I know that you claim that the law comes from morality, which comes from religion. You say that the rules come from religion, only now you are saying it comes from people.
A religious people making the rules will result in a stable society. You, apparently, are to dense to understand. Of course, there will be people like you, crabs, that will attempt to undermine the system.
A religious people making the rules scares the hell out of me.
An irrational fear. It appears that you believe all religious people are irrational and intolerant. That is understandable as it is a myth that has been propagated and perpetuated by the counter culture.
I take it you are referring to this http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552909/Inquisition.html? Come on JT can't you do better than that? That was a long time ago and in a land far, far away. It certainly wasn't worse than the acts perpetrated by that secular theory of communism.
A religious people making the rules will result in a stable society
uh...again, history does not bear this out.
a religious people making the rules results in wars.
now I understand that you think a people who are in a constant state of war with those who don't subscribe to their religion is somehow "stable", but if that is what is stable, I'll take my chances with unstable.
a non religious person almost certainly received his moral training at least indirectly from religion.
Care to prove this?
That would be difficult to prove. But considering that religion has been pervasive in most societies throughout history and religion generally promotes a specific moral code to the population's liking, it seems reasonable that those that do not practice religion would still be exposed to it through social interaction. It makes a lot more sense than believing that morality miraculously appears in certain individuals. I think the evidence suggests that human beings in a state of nature do not really have much of a moral code. They are simply wild animals.
But considering that religion has been pervasive in most societies throughout history and religion generally promotes a specific moral code to the population's liking, it seems reasonable that those that do not practice religion would still be exposed to it through social interaction.
more likely that social interaction caused people to develop a moral code and some then applied that to religion to control them with it.
no more than your contention that all non-religious people are immoral.
I don't believe that and I have said nothing to indicate that. In fact, my statements indicate that non-religious people can be moral but their morality came by way of religion indirectly. Stop lying.
religion is designed to control people who are unsure of their own morality and need to have it validated...and in the case of Christianity, forgiven for it.
Sick is when you lump all priests together in a group and label them all as child molestors.
I didn't do that...however, the leaders who representthe group have, while representing the group, covered it up.
and speaking of lumping together, isn't that exactly what this aims to do?
"By any means necessary" - The Liberal mantra for the new millenium.
the point here is that in many instances, Religion doesn't seem to provide any more or less "morality" than a lack of Religion
but yes...to get the Churhes to fess up about all the crime they have hidden "by any means necessary" is about the size of it.
or are you gonna allow the abuse of children to continue to be covered up because you are afraid you may have to be critical of the Church in order to put a stop to it?
I'm a pretty moral person. But I have hardly any religion in my life. My parents never took us to church. My mom never went to church as a kid, because her family wasn't religious. My dad's mom is religious, but my dad isn't. I also hardly see my dad's side of the family, whereas my mom's side I see a whole lot more. How did I get to be so moral if I had pretty much no religion in my life?
I think you did. Does anyone here besides Crabby disagree with me?
and speaking of lumping together, isn't that exactly what this aims to do?
Yes, I am lumping all Liberal together.
or are you gonna allow the abuse of children to continue to be covered up because you are afraid you may have to be critical of the Church in order to put a stop to it?
No.
what is preached is that you can SIN and it's okay because you only need to ask and you will be forgiven.
Nonsense. I've personally never heard a pastor, preacher, or priest say that sin is ok.
Reject Religion and you actually have to take responsibility for what you do...
Are you saying religious people don't take responsibility for their actions?
How did I get to be so moral if I had pretty much no religion in my life?
Christian morality and philosophy has permeated society up until recent times and still does to some degree. But you can see that changing. The liberals have taken God out of the lives of many people that wouldn't get a dose of it otherwise.
The liberals have taken God out of the lives of many people that wouldn't get a dose of it otherwise.
I didn't get God in my life. I would think that morals can still remain a part of our lives whether God is prevalent or not. I mean can't morals be taught without God being involved?
I mean can't morals be taught without God being involved?
I know people believe this and that is why the society is growing more and more vulgar. Morals can't be taught effectively without the religion. But liberals aren't even trying to teach morality at all. Morality has been so closely tied to Christianity throughout US history that they are throwing out moral lessons along with Christianity.
No I am sure it was the nonreligious that were responsible both for the handling of the Indians and the slave trade. I know you do not want to believe this but most slave owners treated their slaves better than the general public treated free blacks. Most slave owners took care of their slaves, and I know you should understand this, because it was in their financial interest to do so. I also know that Christians were the driving force behind abolitionism.
I know that you claim that the law comes from morality, which comes from religion. You say that the rules come from religion, only now you are saying it comes from people.
A religious people making the rules will result in a stable society. You, apparently, are to dense to understand. Of course, there will be people like you, crabs, that will attempt to undermine the system.
A religious people making the rules scares the hell out of me.
A religious people making the rules scares the hell out of me.
An irrational fear. It appears that you believe all religious people are irrational and intolerant. That is understandable as it is a myth that has been propagated and perpetuated by the counter culture.
...as it is a myth that has been propagated and perpetuated by the counter culture.
And the inquisition?
but highly profitable at times. when you stop being of value to the prosperous then you become expendible.
I take it you are referring to this http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552909/Inquisition.html? Come on JT can't you do better than that? That was a long time ago and in a land far, far away. It certainly wasn't worse than the acts perpetrated by that secular theory of communism.
(This message not displayed because phineas gage is on your Discussion Area Ignore List. To change your ignore lists go to Preferences.)
uh...again, history does not bear this out.
a religious people making the rules results in wars.
now I understand that you think a people who are in a constant state of war with those who don't subscribe to their religion is somehow "stable", but if that is what is stable, I'll take my chances with unstable.
It certainly wasn't worse than the acts perpetrated by that secular theory of communism.
No, not worse. Pretty much the same.
a religious people making the rules results in wars.
not any more than irrelegious and immoral people making the rules.
a person can be moral without being religious.
just the same way that religious people can be immoral.
a non religious person almost certainly recieved his moral training at least indirectly from relgion.
a non religious person almost certainly recieved his moral training at least indirectly from relgion.
Care to prove this?
in between molestings?
so all religious people are perverts, crabs. it wouldn't surprise me that you believe that.
a non religious person almost certainly received his moral training at least indirectly from religion.
Care to prove this?
That would be difficult to prove. But considering that religion has been pervasive in most societies throughout history and religion generally promotes a specific moral code to the population's liking, it seems reasonable that those that do not practice religion would still be exposed to it through social interaction. It makes a lot more sense than believing that morality miraculously appears in certain individuals. I think the evidence suggests that human beings in a state of nature do not really have much of a moral code. They are simply wild animals.
no more than your contention that all non-religious people are immoral.
more likely that social interaction caused people to develop a moral code and some then applied that to religion to control them with it.
no more than your contention that all non-religious people are immoral.
I don't believe that and I have said nothing to indicate that. In fact, my statements indicate that non-religious people can be moral but their morality came by way of religion indirectly. Stop lying.
more likely that social interaction caused people to develop a moral code and some then applied that to religion to control them with it.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
sure it does.
religion is designed to control people who are unsure of their own morality and need to have it validated...and in the case of Christianity, forgiven for it.
in between molestings?
You're sick
uh...not me, the priests
I'm not a man of the cloth
sick is the Churches who spend millions and millions of their "flocks" money to cover up child abuse.
sick is the Churches who spend millions and millions of their "flocks" money to cover up child abuse.
Sick is when you lump all priests together in a group and label them all as child molestors.
There's no limits with you is there?
"By any means necessary" - The Liberal mantra for the new millenium.
I didn't do that...however, the leaders who representthe group have, while representing the group, covered it up.
and speaking of lumping together, isn't that exactly what this aims to do?
the point here is that in many instances, Religion doesn't seem to provide any more or less "morality" than a lack of Religion
but yes...to get the Churhes to fess up about all the crime they have hidden "by any means necessary" is about the size of it.
or are you gonna allow the abuse of children to continue to be covered up because you are afraid you may have to be critical of the Church in order to put a stop to it?
Religion doesn't seem to provide any more or less "morality" than a lack of Religion
Yes it does, if what is preached is also practiced.
that's a mighty big "if"
what is preached is that you can SIN and it's okay because you only need to ask and you will be forgiven.
the non-Religious know that they don't get to be forgiven for their actions by anyone...they have to live with what they do.
The Religious blame their "immorality" on a non-existant devil and then get rid of their guilt by means of another phantom.
Reject Religion and you actually have to take responsibility for what you do...it ain't the Devil who did it and there ain't no God gonna forgive you.
I'm a pretty moral person. But I have hardly any religion in my life. My parents never took us to church. My mom never went to church as a kid, because her family wasn't religious. My dad's mom is religious, but my dad isn't. I also hardly see my dad's side of the family, whereas my mom's side I see a whole lot more. How did I get to be so moral if I had pretty much no religion in my life?
I didn't do that...
I think you did. Does anyone here besides Crabby disagree with me?
and speaking of lumping together, isn't that exactly what this aims to do?
Yes, I am lumping all Liberal together.
or are you gonna allow the abuse of children to continue to be covered up because you are afraid you may have to be critical of the Church in order to put a stop to it?
No.
what is preached is that you can SIN and it's okay because you only need to ask and you will be forgiven.
Nonsense. I've personally never heard a pastor, preacher, or priest say that sin is ok.
Reject Religion and you actually have to take responsibility for what you do...
Are you saying religious people don't take responsibility for their actions?
there sure is a big focus on being forgiven...and if it's not SIN they are being forgiven for, than what?
confess and you are off the hook.
you don't need to take a poll...just read what I wrote...
now where does that say all priests?
Yes it does, if what is preached is also practiced.
that's a mighty big "if"
No it is not.
How did I get to be so moral if I had pretty much no religion in my life?
Christian morality and philosophy has permeated society up until recent times and still does to some degree. But you can see that changing. The liberals have taken God out of the lives of many people that wouldn't get a dose of it otherwise.
Crabby, this is the post I was responding to.
in between molestings?
I've got nothing more to say to you on this subject.
are you saying that no priests have ever molested anyone?
it's been in all the papers.
JT, why don't you just given up on crabs? Don't you think he is hopeless?
Why is crabs afraid of a poll?
The liberals have taken God out of the lives of many people that wouldn't get a dose of it otherwise.
I didn't get God in my life. I would think that morals can still remain a part of our lives whether God is prevalent or not. I mean can't morals be taught without God being involved?
I mean can't morals be taught without God being involved?
Yes they can.
explain that to bodine please.
I mean can't morals be taught without God being involved?
I know people believe this and that is why the society is growing more and more vulgar. Morals can't be taught effectively without the religion. But liberals aren't even trying to teach morality at all. Morality has been so closely tied to Christianity throughout US history that they are throwing out moral lessons along with Christianity.
you would have made a swell Puritan, bodine
which part of history was that?
the nearly complete genocide of the natives or the slavery or what exactly?
No I am sure it was the nonreligious that were responsible both for the handling of the Indians and the slave trade. I know you do not want to believe this but most slave owners treated their slaves better than the general public treated free blacks. Most slave owners took care of their slaves, and I know you should understand this, because it was in their financial interest to do so. I also know that Christians were the driving force behind abolitionism.
so, slavery is okay if you are nice to them?
you are sure of this huh...I suppose you were there yourself and everything...no...that's okay...don't bother with anything like proof.
so, slavery is okay if you are nice to them?
That's not what I wrote and you know it.
I see how you disregard the comment that Christians were the main force behind abolition.
two words...."Magdalene laundries"
you think you have an answewr for everything don't you, crabs. You are so full of shit it is amazing.
two words...."Thomas Jefferson"
so, none of the Christians had slaves in the Colonies?
interesting.
Everybody owned slaves back then.