those are the majority of either group.
#85031 to #85030 - dehumanizer (08/17/2014) [-]
OY VEY YOU ANTI SEMITE ATHEIST STOP OPRESSING ME, IM A STRONG INDEPENDANT NECKBEARD WHO DONT NEED NO GOD!
#85032 to #85031 - hesekiel (08/17/2014) [-]
What does that shirt say?
User avatar #85034 to #85032 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
Atlus, a Japanese video game developer/publisher
#85029 - dehumanizer (08/17/2014) [-]
Howcome this broad got so shit?
User avatar #85049 to #85029 - ecomp (08/17/2014) [-]
The assassin is missing
#85036 to #85029 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/17/2014) [-]
ur back! why did you get unbanned?
#85037 to #85036 - dehumanizer (08/17/2014) [-]
I joined Hamas and they hacked the site.
User avatar #85053 to #85037 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/17/2014) [-]
Fucking pathetic mudslime worshiping, bulgarian. Thinks Hamas care about him and even have computers.
User avatar #85065 to #85054 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/18/2014) [-]
>implying you can use that one on me
#85025 - alimais (08/17/2014) [-]
Does your country have problem too ?
Does your country have problem too ?
User avatar #84991 - ribocoon ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Was thinking about a conversation I had on here a while ago about utilitarianism.
Specifically the scenario involving 1 person in heaven and another in hell. It would be better to end both their consciousness rather than let the 1 person burn in hell, even if it means the 1 person in heaven doesn't get to enjoy paradise.
I liked the idea of prioritizing the reduction of suffering over the propagation of pleasure.
But now I'm questioning that because killing all life on earth (instantaneous and painless of course) would certainly end suffering.
But yeah killing and stuff is generally bad. Thoughts?
User avatar #85015 to #84991 - Cambro (08/17/2014) [-]
Weighing in here about utilitarianism and other ethical structures:

Cleverguy, kanadetenshi--Utilitarianism is very popular among the politically powerful. Notice prisons are called "correctional facilities"? That's utilitarianism.

But as to cleverguy's points specifically about the power of utilitarianism among philosophers, he is partly right. Many philosophers will reject Bentham's utilitarianism but will buy into Stuart Mill's more lax form of utilitarianism. That was only around 200 years ago that he championed it. Today there are still many who reject utilitarianism, but philosopher's of the day tend to like natural humanism which still has its roots in utilitarianism, framing any ethical situation in the question "how does this action benefit or harm the well-being of moral agents in question?"

As to Kant, most philosophers reject much of what Kant said. Kantian ethics has run into problems being endorsed specifically because it deals with ethical absolutes--lying is absolutely wrong and Kant defended this vigorously even in personal letters so its not exactly like you can deny that. That is a very large problem for an ethics system to face. The response, then, is take the categorical imperative and see what you can do with it as a general guideline instead of a hard and fast rule. They take "every person must be treated as an end" as an ethical basis, but doesn't apply it as far as Kant does.

As for which ethical system is best, I'll lean on my Christianity and say a Golden Rule ethics. It acts very similar to W.D. Ross's ethical system combined with natural humanism. There are things that are absolutely wrong, but they are few and far between. Everything else needs to be assessed with this question in mind-"Is this action creating love or being done in love?" I will assert that any truly virtuous action must be done selflessly, and only Christian ethics can work selflessly.
User avatar #85024 to #85015 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
i also should probably have said deontological ethics instead of kantian ethics
User avatar #85021 to #85015 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
another problem with utilitarianism is that there is no room for moral permissibility, which possibly could arise in the system you support, from what i can tell by your description
User avatar #85010 to #84991 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
The killing all life on earth to reduce suffering is based on an extreme form of negative utilitarianism.
User avatar #85016 to #85010 - ribocoon ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
If I remember right, you are a utilitarian. What form do you support and why?
User avatar #85028 to #85016 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
I'm not really a utilitarian. I'm a moral realist. But i combine consequential ethics based on a moral realist framework. It sort of resembles the moral landscape thesis on Harris.
User avatar #85033 to #85028 - ribocoon ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Are you still a soft determinist?
User avatar #84997 to #84991 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
google "why utilitarianism doesn't work" so you can ignore this question because it is based on an obsolete ethical theory
User avatar #85007 to #84997 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
You can pretty much do the same by typing in google "why kantianism is wrong". You're not damaging your credibility by lazily telling people to google results that will obviously be based on one-sided arguments.
User avatar #85009 to #85007 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
kantianism doesn't work sometimes, i conceded that.

but here are the reasons i came up with off the top of my head (not my original ideas though)

1. it doesn't judge the action based on the actual morality of the action, rather the results of the action

2. the things it judges the actions on are immeasurable

3. the things it judges the actions on go on for infinity so it is impossible to say how exactly the results balance out (the butterfly effect)
User avatar #85011 to #85009 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
1. The morality of the action is based on the result of the action. The action itself is bad precisely because we can objectively measure the harm the action can cause. Saying that the action itself is not being adressed is a strawman.

2. How are they immeasurable and how are they measurable in kantianism

3. Utilitarianism assumes consequences directly from the action, not consequences as a domino effect. Another strawman.
User avatar #85020 to #85011 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
1. no its not, the results of the action ignore intent and context which are important in determining morality

2. how can you compare values of suffering to values of joy objectively and accurately?
and kantianism doesn't measure values because it is not based on aggregations

3. that's arbitrary though, so not objective. how can you objectively determine which consequences to consider?
User avatar #85027 to #85020 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
Intent and context are directly related to consequences. You want to do something precisely to get a desired result.

Physical wellbeing, neurological wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, ect.

The actions that directly promote a good consequence

I'm just gonna give you an example that even you can understand. Imagine that there is a paralel universe where when you stab someone with a knife it will heal them rather than cut them, so stabbing someone will end up with a desired result. So despite the fact that the ACTION of stabbing someone is exactly the same, the CONSEQUENCES of stabbing someone is different, and that's how we can determine which one of the two is morally bad based on consequence.
User avatar #85081 to #85027 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/18/2014) [-]
they are not necessarily related to conseqences. context definitely isnt

i mean assign values to those things

you also have to consider bad consequences. in utilitarianism you have to aggregate every single consequence
User avatar #84998 to #84997 - ribocoon ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
What morality is best than?
User avatar #85014 to #84998 - theluppijackal (08/17/2014) [-]
Fuck if we know. If we knew that shit'd be running a lot smoother now wouldn't it?
User avatar #84999 to #84998 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Kantian theory works most of the time, but there's a lot of areas where ethical theory is not perfected, that's why there are still philosophers.

one thing that is certain among 99.99% of ethicists, though, is that utilitarianism doesn't work
User avatar #85012 to #84999 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
Citation needed. Considering utilitarianism is the largest and most influential system among moral philosophers i highly doubt your bold statement.
User avatar #85026 to #85023 - kanadetenshi (08/17/2014) [-]
That doesn't say anything about 99.99% ethicists.
User avatar #85082 to #85026 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/18/2014) [-]
i still think you should read these links, but here's something

plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#Con

"After the middle of the 20th Century it has become more common to identify as a ‘Consequentialist’ since very few philosophers agree entirely with the view proposed by the Classical Utilitarians, particularly with respect to the hedonistic value theory."
User avatar #85002 to #84999 - ribocoon ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Is that the thing with people are ends not means thingy?
User avatar #85004 to #85002 - cleverguy ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
thats part of it
User avatar #84993 to #84991 - thebritishguy (08/16/2014) [-]
Maybe if you could just Nuke North Korea without causing any pain and instantaneously it wouldn't be such a bad idea in terms of reducing suffering because their lives are so fucked up.

If someone is healthy and has their life ahead of them though then killing them because they might feel pain sometimes is ridiculous.
#84972 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/16/2014) [-]
Meanwhile, on religion board.
User avatar #85006 to #84972 - feelythefeel (08/17/2014) [-]
Surprisingly, not so much anymore. But maybe that's just because all of the other atheists left .
User avatar #84971 - makotoitou (08/16/2014) [-]
*eats fedora*
User avatar #84992 to #84971 - ribocoon ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
**ribocoon tips his trilby**
#84969 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/16/2014) [-]
/shitstorm
User avatar #84977 to #84969 - thebritishguy (08/16/2014) [-]
Under sharia what is the punishment for apostacy?
User avatar #84973 to #84969 - kanadetenshi (08/16/2014) [-]
Muhammad certainly showed his tolerance and freedom towards other religions when he initiated millitary raids against them.
#85169 to #84973 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/18/2014) [-]
he only raided those who threatened him with their armies and/or tortured innocent muslims ... so he was technically defending ... same as every single civilization did and do now ... anyway i dont expect you to believe or anyone who is here to believe what i say, but maybe,just maybe , if we closed the tv for a while and go read a book about what we're ignorant about .. maybe this world will be really a good place to live in
User avatar #85172 to #85169 - kanadetenshi (08/18/2014) [-]
Ah yes the old classic self-defense argument.

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)
User avatar #85005 to #84973 - feelythefeel (08/17/2014) [-]
I'd assume that was in reality more political than religious.
#84967 - hesekiel (08/16/2014) [-]
From where does all this traffic come?
#84961 - anonmaverick (08/16/2014) [-]
wow this board is more acive then i expected
User avatar #84960 - egyptgodsexplain (08/16/2014) [-]
Do we get to praise Egyptian Gods here?
Probably not.
Praise Ra, and his glorious off-springs.
Technically, it'd be considered as praising the sun, do I get more fans if I point that out?
Here, have an additional eye. An eye of Horus. I'll just shut up now.
Serious question though, anyone still worships these old Gods?
#84965 to #84960 - hesekiel (08/16/2014) [-]
Also can you explain me the hellenic/ptolemaic influence on the egyptian religion.
#84975 to #84965 - egyptgodsexplain (08/16/2014) [-]
It brought about a new God, Serapis. He was a man-made God, "created" by Ptolemy I of Egypt, as a way of unifying the Greeks and the Egyptians under his rule. Basically, Serapis was a Greek-ified Osiris. This is not to be confused with the Interpretatio Graeca, which would basically be Egyptian Religion translated into Greek. Or, to put it simply, would be the Greeks trying to identify the Egyptian deities with their own.

And that's only the beginning. Really, the "influence" it had, was to destroy the Egyptian religion. They started modifying everything, small, but notable changes. Kinda like what's going on right now:

We can arguably debate that Islam and Judaism worship the same God, right? (I know, Christianity too, but for the sake of the example, I'm only using 2 religions.) Well, now, let's pretend that Christianism = Egyptian religion, and Islam = Greek religion.

That was possibly the aim of the Greeks during the Ptolemaic dynasty rule over Egypt. To basically merge the two religions. And intentionally or not, they almost did it. That caused a big "fragmentation" of Egyptian beliefs. You could be in one village, and they'd be praising Osiris, and in another neighbor village, they'd be praising Serapis. They're both praising the same God, but they don't realize it.

Once the Romans stepped in and took control of Egypt, they tried to do exactly what the Greeks had done, but failed, and that was the beginning of the decline of the Egyptian Religion. It was so fragmented, once the Romans tried to further fragment it, it just broke.

Did I answer all your questions? Feel free to ask more. And sorry about taking so long to answer, had things to do inbetween.
#84963 to #84960 - anonmaverick (08/16/2014) [-]
well imo i worship the oldest
User avatar #84966 to #84963 - egyptgodsexplain (08/16/2014) [-]
It'd be really hard to know who exactly is the "oldest" God. After all, we can't even be sure whether Gods started appearing one after another, or if some of them just came into existance one day, being joined only later, by other Gods. We can't be sure, and we probably won't be anytime soon.
#85013 to #84966 - anonmaverick (08/17/2014) [-]
well sorry but im a christian imo from my reading of the bible (not the only book ive read about religion) there was one god the alpha and the omega the beginning and the end and then the other gods are actually demons who disobeyed him
User avatar #85017 to #85013 - egyptgodsexplain (08/17/2014) [-]
While the terminology used does not matter, there is indeed an "Everything". And it is true, "everything has an end", and that includes this "Everything". But I can't agree with you on one thing, the "the other Gods are actually demons who disobeyed him." I think there is the "Everything". That is the God you worship and yes, he may be one of the oldest Gods. But that God is Everything, and that Everything includes all the other Gods, including the Egyptian Gods, who work right along with your God, in order to maintain this "Universe".
#85019 to #85017 - anonmaverick (08/17/2014) [-]
what is your source or is this your own understanding?
#84962 to #84960 - hesekiel (08/16/2014) [-]
If think we have a cultural pagan here but no, noone does.
User avatar #84958 - leightonsolomon (08/16/2014) [-]
Just watched the movie Religulous and thought it had some great points. Anyone else have thoughts on it?
User avatar #84979 to #84958 - thebritishguy (08/16/2014) [-]
I liked it, but it is for entertainment, not informing. The whole thing about Mithras and other copy cat Jesus Gods was bullshit, there are some qualities which were apparent in other mythologies, if you look at the Raglan scale Jesus is actually in the top 5, the ones he mentioned though are sketchy. It did have some good points though, it's just that's not why I watched it.
#84976 to #84958 - hesekiel (08/16/2014) [-]
Well, that was load of bullshit.
 Friends (0)