French Patriot
-
Posts
1,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by French Patriot
-
-
23 minutes ago, eyeball said:
The stuff of fellow religionists and believers ,
I was just curious is all. It seems futile to declare the belief as nuts and then engage it anyway.
Those nutty beliefs do a lot of harm to society by creating homophobic and misogynous religions.
Do you not think engaging believers in the moral fibre of their immoral gods a worthy endeavor?
Do you not think that correcting poor thinking is a worthy endeavor given the harm those beliefs cause?
Regards
DL
-
8 hours ago, eyeball said:
You believe this stuff but you don't subscribe to it - is that your shtick?
Beliefs should always remain somewhat malleable so that new information that is worthy is allowed to enter the mind.
What stuff specifically are you referring to?
And if you want an answer, then give your opinion on the O.P. so that I might get a clue as to your thinking, --- or go wanting.
Regards
DL
-
17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
I interpreted this to mean you did not want answers based on the Bible.
I do not mind biblical information that is pertinent but many Christians give a wall of meaningless text and I did specify preaching.
Further, I replied with information from the bible, as you saw before writing this post.
Regards
DL
-
23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Show where God has killed anyone. So far as I can determine, people die from many causes, but I can't think of any instance where God has killed anyone, apart from the Iliad.
I can only show what is reported in the bible, but if you are so biblically illiterate that you do not recognize or are unaware of when Yahweh is shown to kill, then I am not interested in walking you through the bible.
I will give you this though and invite you to answer the main question of, --- what kind of God would torture and murder an innocent baby as in the King David story?
Regards
DL
-
Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?
Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.
God’s law, should he/she/it ever show up, --- is supposed to become earth’s law, imposed by force, --- as need be, --- and the religious way, --- instead of sound moral arguments.
God is demonstrably not moral.
One of the more important commandments to us is that of not killing humans. God kills humans.
I assume that that law would be high on our commandment list; commands to a slave from a master. Yet God exempts himself from that good law and does this evil will and kills humans.
That commandment is a subjective position and as I can think of a few instances where killing a human would be the moral thing to do. That commandment is thus immoral.
I do not think it’s a good idea to give an obviously and demonstrably immoral Gods respect but many theists do.
The power to make human laws should never be given to our immoral gods. Especially Yahweh and Allah, who I think are the bottom of the barrel on morals.
Human law seeks to be moral and humane and should never be putrefied by the immoral Gods that mankind has create in our image.
To do so would be insane.
So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers, --- something I do not understand.
Why you and I call our gods, “God”, --- when he is such an immoral character, --- fictional or not?
Are we such immoral entities ourselves? I am immoral. Are you?
Regards
DL
P.S. When you reply, I might have to do this to those who will not answer from the heart and try to use their holy book of myths and turn to preaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8
Remember also my fellow religionists and believers, all clergy of all faiths are liars. God himself told me this when he told me to think more demographically.
-
On 8/3/2018 at 3:37 AM, Bonam said:
Shouldn't be a big surprise given the countless thousands that the Catholic Church murdered throughout its history. They were big fans of killing people while they had the power to do it. Now that secular authorities hold that power instead, of course they are against it.
Consider their use of Inquisitions to deny people the freedom of religion that Christians now advocate.
Both Hitler and Yahweh are genocidal monsters yet Christians are quick to forgive their God, while condemning a man for doing the same thing, --- which shows how their religious views have corrupted their moral sense.
Regards
DL
-
I think it strange that the Pope would overrule Yahweh who says there are many reasons to kill a human.
Turn to almost any page in the bible and God is having even the innocent children and babies murdered or doing it himself.
Strange how the Pope has forgotten his use of Inquisitions and murder.
This link proves that the Pope is a liar and oly cares about the cash that a sheeple will bring with him to pay for salvation.
Regards
DL
-
On 7/4/2018 at 4:31 PM, betsy said:
Oh yeah, you got that right! Indeed, so apparent. Here's another hypocrisy:
These same people so-called progressives/leftist are so anal about inclusivity.........and yet they fight tooth and nail, to exclude - and murder - their own flesh and blood!
Good of you to ignore Christian hypocrisy and not be able to justify it so just end in attacking another group.
Pathetic.
Regards
DL
-
On 7/4/2018 at 5:58 AM, betsy said:
why are you blaming other people for the unwanted pregnancy?
I do not. Get the quote.
Regards
DL
-
On 7/4/2018 at 5:20 AM, betsy said:
.....so judgemental of a particular
You are so judgemental. Tsk tsk.
Regards
DL
-
Betsy
If those who wish to stop what they see as evil put their money where their mouths are, the numbers of abortions would drop even faster than they are today.
They forget the horrible life statistics that follow poor or unwanted children who are forced into the lowest tiers of our demographic pyramid.
When and if your followers ever show that kind of effort instead of ignoring the plight of those you would create without abortions, then you might get more support.
I come out of Catholicism and abortion was used by all that I knew except for one set of set of grand parents who actually walked their loving talk. I was surprised to see it.
I have links to what shows how Christian groups lied in offering after birth aid to women and their children that dried up so fast after the birth as to make Christian hypocrisy quite apparent.
Regards
DL
-
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the regressive Christian right (RCR) in Canada will look for a political candidate who will promise to open that debate. Someone will oblige. Whether that candidate ever gets elected depends on the political will of the RCR. We certainly don't have to worry about Islamists forcing their religious beliefs on us, the RCR is already all over that.
I do not distinguish one right wing bunch of loons from the other.
There will always be the extreme right and left. But if we do not use the 80 20 rule and ignore the furthest extremes when devising policy for the whole, then the rest of us are fools.
Regards
DL
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, betsy said:
I take it back!!!!
Abortion is not a done deal. At least, not in the USA.
If RvW gets overturned in the USA - we'll be forced to re-open the issue here in Canada......and in other democratic countries.
B. S.
The U.S. does not set the moral s of the world. Thank all the Gods for that.
Regards
DL
-
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:
When you are making fun of Quislings, you use their talk.
Hit and miss.
Regards
DL
-
9 hours ago, turningrite said:
Our system gives the law precedence over conscience. Sorry to loop you in on this, but it's a fact. We live in a system based on the rule of law rather than the rule of conscience. We can disagree with the law but for the most part we're obligated to comply with it. As for politicians, whether in Canada or elsewhere in the West - but particularly in Canada - there's been an increasing emphasis on party discipline, whereby individual politicians, whether elected or prospective candidates, must comply with directives set by their parties and party leaders. It's increasingly become the norm. Even in the U.S., which doesn't have a parliamentary system that compels party discipline, voting statistics indicate increasing adherence to such discipline.
All true, which shows that some have been voting their conscience and must be disciplined.
Bottom line. Any politician can vote his conscience regardless of the law in place or new bill before him.
Regards
DL
-
10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
The notion that one ought to be able to "vote their conscience" and impose their religious views on anyone who doesn't subscribe to them is utterly abhorrent.
That would not happen unless he is in the majority and the law would likely use secular law language and not biblical jargon..
If something is too far out in religion land, as just happened in the U.S. with the Texas laws tightening the noose on abortion rights, hopefully the courts would scrap the law just like it just did.
Ford, if he does the same, as he said he will, will likely be overruled by our own courts.
Regards
DL
-
15 minutes ago, turningrite said:
In the Western intellectual tradition, we're taught that it's often necessary to separate our religious views from our behaviors and actions. And our politicians often do so as well. Social policy in Canada, including on abortion and gay rights, has progressed largely as a function of legal decisions which politicians have had little choice but to affirm. They have to pass laws consistent with rights courts have determined to be constitutionally valid. Reportedly, many cabinet ministers and MPs balked at changing laws to implement gay rights in Canada following the SCC's affirmation of the existence of these rights, but these politicians had to accede to the philosophy of separation of church and state and adhere to the logic and direction of the courts. Not only do our leaders now tell their subordinates they can't vote or express their conscience, they openly reject the nominations of candidates who openly oppose party policy on grounds of conscience. So, to suppose that separation of church and state isn't an operative philosophy in Canadian politics is to fail to acknowledge reality.
To not acknowledge that any politician can vote their conscience, when it is done in many instances, is rather odd.
There is nothing in the voting rules that say a politician must follow constitutional guidelines. That is what a free vote is all about.
No argument that some parties do try to enforce following party lines but there is nothing that says the backbencher must do so.
The first priority to a politician is to be elected and if the majority of his constituent want him to vote a certain way, you can likely bet that he will vote their way.
Regards
DL
-
1 minute ago, turningrite said:
It's long been my belief that the most relevant modern application of the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is its importance to the concept of separation of church and state. It provides clarity on the role of religion, in particular as a private right, in relation to the broader secular legitimacy and role of the state.
The most important thing to God would be his commandments.
Yet give to Caesar forces following Rome's law. That would leave God out in the cold.
As to separation of church and state, if you are a politician, that is like telling you that you cannot vote your conscience.
It also indicates that you can somehow leave your spirituality out of your political decisions as if you could split your mind in two and ignore half of your thinking.
Impossible that so separation of church and state is impossible. All one can do is use secular language instead of more spiritual/religious language.
Regards
DL
-
Thanks for this Scott.
Regards
DL
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:
I'm not a theist, and I'd regard the Roman Empire as as nasty, smelly a colonialist regime as there has been
Look at most governments and their corrupted state.
As to my error, you prompted it with your "What exactly is not God's? ".
Everything is not God's.
Fictitious characters cannot claim ownership of anything. Right?
Regards
DL
-
Why do believers adore hateful Gods? Do believers love to hate or is it insecurity?
Any God who creates a hell is a hateful God.
Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: `Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
I think I have dithered out why believers adore really putrid Gods. I wish to confirm my views.
Man is the most insecure animal on the planet and also loves to hate the other tribe. I think believers love to hate so much that they only care about the imaginary power they see manifested in their God and the security their God and his tribe provides them.
This penchant is also shown in our choice of political leaders. We choose strength over morality and goodness.
Is this loathsome reason why you believe in your putrid God?
A good God would cure and never kill. Your God is a killer.
God is supposed to be all about perfecting your moral sense.
Why do you adore God if not because you have put your security over your morals?
Regards
DL
-
8 hours ago, Altai said:
Okay I will talk in accordance with your IQ level.
We make laws based on their rationality. We say its illegal to run in red light in traffic because it will cause disorders. Does not matter whether or not this law was told us in a religious book or we find it out ourselves. Its logical in any case and therefore its superior because its logical.You show your I. Q. level by not being able to say which set of laws are better.
Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk
Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.
Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL
-
4 hours ago, Penderyn said:
You make assumptions about my position. Don't.
Thanks for showing where I erred.
Regards
DL
-
5 hours ago, Altai said:
I had a topic which may be related to this topic. Named "You are ruled by Sharia". Which refers to the similarities between Islamic rules and countries' laws.
As I am saying always, logic based on the same info will come together in the same place. They cant be dissociated. People disagrees with each other because they dont have the same information (this is not a sustainable disagreement because they will share the info with each other) or most commonly at least one of the sides rejects to recognize information or logic based on the information when it does not fit with their personal interests.No argument, but you did not answer the quote you picked up?
Are you not able to evaluate things from what you know?
Regards
DL
Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?
in Religion & Politics
Posted
1. Sure, that should be corrected if possible. Right?
2. Existence or not becomes the side issue when it is the moral fibre that is the issue. I do not care if a theist maintains his belief in whatever god he idol worships, as long as he sees the immorality in him/her/it.
3. What way would you use that has shown more success?
====================
I gave a reply elsewhere that speaks to these issues. It might be worth you reading before you reply.
==================
"Point being - we know human ignorance, we have ideas on how to deal with human ignorance that don't cause them to double-down in the wrong direction (polite persuasion being the key on not having the later happen),
We have ideas, sure, but I have seen them fail more than win out.
People are belligerent and stand by their 2 + 2 = 5 regardless of how persuasive the argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is.
Sheeple are sheeple regardless of the religion. Their bubbles are impregnable to logic and reason as their morals have been corrupted by their religious beliefs.
That is why, in Christianity's case, they can justify in their own twisted thinking the adoration of a genocidal son murdering prick of a god.
I have seen too many soft spoken good hearted people get s**t on by brainwashed sheeple, but if you have an example somewhere where you have seen a successful communication as you suggest is possible, I would be pleased to see your method at work. I am always eager to see a good intelligent dialog.
Regards
DL
P.S.
I have had a good number of lurkers tell me that their thinking changed after reading an exchange between myself and an interlocutor, but I have only a few examples where the interlocutor came to my side. I have not seen any other posters fare any better.