Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[johnhanks]

There are no objective morals in Atheism.

In fact, there are no objective morals. Period.

It actually by definition rules out the only source for morality.

No, it does not. It rules out the major tool that cultures have always used for enforcing the morality they have.

Atheists can have a moral compass but they didn't get it from atheism.

No, they got it where everyone else gets theirs - from the social consensus of their culture.

 

[1robin]

I have no idea what you mean by this. You really should try to present your ideas more clearly.

I meant that justified or unjustified violence was not a factor. I was commenting on the totals irrespective of justification. If you introduce justification it is a task so immense as to be impossible.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the "atheist regimes" you referred to include religious ones whose religions you don't approve of. That is a massive moving of goalposts.

That is exactly what I was saying and I realised this is actually consistent with my position but not consistent with this threads purpose then consider it withdrawn.

 

[1robin]

In fact, there are no objective morals.Period.

Man you guys. You think you are so smart. The absence of objective morality would be it self an objective moral truth. Your own statement defeats itself. Since if true the statement its self would be an objective moral truth and therefore prove the statement wrong.

No, it does not. It rules out the major tool that cultures have always used for enforcing the morality they have.

The only standard capable of justifying a meaningful moral standard is an objective one. The only source for that is God. You rule out God then you rule out the standard. Actually what we have is certain people rule out God but keep the standard (includeing you) and then claim there isn't one. I have spent too much time lately laying out the obvious case that without a higher standard everything that is left is simply opinion. Opinion cannot do what we need. It is impotent to provide justice. You can find the ehaustive explanation either in my posts or:
Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?
Please educate yourself, the claims you are making most of the time the professional atheist debaters concede.

No, they got it where everyone else gets theirs - from the social consensus of their culture.

Man this is crazy, I am glad people like you ain't running things. So anyone by your standards who defied these convensions is immoral. Well lets see that makes Ghandi, both Martin Luthers, Rosa Parks, the founding fathers, and Jesus outlaws and should have been locked up. Yep that's some system you got yourself there. By the same standard Hitler and Stalin who were elected, empowered, even promoted by concensus are great citizens of this model society you have dreamed up. This is a good example of the utter failure of your alternate system.

 

[JustWondering]

There are no objective morals in Atheism. It actually by definition rules out the only source for morality. Atheists can have a moral compass but they didn't get it from atheism.

If countries that had a majority population of christians were utopian socities that had little in the way of crime and social woes compared to countries that are mostly atheist, you might have something. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction. Theism simply is not required for figuring out things like murder and stealing is bad. ANY human culture you look at has rules and laws regarding murder and theft. You don't need a god to figure this stuff out. If you do then I feel sorry for you, because you are likely a sociopath. You continue to present atheists as anarchists that do as they please simply based on what they feel at any given moment. That is completely false. Atheism and Anarchy do not go hand in hand. Atheists have morals. Atheists have purpose. Atheists value their life and the lives of others. They don't need your god to lead a constructive, moral, and fulfilling life.

 

[1robin]

If countries that had a majority population of christians were utopian socities that had little in the way of crime and social woes compared to countries that are mostly atheist, you might have something. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction. Theism simply is not required for figuring out things like murder and stealing is bad. ANY human culture you look at has rules and laws regarding murder and theft. You don't need a god to figure this stuff out. If you do then I feel sorry for you, because you are likely a sociopath. You continue to present atheists as anarchists that do as they please simply based on what they feel at any given moment. That is completely false. Atheism and Anarchy do not go hand in hand. Atheists have morals. Atheists have purpose. Atheists value their life and the lives of others. They don't need your god to lead a constructive, moral, and fulfilling life.

I never have and never will present or think atheists are all psychopaths. This a lie, misdirection, and an appeal to victimization. I actually said atheists are just as capable of being moral as anyone, but that justification can't be found in atheism alone. Atheism I have been told by other atheists is only a non-belief in God. (A non belief in something isn't capable of produceing a moral truth). Apparently atheism can be warped into justification for any claiman atheist makes. Convienient. However I believe they are wrong, the implications of atheism suggest that any moral belief is consistent with atheism alone except some of the tough and important ones like sanctity of life, objective value, ultimate purose and meaning, etc.... and it provides no way within its self to assign anyones values as more valid than any others. This is a major problem. I will not address any more of this since it contains a lie I have already addressed.

 

[Me Myself]

That is why murders happen everyday. People acting on feelings instead of reason do stupid things.

If you mean impassoined murders they are the evidence of poor emotional health. If the person´s in question had a better understanding of themselves, it would have been much harder for them to be dominated by their rage.

I said you base morality in feelings and I mantin it, but that doesn´t mean you do so without any form of thought, you are the one supposing that. For example, if you ask any psychologist, he will tell you that killing ahuman ALWAYS leaves a strong guilt and thrauma on the killer. the only exceptions are psychopaths, this means people who are emotionally deficient. There are other measures for people like this though.

So yeah, morality is 100% base din feelings, but not the immidiate ones, but the immidiate ones, medium term ones, long terms ones, etc.

Besides, with emotional inteligence, revenge is hardly needed if at all.

Christian theism is about many things includeing the worth of life. This is a completely inaccurate statement.

It is a completely accuratte one. Further more, you just proved it yourself with your phrasing "christian theism". Because theism in itself is not moral. Now when you say CHRISTIAN then you are adding some morality to it.

If I said nordic theism, then you wouldn´t agree that is a fine and dandy moral system, you would say it is immoral.

So nordic theism is immoral and christian theism moral. Then theism is amoral, this means, that the "immoral" and "moral" qualities didn´t come from theism, but from the word you add to it (christian, muslim, etc)

It doesn't matter, Atheism does not have the capability to establish objective morals. In fact it is the system I would design if useless subjective values is what is needed. No philosopher or scholar I have ever heard and that is many (atheists included) has even bothered to suggest atheism can produce objective values. They usually just deny objective values exist and move on .

1st- False again. Jainism is one of the most strict moral system (more strict than christianity) and it doesn´t believe in the supremacy of any spiritual entity.

2nd- The believe in Objective morality IS the problem. You can´t reason with "objective" morality because you are basing in completely unevidenced assumptions. You can´t prove christianity is the objective morality unnless you prove christianity. and if it is not the objective morality, then it hinders the discovery of this obective reality.

Your morality is subjective. You are just more dangerous because you have no idea that it is, while atheists, do understand it, and thus, can reason about it (and yes, feelings can be thought in rational ways. I´ve seen it done by 8 year olds, I have faith you can too.)

I am very familiar with the fact that atheists claim this and can't actually produce. You have proven the point, thanks. I asked for specific scriptures that use your words and you give me books because the scriptures don't exist.

I have some honest apologizing to do.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

That was exodus, not leviticus nor deuteronomy. But at least I knew the quote existed. : /

You reasoning is wrong. Theism is moral regardless of the deity suggested.

Ancient greece(and many others) disagrees completely. Not all deities were made to give morals.

I will give you this one, I assumed it couldn't be a religous person insulting religous people.

One of many prejudices that cloud your judgement.

You haven´t even realized he wasn´t insulting anyone, and haven´t even realized yet that Imyself have not said that all religious people are what the title says they are.

Their premise of "I am the only one who knows morals" is what makes many of them dangerous.There is nothing more dangerous moraly speaking than an objective morality based in anything but human feelings.

 

[1robin]

If you mean impassoined murders they are the evidence of poor emotional health. If the person´s in question had a better understanding of themselves, it would have been much harder for them to be dominated by their rage.

What better source to learn about themselves than their maker.

I said you base morality in feelings and I mantin it, but that doesn´t mean you do so without any form of thought, you are the one supposing that. For example, if you ask any psychologist, he will tell you that killing ahuman ALWAYS leaves a strong guilt and thrauma on the killer. the only exceptions are psychopaths, this means people who are emotionally deficient. There are other measures for people like this though.

So by this rational. You could ask Nero why he did what he did. He could say feelings. You would say ok but are you nuts, He would say no. You would say ok you passed my tests see you later.

So yeah, morality is 100% base din feelings, but not the immidiate ones, but the immidiate ones, medium term ones, long terms ones, etc.

This is the most bizarre and insuffecient justification for morals I have ever seen, heard, or had a bad dream about.

Besides, with emotional inteligence, revenge is hardly needed if at all.

You sound like some kind of pseudopsychologist.

It is a completely accuratte one. Further more, you just proved it yourself with your phrasing "christian theism". Because theism in itself is not moral. Now when you say CHRISTIAN then you are adding some morality to it.

I will type slow so pay attention. You said theism is not about self worth. The term theism is defined as a deity that is personal, that is he intereacts and cares about people. If he cares then we have worth. However that doesn't matter, for your statement to be true no theistic framework can include worth. The reason I mentioned Christianity is that it is well known to concern worth. The same can be said for Judaism, and Islam. How in the wide world of sports are you right?

If I said nordic theism, then you wouldn´t agree that is a fine and dandy moral system, you would say it is immoral.

I am not familiar with it but if it has a resonably coherent framework I guaranty you it assigns or infers some worth to life.

So nordic theism is immoral and christian theism moral. Then theism is amoral, this means, that the "immoral" and "moral" qualities didn´t come from theism, but from the word you add to it (christian, muslim, etc)

Are you makeing conclusions for me and then refuting them. Amazing.

1st- False again. Jainism is one of the most strict moral system (more strict than christianity) and it doesn´t believe in the supremacy of any spiritual entity.

Whatever it is, it isn't atheism. That doesn't matter either though. The existince of a moral codes strictness is no argument for atheism. Especially since if it has no higher authority than man it is grounded in nothing and worth nothing and if grounded in a higher authority it isn't atheism. The Germans had a strict moral code, it was anihilated by the US what has a somewhat more objective God based moral code. Because of it's strict immorality

2nd- The believe in Objective morality IS the problem. You can´t reason with "objective" morality because you are basing in completely unevidenced assumptions. You can´t prove christianity is the objective morality unnless you prove christianity. and if it is not the objective morality, then it hinders the discovery of this obective reality.

Just like you can't reason against truth, thank God. Establishing Christianity as the sole justifier is a different discussion.

Your morality is subjective. You are just more dangerous because you have no idea that it is, while atheists, do understand it, and thus, can reason about it (and yes, feelings can be thought in rational ways. I´ve seen it done by 8 year olds, I have faith you can too.)

That is why dangerous people like me can stop the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world while people like you can't produce a justification consistent with your position to do so. Or even ever define evil in time to stop it. Also crazy people like me produced the modern concept of the hospital, faith based organisations to feed and clothe children around the world, invent the US's first public education system, make a large portion of break throughs in, and the formation of many of the fields of science, etc......yep you should get rid of us.

I have some honest apologizing to do.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

That was exodus, not leviticus nor deuteronomy. But at least I knew the quote existed. : /

Do you know any of the context and reasons for verses like this? Do you understand what God was doing with Israel and the reason for an old and a new covenant? If you did you wouldn't use this as a point.

Ancient greece(and many others) disagrees completely. Not all deities were made to give morals.

If the deity was made it isn't a deity. A deity by definition is impersonal anyway, once again this doesn't matter anyway. We were discussion theism not deism.

One of many prejudices that cloud your judgement.

Virtually everyone would have concluded the same thing if given what I knew.

You haven´t even realized he wasn´t insulting anyone, and haven´t even realized yet that Imyself have not said that all religious people are what the title says they are.

Their premise of "I am the only one who knows morals" is what makes many of them dangerous.There is nothing more dangerous moraly speaking than an objective morality based in anything but human feelings.

Your premise of "no ones knows what morals actually are and no way to define them" is far worse. It basically is based on opinion and then anything goes. It is also the worst defence in a long line of bad ones that I have seen used for the establishment of morals in atheism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.

Barbarism is more disgusting when there is an attempt to cover it with a sense of high-brow moral conviction.

 

[waitasec]

Man you guys....

can you name an objective moral truth...

 

[atanu]

Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.

I think there is. Subjected to painful reactions to egoistic actions, the ego grasps at religions to obtain relief. Yet the ego has not died and so the egoistic behaviour continues (in the garb of one or the other religion) until the wisdom arrives and then even the religion drops.

In other words, the exhibitionism of ego actions is not the fault of the religion but it is of the ego.

 

[Road Warrior]

When I used to be christian and studied the bible it truly seemed that the old testament and new testament were two completely different religions.

Christ's philosophies had more in common with Buddhism than OT Judaism. He was, in many ways, a Jewish Buddhist.

It is both amusing and sad that many right-winged Christians over step the words of Christ and go to the OT to support their agendas which, all to often, involve hate, prejudice or other unChristian acts.

Being Christian means walking in the footsteps of Christ, not the barbarism of Saul, David, Moses or anyone else in the OT.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

As long as you remain civil I will discuss this issue. Have you read those laws? Many of them can't be performed outside the context of ancient Judaism as they require Levites to do them.

Yes, there are many, in the hundreds. 613 to be exact, and actually, most of them are not restricted to performance in ancient times. But the ones that can be done now.. why aren't they? Let me rephrase: why aren't they all? Why don't you follow all of them, since yours is the God of Abraham?
{They 'require Levites?' You mean Jews? You need a Jew around t perform them? What does that even mean?}

It isn't necessary that it do so. A higher authority than those books said it.

There is no such. Not one jot nor tittle. Remember that part? And certainly not the pretender Paul. That is even confirmed in that list I gave there, numbers 13 and 14.

 

[johnhanks]

I meant that justified or unjustified violence was not a factor. I was commenting on the totals irrespective of justification. If you introduce justification it is a task so immense as to be impossible.

And this is your attempt to present your position more clearly?

 

[johnhanks]

Man you guys. You think you are so smart. The absence of objective morality would be it self an objective moral truth.

Only if you regard the statement "there is no objective morality" as a moral judgement, rather than an empirical and morally neutral observation.

The only standard capable of justifying a meaningful moral standard is an objective one.

How odd, then, that societies throughout history and ethnography have interpreted this objective standard in so many disparate ways. The statement that there is no objective morality is an observation, not an opinion. It is an observable fact that moral rights and wrongs differ from one society to another and change as societies evolve. A few hundred years ago it was morally right to burn old women at the stake if they were thought to be exerting malign influences on their neighbours; few people would support such actions today. Where is your 'objective morality' here?

Fact is, societies constantly shift their moral values to suit prevailing circumstances. What were previously held to be absolute moral strictures get quietly forgotten or conveniently re-interpreted. In Luke 16:18 Jesus is quoted as saying: Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. In the US, the divorce rate is some 27% among self-identified "born again" Christians and 29% among Baptists, who have clealy convinced themselves Jesus didn't really mean it.

Man this is crazy, I am glad people like you ain't running things. So anyone by your standards who defied these convensions is immoral. Well lets see that makes Ghandi, both Martin Luthers, Rosa Parks, the founding fathers, and Jesus outlaws and should have been locked up.

Rosa Parks was locked up. And I bet the man who turned the key was a bible-believing Christian.

 

[Me Myself]

Jesus defined that all moral commandments could be summarized in law.

You sure you want to say that feelings are not a good moral basis?

 

[Me Myself]

edit:sorry double post

 

[1robin]

Only if you regard the statement "there is no objective morality" as a moral judgement, rather than an empirical and morally neutral observation.

I thought you would see this as your only way out. The claim that there are no morals is a statement primarily about morals. If I claim there is no such thing as evil, then that has extreme moral implications.

How odd, then, that societies throughout history and ethnography have interpreted this objective standard in so many disparate ways. The statement that there is no objective morality is an observation, not an opinion. It is an observable fact that moral rights and wrongs differ from one society to another and change as societies evolve. A few hundred years ago it was morally right to burn old women at the stake if they were thought to be exerting malign influences on their neighbours; few people would support such actions today. Where is your 'objective morality' here?

The majority of the moral standards are universally agreed on. However a moral truth exists or potentially exists regardless of whether anyone agrees on it or not. Being that most people have rejected the premise of the source of morality then it is no surprise whatsoever that we have differing views. Concerning a subject so profound and touching all our lives in such an intrusive manner and also what people want to be true causes dissagreements. The subject of religion and morals is the most devisive, contentious issue in human history, differing opinions are to be expected given those facts. In atheism everyones opinion on morals is of equal value so there is no way to resolve what would obviously be even more differing views.

Fact is, societies constantly shift their moral values to suit prevailing circumstances. What were previously held to be absolute moral strictures get quietly forgotten or conveniently re-interpreted. In Luke 16:18 Jesus is quoted as saying: Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. In the US, the divorce rate is some 27% among self-identified "born again" Christians and 29% among Baptists, who have clealy convinced themselves Jesus didn't really mean it.
Rosa Parks was locked up. And I bet the man who turned the key was a bible-believing Christian.

Wrong once again. I am a baptist and no more than you do that virtually every baptist believes Jesus' words.I would imagine those Christians who have divorced have been stressed to the max and have felt shame and disgrace because of what they did and have repented recieved forgiveness and the case was closed. Since divorce has been shown to be emotionally devestateing to a family what Jesus says is the truth. Every human that ever lived has sinned includeing Christians, the Christians atleast have admitted it and sought forgiveness. Many Atheists refuse to believe they their actions were wrong, some have refused to believe that wrong even exists. In atheism the sin itself is not recogniseable within it's frame work and there is no one to forgive them if it was. Your last statement reveals a pathetic bias. However in atheism she would be considered evil because she went against the standards of the society at the time and her arrest, and her accusers would be moral because it was inline with the morals of the society. As a Christian I can say she was right and the people who arrested her (even if Christians) were wrong because my standard is based on a higher one than social constucts.

 

[johnhanks]

I thought you would see this as your only way out. The claim that there are no morals is a statement primarily about morals.

Who is claiming that there are no morals? Certainly not me; my observation is that moral standards are not absolute. And that is observation, not opinion.

The majority of the moral standards are universally agreed on. However a moral truth exists or potentially exists regardless of whether anyone agrees on it or not. Being that most people have rejected the premise of the source of morality then it is no surprise whatsoever that we have differing views. Concerning a subject so profound and touching all our lives in such an intrusive manner and also what people want to be true causes dissagreements. The subject of religion and morals is the most devisive, contentious issue in human history, differing opinions are to be expected given those facts. In atheism everyones opinion on morals is of equal value so there is no way to resolve what would obviously be even more differing views.
Wrong once again. I am a baptist and no more than you do that virtually every baptist believes Jesus' words.I would imagine those Christians who have divorced have been stressed to the max and have felt shame and disgrace because of what they did and have repented recieved forgiveness and the case was closed. Since divorce has been shown to be emotionally devestateing to a family what Jesus says is the truth. Every human that ever lived has sinned includeing Christians, the Christians atleast have admitted it and sought forgiveness. Many Atheists refuse to believe they their actions were wrong, some have refused to believe that wrong even exists. In atheism the sin itself is not recogniseable within it's frame work and there is no one to forgive them if it was.

All those words, and you manage to miss the point with every one. Look, 1robin, any shame and disgrace you think baptists feel about divorce is their business - it has nothing to do with the case in hand. I gave you two examples of practices - witch-burning and divorce - whose moral status has changed through 180 degrees in the course of a few centuries, in the first case from acceptable to unacceptable, in the second the other way. Either is enough to show that moral standards, far from being fixed and objective, are utterly plastic, changing as socioeconomic circumstances change.

As a Christian I can say [Rosa Parks] was right and the people who arrested her (even if Christians) were wrong because my standard is based on a higher one than social constucts.

Had you been a white Christian in 1955 Alabama I'm pretty sure you would have regarded her arrest as morally right, and what's more would have told anyone who disagreed that your moral judgement was based on an objective standard.

In fact, face it, 1robin - if you'd been born not in 20th century America but 15th century Mexico, you would devoutly believe that human sacrifice was an absolute moral good; and you'd be telling people just as fervently as you are now that your judgement on this matter was based on an objective moral standard handed down by your god (in this case, Quetzalcoatl).

 

[1robin]

Yes, there are many, in the hundreds. 613 to be exact, and actually, most of them are not restricted to performance in ancient times. But the ones that can be done now.. why aren't they? Let me rephrase: why aren't they all? Why don't you follow all of them, since yours is the God of Abraham?
{They 'require Levites?' You mean Jews? You need a Jew around t perform them? What does that even mean?}

The Levites were the priestly tribe of Israel. They were generally the only ones allowed to perform the ceremonial requirements that you want to drag into this era. Here is a verse on a core requirement of those laws.
New Living Translation (©2007)
For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love.
Acts 15:1-41

New International Version (NIV)

The Council at Jerusalem

15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Acts 15:1-41 NIV - The Council at Jerusalem - Certain - Bible Gateway


2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

If not old testament law then what is he talking about here.

With an understanding of the context of the entire biblical narrative, you would realise that the old testament has things in it that substituted for the reality of Christ. The lambs blood on the doorposts saving the Jews from the angel of death corresponds to Christ (the lamb of God) blood saving us from gods wrath. The blood of bulls and goats corresponds to the same thing. Jonah, and the ark are types and shadows of Christ being the vessel of deliverence and the ressurection. This pattern goes on and on. We no longer need these old substitutes because we have the thing they pointed to, Christ. They surved their purpose and are superceeded. The veil was our seperation from God. Now there is no seperation because of Christ. The temple was to represent the seat of power for the priests. Now we have the true priest sitting at the right hand of God. The tabernacles purpose has been accomplished. These corrolaries never end. The old covenent items and laws pointed to Christ. That was their primary purpose, they are no longer needed since he came. The laws are placed on the hearts of the believers. No stone tablets necessary.

1For such freedom Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery.
2See! I, Paul, am telling YOU that if YOU become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to YOU. 3Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law. 4YOU are parted from Christ, whoever YOU are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; YOU have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5For our part we by spirit are eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness as a result of faith. 6For as regards Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision, but faith operating through love [is].
Online Bible: Galatians 5:1-26 - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

He is saying that if you look to the law for justification then you must keep the whole thing and Christ has no meaning for you. Since we can't hope to perfectly keep the law then it is a waste of time to look to it for salvation.

There is no such. Not one jot nor tittle. Remember that part? And certainly not the pretender Paul. That is even confirmed in that list I gave there, numbers 13 and 14.

If Paul is ruled out then we have to discuss something other than the bible. He wrote more of the new testament than anyone. The other apostles accepted and confirmed his staus and works. Their judgement supercedes even the almighty Heathen Hammers.

Here are many others so I don't get the Paul copout.

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone (This one suggests that even the ten commandments were applicable within the context of the old covenant. Keep that in mind)
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (there went the ten commandments)
Luke 24:44Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Hebrews 9:11-15 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (There went ceremonial law)
John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (no mention of 613 laws or works)
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Ditto)
What Does the Bible Say About Thief On The Cross? (additions in parentheses mine)

Just how much of the old covenant do you think the thief on the cross obeyed. Jesus himself said he would be in paradise.

I could keep goind indefinately but I don't think it would matter.

 

[1robin]

Who is claiming that there are no morals? Certainly not me; my observation is that moral standards are not absolute. And that is observation, not opinion.

Then why did you write this. "In fact, there are no objective morals. Period."

All those words, and you manage to miss the point with every one. Look, 1robin, any shame and disgrace you think baptists feel about divorce is their business - it has nothing to do with the case in hand. I gave you two examples of practices - witch-burning and divorce - whose moral status has changed through 180 degrees in the course of a few centuries, in the first case from acceptable to unacceptable, in the second the other way. Either is enough to show that moral standards, far from being fixed and objective, are utterly plastic, changing as socioeconomic circumstances change.

No morals have not changed. I am not sure you understand what Objective means maybe. That means that even if the baptist did (which we didn't I will explain in a second) change them in a subjective sence, they were not changed in an objective sence. If murder is objectively wrong the fact that the world could decide it was right means nothing. Murder would still be objectively wrong even if noone believed in it. Now for the baptists. You said Jesus said no divorce. Then you said that baptists get devorced. People do things everyday that they know are wrong. Even if 100% of the baptists decided devorce was the greatest thing ever it wouldn't matter to the objective fact that God said it was wrong and it still is.

Had you been a white Christian in 1955 Alabama I'm pretty sure you would have regarded her arrest as morally right, and what's more would have told anyone who disagreed that your moral judgement was based on an objective standard.

Knowing my history I doubt it, (however I understand your point) even if that were true that would not mean I was right. Objective values are true regardless on mine or anyones opinion, that is what makes them subjective.

In fact, face it, 1robin - if you'd been born not in 20th century America but 15th century Mexico, you would devoutly believe that human sacrifice was an absolute moral good; and you'd be telling people just as fervently as you are now that your judgement on this matter was based on an objective moral standard handed down by your god (in this case, Quetzalcoatl).

Being that Quetzalcoatl was more of a demon but probably was made up by the aztecs he has nothing to say about objective value even if I believed he did. Actually they carried him around on their sholders and he told them where to go.

No I would have hung out with Cortez and probably died of smallpox. Any way I would have still been wrong. You definately don't understand the concept.

Here is a very good site with much info on the subject.
Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?
If you actually read a couple of these papers and still think the way you do let me know. Because what you are saying indicates a lack of undertanding the concept.