Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

[SetiAlpha6]

Of course it does. A desire to live in harmony based on a sensible and reciprocal code of ethics is all you need. No need for God to order you to be nice to other people.

Nope. Fetuses are not living humans. That has been established by the courts dozens of times. This is - what? - the sixth time you've lied about it? Are religious people inherently less honest than atheists?

You are sexist for trying to take their rights away. You are sexist for demanding of them that which you refuse to do yourself. Here, see if you can tell what immoral atheist said this:

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

Atheists individually can and do have morals, sometimes extraordinary moral standards.

I am so glad that you have morals!

But neither Atheism or Naturalism provide any basis for them. Naturalism in particular teaches there are none.

And an Atheist can just as easily have none! It is left only to preference or taste.

Empirical science proved a long time ago that babies in the womb are human life! Some women have rejected reality. And chosen fantasy, so they can kill.

Sad, we even have to talk about this!

So, according to you, the Chinese killing more females than males is irrelevant because they are not really even human females? If so...

Sorry, I really can’t walk that path with you.

I detest what they are doing!

Just wait, someone will call me sexist again, even for saying that.

 

[billvon]

Atheists individually can and do have morals, sometimes extraordinary moral standards.
I am so glad that you have morals!
But neither Atheism or Naturalism provide any basis for them. Naturalism in particular teaches there are none.

?? No it doesn't. Where do you get that?

Atheists tend to do what's right, not what they are told. Religious types tend to do what they are told, not what's right. (Stole that from someone else on this forum.)

Empirical science proved a long time ago that babies in the womb are human life!

A cancerous tumor in a human patient is also "human life." In fact, it has the exact same DNA as the patient. But it's not a human being.

So, according to you, the Chinese killing more females than males is irrelevant because they are not really even human females? If so...

Nope, that is a false assumption.

You make a lot of assumptions, don't you. I can't help but think you've been indoctrinated by some religion and told that "all non-believers think X." If so, I would strongly advise you to start thinking for yourself.

Just wait, someone will call me sexist again, even for saying that.

Nope. You can detest abortion if you like; I usually do. That's not sexist. Trying to take away women's rights - that's sexist.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

?? No it doesn't. Where do you get that?

Atheists tend to do what's right, not what they are told. Religious types tend to do what they are told, not what's right. (Stole that from someone else on this forum.)

A cancerous tumor in a human patient is also "human life." In fact, it has the exact same DNA as the patient. But it's not a human being.

Nope, that is a false assumption.

You make a lot of assumptions, don't you. I can't help but think you've been indoctrinated by some religion and told that "all non-believers think X." If so, I would strongly advise you to start thinking for yourself.

Nope. You can detest abortion if you like; I usually do. That's not sexist. Trying to take away women's rights - that's sexist.

Thank you for your kindness and patience with me!

What basis for morality does Atheism provide?

What basis for morality does Naturalism provide?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

While you all are working on the above...

And now a word from our sponsor...

Here is our “Hero” for today...

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919)

Creator of the Haeckel Hoax.

One of many deliberate lies created to deceive millions of people, to further the cause of “no morals” and the wicked practice of abortions!

You actually have to lie to people to get them to kill their own children in the womb.

And you don’t mind doing that in the least.

Pathetic!

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

I'll catch up with the rest later, but out of interest: do you support the death penalty at all (e.g. serious crimes)? Because if you do, that would conflict with your claim that all human life is sacred, wouldn't it?

 

[billvon]

Thank you for your kindness and patience with me!
What basis for morality does Atheism provide?
What basis for morality does Naturalism provide?

Well, first off, they are not really that different. Naturalism is the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, not supernatural ones. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. For the purposes of your question you can consider them the same. Another term for this is secular (i.e. not religious) morality.

Secondly there's really no such thing as a consistent Christian religious morality. This is a good thing; if Christians had a standard, Bible-based morality, then they'd be obliged to go around killing gays. Every Christian out there picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he wants to use to support his chosen morality, and which parts he wants to ignore (or actively defy.) In fact, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, a reference book widely used by Christian theologians when it comes to ethics, states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other."

So where do people get their morals? It starts from their evolutionary baggage. We all have evolutionary adaptations that allow us to live in a society, because societies are one way we survived and prospered over the past few million years. We protect our young because they carry our genes. We tend to like/love people who are close to us and distrust strangers, because that protects our tribe, many of whom are related to us. When we do something contrary to the society's survival we feel shame - and we express that by blushing and by acting abashed. Other members of the tribe see that, and realize that the behavior is not likely to be repeated - and accept the member back. If the member shows no shame, he is likely to repeat his anti-survival actions, and is rejected. Men want to get a lot of women in the society pregnant, because that best ensures the promulgation of their genes. Women want to select one man as a protector/provider because that best ensures the promulgation of HER genes.

So that's where we start. On top of that we have intelligence. So, based on our intelligence we can decide that even though we have evolutionary drives to do good and bad things, we want to live our lives differently. Maybe that means the guy who wants to sleep with every woman he sees decides on one and sticks with it. Maybe it means that although a given woman would like to kill the other woman who is sleeping with her husband, she prefers to live in a lawful society, and thus addresses it via legal means.

And that's how pretty much everyone, from religious to atheist, get their morals. They start with behaviors that have evolved over the years. (And those aren't unique to us; most primates show almost identical basic behaviors.) Then we consider how we want to modify them based on an intelligent look at what sort of society we want to live in. This doesn't always work, of course; sometimes religious types read their religious books and decide that it means they should kill immigrants (or infidels, or Muslims, or whatever.) But for the most part it does work.

I would also add that a great deal of our morality comes from what we observe from parents, classmates, society at large etc. Thus if a charismatic societal leader decides that it's OK to "grab women by the pussy" if you are famous enough, that sort of thing promulgates. Likewise, if society at large glorifies something (a certain style of dress or behavior) that tends to become part of our morality. And all too often such morals are accepted without much thought, because it's easy, and we are equipped to want to do what the rest of society does.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

SetiAlpha6:

I'll catch up with the rest later, but out of interest: do you support the death penalty at all (e.g. serious crimes)? Because if you do, that would conflict with your claim that all human life is sacred, wouldn't it?

I am not sure exactly.

In the Old Testament Era the death penalty was used and obviously endorsed by God.

And that was done because of evil people doing evil things usually on a long term basis, over and over again. Normally being warned repeatedly to stop and refusing to repent. As you know, there are exceptions to this which appear to be more harsh.

It is normally used to put a halt to evil, of one form or another, and can also be used to set a horrible example for other people and nations. To try and prevent the spread of the corruption to others.

And it makes sense, normally, because the person was harming others directly with their own free choice. So the responsibility for their evil acts and death was on them.

And to repeat, they were usually warned.

And there were often no prisons in those days and often not millions of dollars lying around to spend on feeding and housing and guarding prisoners in almost luxury like we have in the United States.

Criminals have it made in the US!

People are all created in the image of God and are born innocent and, born neutral morally.

As they grow they start making moral choices for themselves, those decisions have consequences, and they continue to make moral choices the rest of their lives, and are responsible for all of them, under normal circumstances, where mental abnormality is not involved.

Being born and created in the image of God (in their soul, not body) makes everyone innocent, valuable and of great worth, regardless of their body condition.

But also in play is what they decide to do with the innocence God gave them at birth.

If they corrupt themselves and destroy the innocence of their soul (the image of God) until all they are capable of is evil, they loose God’s protection, as they deliberately mold and make themselves into the enemy of Love or God.

I would be in favor of the death penalty for murder and possibly rape, or at least castration for rape.

There is nothing wrong with using the death penalty to stop evil directly and to stop the spread of evil, especially if there is no other way to stop it.

But I am not a nut about it, and would find it hard to actually vote for it, because I value life so much and people can repent and turn around as well.

It is a difficult issue for me!

 

[parmalee]

And there were often no prisons in those days and often not millions of dollars lying around to spend on feeding and housing and guarding prisoners in almost luxury like we have in the United States.

Criminals have it made in the US!

Dude's a fucking idiot, not to mention a creepy-as-fuck misogynist and a likely homophobe. Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that he's not simply trolling--his posts are all so freakin' unhinged and all over the place. Is is sensible to continue indulging him in this manner?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Well, first off, they are not really that different. Naturalism is the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, not supernatural ones. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. For the purposes of your question you can consider them the same. Another term for this is secular (i.e. not religious) morality.

Secondly there's really no such thing as a consistent Christian religious morality. This is a good thing; if Christians had a standard, Bible-based morality, then they'd be obliged to go around killing gays. Every Christian out there picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he wants to use to support his chosen morality, and which parts he wants to ignore (or actively defy.) In fact, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, a reference book widely used by Christian theologians when it comes to ethics, states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other."

So where do people get their morals? It starts from their evolutionary baggage. We all have evolutionary adaptations that allow us to live in a society, because societies are one way we survived and prospered over the past few million years. We protect our young because they carry our genes. We tend to like/love people who are close to us and distrust strangers, because that protects our tribe, many of whom are related to us. When we do something contrary to the society's survival we feel shame - and we express that by blushing and by acting abashed. Other members of the tribe see that, and realize that the behavior is not likely to be repeated - and accept the member back. If the member shows no shame, he is likely to repeat his anti-survival actions, and is rejected. Men want to get a lot of women in the society pregnant, because that best ensures the promulgation of their genes. Women want to select one man as a protector/provider because that best ensures the promulgation of HER genes.

So that's where we start. On top of that we have intelligence. So, based on our intelligence we can decide that even though we have evolutionary drives to do good and bad things, we want to live our lives differently. Maybe that means the guy who wants to sleep with every woman he sees decides on one and sticks with it. Maybe it means that although a given woman would like to kill the other woman who is sleeping with her husband, she prefers to live in a lawful society, and thus addresses it via legal means.

And that's how pretty much everyone, from religious to atheist, get their morals. They start with behaviors that have evolved over the years. (And those aren't unique to us; most primates show almost identical basic behaviors.) Then we consider how we want to modify them based on an intelligent look at what sort of society we want to live in. This doesn't always work, of course; sometimes religious types read their religious books and decide that it means they should kill immigrants (or infidels, or Muslims, or whatever.) But for the most part it does work.

I would also add that a great deal of our morality comes from what we observe from parents, classmates, society at large etc. Thus if a charismatic societal leader decides that it's OK to "grab women by the pussy" if you are famous enough, that sort of thing promulgates. Likewise, if society at large glorifies something (a certain style of dress or behavior) that tends to become part of our morality. And all too often such morals are accepted without much thought, because it's easy, and we are equipped to want to do what the rest of society does.

Because God exists, and Macro-Evolution is a lie much of what you said becomes a lie as well. Kind of an adult fairytale.

Here is a short list of Naturalism faith options. Some of them directly contradict others.

• Altruism
• Consequentialism
• Consequentialist libertarianism
• Cornell realism
• Ethical egoism
• Evolutionary ethics
• Hedonism
• Humanistic ethics
• Moral skepticism
• Natural-rights libertarianism
• Objectivism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics

Why would someone pick one over another?
How would Naturalism make them pick one?
Which one is right?

Does it really have anything at all to do with Naturalism.

I think it is just personal self-deception, and personal preference, a personal philosophy to justify themselves, and justify their sin, and how they want the world to be.

Reality becomes irrelevant.

Thanks for your post!

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

I am not sure exactly.

In the Old Testament Era the death penalty was used and obviously endorsed by God.

Do you endorse all the reasons God gave in the Old Testament for killing people, then, or just selected ones? By the way, there's nothing in bible that specifically discusses abortion, is there?

It is normally used to put a halt to evil...

You think? Doesn't it just add to the evil, by taking one more life unnecessarily? Suppose a serial killer murders 10 people. Then the state kills him, so 11 people die. If he was locked up for life instead, then only 10 people would die of non-natural causes. Locking him up for life would put a halt to the evil you seek to prevent, wouldn't it? Why do you need to go the extra step of taking a life?

And it makes sense, normally, because the person was harming others directly with their own free choice. So the responsibility for their evil acts and death was on them.

Right. The responsibility for the serial killer's evil acts is on him. The responsibility for your evil act in killing him is on you.

And there were often no prisons in those days and often not millions of dollars lying around to spend on feeding and housing and guarding prisoners in almost luxury like we have in the United States.

Criminals have it made in the US!

Then why aren't you rushing to commit a crime, so you can spend a cosy time in prison?

People are all created in the image of God and are born innocent and, born neutral morally.

I see. And some of those people lose their right to life through their own actions, according to you. Is that correct?

Being born and created in the image of God (in their soul, not body) makes everyone innocent, valuable and of great worth, regardless of their body condition.

But not so valuable or of such great worth that you won't risk killing some innocent ones in order to punish the truly wicked. Right? Because some people who are not guilty end up being put to death under your system. It's a price worth paying, in your opinion?

I would be in favor of the death penalty for murder and possibly rape, or at least castration for rape.

You approve of mutilation as punishment, too? How interesting, given you reverence for life and all. The man himself might be valuable and of great worth; his testicles, not so much. Is that how it works?

There is nothing wrong with using the death penalty to stop evil directly and to stop the spread of evil, especially if there is no other way to stop it.

But there is an obvious way to stop it - lock criminals up in jail. Why the sudden thirst for blood?

But I am not a nut about it, and would find it hard to actually vote for it, because I value life so much and people can repent and turn around as well.

So what you're telling me is that the issue doesn't affect your vote, either way. Is that right? You wouldn't withhold your vote from somebody who advocates for the death penalty.

It is a difficult issue for me!

You say that you find the death penalty difficult because bad people can turn around and become good later. But when it comes to abortion, it's a no brainer for you. Why is that? What about the innocent foetuses who turn around and become serial killers later on? Does that not give you pause for thought?

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

How did you become like this?

I might ask you the same question. It seems like religion has addled your brain.

James, as a woman you would force the death of innocent children, for any reason!

What ever gave you that idea? I've said nothing of the sort. Stop with the straw men.

How many of your own children have you killed?

None. Besides, I have never advocated the killing of children. Killing children is abominable.

This is a Depravity for women, where they have rejected the natural functions of their own bodies!

You never did tell me why you wear clothes, when in your "natural state" you ought to be naked. If God had meant you to wear clothes, you would have been born in pants and a t-shirt, would you not?

The life givers become life takers. Murderers!!!

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person.

It is so depraved, I do not need to answer any of your questions.

How convenient for you that you don't feel obliged to justify your stance.

My answers would not help you become less depraved.

Then why do you imagine your preaching will have any better effect? Why are you posting in this thread?

You would have to submit yourself to Jesus.

And become like you - the sexist guy whose views, when legislated, have the effect of exerting partriarchal control over women? No thanks.

Feminism teaches women they can kill their own children for any reason!!!

No it doesn't. Do some reading.

I love and respect women, especially my wife who has a Masters Degree, is a great blessing to her patients in the hospital healing life, not destroying it, and we have three wonderful sons.

Do you/did you ever use contraception? If you did, weren't you rejecting the natural functions of your bodies?

My wife hates Abortion!!!

Is she as religion-addled as you?

The only reason you use the word “fetus” instead of the word “Baby” or “Child”, which has been an appropriate description for thousands of years, is to dehumanize the Baby to make her a non-human, which is scientifically impossible (empirically) under normal circumstances!!!

No, we use the word "foetus" for the same reason we use words like "child", "adolescent", "young adult", "senior citizen" etc. None of those terms make anybody non-human, either.

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

Ok, but we just knocked both you and James out of Sciforums for lying to the world, for pretending you are men.

What is it with you? Do you have a rule that women are not to be listened to when they talk about abortion, or something. Are they to be "knocked out" if they dare to contradict your male desire to control them?

You all are good with China’s policy of killing the females and keeping the males, right?

That has never been an official policy in China.

Should we do that in the U.S. also?

Naturalism would point to yes, better overpopulation control with fewer women in existence.

Why not kill the men and keep the women instead? Why didn't that option occur to you?

I am a married man!

The poor woman. I feel sorry for her.

There is no insult intended, thinking anyone on here is female.

Females are very often smarter and more virtuous then men are.

Then tell me why are "females" "knocked out" of abortion debates, by some rule you made up, whereby only men are allowed to talk about abortion (apparently)?

I think women are also beautiful in design. Shameful I know!

Women aren't designed.

You are still good with a women, deliberately forcing, the death of her own baby in the womb. She has a “right” to kill another human being, just because he/she is living inside her?

No. Not "just because" of that.

Doesn’t the Chinese government also have the “right” to selectively exterminate, with force, females only in the womb, because they are living inside their country?

A moral right, you mean, if they actually were to decide to do that? I don't think so. I can't think of a valid reason for disallowing the "extermination" of males in the womb, while allowing the "extermination" of females. Can you?

They are the authority in the country? It is their country (body). They have rights, don’t they?

Moral rights, or legal rights? Social contract? Political mandate? What are you talking about, exactly?

Again, Naturalistic Atheism has no problem doing this.

If by "naturalistic atheism" you mean secular humanism, there is a problem in doing that. A number of problems, actually. Do some reading.

I am not sexist for appreciating women!

Right. You're sexist because you don't respect women and because you negatively discriminate against them on the basis of their sex. You're sexist because you, as a male, seek to oppress them.

Atheism provides no moral basis to stop any immoral activity.

If by "atheism" you mean secular humanism, you're quite wrong. It's a well developed philosophical moral system. Do some reading.

In China, the government forces death upon a living human.

As do your States that retain the death penalty, which you tell us you support.

In the US, individual women force death upon a living human.

By advocating that abortion be illegal, you are forcing death on many individual women, in many different ways.

 

[James R]

But neither Atheism or Naturalism provide any basis for them. Naturalism in particular teaches there are none.

No it doesn't.

If naturalism is the position that only things that are found in the natural world exist, then naturalism necessarily teaches that morals exist.

And an Atheist can just as easily have none! It is left only to preference or taste.

No moreso than religious morals.

Empirical science proved a long time ago that babies in the womb are human life!

Irrelevant.

Sad, we even have to talk about this!

Sounds like a Donald Trump tweet. And makes about as good an argument.

 

[James R]

What basis for morality does Atheism provide?

Atheism - the lack of belief in a God - does not attempt to provide a basis for morality.

Secular humanism, on the other hand, has a great wealth of different possible foundations for morality. Individual autonomy. The greatest good for the greatest number. The Golden Rule. And much much more.

What basis for morality does Naturalism provide?

Depends what kind of naturalism you're talking about.

Philosophical naturalism - the position that only natural things exist - says that the basis of morality must lie in natural things, rather than supernatural things, because the alternative is impossible.

Methodological naturalism - the view that only the natural can be systematically investigated by human beings - says that human beings must look at the world to decide what is moral, and not look for an unfalsifiable supernatural source that may not even exist.

 

[James R]

Because God exists, and Macro-Evolution is a lie much of what you said becomes a lie as well.

You keep drifting off topic. It's not a great surprise that, as a religious fundamentalist, you're also an evolution denier. But your failure to accept scientific facts is really a topic for a different thread.

Here is a short list of Naturalism faith options. Some of them directly contradict others.

• Altruism
• Consequentialism
• Consequentialist libertarianism
• Cornell realism
• Ethical egoism
• Evolutionary ethics
• Hedonism
• Humanistic ethics
• Moral skepticism
• Natural-rights libertarianism
• Objectivism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics

Those are all philosophical positions, not "faith options". And yes, you're right, some options lead in some circumstances to contradictory positions to other options. That's why the value of each of these positions is still a hot subject of debate among moral philosophers. Meanwhile, while secular moral philosophy increases in nuance and sophistication, biblical morality remains mired in outdated dogma.

Why would someone pick one over another?

That's a huge topic. Do some reading.

How would Naturalism make them pick one?

Refer above to the definitions I gave of philosophical and methodological naturalism. See if you can work out an answer for yourself, in light of that. If you can't, I can probably help.

Which one is right?

Why do you think that just one has to be right, and all the rest wrong?

Are you aware that moral conclusions from a number of these secular philosophies mirror some of the moral conclusions of your bible? If the secular philosophy is wrong, does that make your bible wrong, too?

I think it is just personal self-deception, and personal preference, a personal philosophy to justify themselves, and justify their sin, and how they want the world to be.

How do you know that your religious faith is not just personal self-deception, a personal preference, etc. - all those things you said?

Reality becomes irrelevant.

Indeed. Food for thought.

 

[billvon]

Because God exists, and Macro-Evolution is a lie much of what you said becomes a lie as well.

There's no such thing as macroevolution vs microevolution - just evolution. But even if you don't "believe" in evolution, since other social primates have almost identical evolutionary behaviors, you have to accept that they are innate.

Here is a short list of Naturalism faith options. Some of them directly contradict others.

Those aren't faiths. Those are a list of ethical theories that you copied and pasted from a Wikipedia article. (Note that plagarism is dishonest.)

Why would someone pick one over another?

That's a nonsensical question. They are not exclusive.

How would Naturalism make them pick one?

?? It doesn't. It's a list of theories, like you might list the Ten Commandments, or the laws from Leviticus. Why would you pick one over the other?

How would Naturalism make them pick one?
Which one is right?

You don't really understand the words you are using, do you.

 

[James R]

But even if you don't "believe" in evolution, since other social primates have almost identical evolutionary behaviors, you have to accept that they are innate.

At the risk of making SetiAlpha's argument for him, if you don't believe in evolution then nothing about chimpanzees, gorillas or any other non-human primate is remotely relevant to anything about human biology, let along social behaviour. In this mindset, remember, humans are specially created by God. Any resemblances to non-human primates can only be coincidental.

All of which raises the question of why God bothered to create the semblance of evolution when evolution is bunk.

 

[billvon]

At the risk of making SetiAlpha's argument for him, if you don't believe in evolution then nothing about chimpanzees, gorillas or any other non-human primate is remotely relevant to anything about human biology, let along social behaviour.

Right. But unless you pretend that primates do _not_ show the behaviors they do in fact show, then you have to accept that many such behaviors are innate. SA might argue that "well, since we have nothing to do with primates, our innate behaviors are different" - but even he would have a hard time arguing that therefore we have no innate behaviors. Indeed, he probably has some sort of screed that decries our "sinful" or "base" behaviors.

 

[Tiassa]

Secondly there's really no such thing as a consistent Christian religious morality. This is a good thing; if Christians had a standard, Bible-based morality, then they'd be obliged to go around killing gays. Every Christian out there picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he wants to use to support his chosen morality, and which parts he wants to ignore (or actively defy.) In fact, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, a reference book widely used by Christian theologians when it comes to ethics, states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other."

This is actually a pretty impressive paragraph, and let's be clear, the Westminster observation is not wrong.

However: Are you aware you just fulfilled your own critique?

• There's really no such thing as a consistent Christian religious morality — Okay.

• If Christians had a standard, Bible-based morality, then they'd be obliged to go around killing gays — Well, says you. And, sure, some Christians, too, kinda-sorta. It's not that I don't get what you're referring to, but you're wrong.

• Every Christian out there picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he wants to use to support his chosen morality, and which parts he wants to ignore — And so did you.​

And let me just jump the most likely points about what the Bible says: Yes, there is a lot in the Old Testament that is downright nasty, stupid, and cruel. There is, of course, also something called the New Testament, and, yes, I know you're aware of that, but remember what these separate parts are and what they do. More to the point, a Bible-based morality can be the wrong morality if it means calculating covetously, as we see many examples of in the world; in that context, a Christ-based morality is the proper address of faith. However, if a Christian reads the Bible properly, then the Bible-based and Christ-based moralities are supposed to be one and the same. A good way of accomplishing that is to take the bits about killing gays or whatever and stack them up against the ministry of Christ. Haven't you ever noticed how the supremacists cite the Old Testament, and sometimes invoke the Pauline Evangelism? Where is Christ in all that? Telling them to sit down, shut up, trust God, and get over themselves. Christ is absent from supremacist arguments because He is inconvenient to their covetous calculations. Put your favorite Biblical cruelty, as such, up against the Gospel of Matthew.

Sure, they're doing it wrong. But so are you, and in questions of dangerous Christianism, yes, it's kind of important.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes, there is a lot in the Old Testament that is downright nasty, stupid, and cruel

So why is it still there?

For historical context?

However, if a Christian reads the Bible properly

For us masses can we obtain a Christian properly read printed version? And since a properly read version I'm thinking it should be followed 100%, not have any sort of expiry date, cover every conceivable situation

A good way of accomplishing that is to take the bits about killing gays or whatever and stack them up against the ministry of Christ

? A do it yourself comparison religion ?

Sounds unique

Haven't you ever noticed how the supremacists cite the Old Testament, and sometimes invoke the Pauline Evangelism?

Again why not leave out those bits?