torch
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Pennslyvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
torch said:On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
talloulou said:I'm not christian or of any religion but I can probably help you out just the same.
First off, the media portrays this attitude that "only christian fundamentalists" would be against abortion, or against stem cell research, or against schools distributing condoms and what not......The list goes on and on.
And most christians do have those values so in that respect the media is right. However many "family oriented non religious folks" hold those same values too.
Now to get on to your question -the term "moral" means to be concerned with whether or not something is good or bad.
Many "liberal" (for lack of a better word" ) views tend to promote the idea that people should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for themselves and often conclude that there is no "universal" acceptable truth that defines good from bad.
For example prochoice. Women should choose whether they want to abort or not. In a prochoicer's mind neither decision is good or bad. There is no "moral" distinction made.
Let me give you another example regarding sexuality. Many christians feel that being homosexual is "bad".
I don't personally think homosexuality is bad and I'm sure not all christians do either. I have therefore entered a more "liberal" camp on this issue. I don't place a moral judgement of good or bad on anyones sexuality. Therefore I have no "morals" regarding the issue.
Having morals does not mean you are better, smarter, more or less compassionate. It just means you have decided that something is indeed good or bad. Since Christians label many things good or bad they can be said to very moral.
Everyone has values....that's just whatever you hold worthy. So that word is probably just misused by the media.
Does that help any?
On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...
Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING
I agree totally.On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
Why do you think Christains always say "God the Father" or call him the "Father"?What makes you think this invisible being is a "MAN" much less "MALE".
In the US, the majority of Christains are rightists.Your right. Ill agree with your winger add on, but not all christians are rightwingers, infact only a small pecentage are.
Quite idiotic comparing that social classes have no equality with each other, if they did then there wouldn't be classes.Equality within the social classes.
Quite hard, even if you don't hurt animals, you have to kill to live, such as plants or something.ABSOLUTELY NO VIOLENCE OF ANY SOURCE
Very few people at all follow this.Little or no possesions, donations towards the poor.
That be excellent.Forgiveness of others
Why do you think Christains always say "God the Father" or call him the "Father"?
Quite idiotic comparing that social classes have no equality with each other, if they did then there wouldn't be classes.
Quite hard, even if you don't hurt animals, you have to kill to live, such as plants or something.
Very few people at all follow this.
That be excellent.
talloulou said:I'm not christian or of any religion but I can probably help you out just the same.
First off, the media portrays this attitude that "only christian fundamentalists" would be against abortion, or against stem cell research, or against schools distributing condoms and what not......The list goes on and on.
And most christians do have those values so in that respect the media is right. However many "family oriented non religious folks" hold those same values too.
Now to get on to your question -the term "moral" means to be concerned with whether or not something is good or bad.
Many "liberal" (for lack of a better word" ) views tend to promote the idea that people should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for themselves and often conclude that there is no "universal" acceptable truth that defines good from bad.
For example prochoice. Women should choose whether they want to abort or not. In a prochoicer's mind neither decision is good or bad. There is no "moral" distinction made.
Let me give you another example regarding sexuality. Many christians feel that being homosexual is "bad".
I don't personally think homosexuality is bad and I'm sure not all christians do either. I have therefore entered a more "liberal" camp on this issue. I don't place a moral judgement of good or bad on anyones sexuality. Therefore I have no "morals" regarding the issue.
Having morals does not mean you are better, smarter, more or less compassionate. It just means you have decided that something is indeed good or bad. Since Christians label many things good or bad they can be said to be very moral.
So you should think about why you might be offended when the media says you have less morals then a christian. All they are saying is that you have not made as many universal distinctions regarding what is good vs what is bad. It's not actually an insult, at least in my opinion.
Everyone has values....that's just whatever you hold worthy. So that word is probably just misused by the media.
Does that help any?
FinnMacCool said:I have to disagree
with the idea that anyone can be "very moral" even christians. If christians are moral because they want morality to be subjected upon everyone, then atheists and non christians are equally moral for realizing that subjecting beliefs upon others is immoral.
GySgt said:Morality is in the character of individuals. It doesn't take any "religion" or religious status.
Korimyr the Rat said:Quoted for truth.
It is rather unfortunate in this cultural conflict between the religious and the secular that morality has been the biggest casualty-- on both sides.
Crispy said:... because morality in my mind is an individual measure not something reserved or endowed on a particular group.
Quite true.O HERE WE GO AGAIN....lol
Lets analyze "God the Father". The voice that uses this term the most by far in the Bible is as you know: Jesus Christ. So why do you think Jesus would say that?....BECAUSE Joseph is Jesus's what we would call "step" father, Mary is his mother, and God is HIS father. This doesnt mean that we have to call God our Father. I ALREADY HAVE A FATHER and a MOTHER, You have a mother and father. God is not MY father, nor is God your father
Wouldn't that probably make "God" male?God is biologically Jesus's father.
But plants are still living so it is technically killing them, doesn't matter what or what can't feel pain, it is still killing. Also most people don't kill animals, but certainly do eat them.Haha, well technically >I< dont have to kill the plants, other people do...but beyond that, PLANTS DO NOT FEEL PAIN (according to what we know today), because of their lack of nerve endings. Animals DO FEEL PAIN, that is why I choose not to support eating them.
Thanks for clearing that up then.What I was presenting is there SHOULD BE EQUALITY IN THE SOCIAL CLASSES, THEREFORE LEADING TO NO SOCIAL CLASSES. Sorry if i wasnt clear on that.
Nothing exactly wrong with it, but I was just pointing out that very people do this. Though its just that even the most "moral" people do not usually do it, or on a larger scale. Also it tends to be that the only real way to get people to do this individually is through control by religion, which I must say is not a good option.Very true, BUT WHY SHOULD WE NOT. That is what im TRYING to go for.
Korimyr the Rat said:Hmm. While I agree that morality is primarily individualistic because we're incapable of making decisions for others, I think that group morality-- an enforced consensus on moral values-- is absolutely essential for social function.
We need to have shared moral values and an understood definition of acceptable behavior in order to be able to live with each other.
All people, regardless of credo, have the capacity to do good or evil.torch said:On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
Wouldn't that probably make "God" male?
Wifes are only for men. Not angels (Nefilim) and not God.i believe in tranquility said:To Jesus sure....but what im getting at is SINCE PEOPLE INSIST THAT GOD IS MALE....wHo iS gOdS WIFE???????......lol...since life is possible through a male and female...
Wifes are only for men.
Not angels (Nefilim) and not God.
Thouse who are not on the life-path of the common man do not take a wife. Priests, like the 144,000 pure Jews in Revelation and Jesus, did not take wifes.
Likewise, neither does God take a wife.
That is the way God has set things up, yes.i believe in tranquility said:Just as Husbands are only for women.....(?)
I don't know why you are assuming that they need to "produce" life, or that they did, but if that is a premise that you refuse to detach yourself from, then one could argue that given their function and purpose as illustrated in Revelation, these 144,000 "produce" life by helping many, many people choose to live by choosing God over themselves.So how did the 144,000 "pure" Jews produce life...
Please quote where I said that. You are not reading what I typed, you are reading what you want to hear.....what you are saying is that whoever is "pure" supports not extending life.
1st. Your premise is false, as I pointed out above.Well that is absurd, God made "life" and If you claim that God is "male", than God must have a wife.
And until someone can convince me who that wife is, I refuse to believe in a masculine God.
I don't know why you are assuming that they need to "produce" life, or that they did, but if that is a premise that you refuse to detach yourself from, then one could argue that given their function and purpose as illustrated in Revelation, these 144,000 "produce" life by helping many, many people choose to live by choosing God over themselves.
1st. Your premise is false, as I pointed out above.
2nd. God is portrayed as male in scripture. That does not mean that God is male. I doubt that the total of God's being is something which can be quantified with the written word.
Regarding gender, creating life is the feminine quality. To that end God is "Femail". Posessing authority is the masculine quality, to that end God is "male".
To liken God to the image of Man by assigning a gender is blasphemy.
Once you look beyond the necessary evils of the English language and refer to the original ancient Hebrew and Greek of the script, you see that the names of and for God do not imply any gender at all.
God can not be accurately described by nor is He limited to any language which Man can possess.
3rd. Posessing a penis does not mandate marriage. That is a false assumption. No man is required to take a wife.
No such wife exists.
You and I agree on this issue. I didn't intend to say that God was male, but I suppose that the male defalt reference to a person is a major pit-fall of English. So many things are misunderstood in scripture because of English. Especially the old English of the King James version.i believe in tranquility said:Here is why I am assuming that they need to produce life.
1st: If those 144,000 thousand "pures" didnt have sex with women, then they would have no offspring, leading to an end of this 144,000.
2nd: I agree that people should help others to choose by living by God, but I dont think that everyone should just not have sex, because then there would be no future life.
Just as I think your premise that God IS MALE is false.
Ok well if you are arguing that God is NOT MALE NOR FEMALE, than i completely agree with you....although I am a little confused because before you were arguing that God IS MALE.
True possessing a penis does not mandate marriage, let me rephrase my statement: If God is male, than God must have a PARTNER, Who is that partner?
Thank you. Thats all i needed. I agree comepletely. And mabye you think God is Male and mabye you dont. I dont beilve that God IS MALE and NOT FEMALE. I dont beilve that God is BOTH, I beilve that God has no gender, just as Ancient Jews beilved. God is indescribable to the human brain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?