Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Good

About HisGrace

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Reading, writing, classic film, chess
  • More About Me
    Not a spam bot

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Maybe a deist

Recent Profile Visitors

639 profile views
  1. I know I've brought this point up over and over again to the point where it's like beating a dead horse, but if you're going to denounce people in the Catholic church for not doing anything about this stuff, then god would be just as guilty is he exists. There's really no way for them to justify god seeing and doing nothing while denouncing the Catholic leadership for responding in the exact same way.
  2. The answer some people give to this is that any human would have done the same thing. In which case god's creation wasn't perfect and humans already had the "sin nature" they supposedly only got as punishment. So it doesn't make sense regardless.
  3. Would be funnier if he tried to be Bibleman and called on god for the answer only to be met with silence.
  4. I wasn't old enough to see Leon when it was out and didn't see it till' I was older and already familiar with her. I didn't know who she was until Star Wars. I guess it was Pfeiffer, but it was more the character in general with Catwoman.
  5. Making a big long post about that distinction as he did really seems like splitting hairs, though. "I'm a bigot, but I'm not that kind of bigot, so you're wrong, haha, gotchu"
  6. Maybe Padme in Star Wars, although it was more Natalie Portman than the character. For characters maybe Catwoman or Penny Lane from Almost Famous when I got into high school.
  7. I think some of it was Trump bringing out racism that had been latent for a long time and also Clinton running such an awful campaign without a message. But PC did play a role, particularly for people who just wanted to "flip off" the perceived "PC police". I think it's a lesson about how being obnoxious and repressive helps nothing and just leads to a backlash. The same thing is going to happen in a different form in response to Trump. I also think Pinker's point is right. Facts like that only seem like an extremely momentous "red pill" if they are suppressed in the mainstream and the fact that they are suppressed makes it look like there isn't any answer to them.
  8. HisGrace


    Pretty similar to the relationship a lot of people have with the Bible.
  9. Since Easter is on April Fools this year do you think Jesus will come back and say "I actually came back to life on a Saturday, LOL, I pranked you guys so hard"
  10. Obviously there are limits to the somewhat post-modern perspective I took above, but I think the easy answer to Nazis is that they wouldn't want someone who believed themselves superior to them to seek to exterminate them. The logical flaw in extreme social darwinism generally is that virtually no one is going to view themselves as being inferior and at the bottom of the food chain so to speak.
  11. A little late, but I really related to when you talked about having to force yourself to go to church or anything Bible related. I felt that way for a long time too, I think it was because I knew deep down that it was wrong but was just clinging to it. The rat analogy you talked about was just dumb. I think it shows a tension that exists within Christianity between saying that people are made in god's image, have inherent value and so forth and saying that everyone deserves to burn in hell forever. If you had value, you wouldn't deserve to burn. I think that's why, despite being commanded to forgive and love, Christians can often be so cruel, because the Christian worldview takes such a dim view of people and assigns then so little value. It's a lot easier for a secular humanist who thinks that everyone is good deep down to be loving than a Christian who thinks everyone deserves hell.
  12. I think part of the issue here is that Christians are projecting. They put a good deal of moral significance into how they believe the Earth was created and are assuming the same of a non-Christian. Evolution is not a moral system. The theory of evolution is a statement about what is, not what ought to be. Believing in evolution does not mean that someone accepts total Social Darwinism as a moral position. The concept of morality is inherently unnatural (a statement Christians should agree with given their belief in a "fallen world"). It's a social construct to curb human impulses. Statements about how the world is have nothing to do with ethics. As for morally evaluating god, it is true that a social darwinian wouldn't have a problem with the god of the Bible. But the Christian god isn't a social darwinian. The way to evaluate someone's morality is on their own terms. Specifically, it doesn't matter so much that the biblical god is recorded as doing things that I think are unethical, but that he contradicts his own moral standards so often. That's what invalidates the whole thing, it was obviously written by people and not inspired by a perfect all knowing god.
  13. A recent tweet from The Pope said "humility is not a virtue of the weak but of the strong who don’t have to treat others badly to feel important." You mean like god did with Job?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.