The Theocratic Dominionist Party

Will the party help us all to live true Biblical lives? Will it help protect traditional marriage?
 
2843905157_3abe047f44.jpg

:D Discuss.
 
Theodicy Eradicated

TheEvilDetector said:
I will bite Theocrat :)

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

In SUM, when taking in whole, you might say GOD is one bigoted, evil, murderous son of a bitch if there ever was one.

This is the God you believe in? O..................k

:)
Click to expand...

When you say that God is "evil," you're assuming there is such a thing as "good." If there is such a thing as "good," then you're assuming there's a moral law by which you can differentiate between "good" and "evil." If you posit that there is a moral law, then you must posit that there is a moral Lawgiver, but that's what you're seeking to disprove, not prove. So if there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no "good." If there is no "good," then there is no "evil." So, what is your complaint against God again? :confused:
 
Theocrat said:
When you say that God is "evil," you're assuming there is such a thing as "good." If there is such a thing as "good," then you're assuming there's a moral law by which you can differentiate between "good" and "evil." If you posit that there is a moral law, then you must posit that there is a moral Lawgiver, but that's what you're seeking to disprove, not prove. So if there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no "good." If there is no "good," then there is no "evil." So, what is your complaint against God again? :confused:
Click to expand...

Owned! :D
 
Theocrat said:
When you say that God is "evil," you're assuming there is such a thing as "good." If there is such a thing as "good," then you're assuming there's a moral law by which you can differentiate between "good" and "evil." If you posit that there is a moral law, then you must posit that there is a moral Lawgiver, but that's what you're seeking to disprove, not prove. So if there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no "good." If there is no "good," then there is no "evil." So, what is your complaint against God again? :confused:
Click to expand...

154350b2e7aaa82e88c4f738142dd89f1464ebe.gif
 
Last edited:
Truth Warrior said:
FWIW, for some time now it has seemed to me that the most "common denominator" of the world's human institutionalized religious TEACHINGS, has been the "Golden Rule" or very slight variations thereof. ;)

It seems like a pretty good idea to me, and more than adequately covers the vast and overwhelming majority of human issues and conflicts.<IMHO> :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/golden%20rule

http://www.reference.com/search?q=golden rule
Click to expand...

It is a good rule and it isn't, say you want people to harm you then according to the Golden Rule you should go around harming people. Or say that you'd like girls to stick their fingers up your ass, should you go around sticking your finger into their asses?
 
Hiki said:
It is a good rule and it isn't, say you want people to harm you then according to the Golden Rule you should go around harming people. Or say that you'd like girls to stick their fingers up your ass, should you go around sticking your finger into their asses?
Click to expand...
I'm referring to the NORMAL people.

Nothing really seems to work for the minority of incurable psychos and wackos.

Perhaps that's why it's a rule and guideline for appropriate behavior and not a law.

Any more silliness?
 
I've also heard (from Objectivists) that "loving your neighbor as yourself" is immoral and counterproductive. I think Ayn Rand had a whole book devoted to the Virtue of Selfishness.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

...

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
Click to expand...

That last bit about not desiring praise for your sacrifice is why Jesus was either not virtuous or did not sacrifice. Also, if Jesus is alive, then he never died, and there indeed was no sacrifice, so what credit does he deserve for it?
 
Mesogen said:
I've also heard (from Objectivists) that "loving your neighbor as yourself" is immoral and counterproductive. I think Ayn Rand had a whole book devoted to the Virtue of Selfishness.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html



That last bit about not desiring praise for your sacrifice is why Jesus was either not virtuous or did not sacrifice. Also, if Jesus is alive, then he never died, and there indeed was no sacrifice, so what credit does he deserve for it?
Click to expand...
Ayn's definition of "selfishness" was pro-individual rational self interest, as I recall. I see no real conflict there. ;)
 
Last edited:
Theocrat said:
When you say that God is "evil," you're assuming there is such a thing as "good." If there is such a thing as "good," then you're assuming there's a moral law by which you can differentiate between "good" and "evil." If you posit that there is a moral law, then you must posit that there is a moral Lawgiver, but that's what you're seeking to disprove, not prove. So if there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no "good." If there is no "good," then there is no "evil." So, what is your complaint against God again? :confused:
Click to expand...

He is referring to the god of the christian bible, not God. Belief in God is faith, belief about God is religion. Religions are nothing more than tools of social and political control and have little to do with the reality of the true nature of the universe. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the worst three the world has ever had to endure.
 
Truth Warrior said:
Ayn's definition of "selfishness" was pro-individual rational self interest, as I recall. I see no real conflict there. ;)
Click to expand...

See a conflict with what? I was just saying that Ayn Rand doesn't think sacrifice is such a great idea.

Mitt Romneys sideburns said:
Ayn Rand was a quack.

With your cult like worshiping of her, you are nothing more than a secondhander.
Click to expand...

Who me? Worship Ayn Rand? and cultlike? HA! That's awesome.

Honestly I've never read one of her books and frankly from what snippets I have read, I think she's kinda lame.
 
Mesogen said:
See a conflict with what? I was just saying that Ayn Rand doesn't think sacrifice is such a great idea.



Who me? Worship Ayn Rand? and cultlike? HA! That's awesome.

Honestly I've never read one of her books and frankly from what snippets I have read, I think she's kinda lame.
Click to expand...

I wasnt talking about you, just the Ayn Rand cult in general
 
Theocrat said:
When you say that God is "evil," you're assuming there is such a thing as "good."
Click to expand...

Yes.

If there is such a thing as "good," then you're assuming there's a moral law by which you can differentiate between "good" and "evil."
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a law. It's a set of principles that vary between individuals.

Morality is created by humans, not supernatural beings.

If you posit that there is a moral law, then you must posit that there is a moral Lawgiver,
Click to expand...

See above.

but that's what you're seeking to disprove, not prove.
Click to expand...

I am not seeking to do what you say I am seeking to do.

So if there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no moral law.
Click to expand...

You do not need to have a Lawgiver for Morality, to have morals my friend.
Are you able to figure out right and wrong without an invisible deity or not?

If there is no moral law, then there is no "good." If there is no "good," then there is no "evil." So, what is your complaint against God again? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't really have a complaint against God, because he doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.

(Even if I could be convinced he did, I would see him in a very negative light if his influence is accurately portrayed in the bible, definitely not someone who "cares" and "loves" us. That would just make me puke.)

However, concerning those that believe he does, I assume they believe in the bible verbatim, and so, they would have to contend with the murderous diatribes contained therein.

If you MUST believe in supernatural father figure, fine by me, but just be aware that some of what is written in the bible is quite ugly.

Killing firstborns? WTF. Killing people for looking at something?

I mean, do you even realise, that by this standard, the whole population of US should have been annihilated, for they surely have laid eyes upon something unwholesome by the tight ass standard of the bible at some point in their lives.

Let me leave you with this bit of unconditional Godly Love:

More Rape and Baby Killing

"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)""

Here it is verbatim from the "GOOD" book:

13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. (13:15-18)
13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Quite frankly, this kind of language is sickening.

In modern times, were this any other publication, people would be prosecuted for writing things of this nature.

This type of rhetoric breaks the line between freedom of speech (of which I am supportive) and actual call to commit murder against specific people, which is NOT cool in any case,
but particularly bad when we are also talking about killing babies and raping women.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Is/13.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top