Fundy Christians: Shut the Fuck Up

Some sanity from evangelical youth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2PNBdflhAo

Well, in their defense, USA Christians are not Christians and they hate and loathe and fear the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Christian Testament. Donald Trump is an excellent example of what Fundamentalist Christians consider a wonderful, decent, godly man---- white, obese, uneducated, emotionally immature, greedy, and full of insane hatred and rage.

I said after the 2012 election that the GOP really needed to distance itself from this goal of establishing a christian theocracy because quite frankly, it just wasn't working. If they instead turned their sole focus to reducing bureaucracy, expensive regulation and supporting business growth sure there wouldn't be a unanimous swing by it would help soooooo much. The problem is this demographic used to run things, no longer does, and doesn't know how to compromise.

These Christians have to start reporting things, that's all I've got to say.

Fundy Christians: STFU

Amen.

Too much of the online climate change denial claque seems to be of the Southern Baptist - type mould too.

There was an article in WaPo I believe just the other day about "why US evangelicals hate Hillary".

It is worth keeping in mind that women can be just as screwed up as men-- I'm guessing many in that fundamentalist culture find HRC more of a threat than their menfolk do.

Well, in their defense, USA Christians are not Christians and they hate and loathe and fear the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Christian Testament.

Not quite. I can name at least two major American political figures who are Christian: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

There are a few other genuine Christians in the US. Fred Clark of Slacktivist is one I read regularly. This week a bunch of students at Liberty University called out university president Jerry Falwell Jr. for supporting such an obviously un-Christian candidate. And don't forget that Clinton has substantial support from non-white evangelicals.

But those aren't the people Greg is talking about. He is talking about people like Falwell (whose response to the students was to double down), Bachmann, et al. These folks are showing what god they truly worship: for them, there is no God but Mammon and Adam Smith is His prophet.

Eric Lund,

Please, the thing about Adam Smith shows that you have bought their propaganda. Adam Smith would find these people just as deplorable as Jesus would.

Adam Smith would find these people just as deplorable as Jesus would.

I'd like to think so too, but some might say both require faith in invisible hands :-)

STFU is such a classy and intellectually rich argument to make.
#Science.

Also, while I'm not sure what the "Christian Testament" is, I agree with the first sentence of #2

Hello ron. Funnily enough, I was just thinking about you.

Fundamentalism struggles to provide a simplified, manageable world view for stupid people. That's why stupid, intellectually dishonest people like it.

In case you were forgetting why every Republican from Trumpo (America's No. 1, Pervy Clown of Crime) on down needs to be shut out of office, tune into today's Science Friday, with Michael Mann:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/whats-in-a-subpoena/

STFU also wreaks of tolerance, love, forgiveness, etc...

Hey Hey Hey BBD

To back up some of Desertphile's first sentence (maybe even Greg's point?)...http://tinyurl.com/hjaa6p4

ron,

Show us how your "tolerance, love, forgiveness, etc…" were demonstrated by no less than Jesus himself in Matthew 21:12-13.

Do you suppose, when one of those money-changers, who were getting whipped, having their tables of cash overturned and dispersed, etc, opened his mouth to complain, that the Man responded with

SHUT THE FUCK UP! and gave his ass an extra few lashings...

Or did he instead meet these hypocrites with your "tolerance, love, forgiveness, etc…" and apologize?

(BTW, “Christian Testament” is the New Testament of the Bible; might want to pick up a copy & read it some time.)

Adam Smith would find these people just as deplorable as Jesus would.

I didn't say that the people who profess this actually understand Adam Smith's writings, any more than certain people citing the actual saying I'm parodying understand the writings of the prophet named in that saying, or than either group actually understands the teachings of Jesus.

The point, rather, is that these people serve the master that Jesus himself warned one could not serve along with the Abrahamic God. Rather than support the candidate who actually attempts to practice Christianity, they support the alleged billionaire who represents many of the things Jesus despised.

...and many conservatives distort the writings of Adam Smith as readily they distort what's written about Jesus.

Hmm... I'm seeing a pattern here...

#14...Are you suggesting that Jesus was acting justly by whipping the money-changing criminals or that Jesus was acting inappropriately by not offering "tolerance, love, forgiveness, etc"? Are you justifying STFU by blasphemously suggesting that Jesus would have said such a thing in response to criminal behavior that he was personally rectifying?

Are you accepting the statements / verses in the New Testament as true and discuss them to gain a deeper understanding of life and how it can be lived most abundantly?

Your post seems to use the verse as a justification and a crime simultaneously. Please clarify.

#13, #17 Are you implying that "Christians" are required to meet hypocrisy, et al, under all circumstances with "tolerance, love, forgiveness, etc…"?

Are you implying that when they respond with righteous indignation and rebuke towards such hypocrites --including the manner of the verses quoted-- that they are in error, and therefore Jesus was also in error for failing to hold his temper?

Or, if Jesus was correct in calling out hypocrites in such "non-dainty" fashion, that his followers are banned from emulating him? Where is that written?

What is your justification for criticizing Greg for being (rightfully) incensed at so-called Christians who are hypocrites and those who falsely call themselves "Christians"?

You can't have it both ways.

blasphemously suggesting

?

Perhaps it would be profitable to consider why Jesus was so fucked off with the money lenders in the first place.

@ dean

blasphemously suggesting

?

Yes, me too. Christ saying STFU wouldn't be blasphemous since fuck this and fuck that doesn't explicitly insult god. Therefore suggesting that JC might have said STFU doesn't qualify as blasphemy.

Agreed. If he'd said something like "You're an ASSHOLE !!", that would be blasphemous. Let's see if ron can figure out why there's a difference.

BS#18

You used this post to avoid my questions in #14
I have agreed (see post #13) with Greg's "point" (if he made one by posting a bundle of links) and the first sentence of post #2
I've also expressed, and demonstrated, that there's a better way to address the issue than throwing a hate-filled STFU at the matter.

If that's "having it both ways", so be it.

It is consistent with the Christian worldview to have righteous indignation / rebuke for hypocrites. I'm not certain how someone who doesn't subscribe to that worldview finds hypocrisy objectionable, as it likely enhances his/her survival value (see current politicians), so enlighten me.

It's blasphemous to suggest that Jesus would use unacceptable (murderous, hate-filled) language to address people who bear the image of God. It also betrays the impartial, evidence based, "scientific" tone GL pretends to uphold.

" It also betrays the impartial, evidence based, “scientific” tone GL pretends to uphold."

You can have an evidence based discussion or you can speak of what the mythical Jesus would or would not say, but since the set of items of evidence for his existence is the null set, you can't have an evidence based discussion of what he would say.

It’s blasphemous to suggest that Jesus would use unacceptable (murderous, hate-filled) language to address people who bear the image of God.

A man who runs amok whipping people with a home-made cat-o-nine-tails has gone beyond trivial verbal transgressions against his fellow beings.

The problem with non-fundie christians (or any faith) is that they give acceptable cover to believe whatever you can think of and make the less believable the faith *an actual positive value*.

If YOUR god really exists, then it shouldn't be allowing such idiots to take their religion to such extremes, and letting that happen is its fault. So go on strike. STOP WORSHIPING IT until the fundies are gone.

Either it doesn't exist and the fundies will stay, or it does and will remove them, by visitation if necessary.

But non-fundies are "as bad" as fundies in the same manner as "good cops" who protect the few bad apples are bad.

ron,

I’ve also expressed, ... that there’s a better way to address the issue than throwing a hate-filled STFU at the matter.

In your opinion. However, most would probably agree that Greg made a very effective expression of the frustration and anger that these people have generated. "Real" Christians would share that, as "I have demonstrated", to use your term.

I’m not certain how someone who doesn’t subscribe to that [Christian] worldview finds hypocrisy objectionable

One certainly does not have to subscribe to any particular worldview in order to feel outrage over hypocrisy in any form, on any subject. Christians do not have a monopoly on indignation over hypocrisy (even if many who fashion themselves as such are experts in practicing it).

as it likely enhances his/her survival value (see current politicians), so enlighten me.

I can only assume you're saying that for comic relief (especially given the consistent polling that shows a 15% "survival" probability), so we'll leave it at that.

It’s blasphemous to suggest that Jesus would use unacceptable (murderous, hate-filled) language to address people who bear the image of God.

No one suggested that He would use "murderous, hate-filled language" (And STFU is neither) -- but we can be sure that he used angry language to address people who bear a false, hypocritical claim of having any association with God.

As for whom he was addressing, Jesus himself warned them, "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!'" (Matt 7:23 -- and be sure the check the context).

Brainstorms,

I appreciate the study of The Gospel According to Matthew that you're bringing to the conversation. Carry on. (The "Repent and Believe" part is my favorite.)

One actually does have to subscribe to a worldview that upholds and can account for logic, justice, truth, etc in order to be outraged by hypocrisy. I appreciate that humans take such for granted, (and therefore believe in God as part of their nature) but few drill down to understand the details that underpin those beliefs. In that process, you'll find other worldviews lacking (if one eschews hypocrisy).

What type of language is STFU, if not hate-filled and murderous? Should children use this language among themselves? Should adults say such to children? Should rulers say such to their subjects? When is this an acceptable phrase to use? Are we parsing the emphasis on the S vs the F?

One actually does have to subscribe to a worldview that upholds and can account for logic, justice, truth, etc in order to be outraged by hypocrisy. I appreciate that humans take such for granted, (and therefore believe in God as part of their nature)

Theism does *not* have any monopoly on logic, justice, truth etc. So these things do not require that humanity believes in god as 'part of its nature'.

What type of language is STFU, if not hate-filled and murderous?

It's angry, ron. Like scourging people with a rope whip is angry. But it's certainly not blasphemous and I suggest that you let that bit of nonsense go now. Along with the risible presumption that logic, justice and truth are the sole province of theism.

Enough already.

BBD, difference being motivation, we mere mortals vs the Prince of Peace.

Anger can be just or unjust, but then you have to determine what is and isn't moral / just and who sets such a standard...and we're right back to that worldview discussion you want to have.

The blasphemy occurs when you suggest that the one who sets the standard is acting outside of that standard. An impossibility, if one believes in logic, truth, justice, etc.

So, while it's entertaining to see non-theists justify Greg's use of STFU by wrapping Greg in the righteous indignation of Christ in Matthew, it has a ring of the hypocrisy that they claim to disallow.

BBD, difference being motivation, we mere mortals vs the Prince of Peace.

As it stands, this is meaningless verbiage.

Anger can be just or unjust, but then you have to determine what is and isn’t moral / just and who sets such a standard…

Humans invented morality. We can set our own levels just fine.

The blasphemy occurs when you suggest that the one who sets the standard is acting outside of that standard.

You did that.

An impossibility, if one believes in logic, truth, justice, etc.

No, it isn't. Remember Job, do we? What did Big G say to Job?

it has a ring of the hypocrisy that they claim to disallow.

No it doesn't. You were just wrong. I've already suggested that you let this go.

#31: Humans invented morality? How novel of humanity! How many millions of years did THAT take?
How? Who? When?

We can set our own levels? So, then, why is hypocrisy bad, if we set the standard? How does that comport with justice? Why don't we just favor the strong/wealthy/Kennedy/Clinton above the little guy?

If everything is just a difference in the preference of the level of moral behavior, why argue for or against anything? How can we argue if there is no standard to be held to?

Ron,

Experiments have been done that demonstrate primates (at least) and perhaps other what we call animals respond to actions like deception (hypocrisy, unfairness) in a negative way. They express "outrage".

But there is no indication that they "subscribe to a worldview", or logic, or have names for any of this since they don't have a language capable of such.

Humans are monkeys. Whether one is a theist or an agnostic moralist, we are just trying to adapt our linguistic constructs to the underlying monkey-ness... any animal that lives in groups must have constraints on interactions.

We would structure our societies pretty much the same if the words "God" and "morality" did not exist.

Humans are monkeys?!
#Progress
#Science
#LifeAbundant

Ron, I just saw your #32:

"So, then, why is hypocrisy bad, if we set the standard?"

Easy.

I would rather live with people who are not hypocritical. That allows for a more efficient and less stressful society.

No need for the word "bad".

The same test can be applied to everything else.

#35
Zebra, On what authority to you declare something to be more efficient / less stressful, more or less moral, good or bad?

Your own? Well, I can match that. So now what?

Violence? Would that be efficient /stressful/good/bad? On what authority?

Put another way, who gives the test? Why do they get to judge the result?

(Careful, we're doing that drilling down I warned about)

Put another way, who gives the test? Why do they get to judge the result?

It is a societal consensus and not fixed. Humans invented morality and we tweak it to suit the times.

Your argument for a divine moral gold standard would require proof of divine existence to go beyond the logical fallacy of mere argument from assertion. Please at least think for a moment about this.

Ron,

I just said there is no need for the words "moral", "good", and "bad". (Try reading; I keep my comments as short as possible.)

Why don't you take the test? Would you rather live among people who are hypocrites or people who aren't?

#38 We've all got much that we'd "rather"...that's not the question. The question is on what authority do we declare our preference above that of another.

The Christian worldview can give an account and a reason for a basis of authority. I haven't heard anyone suggest another.

#37 If it's a societal consensus, then wars ought not occur, because we can all accept that a State/National/Town/County boundary resets the moral code. Of course that isn't true, because we go to war to stop human atrocities, laws in Maine apply in Alaska and so on...
On what basis was slavery "wrong", then, if not a moral one?
How can moral relativism be a standard?

Is my vote towards the morals of the jurisdiction equal to yours?

--'Standards'. You mean law? Discussion here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/08/28/hayek-vs-hobbes-and-the-theory…

--Humans are considered great apes not monkeys.

--BBD said: "Please at least think for a moment about this."
HA! Good one!

#37 How hard do you want to think?

What is truth? Is there objective truth, or is truth subjective? (Does one's belief in something make it true? Or does truth exist outside of one's thoughts?)

Same question regarding moral truth... how can anyone request/demand/angrily suggest that someone STFU?

Ron,

I didn't say anything about "declaring our preference above that of another". That doesn't even make sense-- my preference is just my preference.

There's no "authority" involved, which again is what I said and you seem to have a serious cognitive issue with comprehending. No morals, no God, no Humanism, no good, no bad.

Just answer the question "What kind of society would you rather live in?". If it is one where people are not hypocritical, then there is no need for assigning the term "bad" to hypocrisy.

The same would be true for slavery. Calling slavery "bad" is irrelevant to the question of whether you want to live in a society where slavery is legal. Are you saying that the only thing keeping you from wanting to live in a society with slaves is the statement "slavery is bad"?

How about rape, ron, or gay sex? Is it that you want to rape or have gay sex, but you refrain from doing it because it is "immoral"? (Sometimes I think that may be true for many fundamentalist types.)

The Christian worldview can give an account and a reason for a basis of authority. I haven’t heard anyone suggest another.

And in your very next sentence you refer to exactly that suggestion. The idea that a societal consensus on the rules of social interaction precludes war with another group is preposterous.

Although not as buttock-clenchingly stupid as the notion that one can point up at a blank patch of sky and say, with a straight face, that your morality flows from it.

Just think instead of blethering, eh?

How can moral relativism be a standard?

I've already pointed out that morality is plastic not fixed and that - as a human construct - it merely reflects the particular society that is creating the rules at any given time.

Think, ron, think.

#42 Zebra.
There are many sins. Some should be punished by civil authorities (aka justice), others are simply vices and should not be punished as crimes. If you care to understand the origins of our system of laws...
http://tinyurl.com/z9ly9mb

Point being that if societal preference is law, then there can never be any reform, because there is no need to reform, because there is no higher standard to aspire to...

Like I said @ # 12:

Fundamentalism struggles to provide a simplified, manageable world view for stupid people. That’s why stupid, intellectually dishonest people like it.

Ron,

There is no such thing as a "higher" standard. Societal preferences change, and laws change.

But I can see your earlier statement...

"(Careful, we’re doing that drilling down I warned about)"

was hypocrisy, since I am the one drilling down and you are the one running away.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

We made up ecclesiastical law just like we invented god, ron. Most probably we invented god at least in part in an attempt to legitimise the imposition of some of the made-up stuff.

Ecclesiastical laws are simply formalisations of the rules societies had to create in order to function efficiently and cohesively. That's all there is to it. The sky is blank and empty. You are ultimately responsible for yourself.

#48
Seems like going to a lot of trouble and risk to have 40 separate authors write 66 books in 3 distinct languages over the course of 1500 years and multiple continents. (Not to mention the couple hundred prophecies that were predicted and fulfilled.)

Greatest. Conspiracy. Ever. http://tinyurl.com/d7988es

#47 running away?
You're essentially reducing legal systems and societal norms to the level of a person's favorite ice cream or musical playlist. When your argument can be refuted by "so what?" or "who cares?", it's not much of an argument.

Seems like going to a lot of trouble and risk to have 40 separate authors write 66 books in 3 distinct languages over the course of 1500 years and multiple continents. (Not to mention the couple hundred prophecies that were predicted and fulfilled.)

The existence of religious texts is not a proof that god exists, ron.

I dispute that there is any evidence that a 'couple hundred prophecies [...] were predicted and fulfilled' that extends beyond wishful thinking and coincidence. More non-evidence and argument from assertion.

Please stop. It's just boring and a bit painful.

Not to mention the couple hundred prophecies that were predicted and fulfilled.

I would like to think you are not serious, but I know I would be wrong. None of the biblical prophecies have been fulfilled - saying the Bible claims they were is so foolish I doubt even you would do that, but twisting what was said and twisting reality to claim they were fulfilled isn't any less stupid, but I'm sure you'll do that.

What evidence have you put forth that "we made up ecclesiastical law just like we invented god"? How is that anything more than argument from assertion?

I'm sure you would like me to stop making assertions that you can't refute past "nuh-uh".

Ron,

Running away refers to your inability to answer a simple question:

Do you refrain from gay sex because it is "immoral"?

Ron. Anybody, or any group can put together a library or agree on a canon. Go to a comic book store. There is nothing extraordinary about this. Add 'conspiracy' to the list of words and concepts you don't understand.

Law evolves. That it began crudely in primitive societies saturated with religion and superstition is not in itself evidence of some magical superpower.

It's a big world out there, Ron. You can study how thing grow and change. I understand that it's intimidating, and you've got a long, long way to go. Suck it up anyway an get cracking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history

What evidence have you put forth that “we made up ecclesiastical law just like we invented god”? How is that anything more than argument from assertion?

Um, it's self-evident ron. There's no assertion about it. Humans wrote the religious texts. *We* encoded religious laws. There's no evidence of divine intervention, only of human invention, over and over again throughout history.

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Law evolves.

Just as OA says. From the survival strategies of social primates.

"What evidence have you put forth that “we made up ecclesiastical law just like we invented god”? "

The fact that societies throughout the ages all came to a different set of ecclesiastical law, despite the insistence of people like you that there's only the one god.

"Humans are monkeys?!"

Cladistically, yes.

Why is this a particular problem?

I mean, for example, would you be offended by "Dogs are wolves?!?!?!"?

If not, why not?

"No, it isn’t. Remember Job, do we? What did Big G say to Job? "

Additionally, what did Big J say to Peter Sutcliffe?

Told him to kill those women. So is he wrongly in jail or not?

#53
It's fascinating, this obsession with sexual acts when the Bible becomes the topic at hand.

I refrain from gay sex because it's simply not a temptation for me. No desire there, whatsoever. Try projecting your struggles on someone else. My preference, or yours, as I've attempted to state, is not pertinent of objective truth / objective morality. I have plenty of sins, this just ain't one of em.

I can appreciate that someone calling these acts immoral is offensive to you. We can discuss why you're offended by that declaration, if you so desire, but so often if what we love is considered immoral, we get upset.

#55
So we have competing "self-evident" assertions. Wheeeee.

Occam's razor doesn't account for consistency among 40 authors from multiple continents in 3 languages over 1500 years, much less 11900 years ago.

Occam's Razor isn't that the shortest declarative assertion wins.

Human's didn't write it, the pens wrote the words,yeah? Or does information have to come from an intelligence?

Correcting #62

1900 years ago, not 11900 (which should have a comma after the 11...

Ron,

I gave several examples of behaviors-- rape, slavery, gay sex, hypocrisy-- to which your meaningless label of "immoral" or "bad" could be/has been applied.

This is simply to illustrate my point that those labels are unnecessary, contrary to your assertions.

1. I prefer to live in a society where rape is punished through the law.

2. I prefer to live in a society where slavery is not enforced by the law and is in fact punished.

3. I prefer to live among people who aren't hypocrites.

4. I prefer to live in a society where gay people are afforded the same rights (legally) and the same respect as anyone else.

Now, I could go on, but this should be sufficient to illustrate my point. None of these preferences is the result of any label like "good" "bad" "moral" or reference to "God". It is simply a matter of being rational.

Can you give an example-- a real world concrete example-- of something from your "objective morality" that has any value to a society of rational actors, that they wouldn't arrive at without it? That is, without the "objective morality"?

So we have competing “self-evident” assertions. Wheeeee.

No ron, we do not. It is self-evident that religious texts are human-made artifacts. Their existence is *not* proof of the existence of god.

#64
Individual rights.

Why would a society not favor majority rule? Why would the 70 % not eliminate / imprison the 30%? Why give equal rights to all people regardless of their function or usefulness in society?

http://tinyurl.com/gwelnhw

People have an innate sense of justice. What's right and wrong. We teach the young to strive for the right and that the wrong brings pain and suffering. We may rationalize it differently, but that's where humanity lands. How can we all agree on such principles without an objective morality?

This is back to front, ron:

People have an innate sense of justice. What’s right and wrong.

There's no evidence that this is the case.

We teach the young to strive for the right and that the wrong brings pain and suffering.

You should *start* with this. Societal norms are acculturated, not innate, ron.

Now please answer the question at the end of zebra's #64.

William Wilberforce called for an end to the slave trade in England
http://tinyurl.com/jvbgm2m

This is a concrete moment in history where a call to objective morality moved a society

But if a society's laws are the ultimate morality in a society, why call for anything else? Preference isn't an argument for change. It's a sales pitch.

He won't answer the question because he can't understand it.

It's already been pointed out that certain animals have a sense of fairness. That's what's at the core. This has been brought up, discussed somewhat, and ignored by Ron because Ron want's something perfect like a fundamental deity to tell him things that don't cause him to deal with ambiguity, nuance, context, and complexity. Only top down, hierarchical and authoritarian explanations make sense to his lizard brain.

Ron 66,

You are just endlessly avoiding and dodging and it gets tiresome. Or maybe as OA says you are incapable of understanding at this point in your existence.

I prefer to live in a society where individuals have equal rights because otherwise, I might end up in the group that has fewer rights. Is it really possible that you can't comprehend that?

It is also the case that I experience empathy and compassion, so when I see others suffering, especially for no rational reason, I experience discomfort. I also rationally recognize that discrimination against a minority leads to stress (conflict) and inefficiency in the workings of society.

This is called rational self-interest, plus an emotional reaction experienced by many "animals", not morality, whether God-given or otherwise.

So we get back to the real point of my gay sex question: Are you saying that you would like to commit genocide, and without the label of "immoral" being applied to that act, you would engage in it? Or keeping slaves? And so on.

Fundamentalists can never answer this question, in all the years I have posed it.

Society is made up of individuals. So if you are not "tempted" by gay sex, and you don't want to obliterate minority groups, what is the point of "morality" for you? Are your friends and co-workers and members of your church inclined to gay sex and genocide and slave-holding? If not, they don't need "morality" either.

Who is it that needs "morality"?

#70
Nobody needs "morality". People need forgiveness, a Savior. But before people dwell on their need for forgiveness, they must become convinced of their need due to their sins/iniquity.

There are many sins aside from the big ones that you seem to like to discuss. Pride being pervasive. Pride prevents us from considering ourselves as "clay in the potters hands", if you will. We think that we can take care of ourselves, will our cells to breathe and function as they do, without any knowledge of them.

Anyhow, after repentance comes forgiveness and personal freedom from the condemnation of sin, and a desire to please the Creator with the knowledge that it will be done imperfectly, with this constant need for forgiveness.

(I don't care for the in-artful term "morality", but use it here as it's how you understand an objective moral reality/truth)
"Short answer" is that prior to repentance / belief and forgiveness, people inappropriately use "morality" to achieve holiness and counter-intuitively heap a burden upon themselves (Pharisees/Sadducees), after repentance / belief and forgiveness, "morality" is instructive to glorify the one who has set you free from the burdens of sin. It is also the way set forth to experience life most abundantly, according to the Author of Life.

Ron,

You are clearly conflicted. If you had actually internalized what you just wrote, you wouldn't be here trying to convince a group that is obviously far removed from your world-view.

It is obvious that you are trying to convince yourself, not me or others on this thread.

I suggest you seek counseling from a spiritual advisor or secular mental health professional (doesn't mean you're crazy) in resolving you internal conflict.

Zebra,

How did my "real world concrete example" of objective morality strike you? Truth is that which conforms to reality. Reality is not dependent on you or I believing it. Thinking that a brick is soft, does not make it so. There is objective moral truth, regardless of anyone's belief. Moral truths may not be as easily understood as physical truths in nature (via sciences). Individuals and societies either conform to it, or reject it. The individual / society doesn't author truth.

"It is also the case that I experience empathy and compassion"

As do chimps, dogs,parrots and whales.

And I've never seen one carrying a Gideon's.

"I refrain from gay sex because it’s simply not a temptation for me."

Then it doesn't matter if it's moral or immoral, since you'd never do it no matter what. Therefore the label is superfluous.

#75 Wow
If I participate in one activity or another doesn't make that activity relevant/irrelevant to society.

The original post instructs people to STFU due to support for Trump and profession of faith in Christ. He sees these as mutually exclusive pursuits. (In part, I wrote to support that exclusivity, while disagreeing his prescription.) We can assume that Mr. Laden is interested in neither of these pursuits. Nonetheless, the instruction is given, based on his judgement of hypocrisy.

We all care about the society around us because it impacts us in one way or another. We ask others to strive for "morality", because we know that corruption and evil do not serve us either collectively or individually. If you'll note, I didn't bring up the hot-button issue in #75. In fact, the person who did, insisted that I directly answer the question, so I answered.

And his raising of the issue lead to nothing.

The label of moral / immoral is superfluous when it comes to simple preference (musical, culinary). When it comes to behavior, we have a moral standard to which we can compare the behavior. People often attack/deny the standard, and it's author, (which are one in the same) when they disagree with it. Then they go "cafeteria style" with some other set of conveniently undefined "standards", demonstrating their own hypocrisy.

When societies eschew, or fundamentally disagree on, moral standards, they can descend into chaos. That chaos historically brings revival, and the cycle seems to repeat, unless one group usurps the power/rights of another.

"#75 Wow
If I participate in one activity or another doesn’t make that activity relevant/irrelevant to society."

So now you're claiming you WOULD bum a man or take his wee-wee up the poo-poo????

Or do you not know what you're saying, and could never care less, because the only conversation you EVER hear is the one you make up inside your own head?

"The original post instructs people to STFU due to support for Trump "

Aaand here we are, once again in the fiction world of ron.

The web browser has the title of the thread on it. It says FUNDIE CHRISTIANS: STFU.

Unless the only people are fundie christians and the lack of mention of trump voting stands for mentioning trump voting, you're making shit up again.

Before making claims about the content, you really do need to read the content, not figure out what you'd like to be upset about and pretend that's what has been said.

If you're the one making yourself upset, then nobody gives a shit, it's 100% self inflicted and we wish you good luck in your perpetual offendedness.

"The label of moral / immoral is superfluous when it comes to simple preference (musical, culinary)"

So if someone prefers men..?

"When it comes to behavior,"

such as playing a certain music or cooking (or eating) certain food..?

"How did my “real world concrete example” of objective morality strike you?"

As nonexistent. His religion was justification for slavery.

Wow #77,

I really have posed this question over probably decades now, and it never fails to result in a kind of panic in fundamentalists, even those who exhibit a more coherent mental process than ron.

Whether it's rape or gay sex or anything else "immoral", they vehemently deny that they or anyone they know or any co-religionist has any desire to engage in that behavior. And yet, they also believe that it is necessary to make applying that label a fundamental part of their religion/worldview.

Go figure...

It's what happens when you make shit up as you go along :-)

From an outsiders perspective it seems religion has not paid a significant part in the process so far

Certainly in terms of the two candidates

I was always under the impression that a consistent affirmation of ones (Christian) faith was a prerequisite to becoming president of the united states

#81
Well, if you had chosen sins like destructive (not constructive) criticism, murder of the heart, pride, etc...you would have been closer to my given set of "sins" that I still struggle with (as in, I like doing them and I know I shouldn't)
Of course these people who have only ever known monogamous heterosexual consent-driven relationships won't go for your hot-button gotcha question.

If someone can't identify the concept of "moral / immoral behavior" inside of one's worldview/religion, then they don't have much of a philosophy to guide them. The label IS fundamental/elementary/necessary. Which is why it is so disingenuous to deny that one carries/utilizes such labels.

"Of course these people who have only ever known monogamous heterosexual consent-driven relationships won’t go for your hot-button gotcha question."

How can it be a gotcha question to ask why you demand that what other people do in a monogamous consent driven relationship are allowed to do, ESPECIALLY when the claim as to why they shouldn't do it is that it would ruin YOUR monogamous consent driven relationship?

If you're not able to answer it, then you have no RATIONAL reason for it to be applied, EVEN BY YOUR ARTICLES OF FAITH.

"If someone can’t identify the concept of “moral / immoral behavior” inside of one’s worldview/religion, then they don’t have much of a philosophy to guide them"

Just like the bible, when killing children and raping the post-pubescent children of an entire slaughtered tribe is considered "good" when the tribe so treated is the "wrong" faith.

You make up your own morality, the difference being you insist that it's the only real one because you read it in a book (which you ignore its writings when you need to)

@85
Love ya, Wow. You're a sincere believer.

Let's set the premise: You're claiming that same sex mirage is a marriage. Terms have meaning, right? Words have meaning? Granted, that meaning sometimes changes (gay used to mean "happy" and be in a "holiday song"). Marriage has ALWAYS meant one male joining himself to one female. People who don't desire that relationship disqualify themselves. Nobody is saying that a gay man cannot marry a woman. They just don't want to.

As an aside, it's hilarious to me when people say that men and women are the same, and then say that they want nothing to do with one sex or another. If men = women and women = men, then why shouldn't there be one of them in each marriage?

I'll let you in on another little secret, having to hear, understand and cater to the needs / desires of the opposite sex has an effect on a person. It causes one to set his/her own comfort aside, learn the way the other thinks, have compassion for a point of view that is foundation-ally different (by design) and even ACT in a way that makes him/her uncomfortable, relying on their faith in the different POV. It's called "dying to self", and it's a primary function of marriage.

I'm not certain where you get the children killing / raping idea from...the idea isn't that the Bible is the standard, but that the author/object of the Bible is the standard (therefore anything He does is defined as appropriate/good/moral)

We all want to be good and define for ourselves what that is. We try to define good / evil regarding marriage or anything else. As created beings, we don't get that luxury.

We can't crate life from inanimate objects. We can't determine the activities of objects in the sky or the depths of the seas. Marriage is just one of the defined constraints that we don't get to change.

"Marriage has ALWAYS meant one male joining himself to one female."

Good god you are stupid. Why ignore the widespread support for polygamy in the bible? After all, if the mythical standard men created as the basis for the bible sanctioned it, that must be okay?

But saying you don't believe marriage should be between two men or two women, even when they love each other, doesn't mean shit, since your opinion is not law and, thankfully, we don't live in a society where law is so strictly crafted that it follows the outdated hatred based statements of a few goat herders.

Show me where in Federal American Jurisprudence that marriage meant one man and any number of women.

Focus on this one statement in a feeble attempt to discredit the larger point.

you don't have a point ron. You have an ignorant and non-supportable opinion.

Desertphile #88,

"as many females"

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

"@85
Love ya, Wow. You’re a sincere believer."

OK, so your insinuation is that there can be no belief unless it's religious??? Do you believe that you can eat a grilled cheese sandwich? Is THAT a faith????

Or are you admitting that believers are morons?

"Let’s set the premise: You’re claiming that same sex mirage is a marriage. "

Same sex marriage is a marriage.

"Terms have meaning, right? Words have meaning? "

Yes, they do.

Marriage: the joining of two separate parts to make an operable whole.

Of course, if you want to say "to have children", then once the children are adults (which BY DEFINITION is "reached puberty"), the marriage must be anulled.

Heck, once the sprog has developed to the zygote stage, you would technically have to break up the marriage, since they can't have another child for a while.

Infertile couples, and couples who do not IMMEDIATELY have a child (we can give then a couple of months grace, I suppose), must be broken up as not doing what they're contracted to do.

Note how love doesn't enter in to your version of what marriage is.

"Marriage has ALWAYS meant one male joining himself to one female. People who don’t desire that relationship disqualify themselves."

Since marriage has NOT "ALWAYS meant" that, people who don't desire that relationship don't disqualify themselves.

Yes, it's hilarious, all right, ron.

So seduced by the thought of kinky bumsex from another man, you can't stand it being possible or acceptable, since the only thing stopping you gargling a woody is that it's "wrong".

"Show me where in Federal American Jurisprudence that marriage meant one man and any number of women."

Show us where it says it must ALWAYS be one man and one woman to produce a child, and that this CANNOT be changed.

When even your constitution can be changed, this is a priori impossible.

@92
Are we off the child rape point you were making?

I didn't bring up reproduction, but from the "evolutionary worldview" that many here purport, how would homosexual intercourse improve one's evolutionary odds of passing on genes and helping evolution along in its millions and billions years of change and development?

Marriage isn't about two separate parts, it's about joining a male and a female. Two replica parts don't make "an operable whole" two different parts, that are complementary and helpful to one another make such a whole and are a picture of something larger than themselves. http://tinyurl.com/h5agzk5

The nation's about to get a big dose of "love" in the form of a pedophile ring involving government officials.(Clinton for now, Bushes in the on deck circle) http://tinyurl.com/zeetwwg

It pedophilia also wrong because I'd rather not gargle a woody (adult or child)? Or should we say "not that there's anything wrong with that"? You seem to be opposed to rape in #85...is it going to be acceptable/moral/right when your team is doing it?

"@92
Are we off the child rape point you were making?"

The child rape going on in the bible as "a good and proper thing for God's Chosen People to engage in"???

"I didn’t bring up reproduction,"

So you think that children just appear as if by magic when you're married???? No, children occur by reproduction. If you didn't mean to have anything to do with reproduction, then there are no children, therefore you should never have mentioned it.

"Marriage isn’t about two separate parts,"

Yes it is. Even in your "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN" has two separate parts: you know, the one man, and the one woman. One and one is...?

"it’s about joining a male and a female. "

No it isn't, it's about marriage of two people who love each other.

Or at least, that's what we mean today. Centuries ago, it was one man, many women, some concubines and most men getting nothing more than Pamela Hand. If they still HAD their hands,

"It pedophilia also wrong because I’d rather not gargle a woody (adult or child)? "

You;re the one who is thinking about gargling the penis of a young male child. I never brought up paedophilia and your love of man-love making you crazy.

"is it going to be acceptable/moral/right when your team is doing it?"

According to your bible, the only and sole moral authority for mankind, it is.

> the woman in the video shown here is giving
> their arguments. I am not making this up.

Shorter:

God has handed me this ... slippery ... man ..., it must mean God wants us to see him used as a tool toward God's plans ...