Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

ForgedinHell wrote:
Wootah wrote:Mike or FiH - was there any evidence cited by you guys that Christianity suggests that we are all being punished for someone elses sins? It's just difficulty to justify responding to you and FiH because of this and because I hate to break up two people so happily agreeing with each other.
You seriously have never heard of original sin?

Read the 10 commandments. God specifically states he will punish future generations for the acts of children not honoring their parents.

Read the genesis story, where god makes all women suffer during childbirth as punishment for the acts of Eve.
A case in point:
An imbecile, finding an alternative faith and thinking itself formidable because it has abandoned the childishness of God.

When a child is told Santa Clause is not real its mind recoils in surprise and disillusionment. It's world of magic and free-gifts, is destroyed.
It is left in turmoil seeking for a replacement.

Sartre relates this to a terror in regards to freedom...which leaves partially in agreement.

Such a mind is not secular...and it replaces the same old myths with the same, giving them different names.
If you study modernity, in all its facets, you will see the common-thread of Nihilism...anti-nature/anti-world....Judaism....Christianity/Islam....Democracy/Egalitarianism....Communism/Socialism/Feminism....Liberalism/Anarchy/Secular Humanism ---- Leveling.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:
Wootah wrote:Mike or FiH - was there any evidence cited by you guys that Christianity suggests that we are all being punished for someone elses sins? It's just difficulty to justify responding to you and FiH because of this and because I hate to break up two people so happily agreeing with each other.
You seriously have never heard of original sin?

Read the 10 commandments. God specifically states he will punish future generations for the acts of children not honoring their parents.

Read the genesis story, where god makes all women suffer during childbirth as punishment for the acts of Eve.
A case in point:
An imbecile, finding an alternative faith and thinking itself formidable because it has abandoned the childishness of God.

When a child is told Santa Clause is not real its mind recoils in surprise and disillusionment. It's world of magic and free-gifts, is destroyed.
It is left in turmoil seeking for a replacement.

Sartre relates this to a terror in regards to freedom...which leaves partially in agreement.

Such a mind is not secular...and it replaces the same old myths with the same, giving them different names.
If you study modernity, in all its facets, you will see the common-thread of Nihilism...anti-nature/anti-world....Judaism....Christianity/Islam....Democracy/Egalitarianism....Communism/Socialism/Feminism....Liberalism/Anarchy/Secular Humanism ---- Leveling.
Satre was a rube for the ages. It figures you would reference him as your idol. Let's see, he was a Stalinist, so that alone should cause anyone to discard him as worthy of attention. Then there is his famous anti-science statement that there is no such thing as human nature. Talk about an imbecile. As if about 4 billion years of evolution would have no impact on how humans behave and think.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

See what a coward you are?
See how desperate you've become?

Reread...and try again.

I can smell your sweat ****.
Everything you post now has that air of quiet suffering.
You overextended yourself, raging with this instinctual desire to claim your territory and to be the "male"...and here you are now shuffling and prancing, like a little woman.

Yes...Freud has been debunked.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:See what a coward you are?
See how desperate you've become?

Reread...and try again.

I can smell your sweat ****.
Everything you post now has that air of quiet suffering.
You overextended yourself, raging with this instinctual desire to claim your territory and to be the "male"...and here you are now shuffling and prancing, like a little woman.

Yes...Freud has been debunked.
Hate to break it to you, but you have wasted your life. Freud is nothing but a pseudoscientist. Jung is nothing but a pseudoscientist. Satre has been discredited by history and science. You would have been better off reading books that contain accurate information, but instead, you have opted for fairytales for grown-ups. Talk about being a loser.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

Nice declarations.

Oh, by the way, psychology is not considered a "science" in the formal sense.
Still as and more effective than the #1.

You luvs the formal...the establish, the modern.
You are a pseudo-intellectual....simply pseudo.

I'm going to dog you and expose you from now until eternity.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:Nice declarations.

Oh, by the way, psychology is not considered a "science" in the formal sense.
Still as and more effective than the #1.

You luvs the formal...the establish, the modern.
You are a pseudo-intellectual....simply pseudo.

I'm going to dog you and expose you from now until eternity.
I never stated psychology was a science, did I? You seem to make irrelevant statements that have nothing to do with the topic, as if such statements should lead one to conclude you are a genius.

But, since tyou know nothing but drivel, one can't really expect an intelligent comment from you. That's typical for your kind.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

Once more you struggle.
Dismiss as you were traiend to do, little doggy.
Be a good faithful believer.

Here's another thing you already know, retard: knowledge is NOT understanding.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:Once more you struggle.
Dismiss as you were traiend to do, little doggy.
Be a good faithful believer.

Here's another thing you already know, retard: knowledge is NOT understanding.
As if you understand anything? You have advertsied on here that you spend all your time reading authors who have long been discredited. When you read the works of people who were off-base, then you become off-centered as well. You certainly aren't going to gain understanding by reading crap.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

Brilliant...one more declaration.

I luv it.
Keep it up.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:Brilliant...one more declaration.

I luv it.
Keep it up.
Actually, I love the fact that you are an ant-semite. You are just one more example of how stupid anti-semites are. Keep it up. Maybe you, outsider, bobbie, and comrade chaz can form your own neo-nazi group?
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

You have no clue what is going on around here, do ya retard?
No clue at all.
Nobody to tell you...no expert to defer to...nobody to place your trust and your faith in.

I luv it, boy.
You buckled the moment i asked you to think outside the box: what is the #1?
You have...no....clue. you cannot define it without contradicting everything you've said so far...you poor fuck.

You know just as much about science, or anything for that matter, as SheresofBalls does...or the Texas Turd does...or my dick does.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:You have no clue what is going on around here, do ya retard?
No clue at all.
Nobody to tell you...no expert to defer to...nobody to place your trust and your faith in.

I luv it, boy.
You buckled the moment i asked you to think outside the box: what is the #1?
You have...no....clue. you cannot define it without contradicting everything you've said so far...you poor fuck.

You know just as much about science, or anything for that matter, as SheresofBalls does...or the Texas Turd does...or my dick does.
I definitely know more about science than you, and i have yet to see any other users on here who have earned a Bachelor's degree in physics. I did so years ago, and have forgotten a lot, but I'm light years ahead of the people I have seen on here when it comes to science. What I have seen here is mainly a lot of socialists and anti-semites hanging out pretending to themselves that they are "intellectuals." Childish is a much more apt description.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Satyr »

Classic response from an intellectually stunted git.
One more declarative posting for the trash-bins.

Turd, institutionally derived credentials you now regurgitate like a cow, but do not fully understand, is what this world is full of.
I said you have no clue what is going on around here, and you thought I was referring to your "knowledge"...which you repeat without fully comprehending it.
Knowledge, turd, is not understanding. The world is full of bachelor degrees and Ph.D.s...and stupidity is on the rise.
Bertrand, Russell wrote: In these days under the influence of democracy, the virtue of co-operation has taken the place formerly held by obedience. The old-fashioned schoolmaster would say of a boy that he was disobedient; the modern schoolmistress says of an infant that he is non-co-operative. It means the same thing: the child, in either case, fails to do what the teacher wishes, but in the first case the teacher acts as the government and in the second as the representative of the People, i.e. of the other children. The result of the new language, as of the old, is to encourage docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality, thereby necessarily discouraging originality, initiative and unusual intelligence. Adults who achieve anything of value have seldom been “co-operative” children. As a rule, they have liked solitude: they have tried to slink into a corner with a book and been happiest when they could escape the notice of their barbarian contemporaries. Almost all men who have been distinguished as artists, writers or men of science have in boyhood been objects of derision and contempt to their schoolfellows; and only too often the teachers have sided with the herd, because it annoyed them that the boy should be odd.
Bernays wrote:Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities and the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all received identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.
Galbraith wrote: Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.
Goethe wrote:The history of philosophy, of the sciences, of religion, all show that opinions are spread abroad on a quantitative scale and that the leading position always goes to what is easier to grasp, that is, to whatever is easier and more comfortable for the human spirit. Indeed, the man who has fully educated and developed himself in a higher sense can always reckon to have the majority against him.
Le Bon wrote: Ideas being only accessible to crowds after having assumed a very simple shape must often undergo the most thoroughgoing transformation to become popular. It is especially when we are dealing with somewhat lofty philosophic and scientific ideas that we see how far-reaching are the modifications they require in order to lower them to the level of the intelligence of crowds.
Le Bon wrote: This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence. The decisions affecting matters of general interest come to by an assembly of men of distinction, but specialists in different walks of life, are not sensibly superior to the decisions that would be adopted by a gathering of imbeciles. The truth is, they can only bring to bear in common on the work in hand those mediocre qualities which are the birthright of every average individual. In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated. It is not all the world, as is so often repeated, that has more wit than Voltaire, but assuredly Voltaire that has more wit than all the world, if by "all the world" crowds are to be understood.
Le Bon wrote:Foremost among the dominant ideas of the present epoch is to be found the notion that instruction is capable of considerably changing men, and has for its unfailing consequence to improve them and even to make them equal. By the mere fact of its being constantly repeated, this assertion has ended by becoming one of the most steadfast democratic dogmas. It would be as difficult now to attack it as it would have been formerly to have attacked the dogmas of the Church.
On this point, however, as on many others, democratic ideas are in profound disagreement with the results of psychology and experience. Many eminent philosophers, among them Herbert Spencer, have had no difficulty in showing that instruction neither renders a man more moral nor happier, that it changes neither his instincts nor his hereditary passions, and that at times -- for this to happen it need only be badly directed -- it is much more pernicious than useful.
Statisticians have brought confirmation of these views by telling us that criminality increases with the generalisation of instruction, or at any rate of a certain kind of instruction, and that the worst enemies of society, the anarchists, are recruited among the prize-winners of schools; while in a recent work a distinguished magistrate, M. Adolphe Guillot, made the observation that at present 3,000 educated criminals are met with for every 1,000 illiterate delinquents, and that in fifty years the criminal percentage of the population has passed from 227 to 552 for every 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 133 per cent.
He has also noted in common with his colleagues that criminality is particularly on the increase among young persons, for whom, as is known, gratuitous and obligatory schooling has —in France — replaced apprenticeship.
Le Bon wrote:The State, which manufactures by dint of textbooks all these persons possessing diplomas, can only utilise a small number of them, and is forced to leave the others without employment. It is obliged in consequence to resign itself to feeding the first mentioned and to having the others as its enemies. From the top to the bottom of the social pyramid, from the humblest clerk to the professor and the prefect, the immense mass of persons boasting diplomas besiege the professions. While a business man has the greatest difficulty in finding an agent to represent him in the colonies, thousands of candidates solicit the most modest official posts. There are 20,000 schoolmasters and mistresses without employment in the department of the Seine alone, all of them persons who, disdaining the fields or the workshops, look to the State for their livelihood. The number of the chosen being restricted, that of the discontented is perforce immense. The latter are ready for any revolution, whoever be its chiefs and whatever the goal they aim at. The acquisition of knowledge for which no use can be found is a sure method of driving a man to revolt.
Mencken wrote: [The] erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardised citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.
Postman wrote:America is, in fact, the leading case in point of what may be thought of as the third great crisis in western education. The first occurred in the fifth century B.C. when Athens underwent a change from an oral culture to an alphabet-writing culture. To understand what this meant, we must read Plato. The second occurred in the sixteenth century, when Europe underwent a radical transformation as a result of the printing press. To understand what this meant, we must read John Locke. The third is happening now, in America, as a result of the electronic revolution, particularly the invention of television. To understand what this means, we must read Marshall McLuhan.
Schopenhauer wrote: Those who have spent their lives reading and have drawn their wisdom from books resemble men who have acquired precise information about a country from many descriptions of travel. They are able to give much information about things, but at bottom they have really no coherent, clear, and thorough knowledge of the nature of the country.
Schopenhauer wrote:With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles.
Skinner wrote: Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten.
Taine wrote:At least nine out of ten have wasted their time and pains during several years of their life — telling, important, even decisive years. Among such are to be counted, first of all, the half or two-thirds of those who present themselves for examination — I refer to those who are rejected; and then among those who are successful, who obtain a degree, a certificate, a diploma, there is still a half or two-thirds — I refer to the overworked. Too much has been demanded of them by exacting that on a given day, on a chair or before a board, they should, for two hours in succession, and with respect to a group of sciences, be living repertories of all human knowledge. In point of fact they were that, or nearly so, for two hours on that particular day, but a month later they are so no longer.
They could not go through the examination again. Their too numerous and too burdensome acquisitions slip incessantly from their mind, and are not replaced. Their mental vigour has declined, their fertile capacity for growth has dried up, the fully-developed man appears, and he is often a used up man. Settled down, married, resigned to turning in a circle, and indefinitely in the same circle, he shuts himself up in his confined function, which he fulfils adequately, but nothing more. Such is the average yield: assuredly the receipts do not balance the expenditure. In England or America, where, as in France previous to 1789, the contrary proceeding is adopted, the outcome obtained is equal or superior.
Taine wrote: In the three stages of instruction, those of childhood, adolescence and youth, the theoretical and pedagogic preparation by books on the school benches has lengthened out and become overcharged in view of the examination, the degree, the diploma, and the certificate, and solely in this view, and by the worst methods, by the application of an unnatural and anti-social régime, by the excessive postponement of the practical apprenticeship, by our boarding-school system, by artificial training and mechanical cramming, by overwork, without thought for the time that is to follow, for the adult age and the functions of the man, without regard for the real world on which the young man will shortly be thrown, for the society in which we move and to which he must be adapted or be taught to resign himself in advance, for the struggle in which humanity is engaged, and in which to defend himself and to keep his footing he ought previously to have been equipped, armed, trained, and hardened.
This indispensable equipment, this acquisition of more importance than any other, this sturdy common sense and nerve and will-power our schools do not procure the young Frenchman; on the contrary, far from qualifying him for his approaching and definite state, they disqualify him.
In consequence, his entry into the world and his first steps in the field of action are most often merely a succession of painful falls, whose effect is that he long remains wounded and bruised, and sometimes disabled for life. The test is severe and dangerous. In the course of it the mental and moral equilibrium is affected, and runs the risk of not being re-established. Too sudden and complete disillusion has supervened. The deceptions have been too great, the disappointments too keen.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by ForgedinHell »

Outsider wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:
I definitely know more about science than you, and i have yet to see any other users on here who have earned a Bachelor's degree in physics.
Are you for real?! What an idiot!
People passing with bribes these days come out with double masters! A college degree is in fact sure guarantee of retards like you.

Oh, you mean like your denier hero Leuchter, who lied about being a professional engineer? Him? Your hero, not mine.
Childish is a much more apt description.
You are plain stupid. And light years from now, you'll still be that way with these kind of beliefs.
You belong in a museum for simpletons - that's where comatose-like artifacts that never change are kept for all to look at and move on.
You belong in a nu house, where you can fantasize with other denirs how the Holocaust was due to a Jewish conspiracy and did not really happen. The biggest morons on the planet are deniers like you.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by chaz wyman »

ForgedinHell wrote:In the US, no one would seriously consider a law that called for the punishment of a child for the acts committed by the child's parents, especially if the acts ccurred before the child was born. People would be outraged at such a law, even Christians. Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines. Somehow, an Adam and an Eve screwed up, and people born thousands of years later must pay the price for their mistake. I have a difficult time imagining a third-grader accepting this premise, much less an omnipotent being dedicating its existence to promoting such a perversion of justice. An individual can only control his or her own actions, and can only be responsible for his or her own actions. No individual alive today had anything to do with what people did thousands of years ago. But, Christians teach that the sin of Adam and Eve passes through our blood lines, therefore, making us co-conspirators in a crime that took place long ago. And because we are co-conspirators, we need to be saved by the magical Jesus, or else suffer a fate worse than anything Charles Manson could imagine.

My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born. And, if you cannot make such a showing, then the entire premise of Christianity rests upon an immoral foundation. So, why should anyone accept its immoral premise in order to be saved?

And what exactly IS Christianity's immoral foundation???
Fucking Judaism!
The same privileged arrogance and 'right to rule' attitude that has caused so many problems in the ME.
So peddle your shit to your own chosen people fat head.

FUCKING HYPOCRITE
Post Reply