Monicks: Unleashed

Thinking Critically

By

Selective morality – Tweet of the day

What do you think, is it too far fetched to expect that theists realized the absurdity of their beliefs by my pointing out that the same book, which to them is the ultimate morality guide, includes idiotic rules that no one in their sane mind would even consider to carry out?

This is the kind of tweet that only atheists find logical.

This is the link to the original tweet, in case you want to retweet it, or something.

I get a lot of hate mail in reply to this kind of tweets, Christians are so peaceful when their beliefs are challenged!

This is a great representation os this verse:

… but all the rebuttal replies I get from Theists are from the nice parts of the bible. They like to think that the bible is all inspirational and sweet.

Of course, Theists get to pick and choose the parts they like, or those verses they agree with, while verses like this one get totally ignored.

I am still waiting for a good response.

Are you a theist who thinks gays are detestable and gay love is abomination? Let us hear your rebuttal here in the comments.

48 Responses to Selective morality – Tweet of the day

  1. Of course they get to pick and choose, logic doesn’t play a part, and neither does consistency!

  2. Josh says:

    This is a bit like marching into a battlefield with a spatula, but I’m going to try my best to explain my reasoning in a manner that will hopefully be respected.
    First, the Bible says not to hate anyone; in fact, the most important story in the Bible is a story of love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness.  The people who say “God hates fags” are not real Christians.  I apologize on their behalf.  Second, as a fairly young Christian, I have to say that I do not base my entire moral system on the Bible.  I believe in a Creator, a Being who orchestrated the systems of the universe.  I see sex as a system because it has processes and a specific production.  Based on such logic, I see man and women as designed for each other.  Heterosexual intercourse has a specific outcome, homosexual intercourse does not.  I realize this may offend people, but that is not my intention.  I have gay friends.  I have plenty of friends who do things that I do not agree with.  Does that mean that I rebuke them?  Of course not.  Excuse the cliche, but that’s not what Jesus would do.
    For a really, really long time, I’ve wanted to understand homosexuality.  I still, of course, don’t fully understand.  I know that when people hear that I am a Christian they smack me with other labels, and one label that is often associated with the religion is close-mindedness.  But I have truly tried to understand.  I understand homosexuality isn’t a choice, as I’ve heard numerous homosexuals state that the orientation isn’t worth the abuse.  But I also don’t believe homosexuals are “born that way” either.  I finally stumbled upon Dr. Julie Hamilton, who has researched it and given some evidence to what I slightly suspected; that homosexuality occurs during the developmental stages of a child’s life.  Her website can be found at homosexuality101.com.
    I’m in my early twenties and I’ve never been to seminary.  I’m not a theology professor or a pastor.  This might not be the best answer for your question, but both Leviticus and Deuteronomy are in the Old Testament, so it’s pre-Jesus in the timeline of things, and thus pre-forgiveness.  I don’t fully understand it, because again, I just haven’t read the entire Bible.  I’ve just been trying my hardest to figure out life’s answers and as I’ve tiptoed towards the answer, this is what I’ve come up with.  I understand people will think I’m wrong, I understand I’ll probably get harassed for posting this, and I understand that in a serious debate on the topic, I’d probably lose.  I just wanted to state a complete perspective from a Christian who doesn’t just believe stuff because the Bible says so.  I hope you all can respect that and accept me for that.  Anyways, thank you for calling this to attention and I hope you all have a great day.

  3. Jon says:

    The problem with your response is that you sort of ignored the question, which was why can Christians choose which parts of the bible (which is supposed to be the inerrant word of God, if I’m not mistaken) they believe in and ignore the rest.  Why include the old testament or other parts of the Bible that you don’t agree with if they are irrelevant?  I know that you don’t have the answer, but it’s something to think about.

  4. Al says:

    Sure, there are people 1) who believe in Bible as inspired by God and God is indisputable – self delusional; 2) who are not believe in Bible and in God but they use their chance in Christianity as in business – simply cruel; 3) whose believe in Bible and God is the result of business of the 2nd group mentioned above – cruelly deluded.
    the 2nds exploit the Bible as they think it will bring the biggest benefit for their business. That is why the nice and sweet verses are getting in the front. But when they need to admonish stumbled newbie the rook and terror verses are the choice.
    @Josh: It is good that you are still haven’t dived too deep into this swamp. No, no, no. The Bible is not about love, peace, mercy and forgiveness. It is about suffering, hate, punishment and rape. It is the well known trick used by many pastors (especially in fundamental and !charismatic! denominations) where love, peace, mercy and miracles are the attractive baits for new “born”s.
    So, please, try to take everything with double care and challenge every “holy” word you hear; but still, the best is to step out this business.

  5. Josh says:

    Well, like I believe I said, I don’t believe anything until I think critically about it.  I think about this stuff all the time, and the more I think about it, the more I believe there is a God.  I do, like Chris Langan, believe that parts of the Bible are true but metaphorical.  

    I tend to take things in the Old Testament cum grano salis.  Since Jesus wasn’t around then, it’s hard to tell what things are actually divinely told and which are just some kooks talking about their crazy dreams.  That’s why I tend more towards the New Testament.  In the New Testament, mankind had a “middle man” for the wrathful God.  I see it as a bit of a resolution to the Old Testament.  So no, it’s not okay to stone your kids nor is it okay to hate gays.  I haven’t done it yet, since it’s very long, but I plan on reading the entire Bible to get an objective idea of it instead of extracting bits and pieces.

    I know that there are many, many dumb Christians.  I know plenty of people that just accept the Bible without any question.  I just want you all to see that I, being of sound mind and with objectivity and reason, arrived at the personal conclusion that there is a God.  The Christian God?  Maybe.  I’m not there yet.  I call myself a Christian because that’s easier than saying “I’m a Deist with morals tending towards Christianity.”

    But yes, Al, the Bible is about love, mercy, and all that I stated before.  It has bits and pieces extracted like these, but its certain theme is good.  Of that I am certain.  If you don’t believe it, then you’re doing the same thing you accuse Christians of in the opposite way.  You are extracting the bad parts of the Bible and totally ignoring the main points.  Yes, with the New Testament, the Bible pretty much makes a total 180.  But the OT is there for a reason.  I’m still learning, but I know this.

  6. skepticalbunny says:

    @Josh: I know a lot of Christians like to think that after Jesus arrived, everything turned all nicey-nice. However, take a look at Matt. 5:17-19. Even Jesus doesn’t believe that all the Mosaic laws are defunct now that he’s here. The “laws” weren’t just the Ten Commandments, you know. Finish reading the bible. Do yourself a favor.

  7. Aesa says:

    Josh, you say you don’t believe anything until you ‘think critically about it’ yet you also claim to know, with certainty, the real message of the Bible without having read the entire book. What critical thinking led to this conclusion? How could you know anything for certain, and from your own reasoning, about it if you have only read pieces? This is similar to the Christian ‘reasoning’ in Monicks’ post. You have read parts you like and based your entire conclusion of the Bible from them, damn whatever else it says. There are random messages of love and mercy and so that must be the Meaning.

    You use lack of Jesus as an excuse to disregard the more sinister elements from the Old Testament. But what about God’s action, the Father of Christ?

    “This is what the Lord says: Because of what you have done, I will cause your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man before your very eyes, and he will go to bed with them in public view. You did it secretly, but I will make this happen to you openly in the sight of all Israel.

    Then David confessed to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’

    Nathan replied, ‘Yes, but the Lord has forgiven you, and you won’t die for this sin. Nevertheless, because you have shown utter contempt for the Lord by doing this, your child will die.’”

    (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NLT)

    Here he is clearly having women raped and a child executed as punishment for someone else’s ‘sins.’ Does select passages of kindness wash over something as monstrous as this? I see no love here, Josh, and definitely no mercy. Can you truly take a message of love seriously from someone who is capable of rape and murder?

  8. Josh says:

    Not to pull an I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I, but you have also formulated your own interpretted theme of the Bible.  Am I safe in assuming you also have not read the entire Bible?  I gather the central theme from those who have read it.  Besides, if the Bible reads like any other book, the moral of the story is found at the end, where the resolution occurs.  It’s my understanding that the crucification, the forgiveness, has now saved us from God’s wrath.  I will 100% agree that God is full of wrath in the OT, and maybe even a bit in the NT, but where did we get the impression that God had to follow our expectations?  How many parents do you know that follow all the same guidelines that they list for their children to follow?  I cannot name any.  I’m not going to attempt to justify God’s actions because that’s not my place.  To put it quite plainly, as soon as you are the ruler of the universe, you can make your own rules.

    My exact prediction happened, so I’m sorry to say this will be my last post here.  My only intention here was to give my perspective, as I understood this was a discussion.  It will be a glorious day when people with different beliefs will be able to coexist without word wars (or other wars).  I was hoping for some respect, or even a hint of merit, but I received none.  I want you all to know that you brought up very good points, and although I don’t have all the answers, my belief remains the same.  I respect each one of you as it’s well due to any person who uses their mind to its full extent.  I hope you all have a great day.

  9. Aesa says:


    I have read and studied the entire Bible, so no, you are not safe in assuming that I haven’t or anything else about me. I believe it’s always good to discuss things with others but my point was that I don’t think you should conclude “for certain” anything without having first approached it fully with your own eyes and mind first.

    You sound like so many other Christians when faced with the worst parts of their book. “I don’t have an answer so I’m just going to say God is mysterious and we can’t possibly understand his actions.” Well for me, nothing justifies gang rape and child murder. I don’t care who you are or anything else you’ve done.

    “To put it quite plainly, as soon as you are the ruler of the universe, you can make your own rules.”

    You suggest we should blindly follow the leader and that it’s okay to make up laws no matter how cruel or ridiculous they may be. If God truly did exist, I would still refuse to bow; I will never worship or respect a being that rapes, tortures and murders and I will never understand how anyone else could.

    I haven’t seen anyone attempt to engage you in anything less than a civil discussion here. Not agreeing with you == word wars or lack of respect. It’s so frustrating to always watch Christians shrink away or pull the martyr card when faced with the slightest bit of opposition or reason.

  10. Rob says:

    Christians are fucked.  Josh, I guess you are not going to post here anymore but you more or less proved Monicks’ point.  You sound like a nice guy but there is nothing rational about your belief in Christianity.  The Bible is not a set of guidelines.  At least that is not how the majority of religious enthusiasts treat the Bible.

  11. Jim says:

    Hi Josh.  Bravo on your efforts to battle the atheists with the spatula.   I know there are many good hearted and earnest Christians in the world.  You seem to be one of them.   I see nothing wrong with picking and chosing what you take as wisdom from the Bible as long as you realize it was written by people, people who lived in what we would consider a primitive era.  Attributing the authorship to something divine is where the trouble begins.  If you think it is a book written by God then picking and chosing equates to being critical of God.  Fine by me, but it is hard to understand how you comfortably can handle that contradiction.

    I spent last summer reading several books by Bart Ehrman, a bible scholar.  Understanding the origins of the bible may also help you see why so many of us put no credence in it whatsoever. 

  12. Jon says:

    To get just a little off topic for a moment, I was actually looking at a few books by him, Jim.  Are they any good?

  13. Jim says:

    I really enjoyed reading Ehrman.  Some of it is a bit tedious, but I was so happy to finally understand some of this that I did not mind.  I suggest trying to get a library copy of Jesus Interrupted before spending a bunch on a collection. (Alibris.com also has good prices on used copies).  Some of his books might be considered textbooks.

    There is a lot on YouTube by Ehrman. You might also listen to the Terry Gross, Fresh Air, interviews of Ehrman on npr.com. 

  14. Jon says:

    Cool, thanks for the info.

  15. Dan Galeano says:

    This reminds me of your older post about selective morality. The one that lists things the Bible bans.

  16. jcol says:

    When people attack the Bible in this fashion, it proves they have little if any understanding of it.
    One key thought I like is that:” The Bible is a record of a conversation between humankind and God expressed in the language of events.” To understand the meaning and purpose of this conversation, one must also consider the time place and purpose of the events. My example of such: A mother wants hear child to be respectful of all living things but also wants him or her to survive the ages. She teaches the child to give the wild lion space and to respect it. However, she also teaches how to kill it if attacked. Upon one occasion, she helps a Lion to recover when found injured. Upon another, she kills a lion in an instance of self-defense.

    As for gays, a good Christian views the condition as an illness or abnormality, but does not hate the ill or abnormal person, only the conduct, that which he or she finds detestable and annoying. Wayward heterosexuals fall into the same boat, one that represents a plague upon society. In biblical history, homosexual misconduct went rampant at times and God responded justly in order to preserve and protect his investment in humankind.
    I suggest that before you criticize the Bible and the content, you first learn how to interpret the conversation and events correctly. In addition, who are we to judge God!

  17. thinkdaddy says:

    @jcol:

    There’s lots to address in your post, and I appreciate the time you took to explain your position.

    You seem very confident that you have learned how to interpret the conversation represented in the Bible “correctly.” Besides your faith, how do you know that your interpretation is the correct one? I am very familiar w/ the Bible, yet I’m sure my interpretation is quite different that yours.

    I always get a little chuckle when a believer tries to define a “good Christian” or a “true Christian.” I’m sure you believe wholeheartedly what you espouse and that you define the “good Christian” — BUT, I also don’t doubt that members of Westboro Baptist Church believe wholeheartedly that “God hates fags,” and that THEY are the true Christians.

    So we have the “inerrant word of God” being interpreted in two mutually exclusive ways, with both sides believing they are absolutely right and divinely supported. Add to this all of the other interpretations and denominations, which also believe that THEY are right.

    Their contradictory beliefs show that they CAN’T all be right.

    BUT — they CAN all be wrong.

    Who are we (I assume you mean all of humanity) to judge God or the literally thousands of others that are/have been worshipped throughout history? We are the creators of those gods, that’s who — and our questioning and outgrowing the need for them represents a wonderful and ongoing development in our ongoing evolution.

    Thanks for reading.

  18. Vroomazoom says:

    So if the bible is the record of a conversation between humans and God, God communicated with certain people. These people knew the will of God. Until the book was published, this information was not available to the general public, correct?

    So. God communicates with people and the general population is not aware of it at the time. Also, God “justly” removed homosexuals from the face of the earth in the past. God commands people to perform tasks.

    The end result being, If someone says they conversed with the Christian God and were ordered to murder homosexuals, you could not comment on the morality of their actions until you read their book, is that correct?

  19. J-Rad says:

    Does the bible have a section dedicated to ‘how to interpret the conversation and events correctly’? I never made it past the first book so I don’t know.

  20. jcol says:

    Varoomozoom, keeping to the content of the biblical literature, God spoke, and some heard, based upon whether or not they were discerning souls. As the story line goes, it all began as a wonderful, peaceful and rewarding relationship until humankind elected to rebel. As they stepped out of the bounds of their limited freedom, the paradise associated with that relationship was lost! However, the situation was not hopeless, for God devised a divine plan to rescue his lost children. Spiritual Life was what was really essential! When he found discernment and a willingness to cooperate, in Abram of the city of Ur, he selected Him to be the one through whom he would implement His plan for restoration. The New Testament ushered in the conclusive means of that spiritual salvation in the person and content of one called Jesus (Savior) who would consummate a new, final and fulfilling covenant. Through His sacrifice, teachings and example, a new spiritually lasting relationship with the one and only true God and all He has to offer was made available to every soul. The true follower of the Word, as now conveyed, would be a sacrificial personality and was to love others as he or she should love ones self. Their additional mission was to share and spread this way of everlasting spiritual life.
    I therefore present that no true Christian will claim that God has instructed then to do harm to another soul, homosexual or not!

  21. jcol says:

    J- Rad, to the best of my knowledge, no original writings assembled into biblical form contained interpretive notes. The literature was self-explanatory to the eastern mindset of the era in which authored. However, many bibles and study bibles of today contain scholarly aids and comments to help with understanding the significance of the content.

  22. jcol says:

    I have read each of your comments and find it to be good that your are thinking and pondering such matters. I truly appreciate all your thoughts, comments and questions.

    As for the subject of interpretation, it is very unfortunate that so many decide to pick-and-choose segments of the whole then use them inappropriately, often out of context, in an attempt to justify their desire to harm others. Remember the old phrase, “ there are bad apples in every bushel?”

    You asked how I can be certain that I have the holy grail on interpretation aside from my faith. First, it does not take a rocket scientist to see and understand the evident. However, to understand the true function of each part of the vehicle, it is best to first see the whole unit in motion, then observe how each part relates to the other and how they all works in unison. I have studied the course of human events and theology most of my life. I was also a student under a doctor of theology and taught as well. Aside from my faith, I can see a process that has been occurring throughout history, a process that is continuously expressing itself in the language of events. Biblical content is a part of that process. However, to truly understand and accept it as a book containing divine knowledge and wisdom, conveyed to humankind by an actual Divine Creator, it requires faith! As for the other (lesser) gods Greek history, the well-educated, Jewish-Roman Citizen and Christian convert Paul (Saul of Tarsus), addressed this issue to the Greeks at their Areopagus when considering their many gods. (Acts: 17:16-33) Remember, God is a spirit, and is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. He is not a graven image created by man!

  23. jcol says:

    May I ask what religious enthusiasts are those of whom you are referring to as” most”? Are you not aware that many of our civilizations laws and codes are based upon those handed down to people of faith and recorded as such in the Bible(“Do not murder, steal, take your sister or brother as your spouse, or have sex with an animal, judge fairly and make the extent of the punishment proportionate to the crime); Make sure the food is properly pepared before presenting it for consumption, be fair in and honest in your transactions, etc., etc……….

    And please be civil in your language, I do not see anyone else here not being respectful of the others.

  24. jcol says:

    Martin, Here is why we must consider what is being said, to whom, when, for what reason., under what circumstances and toward the accomplishment of what goal.
    Perhaps this will help inable you to relate to what you call pick-and-choose.

    Modern Day Example:
    During a time of civil unrest, a time of chaos and disorder, people took to the streets stealing, raping and killing at will.
    Every time the police tried to restore order, they were assaulted with gunfire, and numerous loose their lives! Then authorities declared martial law. Therefore, the military steps in imposing a curfew with orders to shoot and even kill if necessary in order to restore the peace. Once order is established and normality return, the decree and the troops are withdrawn. However, seeing the methods used, the local authorities take the example to heart and begin shooting and killing anyone out after midnight, although things are now orderly and peaceful again.

    Biblical Circumstances:
    In the Bible, there were just such times, when the survival of the people as a whole depended upon strict laws, actions and seemingly harsh penalties. Once the people became conditioned and were more sensible, the harsh laws and enforcement were no longer necessary. However, much later, legalistic figureheads in high places insisted that they still applied so they could more easily subjugate and gain high profits from the masses. In the New Testament, Jesus called them “vipers”, He made an effort to point out that times had changed and that it was not the intent of God to continue treating the people so harshly thought all the ages. He also claimed that they had turned the temple into “a den of thieves.

    Therefore, you pick-and-choose! What is right and just? Abide by the outdated martial law decree or “let the people go” from the now unnecessary extra burdens?

  25. jcol says:

    “To each his own!

  26. jcol says:

    Aesa,
    Most of Biblical prophecy is hindsight and prediction. Nathan was reading the situation and seeing God, by faith, as the overseer of events and circumstances. Considering the history of events, circumstances and outcomes, Nathan predicts that those David loves will suffer as a result of his actions. Evaluating the childs condition, Nathan was fairly certain that he would not survive. He surmised that none of this would be happening if it were not for David doing.wrong in the sight of God. Can you think of a circumstance where a parent’s wayward action could and probably will cause harm and distress to the family, Why? By David’s actions, he momentarily removed himself out from under the protective umbrella of God’s care, he drove himself and others into a severe storm and his passengers were at risk. God’s plan for David was also impared and the kingdoms future would have to rest upon his son Samuel.

  27. Vroomazoom says:

    So the old Testament God was the type of God who would command people to commit wholesale murder of homosexuals, or simply non-believers of any sort even if they were your family members.

    There is no indication in the old Testament that God would change his path of directly dealing with people. His personality shift is an unpredictable plot twist. So we could again, by that rational, have a different unpredictable plot twist. Jesus is set to return, right? So if someone says that Jesus returned and commanded them to murder Homosexuals, we couldn’t morally judge this person until. Perhaps, as your analogy went, he has taught us to mend the lion and soon he could teach us to kill it.

    And even with your “loving” facade, you still insist there is justified hate directed towards homosexuals (hate not the person, but the action) and you do defer to your own judgement on what is acceptable to hate. You said it was acceptable to “conduct, that which he or she finds detestable and annoying.”

    Claim to be loving, consistent, and merely an accurate interpreter of God’s conversation with man if you wish. But do keep this in mind; you are preaching hate against, among other things, that which you find merely annoying. This is your own decision. It is not directly commanded by the book that you hat what is annoying. You are using the text to justify your desire to hate. So this claim that you have mastered an objective interpretation of the the text is dishonest. You are using the bible to hate what you want to. Your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else’s. You use the bible to justify hate. Others use the bible to justify murder. Neither is a more honest reading.

  28. jcol says:

    Aesa,

    Learning to connect with ones poetic side is can be very rewarding and often provides enrichment that helps define the human spirit.

    I love to watch the sun setting, especially while I am standing on the beech and viewing this giant brilliant ball of light sinking beneath the waves on the horizon. Sometimes a ship will be crossing the horizon appearing to be sailing upon the surface of the sun. What a sight!

    Observing this, I do so with my eyes and mind wide open! The experience is awesome and quite moving for someone with a poetic heart. It is equally impressive for the scientist side of me who understands what is going on physically. I also enjoy good stories that convey lessons of life.

    In a sense, I am experiencing two functional realities, one scientific and the other poetic, both are attributes that enhance the human mind, and the poetic enlightens ones spirit and knowledge as well.

    Of course, as the avid literary and biblical student that you are, you are quite familiar with what your professor taught about biblical content and the processes of eastern thought. You are aware that much of the biblical literary form is a perspective of cause and effect, expressed in the form of story telling and poetry as a vehicle to convey certain concepts. In other words, if one does this, this might or will happen, and it is their fault if they suffer for not living according to certain universal rules of conduct.

    You know that Hebrew writings focus upon a living journey, where people prosper in accord with God, or suffer consequences because they, or others, have broken His universal rules. You are then also aware that it is by design that these rules are to provide us with the tools of survival, both physically and spiritually.

    You know that In Hebrew thought, the benefits are God’s will, and the consequences are the result of not adhering to His design for us. By design, many of his rules are part of the fabric of existence. Therefore, by virtue of eastern expressive thought, since God made the rules, incorporating consequence, then the consequence is His judgement upon us for venturing beyond our designed limited freedoms. Hence, through biblical expression, God will do this or that for or to humankind based upon our conduct and misconduct.

    Any you know as well, that by virtue of Hebrew thought, by design, if you leap out of an airship without a parachute you will fall and be either severely injured or killed. Any other outcome would be the result of extraordinary divine intervention such as the rescue of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

    Therefore, being the exceptional student of Hebrew literature that you are, and considering your comments, it appears that you are a God hater. This is likely because you appear to resent the very idea that anyone or thing, Creator or not, has the right to determine your destiny based upon your compliance to or abuse of any design and will for you. I certainly hope this is inaccurate, but then that is a matter between you and God. I certainly hope He will come to you and that you can come to a peaceful understanding. Hopefully, it will be one that adequately provides for your spiritual future.

  29. Julian Finn says:

    jcol:

    The point is, the Bible and the theologies associated with it are ludicrously amoral when reading without the blinders of faith. Quote mining for the “good stuff”, while ignoring the dripping hatred, ignorance and outright insanity, just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Making excuses for it is just absurd.

  30. Julian says:

    “It’s my understanding that the crucification, the forgiveness, has now saved us from God’s wrath”

    @Josh: Can we please examine this statement for absurdity and apply your critical thinking skills to the issue?

    God, who allegedly created the universe, is angry with a small moving part of his creation. Rather than fixing that part or, as you’d expect anything resembling a higher power to be able to do, controlling his emotions and choosing not to be angry, he comes up with an elaborate scheme instead.

    “Hmm,” says God, “I think the best way out of this is to parthenogenetically birth myself into one of the bits that I’m cranky with, have myself killed on all of their behalves, and then I can give myself permission not to be angry anymore.”

    Genius.

    The reason God is angry and wrathful in the old testament and is less so in the New Testament is because the advent of monotheism changed the purpose of deities. Initially, deities were anthropomorphic explanations of various phenomena for people who were utterly clueless as to the underlying functions of the natural world. Since nature can be cruel, the people saw gods as cruel and flaky. As monotheism took hold, the idea of God shifted to become an answer to all unanswerable (at that time) questions, which meant a certain amount of benevolence had to be introduced to his character because, after all, things aren’t always bad all the time, not even for superstitious primitives.

  31. jcol says:

    @Vroomszoom:

    First, if you are going to assume the right to quote someone without consent, at least have the courtesy to do so accurately! I did not say, it was acceptable to conduct anything. What I wrote was, “does not hate the ill or abnormal person”, “only the conduct”, “that (meaning conduct) which he or she finds to be detestable or annoying”. In addition, I did not use the term “merely” in association with annoying.

    If you have this much difficulty reading accurately and comprehending, then you probably have no hope trying to understand spirituality, God or anything else pertaining to matters of faith.

    What makes you think one has to hate the perpetrator if he hates the action?

    Example: You are throwing up all over my effort to share my understandings with you yet I do not hate you! However, I do hate lying, cheating, stealing, rape, incest, murder, and child abuse as well as venomous snake bites and a whole slew of other things such as these. Even so, contrary to your conclusion, I do not hate the snake or any of the other perpetrators. I also hate things that really annoy me. You used the “ merely”(another misquote) were as I did not use an added descriptive.

    As for my supposed hatred of gays, you have no idea just how full of it that you are!
    For your information, my wicked, deceiving snake of an on line acquaintance, I had several good friends who were gay. Before you try to twist this around let me just say now that I did not dump them or kill them, they killed themselves by contacting the aids virus while mounting other men!
    They both not only ruined their own lives but those of their families as well! They both spread aids to their wives and one to an unborn child.

    As for God and what the Bible says He did, you will never be able to understand. You will not be capable of accepting His purpose and intent nor will you ever see the justification of it all because you just can no relate to or comprehend it. You can not fathom sacrificing some in order to save others. You would have made one lousy soldier, military commander, policeman , doctor or fireman.

    If you do not hate seeing your friends die of aids, if you do not hate the thought of picking up dead children scrum by over dosing on drugs, and if you do not hate it that you are missing out on a loving relationship with those who care enough to hate, then you are most certainly a waste of human flesh!

    May God save you from your sick, perverted manner of reasoning.

  32. Vroomazoom says:

    Now we are getting somewhere. Your post now mirrors your views – Angry and ignorant. Re-read your post. Its hateful. Its derogatory. It is not what you profess to be. So I must ask, if Jesus gives you calm, peace, and love then why am I the collected rational one while you have adopted a angry demeaning rhetoric?

    “Merely” is a quantifier added by me. It does not alter the definition of “annoying.” It expresses its relation to other things one could hate. You choose to hate that which annoys you instead of that which is worthy of hate. You do not hate only the horrendous or the unfathomably cruel. So I say, you hate what is merely annoying. You then use the bible to justify that hate, because no reasoned articulation of a actual moral code worthy of man could allow one to hate the annoying.

    Lets ignore the psychological pain your world view inflicts on young, impressionable men and women in this nation; that there is no scientific or verifiable data of any sort that homosexuality is a choice. Lets ignore the emotional human suffering you dole out and focus on just one small aspect of the toll your views take in terms of innocent life.

    Ignoring your misuse of the term AIDS to refer to a virus, your theories on AIDS, your organisation of HIV (I will opt for the correct term), is terribly dated. It is not GRID. It is not a gay disease. Transmission rates in the US are high among homosexuals. In Africa, most transmissions are from heterosexual sex. There are populations in which HIV drug use is the most common vector of transmission.

    HIV is an epidemiological global health crisis, not a tool to point fingers and cast derision. To believe it is a gay disease is to show your thinking is nearly 30 years out of date. To believe it is a punishment for the wicked it to fail to grasp the number of innocent lives that die as a result of your willful ignorance. Your hate does more than hurt feelings. Your hate combats the ongoing fight to save lives. Your hate kills.

  33. Vroomazoom says:

    (paragraph 4, last sentence should read “IV drug use.”)

  34. jcol says:

    @ Vroomazoom,

    To Vroomazom,

    Oh my, you are so determined to try to convince me that intense dislike, disapproval of anything, or for that matter even a dislike of something annoying or outright disturbing is wrong.

    . I am definitely not out do any harm to anyone, gay or otherwise, believer or non, but you insist on trying to implant that concept into my and everyone else’s mind.

    Ok, swallow this, I lost one of my sons to depression and suicide because he could not overcome his preconceived notion that life is meaningless. I lost two good friends because of Aids and I lost many others in combat, but I do not blame or hate God for any of this. Life is what it is and we have to make the most of it. However this realization does not erase the sense of loss or diminish the pain. What does, at least for me, is my belief that our lives have purpose beyond and above it all. My disdain for certain things is not unnatural or unorthodox and it is not contrary to my belief structure. Fortunately, this is my privilege, as much as it is for you not to really give a hoot.

    We are both very fortunate to life in a society that tolerates individual thoughts and beliefs, and if our offspring are still allowed to experience this freedom in the future, it will be because we managed to preserve and protect it. So, best whishes to you on your next adventure and may God, who you do not know, accept or understand, be there for you at the end of your days. – Jcol

  35. Colin Mackay says:

    “…the survival of the people as a whole depended upon strict laws, actions and seemingly harsh penalties. Once the people became conditioned and were more sensible, the harsh laws and enforcement were no longer necessary”
    So harsh laws, and enforcement will condition sensibility in people, for those who don’t share your sensibility what…internment camps, re-education programs, ???

  36. jcol says:

    To Colin Mackey:

    No Colin,

    What you are asking Colin is what would I do today if I were in control and this situation developed. Have you asked yourself the same question? How would you deal with insurrection when it is imperative to do so in order to rescue the nation from its demise? What happened here when the South decided to secede? On the basic level, what would you do when one of your sons went to the dark side and decided to make a human sacrifice of your infant daughter at the threshold of your home?

  37. Colin Mackay says:

    So biblical morality is relative then?

  38. jcol says:

    I consider it to be!
    Is there some reason you think it should not be?
    Do you think God has altered His design and purpose for human kind?
    -jcol

  39. jcol says:

    To Julian,

    Hello Julian,

    Your logic is understandable and to some extent somewhat accurate, as it pertains to the evolution of some of the progressive human thought relative to the development of the ancient gods. However it does not take into account the inner workings of the human spirit and it’s source.

    You say that God is just our effort to explain the unexplainable. I might say the same about your lack of spiritual perception. Since you have not experienced God, then you feel you are obligated to explain Him away.

    I agree that humans developed certain perceptions based upon their lack of knowledge pertaining to nature and the universe. This is accurate and understandable. There was more to and about life than what their level of understanding encompassed. They most certainly envisioned their gods and even created physical images of what they thought they might look like. They also created rules and guidelines for living and felt that they received these by virtue of these gods. These facts continue to serve as an obstacle for those who have no spiritual discernment of the one true living God of creation.
    It is apparent that these primitives and ancients were seeking God in the wrong places and quite possibly with the wrong attitude and motives. Or perhaps God just wasn’t inclined at that time to conduct a mutual conversation.

    Anyway, It is very apparent that you and others posting here have not been able to connect to Him spiritually and this is sad. I do not know if this is because you refuse to make an honest effort to connect or that is by His design. Perhaps He is reserving your revelation for a special time of his choosing. Apparently, there is a purpose for non-perceivers like that explaining the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart. It makes one wonder what plans God has for you further along in the fabric of the spiritual realm of existence. In any event, you might consider the long-term consequence if your belief that He does not exist and that you might be wrong. If you are correct, you loose nothing, but if you are wrong, and I known you are, then your future is at stake.

    Oh yes, as to God implanting Himself into human existence to accomplish a rescue mission, rather than waving His almighty had and fixing things, I would say that it was because He wanted it to be a very personal experience. He also desired to demonstrate the actual extent of his love for us.
    I pray you will make the correct decision! Your life depends upon it!

  40. Colin Mackay says:

    No moral relativism seems to work fine.
    I don’t think gud, I think atheist.

  41. jcol says:

    To:Collin
    From:jcol

    So then, What is your atheistic outlook, anything goes? No morality, do and be as you please without any consequence or responsibility towards the sensitives of others or their wel being?

  42. 50crowley says:

    You know, I’ve never seen so many intelligent Christians in one place (online) before, lol. You have a very good understanding of Christianity and it sounds like you have put a great deal of thought into your beliefs.
    Just so you know, I am a Catholic Deist (meaning I practice Catholicism, but subscribe to many deist theories), and I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the last part: “I would say that it was because He wanted it to be a very personal experience.”
     This is not logical if you (like most Christians) believe God is present in all living things. Personal experiences with God would, logically, happen all the time. I think a better explanation is that God wanted to preserve our free-will. If he had magically snapped his fingers, he would have undermined the very concept and purpose of humanity. Therefore, he sent a sort of messenger to tell the world what God expected of them and how to behave like… well, human beings. People have a natural desire to do good, but sometimes we need someone to tell us HOW to do good.

  43. Colin Mackay says:

    “People have a natural desire to do good, but sometimes we need someone to tell us HOW to do good.” Good, WTF is good?

  44. Colin Mackay says:

    Nah, forget about answering that. I do not recognise the legitimacy of theistic judgement of right from wrong, let alone the authority to tell ANYONE what to do,

  45. 50crowley says:

    Well, it depends. Personally, I reject the notion of black and white morality in favor of Aristotle’s theory of scaled virtue/vice presented in his Nicomachean Ethics. If we apply this logic, the definition of “good” exists somewhere between two “bads”. Understandably, it can be difficult to tell the difference at times and that is partially why corruption, greed, and vice are so present in society.
    Being “good” is a fine line, often crossing over into the realm of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. I’m afraid I cannot make a general statement that defines good, but if you’d like we can address specifics.

  46. Colin Mackay says:

    No, we can’t talk about specifics; theists are not qualified to judge.

  47. Bill R. says:

    While you are absolutely correct that many of civilizations laws and codes are recorded in the Bible that does not mean that they come from the Bible or even the Judeo-Christian God for that matter.  Nearly every prescription you name was present before the Bible was written.  In addition, some superior moral precepts and codes have come since the Bible was written. 
     
    The biggest example is the abolition and outlaw of slavery.  Slavery is condoned in the Bible and even Christ himself condoned it.  Yet now we recognize that slavery is immoral.   If the Bible is a moral guide from the creator of the universe why does it not tell us slavery is morally wrong?   Do Christians believe slavery to be an absolute moral wrong despite it being condoned in the Bible?  Here you have the paradox.  I don’t expect you to answer as the questions are a trap.  You must either answer that you don’t find slavery morally wrong or you must admit the Bible is at best an incomplete moral guide. 

  48. Pingback: No true Christians – Tweet of The Day « Monicks: Unleashed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: