The less you attend church the more likly you are willing to support douch baggery

[Mister Agenda]

Is it just me or do people who don't know God far more likly to be overly sensitive to EVERYTHING? It's like they are over compensating for something.

It's just you, thinking you can generalize about a whole demographic from your limited personal experiences, and discounting the role your own behavior plays in your experiences.

Or they are trying to fill that hole in their hearts with overly 'moral' gestures and extra sensitivity to everything. to the point they are willing to suspend common sense and even the truth to try and pretend they some how are better than those who simply seek redemption..

Since your premise is wrong-or at least completely unsuppored by objective evidence-, whatever follows from it is in error.

As if our efforts here amounted to anything on their own.

Our efforts may not amount to much, but they're all anyone has. Doing what you're able to do means something. Theists can't do more than they can do, either.

But there in lies the fundemental difference between 'morality' and True Righteousness.

Innumerable acts of kindness add up to more good done than all the 'True Righteousness' ™ in the world?

Man's morality demands that the lessor of two evils is what is to be deemed 'moral.'

The lesser of two evils isn't moral, it's just less immoral. Our options are limited and almost always we have to do the best we can with what we've got.

As if in this case being more 'moral' than one who seeks redemption makes them somehow a more 'moral' choice for salvation.

Hands that are open to help are of more benefit to others than hands clasped tightly in prayer. Of course, there's no reason a person can't be both devout and as kind and generous as possible. Some people think those traits ought to go together.

The problem? Morality is simply the lessor of two evils.

Morality is how we determine the difference between right and wrong. Even if you believe yours comes from God, that's what it is: a method of distinguishing right and wrong. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it in terms of being a lesser evil.

Even if the lessor of two evils can be determined IT IS STILL EVIL!

No kidding. As is often the case with your threads, the title is seeming more and more ironic the farther we get into your opening post.

Therefore not righteous. (Which is the only standard God looks for in us.).

Morality is not the lessor of two evils. What's the greater evil that it's supposed to be 'lessor than'?

[quote='Drich' pid='826711' dateline='1419309654']
Since we can not produce righteousness, we must seek it from another source. Thankfully Christ is that other source.

Asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

When we accept His atonement, we trade our sin for His righteousness. So when God looks at us He see not our sin as it was nailed to the cross, but the righteousness of Christ.

So God voluntarily makes himself blind to our sins if we believe one particular legend? Well, that's your story, and it's clear that you're sticking to it.

This allows God to love us not for what we do, but for ourselves.

What is the nature of the impairment God has that makes him unable to love us for ourselves unless we believe one particular legends out of all the millions and millions in the world? What is this limit on his supposed omnipotence, and why can you say he's omnipotent if he can't even love someone for themselves unless they jump through some particular hoops in a world filled with hoops?

In a 'morals' based economy our actions determine our relationship status with God, in a grace/attonement based economy God's love for us, and ours for Him is the currency needed for eternal life.

Our morals help us get along better and make life better. If they please some deity, that's a happy coincidence.

That (redemption) is like a Father loving a Child simply because the child is His verses a father who loves a child for what the child does or does not do. (Morality)

The higher morality in ragards to children is to care about all of them and do what you can for any child that needs your help, not just your own. What you do for others in need should be limited by your resources, not your compassion.

This grace this love is what keeps the redeemed from having to check our common sense at the door in favor for extra sensitivity to making sure we are on the side of 'morality' even if it engangers ourselves or our way of life.

All that just to get to an excuse for not trying to be a better person than you already are?

[Drich]

No. Just no.

The entire basis of your argument seems to be that we are "overly" moral because we are repulsed by torture or slavery.

No, no, no! I did not say you are overly moral because your repused by torture or slavery.

I said you are overly moral because you think morality is a standard which means anything. You believe because you are 'moral' you do not need redemption. The delusion in all of that is 'Morality' is still Evil, as in it is the lessor of two evils. Morality has nothing to do with an unchanging standard.

Moreover, you're suggesting that our concept morality is inherently flawed because we are without god.

Again no. You are guilty of trying to force my arguement into a strawman.
Again I am saying Morality is simply a lessor brand of evil, and because you feel good about your branding you feel you do not need God.

At the same time, you, a person apparently "with" god, are justifying so-called advanced interrogation techniques (read: TORTURE) even though a recent Senate intelligence committee report found that these techniques did not yield useful intelligence and were brutal. Are you fucking kidding me?

The Senate can find whatever it likes, The people who authorized the EIT's pointed very specifically to useful information. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/pre...ogram.html

How about instead of letting someone do your thinking for you, you venture out to the source and learn to make up your own mind.

There is much political gain in a senate who tries to take the 'moral high ground' once the danger has past. But, where were your senators when these events were taking place? Are you so naive to think that the senate had no idea what was happening in git-mo before this report was released? The see a band wagon and the all jumped on it.

Your arguments are nonsense to me, complete and utter nonsense. Not a thing you said makes a bit of fucking sense. None. As such I'm not even going to address anything else because what's the point? It's tantamount to arguing with someone at an asylum on the appropriate method of smearing feces on the wall.

Good day to you, sir.

- Or I'm starting to make sense and it scares you...

[Tonus]

No. Why? Authority, Power and consenquence enforce the True standard of righteousness, while nothing more than peer pressure and the mood of the mob dictates objective 'morality.'

So this is a might-makes-right argument, then. I can understand a follower of the Biblical god taking that approach. You seem to be discarding morality as a flawed method of determining right and wrong. Is that the case?

[Drich]

Is it just me or do people who don't know God far more likly to be overly sensitive to EVERYTHING? It's like they are over compensating for something.
Or they are trying to fill that hole in their hearts with overly 'moral' gestures and extra sensitivity to everything. to the point they are willing to suspend common sense and even the truth to try and pretend they some how are better than those who simply seek redemption..

Well, of course it seems like over-reacting to a guy like you, who has trained himself to habitually under-react to things that any reasonable person would find horrible, which you need to do if you want to assert that your god is "righteous" in any respect, let alone perfectly righteous. But saying that you see us as overly sensitive says little, just as the color blind man asserting that "all you people with color vision are so overly sensitive to color! It's like you're compensating for something!" says nothing about the actual state of human perception, and everything about the limits of the one making the assertion.

"Oh, it's only a little torture, what are you getting all worked up about?"

"Oh, it's only a little slavery, what are you getting all worked up about?"

"Geez, it's just a genocide or two! Over-react much?"

Your desperate need to be blase about atrocities doesn't somehow mean your opinions are the standard, baseline reactions, Drich. It just means you and your religion have desensitized yourself out of normal human reactions.

The Irony is you live in a world that has been secured by torture and slavery, yet selfrighteousness and hyprocrisy will not allowed you to acknoweledge that your rest in the shade the tree of slavery and 'EIT's provide.

That is why I say it is no big deal, because I enjoy the world we live in and I am not ashamed as to how it came about.

The only difference between me and someone like you is I am not afraid to say the life, soceity/country I live in takes a big dump on the idea of absolute 'moral values' and makes everything relitive. That I am not defined by what others think of me 'morally.' That I am not defined by a hypocritical standard that has me DIRECTLY BENEFIT from practices i am supposed to be offended by.

Again, this is where you people abandon common sense in favor of hyprocrisy to save your crap 'morality.' Even If the worst of us lived in a cities like Kandahar, Gardez or even Kabul where there are terror attacks daily, and all it took was to take those in custody and expose them to EIT's. you people would look at the lessor of two evils (One being the deaths and terrorization of your lives/families, the other being a non life threatening EIT) and demand the EIT in exchange for the life you now live!!!

What idoicy, and how much hypocrisy does one have to adopt to ignore That This (A life lived in terror) is exactly what al-queda and ISIS wants for western culture? How much more self righteousness does it take to wipe away the last 10 years and 50 failed attempts at attacks on our way of life, to come to the point where you can say I do not support EIT's???

Your last 10 Years was provided for by those who accepted the fact that EIT's were needed to let you bury your head in the sand.

On their behalf I'd just as soon you say thank you for what you have done, but yoou want to try and live the next 10 years without them and lets see what happens...

Minus the attacks on the white house, the canadain parliament, The Austrialian coffee house, and the other dozen sucessful attacks that the west has endured since EIT's have been suspended. I think we are off to a good start.

[Esquilax]

I said you are overly moral because you think morality is a standard which means anything. You believe because you are 'moral' you do not need redemption. The delusion in all of that is 'Morality' is still Evil, as in it is the lessor of two evils. Morality has nothing to do with an unchanging standard.

Morality does mean something. The fact that you loudly assert that it's inherently relativistic does not mean it is so, and in fact many people have explained how you're wrong in the past. All you do is continue to assert otherwise, while assuming your conclusion by claiming that it's the "lesser of two evils," without providing any evidence of some superior moral set.

Additionally, morality and the redemption claim you christians make are two separate issues; we don't believe we need redemption because of our morality, we don't believe we need redemption because that claim has zero evidence on its side. We don't believe we need redemption because there is no indication that the events that led up to the requirement of redemption in the christian faith even happened.

Instead of dictating the hows and whys of our position to us, you could have just asked.

[abaris]

No. Why? Authority, Power and consenquence enforce the True standard of righteousness, while nothing more than peer pressure and the mood of the mob dictates objective 'morality.'

So, would this apply according to your sacred book? The one about every authority coming from god bullshit, that ultimately led to the church not opposing Hitler, since it was obviously god's will to put him in charge?

[dyresand]

Give us an example of who has looked down on you so we can see what this self righteousness looks like.

Do you always change the arguement before you respond?

Also I already gave two examples. this thread is a paraody of one.

---

Drich,

What you say is basically "I'm comfortable in my delusion. You don't know what you're missing"

I'm not impressed, given that ANY religious person can claim this.

Ah, and by the way...

1. Stone children who don't obey

2. Stone homosexuals

3. Stone adulterers

Fuck your morals, and your genocidical psycho god. And if you don't follow these kind of morals, you're not a believer.

---

*genocidal

Show me where Christians are premitted to do this. (Book Chapter and verse.)

1. Stone children who don't obey
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
2. Stone homosexuals
Leviticus 20:13
3. Stone adulterers
Leviticus 20:10

put that into your pipe and smoke it Dirch.

[Drich]

Show me where Christians are premitted to do this. (Book Chapter and verse.)

It's in the old book, which you conveniently discard when it becomes uncomfortable, but take when it suits your needs. The hate the gays agenda is also in there and is quoted frequently by pastors without reading a few lines further where eating shellfish, cloths of different fabrics or shaving are also called an abomination.

Now noone says, you're doing it today, that's obvious. But it's one of the laws supposedly given by god himself. If your child disobeys you, take him to the elders and stone him to death.

So why discard this and not the hate on gay people?

Actually Sport it is a book that defines two seperate and distinct religion that shares a common orgin.

So that means one must consider if you are quoting rules and practices of one religion or the other because both religions will tell you the rules and practices do not cross.

[abaris]

So that means one must consider if you are quoting rules and practices of one religion or the other because both religions will tell you the rules and practices do not cross.

Yeah, right. So why do evangelical pastors constantly thump Leviticus when it comes to gay people? Not your concern after all, since rules and practices don't cross.

[downbeatplumb]

I'd just like to point out that torture is never justified, even if it can sometimes yield useful information it should still never be used.
America used to know this, but since the madness that descended after 9/11 it seems to have regressed somewhat.