If Secular People Have No Moral Compass...

[NotBlinded]

But my question still stands why is that? Why are we able to distinguish the evils, the murders, the hypocrisies within the Bible and the church and we are suppose to have no moral compass. However Christians who are suppose to have a moral compass because Gawd guides them can not see the hypocrisies are they that blinded by lies and brainwashed?

 

I have a better moral compass not being a Christian, than when I was. ironic isn't it.

Maybe it's because they are also relativists on morality, but when it comes to god, they just don't know why god would do such a thing, but there must be a reason. But when it comes to morality amongst people, they say that it's not relative because God said. Cognitive dissonance it seems. It's okay for god to be relative, but people can't.

 

You know they really don't believe that. I bet most of them, if not all, would kill if it meant to protect the ones they love. They would lie to a killer when they asked where their child was. They would steal if their baby was starving. They're just as relative as everyone else is, but won't admit it, and they know it.

[Ramen666]

notblindedbytheblight, so in conclusion they are just like us but the "good moral" Christian is a fake outside shell that they show within themselves to other Christians. The reason this is the case is because they would not do would God commands and ect. However the verses stated over and over and over are ignored and the Christians point fingers at Islam which does teach hate(not all i know that) the difference is Muslims actually follow their Holy book but Christians ignore 85% percent in easier terms they cherry pick what God wants. Such as hate gays and ect....but they will not kill nonbelievers (they did in the past, in American history) time has changed but the Bible still has the verses and they just can't be erased.

 

side note- be vary glad that Christians don't actually follow the Bible in a whole because there would be consequences for us. Be glad that Christians that are fundies are bad but nothing near what the Bible commands.

[Mythra]

Of course there are passages in the bible that promote morality, to one degree or another. It's the passages that justify slavery, genocide, rampant sexism, and other atrocities that are the problem.

 

And, when you look at the entire bible, you can see that our morality has advanced in spite of the bible. Not because of it.

 

If you want to look at a pure version of religious morality, you need look no further than the Taliban.

[NotBlinded]

notblindedbytheblight, so in conclusion they are just like us but the "good moral" Christian is a fake outside shell that they show within themselves to other Christians. The reason this is the case is because they would not do would God commands and ect. However the verses stated over and over and over are ignored and the Christians point fingers at Islam which does teach hate(not all i know that) the difference is Muslims actually follow their Holy book but Christians ignore 85% percent in easier terms they cherry pick what God wants. Such as hate gays and ect....but they will not kill nonbelievers (they did in the past, in American history) time has changed but the Bible still has the verses and they just can't be erased.

 

side note- be vary glad that Christians don't actually follow the Bible in a whole because there would be consequences for us. Be glad that Christians that are fundies are bad but nothing near what the Bible commands.

Any literalist, I believe, will have trouble reconciling those verses with their own ideas of morality. So, they pick the good stuff to try to live by, but leave the killing to their god. Even then, the good morals that they pick are still only applicable most of the time. They know this too.

 

There is a story about a monk that informed the ruler of a society (I can't remember which) that he shouldn't put the laws into writing. The ruler wondered why and the monk told him that if he did, who would define the words that was written and then, who would define the words that defined the words?

 

I found that to be true. In the case of the monk, he knew that things happen sometimes that allow for that law to be broken. The literalists don't have allowances for those circumstances, but yet they will act (in real life) just like the rest of us even if they are "written in stone."

 

Yeah, I'm glad they leave the killing to god (in most instances).

[R. S. Martin]

I think what the Christians are saying is that without the Bible we won't know THEIR kind of morality. As this thread proves, it does not take the Bible to be moral. We think our kind of morality is superior to that of the Bible. Thus, it's a different kind of morality than we would have if we lived by the Bible. And that bothers them. It does not fit their world view so they have to make up a batch of lies to explain away our morality. And, since their lies are of necessity the real truth about us (in their minds), it truly does take the Bible to know morality (as defined by them).

 

I think people who depend so heavily on distortion of truth and reality either have a seriously twisted mentality or are simply deluded. One of my "rules of life" is that people who, against all logic and empirical evidence, suspect evil in others must themselves be what they suspect in others. Insofar as that maxim holds true, to that extent we can assume that the fundies who suspect us of being so evil are themselves extra-ordinarily evil (for human beings; if they were animals the case would be different; they would be fit only for sustenance of more noble beasts than themselves).

 

I don't know if any of this makes sense. I do know that I feel happier since deconverting and no longer being obligated to feel a relationship with a being who, so far as empirical evidence goes, exists primarily in my brain. Anybody who presumes to know otherwise can go do something else. I think Paul was onto something when he said no one knows the spirit of a man except the man himself. My logic: If this is the case with our fellow humans, who do Christian authorities think they are to spell out exactly what God wants? Sometimes I barely know what I myself want in a given situation. For a measely human to presume to preach what is in god's heart/spirit just like a complete outrage.

 

Not even their pat answers and cliches about "Faith doesn't make sense" can answer that one. Nor "God moves in mysterious ways." In order for those cliches to work, they really do need to know what is in God's mind and heart and spirit. I guess they can say they have the Holy Spirit and the Spirit tells them these things. But we're back to square one. Why does a "holy" spirit dictate inferior morality to Christians?

 

I've even had Christians say to me things like "maybe you don't need Jesus but I sure do." I think that is meant to make me feel arrogant and full of myself, i.e. egotistic and ashamed of myself. It didn't work that way at all. It just drew a blank from me. I think that statement opens up a whole new field of discussion, but the christian walks away as though the last word has been had. Strange. Very strange indeed.

[Kuroikaze]

Maybe it's because they are also relativists on morality, but when it comes to god, they just don't know why god would do such a thing, but there must be a reason. But when it comes to morality amongst people, they say that it's not relative because God said. Cognitive dissonance it seems. It's okay for god to be relative, but people can't.

 

You know they really don't believe that. I bet most of them, if not all, would kill if it meant to protect the ones they love. They would lie to a killer when they asked where their child was. They would steal if their baby was starving. They're just as relative as everyone else is, but won't admit it, and they know it.

 

I had a discussion with a Christian once who admitted he WOULD do these things and then went on to try to explain how this really wasn't relative morality......

[Ramen666]

Wow this subject came up on the "Savage Nation" by Mike Savage. (My dad listens to it) anyway he was talking about China killing dogs unhumanily for coats. Anyway his last statement before it went to commercial break got me real angry. He was talking how God gave religon to the world and the Bible and all that and it gave humanity restraints such as sex, food ect and then he said the last part which I flagged. He said " You know why the Chinese do it, they are all atheist's. They have no restraints, Atheism equals equals death and then it cut to commercial break.

 

This is just a talk show probably listened by conservatives (because studys say conservatives watch more talk show) We all know consevatives and Christians go together.Well this is what is being teached in churches to. This is rallying hate against atheists and I know that this is not just a one time thing. My church did the same thing, I thought how can you be good and be atheist when I was Christian. ( Look where I am now on the other side of the line.)

[NotBlinded]

Maybe it's because they are also relativists on morality, but when it comes to god, they just don't know why god would do such a thing, but there must be a reason. But when it comes to morality amongst people, they say that it's not relative because God said. Cognitive dissonance it seems. It's okay for god to be relative, but people can't.

 

You know they really don't believe that. I bet most of them, if not all, would kill if it meant to protect the ones they love. They would lie to a killer when they asked where their child was. They would steal if their baby was starving. They're just as relative as everyone else is, but won't admit it, and they know it.

 

I had a discussion with a Christian once who admitted he WOULD do these things and then went on to try to explain how this really wasn't relative morality......

There's a disconnect there isn't there? It's like slowly pulling a plug out of a socket while the appliance is still on. You can see it spark, but the current is disconnected.