“Christian morality” is an oxymoron (a self-contradiction).
Christians worship a self-confessed GENOCIDAL MURDERER, who fully admits to drowning the human race—including innocent babies and children—and loudly proclaims that he burns people (alive)—for all eternity—if they do not love him, worship him and obey him! Talk about IMMORALITY—and Christians line up to praise this grotesque psychopath.
These duped hypocrites are serious traitors to human rights & morality. In fact, CHRISTIANITY is the ONLY RELIGION that states the GOLDEN RULE dead wrong and CONTRADICTS its entire meaning!
So much for “Christian morality”. —>
Can one be duped, and a hypocrite at the same time? After all, if you have been duped, you have been tricked or decieved into your current behavior or thinking process. Much like the way you have been duped into seeing the world in terms of black or white, good or bad, and painting everything with a broad brush. Are you hypocritical for being so duped?
As a result of your inability to see the full range of options and possibilities, your simplistic logic lumps all of theology together so you can call it ‘bad’ and appear to virtuously rein over all you survey. You are doing EXACTLY what they do. So are you not hypocritical? Or have you just been duped?
3 Likes
…(distant whistling sound rapidly increasing in volume… BOOOM)… Direct hit. Target destroyed.
The “do not” version of the Golden Rule is called the “Silver Rule”. Most pacifists would happily adopt it.
In order to actually DO good, you have to DO unto others - versus NOT doing.
The Silver Rule is covered by the Ten Commandments.
Jesus preached a moral activism. And vampire ritual. Don’t forget about the human flesh and blood consumption.
This rule is “Golden” because it is a universal law of peace. It transcends the traditional religious and even secular barriers.
The teachings regarding Jesus make use positive affirmations: Do, rather than do not. So, there is a difference.
Also, they emphasize the idea of a loving Father, rather than an angry and vengeful God, and the necessity of exhibiting love towards our fellows.
I would even venture to say that the entire New Testament is devoted to that purpose, if nothing else. One example, happens to be the Golden Rule, and a couple of other passage that helps to clarify it:
To love God is to follow his commandments. (1 John 5:3)
The two most important commandments are to love God with everything that we are (mind, body, and spirit) and to love our neighbor as much as we do ourselves. (Matthew 22:39,40)
Who is our neighbor? Even the least of us (Matthew 25:40)
Imagine for just one moment if humanity enacted this universally recognized and edifying principle in unison.
There would be no murders, no thefts, no ridicule, no intentional infliction of pain, no persecutions, no unfair judgments. Everyone would seek to understand each other without the fear of retaliation or violence.
It sounds like a fantasy until you consider how many people actually agree with it.
Oh fk! Here we go again! Every time word gets out that Tin Man is back and posting in the forums the nutjobs start showing up.
Ad Populum fallacy. You really think you can come onto a site like this and spout such stupidity? Really?
But what about ripping families apart. How are we supposed to rip families apart? Matthew 10:21 1. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few “prophecies” in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Jesus says that he MAKES US HATE EACH OTHER: It’s our job: Matthew 10:34, Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.”
He even goes as far as to … condemn entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew, 11:20-24
Mark 6:11 Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Once the Christians killed off all the non-believers, they could start in on each other. Protestants could start killing off Catholics, Catholics could turn on the Mormons, everyone could wipe out the JW, and of course there is no use for the Jews.
BULLSHIT! Jesus was a bigot and an asshole. Your problem is that you have just never read your bible.
1 Like
Don’t be getting all jealous just because I have a fan club. I can’t help it if my deodorant has such wonderful allure.
Hey there, Tia. Pleasure to meet you. While on the surface your statement sounds wonderfully simple. “Everybody just be nice to each other.” Unfortunately, it just ain’t that easy. Please allow me to provide a quick reality check about our planet and the human species.
This tiny little microscopic speck of dust we call home in the unimaginable vastness of the cosmos is mostly uninhabitable for humans. And even in many of the habitable zones, the resources to sustain a human population are severely limited, with most of the people within them struggling daily with malnutrition and starvation. (THIS is the world the “Perfect” god of the bible purposely created and “fine tuned” for his precious human pets? Hmmm… 
) Anyway, it is only natural that the severe lack of life-sustaining resources in one area, with an over-abundance of such resources in another area causes a great societal imbalance.
Now, I know what you are thinking: “The people in the areas of plenty should be nice and reach out to help those in the areas that have nothing.” Seems fairly straightforward, right? Well, sorry to disappoint. This is where the “human factor” comes into play. Like it or not, there are some terribly fucked up, greedy, power-hungry, narcissistic, sociopathic motherfuckers out there. And by their very nature, they are the ones who claw their way to the top to control those resources people want and need. They do not care about the lives they destroy on their way to the top, and they do not care about the lives they might destroy to maintain their place at the top. From governments laying waste to innocent civilian populated areas to coerce another government to bend to their demands, to multi-billion dollar corporations using child slave-labor in sweatshops to increase their profits, every major resource on our planet is controlled by lizard-minded oligarchs who live ONLY to increase their own wealth and power. Period. And burying your head in the sand and trying to pretend those people do not exist is being incredibly naive and/or monumentally delusional.
So, to bring this down a bit to a scale that is easier to understand, ask yourself this question: If your child was starving to death and there are people you know who have an abundance of food nearby but refuse to share, what would you be willing to do to feed and save your child? How “nice” would you be to somebody who could easily help save your child, but refused to do so?
Oh come on. This is so easy. To hell with the child, you can always have another. If the child is starving so is the mother. I say, eat the child and live to have another.
1 Like
Aw, fuck, man. Really??? What the hell is wrong with you? Eat the baby? That’s pretty disgusting, dude. I mean, if both parent and child are starving, it stands to reason there are likely no seasonings or sauces available. And we all know you can’t properly cook babies without some amount of seasoning. Too gamey. YUCK!
Yeah… I guess your right. Dirt would probably taste better. Hey! Season it with dirt. That would work!
I thought I already replied to your question to me, but I’ll be damned if I can find it. (Sorry, but I find this Facebook forum very confusing.) Anyway, I’ll try to answer your question.
Being a hypocrite and being duped go together very nicely. Indeed, one often leads to another. Take theists, for example. They preach “love, mercy and forgiveness”. But the imaginary god that they worship is a self-proclaimed GENOCIDAL murderer, who threatens to burn humans alive, unless they/we all love and obey him. Wow. If that isn’t being DUPED AND HYPOCRITICAL—what is???
The “Golden rule” and “silver rule”…are very different.
Only ONE is about morality—the other is about naive, impossible altruism.
HERE is the only MORAL rule: “Do NOT do to others, what you would NOT have others do to you.”
That, in fact, is actually THE one and only GOLDEN rule, as history attests. The ONLY reason it is mistakenly called “the silver rule” by some, is because the Bible states it incorrectly—backwards, actually: “DO do to others, what you would have others DO to you”, which, after a moment of rational reflection, reveals the absurdity of this crazy idea. Hint: Morality isn’t about putting smiles on people’s faces and making everyone’s day “happy”. That’s called “Christmas” and (thankfully) it comes around only once a year!
MORALITY isn’t about DOING “nice things” for others—that’s “sooo” lovely—but morality is all about “NOT DOING”… It’s about ensuring that we all DO NOT do things that infringe upon fellow humans’ rights. We must NOT murder; We must NOT steal; We must NOT rape… That is the only “rule” that governs morality and ensures equal rights for all. Every society and every religion, worth its salt, abides by this time-honoured rule. All except one… —>
Missed the point entirely I see. Are you really that dense?
How about giving to the poor? Supporting someone with anxiety or depression? Being kind in general?
I suppose such things are not covered under the “Golden Rule”? Of course why would anyone be compelled to show generosity or kindness?
Isn’t it a boon that the billionaires of the world follow your version of the “Golden Rule”?
THE golden rule isn’t a version: There is only one…and the unHoly Bible is the only religion or “authority” on Earth to state it dead wrong and ass-backwards.
Kindness, generosity, altruism, etc, are wonderful things. But they are not your DUTY. Granted, it would be a utopian world if everyone was like Santa Claus or Pollyanna, but we can’t be expected to be altruistic. (Society would be unsustainable, if for no other reason!) Regardless, morality is simply NOT about putting smiles on strangers’ faces. It is focused on ONE prime objective—to maintain an EQUILIBRIUM between moral rights and moral duties. Because moral rights and moral duties are intertwined in a RECIPROCAL relationship. THAT is what the SCALES of JUSTICE represent. Let me explain.
YOUR moral RIGHT to live, entails MY moral duty NOT to infringe upon that human right. Reciprocally: MY moral right to live entails YOUR moral duty not to deprive you of that right. (That is the golden rule.)
That is the complete ESSENCE of morality. Morality has nothing to do with kindness or generosity or any other celebrated human trait. Morality is as mechanical and logical as mathematics. That’s its power—it is IMPARTIAL and JUST.
But, there are exceptions! Eg: If you are kind enough to risk your life to save a person in a burning building, your heroic act that is literally “beyond the call of duty”. Because, no human can be expected to risk their own life for another person. Such an extreme act is far beyond the scope and meaning of “morality”. (It is called an act of “super arrogation”.) Such acts deserve a reward. (I won’t go into why, here, but I trust you can figure it out.)
Other acts deserve the opposite of a reward: punishment. Punishment is a critical component of morality. It is NOT “revenge”. It is 100% logical and impartial (“mathematical”, almost).
This is where the “Scales of Justice” come in. Both rewards and punishment are theoretical concepts that are used to restore the scales of justice. [PS: I’m pouring my heart out here, so I really hope that you—or some somebody—is reading this! Ha.] The scales of justice represent the theoretical state of EQUILIBRIUM that exists when right and duties are balanced. Here’s how they get tipped and here’s how they get restored:
SCALES OF JUSTICE (MORALITY): Example:
I rob you. I steal your bicycle. I’m “enjoying” an unjust GAIN that I don’t deserve… and… you’re “suffering” an unjust LOSS that you don’t deserve. The balance of justice is no longer EQUAL: It has been tipped in MY favor. HOW can we restore this imbalance? Well, it ain’t perfect, but the best we humans can think of is to make the offender suffer which theoretically lowers him and raises you, on the scales of justice. Crude, perhaps, but that’s the best we geniuses have come up with.
THAT is morality in a nutshell. Don’t attack ME. I’m just the messenger. (Although, I’m not smart enough to think of a better system.)
I condensed morality—(yes, as I understand it after years of formal
Uploading: Morality1 Nutshell.jpg…
study)—into this brief blurb below —>
“Do not do to others, what you do not want them…etc.”?
Shit. Time to consider changing my subtitle to “Evil Personified,” I suppose…
But what if I like being spanked with a riding crop made of gummy worms? Is it, or is it not okay for me to spank a total stranger the same way? I’m so confused.
1 Like
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOLDEN RULE!
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Simple. Factual. Right to the point. More reliable than most other theories.
@Cognostic Yes, I do believe I can come here and speak respectfully with intelligent adults about our differing opinions on this particular forum.
Matthew 10:21 refers to division amongst family members in response to the teachings of Jesus. We could discuss the political and cultural climate in which Jesus lived if you would like to, but your reaction to the verses I listed are sufficient. I will include some screenshots of passages and commentary, merely for the sake of time and continuity.
This persecution mentioned in this passage is not unlike that received by atheists. I have included a screenshot from a peer-reviewed article. This is a link to the full article:
Christians were not called Christians until the time of Paul’s preaching in Antioch. Before during and for over a century after that time the followers of Jesus were persecuted and killed, not the other way around.
I do not condone or endorse the twisted misuse of Jesus’ teachings, no matter what those murderers that followed called themselves.
Jesus preached non-violence in a time when violence was the traditional mode of domination.
Only for comparison, I think of the directives of Martin Luther King verses Malcom X.
Same cause, (racial equality) different methods. One was militant and violent one was peace-seeking.
You could not walk with Martin Luther if you would react with violence to the opposition. You could not walk with Malcom unless you were prepared to react by “any means necessary”.
I think this selection that you have chosen would be easier understood if you read the entire passage. I have added some screenshots of it, also for time’s sake.
The passages denounce violence.
Matthew 11:23 if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.
Jeremiah 23:14 gives an indication of some of the acts carried out in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
The passages in question refer to these cities as carrying out worse deeds than those that committed adultery, walked in lies, condoned wickedness, and strengthened the hands of evil-doers.
Even so, when an adulterous woman was brought to Jesus for judgment so that she could be stoned,
It was taught: “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7)
How much more evil should these cities have fostered in their midst if Jesus denounced them as worse than Sodom and Gomorrah?
These qualities listed are contrary to a successful society. " A house divided cannot stand".
Subsequently, they did in fact become ruins.
![download (13)|275x183]
(upload://fv48iA6adNfL8wnXUZtNYR6SLdw.jpeg)
