Texas church shooter was a militant atheist

Spotlite · Nov 14, 2017

bullethead said:
What is interesting is that your god, who's words are supposedly contained in the bible, could not see into the future and more specifically convey back then that slavery was immoral.
Which tells me that no god had anything to do with the bible. The contents reflect man morals and actions at the time.

You are obviously not well versed in history. The Jews were never enslaved like what was told in the bible. The Exodous. Never Happened.

Not immoral when the bible was written = morals of man.
Laws that man has made have been revised over the years. Updated.
The contents of the bible stay the same. The same bible that you can buy hot off the press today contains the same immoral acts as it did a thousand years ago.
Is your god unwilling to change?
Is there really a god involved?

So where did ol Moses get his laws from? According to the bible....god.
And going by that story, your god gave specific instructions all throughout the books of the bible(not just Exodous) regarding slavery.

Are you cherry picking again? You totally missed the quotes that justify beatings, the selling of wives and children of "servants", and can sell your "servants" to others.
No matter how hard you try to not acknowledge slavery, it is in there for all to see.

I bet if you got home and your family was sold off you'd keep wearing the servant tshirt huh?

Take the time to read the other posts that I made about "servants". Knowledge is not a bad thing.

Never said slavery wasn't mentioned or spoken about bullet. The context of it the way you chose to view it is where we disagree. I'm ok if you view Christianity as immoral. I don't expect you to believe anything good about it. As long as you can be ok with me saying that I believe you're wrong, there's nothing immoral about Christianity.

Spotlite · Nov 14, 2017

atlashunter said:
Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.

Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.

Ok the "play on words" lol. So does that not apply today? Just because you consider something immoral today, does that mean it was immoral then? And I didn't conveniently leave anything out, I just restated what bullet said.

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

Poor analogy. If your mom knows a sibling is sexually abusing you and not only looks the other way but condones it that makes her complicit in the immoral behavior. Her authority over her children and perhaps even her freedom from accountability to any higher authority is irrelevant to that point.

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
Ok the "play on words" lol. So does that not apply today? Just because you consider something immoral today, does that mean it was immoral then? And I didn't conveniently leave anything out, I just restated what bullet said.

It's not a play on words. It's saying two different things. The fact that you dropped that word when you quoted him with quotation marks shows that you recognized the different meaning and chose to misquote him to make it appear he said something he did not. Some might call that intellectually dishonest. Where is SFD when you need him?

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
Never said slavery wasn't mentioned or spoken about bullet. The context of it the way you chose to view it is where we disagree. I'm ok if you view Christianity as immoral. I don't expect you to believe anything good about it. As long as you can be ok with me saying that I believe you're wrong, there's nothing immoral about Christianity.

Is there anything immoral about human sacrifice? ::ke:

Spotlite · Nov 14, 2017

atlashunter said:
Poor analogy. If your mom knows a sibling is sexually abusing you and not only looks the other way but condones it that makes her complicit in the immoral behavior. Her authority over her children and perhaps even her freedom from accountability to any higher authority is irrelevant to that point.

I would agree with that. I guess the question should have been "something that you consider moral today can never be considered immoral"?

atlashunter said:
It's not a play on words. It's saying two different things. The fact that you dropped that word when you quoted him with quotation marks shows that you recognized the different meaning and chose to misquote him to make it appear he said something he did not. Some might call that intellectually dishonest. Where is SFD when you need him?

I actually quoted it in the first part. But if it makes you feel better, I went back and fixed it. It doesn't change a thing. They considered it moral then, you consider it immoral now, and I would agree that shavers, raise, and all the examples given are immoral. I'm just saying that that's not the foundation of Christianity. The Christian does not promote any of that. We recognize that it happened in an era where it was or may have been considered moral. If we did, I would multiple wives lol.

Spotlite · Nov 14, 2017

atlashunter said:
Is there anything immoral about human sacrifice?

Certainly. What human sacrifice are you speaking about?? Jesus??? That was not a sacrifice offered by man. God chose to rob himself in flesh and pay the ultimate price for us. We didn't ask for that or demand it to happen. Crucifixion was capital punishment. Were the two thieves sacrificed or punished? For the Jews, Jesus was "punished" for his actions along with the two thieves. Jesus chose to bear that cross. Even saying forgive them for they know not what they do. Would you lay your life down for your family? In a sense you're "sacrificing" yourself to save them, but it is not a human sacrifice that you are eluding to.

Or are you speaking about Abraham?? He was told to offer his son as a sacrifice. The Christian views this as a test of faith. Can we prove that Abraham did not have enough faith to trust that God will supply? No human sacrifice would have taken place anyway. One or two things can only happen, Abraham would doubt God and not go. Or, God would supply as Abraham believed he would. In the end, it was not in any intent to sacrifice a human.

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
I would agree with that. I guess the question should have been "something that you consider moral today can never be considered immoral"?

I actually quoted it in the first part. But if it makes you feel better, I went back and fixed it. It doesn't change a thing. They considered it moral then, you consider it immoral now, and I would agree that shavers, raise, and all the examples given are immoral. I'm just saying that that's not the foundation of Christianity. The Christian does not promote any of that. We recognize that it happened in an era where it was or may have been considered moral. If we did, I would multiple wives lol.

It changes the meaning completely between saying what people thought was immoral and what actually was immoral. It's two different things. People are fully capable of being wrong on moral questions. I think we can agree on that. The question is, were they wrong at that time? Is it your view that slavery really was moral at that time but not today? Has the morality of slavery changed? Or has it always been immoral and human understanding changed? If the former when exactly did it go from being right to being wrong and by what mechanism? If it was immoral then and your holy book says otherwise then it seems to me that's a problem.

I agree it's not foundational to Christianity although it is a problem with the foundational text. That's why I didn't use it. Too easy for an apologist to look past. Not so easy for the immorality at the core of the gospel. Which takes us to your next post...

hummerpoo · Nov 14, 2017

I once related to my baby sister (18 yr. younger, 6 when Dad died and 13 when Mom died), when she was in her early thirties, an event which I consider a wonderful act of loving mentoring toward me. Her response was "He was really mean to you." I will never forget his actions; or her response.

Israel · Nov 14, 2017

hummerpoo said:
I once related to my baby sister (18 yr. younger, 6 when Dad died and 13 when Mom died), when she was in her early thirties, an event which I consider a wonderful act of loving mentoring toward me. Her response was "He was really mean to you." I will never forget his actions; or her response.

!!!yes!!!

What things of need to ourselves (and revealed value) are so easily viewed in a different light by another.

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
Certainly. What human sacrifice are you speaking about?? Jesus??? That was not a sacrifice offered by man. God chose to rob himself in flesh and pay the ultimate price for us. We didn't ask for that or demand it to happen. Crucifixion was capital punishment. Were the two thieves sacrificed or punished? For the Jews, Jesus was "punished" for his actions along with the two thieves. Jesus chose to bear that cross. Even saying forgive them for they know not what they do. Would you lay your life down for your family? In a sense you're "sacrificing" yourself to save them, but it is not a human sacrifice that you are eluding to.

Or are you speaking about Abraham?? He was told to offer his son as a sacrifice. The Christian views this as a test of faith. Can we prove that Abraham did not have enough faith to trust that God will supply? No human sacrifice would have taken place anyway. One or two things can only happen, Abraham would doubt God and not go. Or, God would supply as Abraham believed he would. In the end, it was not in any intent to sacrifice a human.

You start by acknowledging human sacrifice is immoral and then proceed to attempt to justify the instances of it in the Bible. Of course we didn't ask for Jesus to be sacrificed. It's the norm for people engaged in human sacrifice to claim their god requires it. The act itself was carried out by human hands on a human being. Redemption through murder, through the shedding of blood. And not the blood of the one whose wrong must be made right. The blood of the innocent. This is moral? Christians love to claim our laws are founded in Christianity but no where in our laws would this pass for justice. If human sacrifice is immoral then why would a moral god demand it as in the case of Abraham? Why would a moral god accept it as in the case of Jephthah? Why would a man in whom god found favor believe that his god would accept the burnt offering of his own daughter so strongly that he actually went through it? No mention that god rejected this sacrifice. Yet he rejected Cain's sacrifice of fruit. Stop and think about that.

What is it with this bloodlust? Jesus we are told was the ultimate sacrifice. The blood that would finally quench the thirst of a god who up to that point was unwilling to forgive without some bloodshed even if it wasn't the blood of the guilty. This cannot pass for morality and any system of justice that would be set up on the same principles would be rejected as incredibly unjust and immoral.

Spotlite · Nov 14, 2017

atlashunter said:
You start by acknowledging human sacrifice is immoral and then proceed to attempt to justify the instances of it in the Bible. Of course we didn't ask for Jesus to be sacrificed. It's the norm for people engaged in human sacrifice to claim their god requires it. The act itself was carried out by human hands on a human being. Redemption through murder, through the shedding of blood. And not the blood of the one whose wrong must be made right. The blood of the innocent. This is moral? Christians love to claim our laws are founded in Christianity but no where in our laws would this pass for justice. If human sacrifice is immoral then why would a moral god demand it as in the case of Abraham?.

You're trying to turn an act that was done completely as capital punishment into human sacrifice. Those hands that did that only done it as punishment. Nothing in it was considered "sacrifice" for them.

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
You're trying to turn an act that was done completely as capital punishment into human sacrifice. Those hands that did that only done it as punishment. Nothing in it was considered "sacrifice" for them.

I'm not speaking to the intent of the killers I'm speaking to the intended purpose claimed by Christians. It's your bible that declares it a human sacrifice. It's your religion that turned it into human sacrifice, not me.

Israel · Nov 14, 2017

13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.

It all is inextricably linked to this one thing. And one has either encountered the resurrected Jesus Christ, or not.

Apart from the resurrection the instructions, admonitions, warnings, and assurances mean absolutely nothing.

But, because of the resurrection...

Spotlite · Nov 14, 2017

atlashunter said:
I'm not speaking to the intent of the killers I'm speaking to the intended purpose claimed by Christians. It's your bible that declares it a human sacrifice. It's your religion that turned it into human sacrifice, not me.

For the Christian, the purpose is to cover our sins. The only way to the Father is through the blood of Jesus. If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path. I see what you're getting at, but it's not as you're saying it to be. This is the same as what I asked you before, would you lay down your life to save your family? You are indeed sacrificing yourself but you are not a "human sacrifice" in the sense of just slaughtering a human. A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it.

For the non believer, it is just a matter of how they understand it when they study it.

SemperFiDawg · Nov 14, 2017

atlashunter said:
I said atheism has no moral precepts.

To be exact you said

There are no precepts of atheism.

which is not one in the same. My entire point is, saying atheism has no precepts is patently false BECAUSE presupposing there is no God doesn’t alleviate the Athiest believer from having to answer the BIG questions of life.
If creation isn’t true then evolution must be. Evolution in turn has it’s own precepts.

Another is the moral law. If there is no Moral Law Giver then there is no moral law. The consequences of that frees the Athiest to determine his own moral, amoral, or
immoral precepts for living his life , but precepts they are. Make no mistake about that. In fact it could be accurately said that the only precepts That cant flow from Athiest are those that necessitate a God for their presupposition. Sorry if I was too dense to convey this more clearly.

WaltL1 · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
For the Christian, the purpose is to cover our sins. The only way to the Father is through the blood of Jesus. If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path. I see what you're getting at, but it's not as you're saying it to be. This is the same as what I asked you before, would you lay down your life to save your family? You are indeed sacrificing yourself but you are not a "human sacrifice" in the sense of just slaughtering a human. A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it.

For the non believer, it is just a matter of how they understand it when they study it.

And how is it for believers? Different somehow?
Consider ~35,000 denominations....

You seem to be under the impression that "believing" somehow allows you to understand it. As though there is some particular understanding that has been proven to be the correct one and if you would just believe well then you could understand it too.
That is just not supported by the facts.

bullethead · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
Never said slavery wasn't mentioned or spoken about bullet. The context of it the way you chose to view it is where we disagree. I'm ok if you view Christianity as immoral. I don't expect you to believe anything good about it. As long as you can be ok with me saying that I believe you're wrong, there's nothing immoral about Christianity.

If you persist at using your own context, please explain the verses and what they mean to you.

atlashunter · Nov 14, 2017

SemperFiDawg said:
To be exact you said

which is not one in the same. My entire point is, saying atheism has no precepts is patently false BECAUSE presupposing there is no God doesn’t alleviate the Athiest believer from having to answer the BIG questions of life.
If creation isn’t true then evolution must be. Evolution in turn has it’s own precepts.

Here is the exact quote of what I said:

atlashunter said:
There are no precepts of atheism. Atheism is amoral. Christianity is immoral.

I clearly was speaking in the context of moral precepts hence the later statement concerning moral precepts but I stand by the exact phrasing used.

Let's revisit the definition of the term precept.

precept (prÄ“ËˆsÄ•ptËŒ)â–º
n. A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.
n. Law An authorized direction or order; a writ.

Atheism prescribes no particular course of action or conduct. There is no atheist rule book. It is by definition the absence of a particular belief. Nothing more.

SemperFiDawg said:
Another is the moral law. If there is no Moral Law Giver then there is no moral law.

That's your opinion. My opinion is men have made up many moral law givers and attributed moral laws to them in an effort to make them authoritative, which none of them are. Some might call that fraud. Others might call it intellectual dishonesty. ::ke:

SemperFiDawg said:
The consequences of that frees the Athiest to determine his own moral, amoral, or
immoral precepts for living his life , but precepts they are. Make no mistake about that. In fact it could be accurately said that the only precepts That cant flow from Athiest are those that necessitate a God for their presupposition. Sorry if I was too dense to convey this more clearly.

Thank you! That was exactly my point in post #83.

bullethead · Nov 14, 2017

Spotlite said:
Ok the "play on words" lol. So does that not apply today? Just because you consider something immoral today, does that mean it was immoral then? And I didn't conveniently leave anything out, I just restated what bullet said.

What bullet said was it was immoral back then because the bible is totally man made and the writings reflect the morals of the times. No god involved.
Are you agreeing with that?

Texas church shooter was a militant atheist

Resident Homesteader

Resident Homesteader

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Resident Homesteader

Resident Homesteader

Senior Member

Gone but not forgotten

BANNED

Senior Member

Resident Homesteader

Senior Member

BANNED

Resident Homesteader

Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Similar threads

Share this page