i found it offensive because it puts GOD as a man.
Right and wrong is determined by God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
i found it offensive because it puts GOD as a man.
Oh never mind
:roflmao:
There's a difference, SkinWalker, between "making fun of" and "disagreeing with". "Making fun of" someone or some group is a definite form of bullying, in no way different to someone "making fun of" a geeky-lookin' kid in middle school. So, yes, same logic applies.
Baron Max
Brilliant !
And NO, obviously
JR,
that humor is just delicious.........
and Brilliant.
Good and Bad are defined by both the boss and mankind; we experience, and we write what we believe it means, by god (existence itself).
'to me'................ it is by observing 'life'
life that coexists together; lives longer
so if the boss is all mass, energy and time and life is what continues over time, then good contributions to life, continue and isolations or non evolving, often fail over time
i see us as living within existence so the rules are available by what is experienced within existence; the boss.
so in a sense, rather than the boss being a god from the clouds, i see em as all that exists and all time thereof; hence in god's time all is judged true.
'right and wrong is determined by God' (the boss)...........
well, to observe God as 'all of existence'; then YES.
we just write down what makes sense and over time, the truth unfolds itself
how about people making fun of race color or Jews for example.
What is good and what is evil [bad] is determined at a certain level by the civilisation, society, clan, tribe, etc. At the height of Carthagininian civilisation hundreds of children were incinerated in sacrifice to their god Molech. In the same vein, the civilisations of Mesoamerica practised human sacrifice as appeasement and in thanks.
To all of these peoples their actions were good, the very antithesis of evil or bad.
In medieval Europe purification of evil by fire practised by burning heretics at the stake became part of the civil code as well as of papal decree. In fact, in some nations like Spain there was little distinction between the two.
To all of these people their actions were demanded by their god. It was right and proper.
Of course today such actions are regarded as "misguided" by the faithful and as delusional frenzy by the rational.
What is good and bad or evil is decided by consensus, especially in a rational society committed, more or less, to secular values that have as their basis the separation of church and state.
Common sense has decreed that just about all human societies share common values such as a respect for the Golden Rule even if only tacitly.
This is not to demean the value of "divine" law. But such laws were codified by humans in civil societies long before the gifting of the ten commandments. People were obeying those laws long before then.
Religious authority garnered kudos by sanctifying the laws and bestowing its imprimatur thereon. Between ten and twenty thousand years ago, when settled agriculture saw the genesis of civil society and created the imperative for written records, sets of laws like the ten commandments were "set in stone" so to speak. They recorded rules of conduct observed long before then as unwritten rules of commerce and social intercourse.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
To all of these peoples their actions were good, the very antithesis of evil or bad.
In medieval Europe purification of evil by fire practised by burning heretics at the stake became part of the civil code as well as of papal decree. In fact, in some nations like Spain there was little distinction between the two.
To all of these people their actions were demanded by their god. It was right and proper.
Of course today such actions are regarded as "misguided" by the faithful and as delusional frenzy by the rational.
What is good and bad or evil is decided by consensus, especially in a rational society committed, more or less, to secular values that have as their basis the separation of church and state.
Common sense has decreed that just about all human societies share common values such as a respect for the Golden Rule even if only tacitly.
This is not to demean the value of "divine" law. But such laws were codified by humans in civil societies long before the gifting of the ten commandments. People were obeying those laws long before then.
Religious authority garnered kudos by sanctifying the laws and bestowing its imprimatur thereon. Between ten and twenty thousand years ago, when settled agriculture saw the genesis of civil society and created the imperative for written records, sets of laws like the ten commandments were "set in stone" so to speak. They recorded rules of conduct observed long before then as unwritten rules of commerce and social intercourse.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
The overarching dominance of religious superstition in society makes "bullying" the religious by the non-religious an unlikely proposition to begin with. But, even still, what's presented in the OP is fair and humorous criticism of religious superstition. Such superstitions, which seek to dominate society and spread like viruses afflicting the minds of the gullible, avail themselves for criticism -even if it's ridicule- by the ridiculous nature of religious claim(s). The video in the OP presents and example of just such a claim, presenting it in satirical format, appropriately denigrating the silly and immoral story of the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice myth. Its a silly and immoral tenet of silly superstition.
But, hypocritically, you make a fallacious pretense at being affronted by satirical criticism. This is hypocritical for two reasons: 1) at least two other YouTube links exist, posted in the forum within a 2 day period, which make humorous fun of the non-religious -satire. Yet I don't see you championing the atheist's victimization of bully tactics by the superstitious (one of these videos posted before the OP in this thread). 2) Your pretense at being affronted is clearly an attempt to pressure others in not questioning or criticizing religious superstition. In other words, bullying.
Not at this site ...which is, of course, the venue that we're talking about. On this site there are about a gazillion avid, know-it-all atheists and about three religious people, maybe less! Thus, as you can see, at this site, that it is, in fact, bullying the few by the dominance of the other. Just plain bullying.
Reminds me some of what people said in the old days about the minstral shows using white men with black-painted faces on stage ...just for a little humor and fun, right? I mean, why would anyone be upset or offended by a little fun? Why would anyone be offended by a bunch of white guys poking good-natured fun at black people?
What I find here, in this thread and in attitudes like yours, is the simple egotistical principles of arrogance and power. You and the others think that you're right, so you feel the need to express that by deriding the beliefs or thoughts of others that differ with your own beliefs or thoughts.
I suppose that, in this world of liberal idealism and world peace and world cooperation and world tolerance, ...the bigger question is why do you feel the need to belittle others or arrogantly and viciously criticize the beliefs of others? Does it make you feel stronger? More powerful? More intelligent? Smarter? Why do you do it? Just to hurt others? Do you enjoy hurting others?
Baron Max
Max, if you believe in the ridiculous, prepare to be ridiculed. Nobody asks you to voice your religious views here, that's your choice. If you want patronising and agreeing with, go to a site that will satisfy your ego.
Your beliefs are not sacred to us. We don't have to avoid making certain comments, because they offend your faith, because clearly, some faith propositions you would ridicule, unless you accept every crackpot theory held by every loon, ever.
Now, this attitude differs when it comes to matters of fact, such as race, or gender. If you can't see the distinction, well, you are too close the problem.
Is that one of the lesser understood rules of the new era of liberal idealism?
Is that one of the principles of international diplomacy and tolerance?
Would you suggest that it might be good diplomatic policy for our soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan to begin ridiculing the Afghans about their religious beliefs? ...help to win their hearts n' minds?
Oh, wait, perhaps there's a new hippo-critical ideal around here .....we can ridicule the beliefs of people and offend the shit outta' them in one forum, but in another forum, we should call for and advocate the high ideals and principles of free, open society of love, peace and equality under the law for all people? Sorta' like "Bully and offend the fuck outta' anyone you want, but you must believe in the ideals of freedom and peace!"??
Baron Max
Max, do you believe the stuff in Revelations will come true, literally, as depicted?
Wow. A whole post full of ad hominems and non sequiturs. I can't say as I'm surprised. If you can't have an honest discussion with someone you disagree with, simply associate them with something despicable and vile, right?
"You can't make fun of religion! Wah! You're just like racists! Wah."
Grow the fuck up. No one makes your ignorant ass click on any threads or posts on this site. The hegemony of religious superstition dominates your nation and you're one of those "defenders of the faith" that seek out anyone who dares criticize it, eh?
The OP consisted of a one-word query and a link to a YouTube video. Instead of having a discussion about the video and why you think it's "bullying," you start a bullying campaign yourself. This demonstrates your hypocrisy, your ignorance, and your bigotry. I'm betting you didn't even watch the link, like those old biddies wanting to ban/burn books from school libraries based upon what they heard about the books.
So, back to the original question, BM: what about the video did you find offensive? We're back on topic, btw. All else will be deleted.
Don't worry OB, i'm listening. I just wish some other people could.
As for the topic...is this a question because it's not much of a statement. Right and wrong are determined by ethics, which are influenced by ideas and opinions. Right and wrong are relative things. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
The problem is, and I remember distinctly believing this when I was a theist, is that theists who accept religious teachings with absolute faith see morality's source as their deity. There's fear involved as a theist, that if you step outside the faith in god that you will become immoral like heathens and heretics. Once this fear is dealt with (which by nature is irrational, as it is an emotion) it is easy to see that morality is relative and there exists "good" systems of ethics outside of religion, that if followed can lead to a better ethical life than with a flaky religious morality.
When you say, "I'm going to make a change in my life and I will start right now" instead of "I can't do it, but with god I can." that makes all the difference in things including morality. That's when progress start to happen. The whole attitude of dependence on external forces for success in anything, including morality, is flaky. Even if there was a god, i'm sure it would want a doer and not a wannabe ("but it's okay I screwed up because god loves me and gives me a second chance" type of attitude).
"God, I screwed up, kill me I'm not worthy." That's the attitude of the saints of Christianity.
I've said too much, so have at it...i'll sort out the best I can...
Last edited:
If I find a video making fun of gays, posting comments and remarks ridiculing gays and their behavior, will you allow it to stand as you've allowed this one to remain? Same thing, right?
And yet when I called gays "homo" one time, simply because I got tired of typing "homosexual", James R. threaten me with banning because he said that gays found that term offensive.
And, oh, please don't make the remark about it being "natural" and that gays are born that way and can't help how they feel ......because if you do, I'm going to ask for some proof of that. ...like a "gay gene", perhaps??
Baron Max
Wow, SkinWalker, talkin' about ad hominems!! ...did you read your post?? ...LOL!! You've basically called me everything nasty that you could think of ......and claiming that I'm the one do that?! ...LOL!
Baron Max
Don't matter, and don't have nothin' to do with the topic being discussed. People can discuss subjects without having fervent beliefs one way or the other. ...or didn't you know that?
Baron Max