You do not need to be religious to possess a moral framework

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:03 am

First topic message reminder :

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

by snowyflake Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:06 pm

All hail to moonbeam the saviour of the thread!!

(is she a virgin and can we sacrifice her now in the name of our new saviour?.....i'm rolling a couple religious concepts together here in a cost-saving and efficiency improving measure)

by Bellatori Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:51 pm

I'm not in favour of maiden sacrifice unless they are prepared to leave their maidenhead with a fool but then that's virgin' on the ridiculous.

by **moonbeam** Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:17 pm

I'm afraid the "virgin" ship sailed long ago, but you may sacrifice me nonetheless.

As to the topic of the thread, I have found that the people with the fewest morals are frequently those that claim to be Christian.

by **Ivan** Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:25 pm

moonbeam wrote:-
I have found that the people with the fewest morals are frequently those that claim to be Christian.

And one such person goes by the name of Iain Duncan Smith:-

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/duncan-smith-poverty-benefit-sanctions-easterhouse

by snowyflake Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:32 pm

That has been my experience as well. I worked with several Christians and they proved to be the most selfish and self-absorbed people you could possibly meet.

Not surprising since they're convinced an omnipotent omniscient invisible being cares about the minutiae of detail of their mundane existence.

by **Ivan** Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:40 pm

It doesn't help if you fall foul of Christian fundamentalists when you have been through a divorce, as I have testified on this forum:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t624-a-woman-of-valour-by-tamara-west

by **moonbeam** Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:06 pm

God loves everyone, is what they will tell you. Unless, of course, you happen to be something other than heterosexual, or divorced or whatever it is that that particular bible thumper happens to be against. And we all know that if they look long enough, they can find something in the bible to manipulate so that it backs them up.

by Heretic Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:20 pm

moonbeam wrote:God loves everyone, is what they will tell you. Unless, of course, you happen to be something other than heterosexual, or divorced or whatever it is that that particular bible thumper happens to be against. And we all know that if they look long enough, they can find something in the bible to manipulate so that it backs them up.

I don't think the 'divorce' is the problem, it the remarriage that bothers them unless your previous partner is dead. It seems that they would prefer you to kill your partner rather than divorce them (I wonder if it's less paperwork ).

Heretic

by Bellatori Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:45 am

moonbeam wrote:... As to the topic of the thread, I have found that the people with the fewest morals are frequently those that claim to be Christian.

I suspect that Christian is because you live in a predominantly Christian area. Were you to live in say India would you say the same about Hindus? My guess is yes. Notwithstanding that quibble I do agree with you. Is it because those with religious conviction suffer from certainty? Moral restraint requires thought about ones actions and their rightness. If you are certain through faith then no thought is required.

by stuart torr Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:25 pm

Definitely less paperwork Heretic. Sad

by **moonbeam** Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:33 pm

Bellatori wrote:
moonbeam wrote:... As to the topic of the thread, I have found that the people with the fewest morals are frequently those that claim to be Christian.
I suspect that Christian is because you live in a predominantly Christian area. Were you to live in say India would you say the same about Hindus? My guess is yes. Notwithstanding that quibble I do agree with you. Is it because those with religious conviction suffer from certainty? Moral restraint requires thought about ones actions and their rightness. If you are certain through faith then no thought is required.

You could well be right. The problem I have is with with their attitude of "do as I say, not as I do". It's as if they feel that since they're sure to be forgiven, then they don't have to bother "walking the walk". Saying they're Christian is apparently enough. My husband's ex-wife (as well as her mother) are notorious for saying they're Christian when they know it will make them look/sound good. But in actuality, they're anything but that (IMO).

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:41 pm

Some people think all you have to do is believe in Jesus and that gives you some sort of moral superiority over those that don't.

by polyglide Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:44 pm

No Christian thinks they can do as they want and will be forgiven.

God does not say that.

God says a sinner that repents and lives a good life will be forgiven the sins for which he/she repents.

There are people who pretend to be what they are not in every aspect of life.

I would not disagree with the fact that some who do not practice Christianity are leading a good and acceptable life, and if they have nothing to repent then they are not human.

I would also agree that there are many who say they are Christians who live anything but a good life.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:46 pm

polyglide wrote:No Christian thinks they can do as they want and will be forgiven.

The amount of rapists, child molesters, serial killers etc. in prison who "find God" suggests otherwise.

by polyglide Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:52 pm

Then they are, as you usually are, wrong.

Unless they are sincere in their request for forgiveness, God knows the hearts of mankind and can tell right from wrong

by polyglide Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:57 pm

Morals in the accepted terms are man made.

There is no man made society that has lasted for any length of time without conflict.

The reason being man was never intended to make his own rules and he has consistantly proved he is incapable of doing so in any meaningful manner.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:09 pm

polyglide wrote:Then they are, as you usually are, wrong.

Unless they are sincere in their request for forgiveness, God knows the hearts of mankind and can tell right from wrong

You say they're wrong but therein lies your problem, i.e. your definition of what makes a Christian a Christian is only yours. Everyone else who claims to be one has their own idea of what that means.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:11 pm

polyglide wrote:Morals in the accepted terms are man made.

There is no man made society that has lasted for any length of time without conflict.

The reason being man was never intended to make his own rules and he has consistantly proved he is incapable of doing so in any meaningful manner.

As I've said before (on here or elsewhere and it's borrowed from Billy Connolly anyway): you've had 2,000 years to sort the world out and have failed miserably.

by Bellatori Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:13 pm

I am certain that all those repentant sinners who have found God in the US death rows are all terribly sincere.

by Tosh Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:36 pm

Why should morals not be man made, give me the universal declaration of human rights over the Bible anytime, at least secularism opposes slavery and discrimination.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:34 pm

Bellatori wrote:
moonbeam wrote:... As to the topic of the thread, I have found that the people with the fewest morals are frequently those that claim to be Christian.
I suspect that Christian is because you live in a predominantly Christian area. Were you to live in say India would you say the same about Hindus? My guess is yes. Notwithstanding that quibble I do agree with you. Is it because those with religious conviction suffer from certainty? Moral restraint requires thought about ones actions and their rightness. If you are certain through faith then no thought is required.

Morals should be derived from complex dichotomies then, rather than from absolutes? Especially absolutes written by bigoted bronze age misogynists.

by polyglide Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:29 pm

DR Shaldon, the art in informing people of ones opinions and in respect of replies etc; is to do so without looking in the dictionary for the most complex words.

If people do not understand your replies then they are worthless, on the other hand they are even if they do.

by stuart torr Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:39 pm

Sheldon will know more than you if you lived to a thousand years old. Laughing

by Tosh Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:44 pm

This guy is an advert for eugenics.

polyglide are you a midget?

by stuart torr Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:05 pm

Now Tosh please do not descriminatate against midgets. Laughing

by Heretic Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:43 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Shaldon, the art in informing people of ones opinions and in respect of replies etc; is to do so without looking in the dictionary for the most complex words.

If people do not understand your replies then they are worthless, on the other hand they are even if they do.

I do agree that if a reader does not understand something written then the fault is in the writer unless it was written for a different audience in mind.

Since you have a fair knowledge of whom your audience is then I suspect the fault is with you.

I think that PolyGlide would agree that to display non-Christian traits when putting oneself forward as an example of Christianity is a mistake and I suspect that an apology will be winging it's way to you by return of Post Dr Sheldon Phd and if there is not I will want to know why [not that I'm anyone special].

I know how easy it is to get caught up in the heat of battle but my I think my opinion is still valid.

Why do people expect higher standards from Christians than other groups? Could it be that they have set themselves up for a fall or they were set up for a fall by Jesus? The Christian message is all about other people falling short of God's standard and if they demonstrate that cannot meet it either then their message falls a bit flat, when they cannot even control their words then they are in real trouble.:

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak , they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Heretic

by Shirina Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:52 pm

polyglide wrote:There is no man made society that has lasted for any length of time without conflict.

The reason being man was never intended to make his own rules and he has consistantly proved he is incapable of doing so in any meaningful manner.

The reason why this premise is so lame is because our secular society has in place laws against everything that matters .... we don't need a Bible or a desert tribal god in order to have laws against murder, rape, theft, extortion, etc.

Claiming that we must have a celestial dictator to hand down absolute laws and enforce those laws through an over-use of the death sentence is the kind of unmitigated tripe that one finds in obsolete Bronze Age texts that have no relevance to modern 21st Century Western culture.

What causes the most conflict are divisive concepts of which religion is a prime example. Religion automatically creates an "us vs. them" mentality and that guarantees conflict. Even factions within the same religion constantly war with each other - Catholics vs. Protestants, Sunnis vs. Shi'as, etc. And it's not just full on war that occurs. That conflict exists within the fabric of social interaction, and the result is constant social strife: a) pregnant girls who are kicked out of the house because a child out of wedlock is an affront to the parents' religious beliefs, thus, this minor child must fend for herself; b) family members who ostracize each other for being of the wrong faith, wrong denomination, or not believing at all; c) people who would rather marry someone they didn't love than to marry someone of a different faith; d) children who go wild during adolescence and young adulthood because of a strict religious upbringing during the formative years; e) one religion persecuting another - whether it is something physically harmless like a Christian protest to prevent a mosque from being built near the WTC site or something positively awful like the pagan cult of Naziism persecuting the Jews; e) the extremely vocal outcry against homosexuality and the constant struggle to deny gays certain rights - because the Bible says being gay is bad. Hey, the list is pretty extensive.

Whenever you have two sets of absolutist and authoritarian dogmas clashing, there is nothing to do BUT fight since the rules of one's religion cannot be bartered with or negotiated away; there can be no compromise of any kind without acceptance and tolerance of beliefs other than one's own. Unfortunately, religion does not lend itself to tolerance and so war - whether cultural, financial, social, or physical becomes an inevitable foregone conclusion.

by Shirina Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:21 pm

A primitive Bronze Age book wrote:Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart

Well ... I'm pretty certain that when I threw up the last time, what proceeded out of my mouth came forth from my stomach. jocolor

Heretic wrote:I do agree that if a reader does not understand something written then the fault is in the writer unless it was written for a different audience in mind.

It is only the fault of the writer when the entire meaning of the intended idea is incomprehensible. It is the fault of the reader when specific, individual words are not known. If the reader cannot be bothered with learning new words, then perhaps the reader does not deserve to know whatever information is contained within those gobbledy-gook sentences.

Why just last week, I wrote an article for the local paper about the idiocy of anti-government right-wingers and the lack of accessible health care. My aunt read it and said that, while it was good, the vocabulary was probably too advanced for the average reader in this area. She did have a point as the backwater where I live is an ignorant right-wing haven filled with bozos that had to exert a monumental effort just to claw their way out of high school with a "D" average.

Then I realized that, were I to "dumb down" my article to the 5th grade level in order to make it understandable to even the laziest reader, all I would be doing is both appeasing and contributing to the rampant stupidity and intellectual apathy that plagues this country.

by Heretic Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:57 pm

Shirina wrote:Then I realized that, were I to "dumb down" my article to the 5th grade level in order to make it understandable to even the laziest reader, all I would be doing is both appeasing and contributing to the rampant stupidity and intellectual apathy that plagues this country.

Here in England the tabloid press aim their content at a reading age of about 10. I don't know what 5th grade age is but I guess it's equivalent.

Heretic

by Shirina Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:02 pm

Heretic wrote:Here in England the tabloid press aim their content at a reading age of about 10. I don't know what 5th grade age is but I guess it's equivalent.

Yep, I think that is spot on. Newspapers used to write at an 8th grade level (roughly the 13 to 14 age bracket) but they've since lowered it. Now many news websites that aren't limited by space constraints the way newspapers are, won't even use paragraphs. Instead, each sentence is its own paragraph to avoid even the smallest "wall of text" that sends most people running in fear to the deepest recesses of that under-the-bed corner.

by stuart torr Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:22 pm

When the cheap and nasty tabs first came out, they aimed it's reading content at a very low level indeed ie 7-8 year olds. Yes I am talking about the sun rubbish. sunny

and the star crap too.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:28 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Shaldon, the art in informing people of ones opinions and in respect of replies etc; is to do so without looking in the dictionary for the most complex words.

If people do not understand your replies then they are worthless, on the other hand they are even if they do.

You do not need to be religious to possess a moral framework - Page 4 Giveafuckometer_fe78e3_239287

by Shirina Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:41 pm

Wow, if the GAF meter is reading -20, that means polyglide actually owes you 20 GAFs just to break even.

by Norm Deplume Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:52 pm

polyglide wrote:

If people do not understand your replies then they are worthless, on the other hand they are even if they do.

Making oneself clear in print is always more difficult than you think. For instance, in the sentence above, there is ambiguity in that "they" can refer to "people", so your comment can be replaced with "all people are worthless". I disagree, incidentally.

by stuart torr Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:07 pm

I too according to pollyfilla am "brainless". compliment I do believe. Laughing

by polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:34 am

As a Christian I would find it very difficult to appologise for telling the truth.

by polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:38 am

Shirina, you do not improve your lack of understanding the obvious and indulge in the ideas and work of others, get a life and some originality.

Long explanations of others ideas are boring and your assessment of others lacking in both common sense and originality.

by snowyflake Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:51 pm

As a Christian I think you would find reality very difficult, polyglide.

You do know what 'truth' and 'reality' are don't you?

stu, everyone is 'brainless' next to polyglide who is a nobel prize winner in every scientific discipline known to man. Smile

polyglide's ignorance is more important than anyone else's knowledge. (Unfortunately)

by stuart torr Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:12 pm

Hi snowy, do not worry yourself, I took it as a badge of honour. :yeahthat:

by Shirina Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Shirina, you do not improve your lack of understanding the obvious and indulge in the ideas and work of others, get a life and some originality.

I've decided that nothing you say is worthwhile. The reason is because you're using the English language, and English was invented by someone else. Only an original language invented by you is worth hearing.

polyglide wrote:Long explanations of others ideas are boring

Then, for heaven's sake, stay away from libraries since those buildings are filled with other people's ideas. Whatever you do, do NOT learn anything from someone who may know more than you because that's long, boring, and unoriginal.

Wait ... that's precisely what you've done, isn't it ...

It shows.

polyglide wrote:and your assessment of others lacking in both common sense and originality.

My assessment of others might be lacking in common sense and originality .... but it's also lacking a rebuttal. Therefore what I said still stands. You can't win a debate with character assassination.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:40 pm

snowyflake wrote:As a Christian I think you would find reality very difficult, polyglide.

You do know what 'truth' and 'reality' are don't you?

stu, everyone is 'brainless' next to polyglide who is a nobel prize winner in every scientific discipline known to man.

polyglide's ignorance is more important than anyone else's knowledge. (Unfortunately)

I desperately hope for his sake he is trolling, as the other explanation is too scary to contemplate.

by Sponsored content