Class Warfare Blog

July 23, 2018

Writing a List of Christian Rules for Good and Bad Behavior

Filed under: Morality,Religion — Steve Ruis @ 1:06 pm
Tags: ,

I got involved in a discussion about the standing atheists have in Christian’s minds and a commenter stated this:

Denying all religious convictions makes atheists untrustworthy. You suggested that everything about people is tentative. That is the issue I described from the beginning. Morality and ethics aren’t fixed in atheism. There are no rules for good or bad behavior.” (This was excerpted from a post comment, but I do not think it is out of context.)

To which I responded “Please list the “rules for good and bad behavior” provided by your particular denomination (not Christians in general, but by your church). A link to a web page is fine, you don’t have to copy them.” (This was also excerpted from my comment, but I do not think it is out of context.)

This was a little snarky of me as I believe (not religiously, just secularly) that most churches avoid listing these things explicitly.

If one looks online, one can find some fairly explicit commentary about the sources of Christian “Rules for Good and Bad Behavior,” for example (this is from Wikipedia):

In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas locates ethics within the context of theology. For example, he discusses the ethics of buying and selling and concludes that although it may be legal (according to human law) to sell an object for more that it is worth, Divine law “leaves nothing unpunished that is contrary to virtue.” The question of beatitudo, perfect happiness in the possession of God, is posited as the goal of human life. Thomas also argues that the human being by reflection on human nature’s inclinations discovers a law, that is the natural law, which is “man’s participation in the divine law.”

and …

Writers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo all wrote on ethics from a distinctly Christian point of view. They made use of philosophical and ethical principles laid down by their Greek philosopher forebears and the intersection of Greek and Jewish thought known as Hellenistic Judaism.

So, in the absence of such a list being readily available, here are just a few things that come to mind …

  1. Thou shalt pay all taxes fairly owed. (Re “Render unto Caesar, that …” and Romans (6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.)
  2. Thou shalt treat all slaves with kindness as such could be your lot in life (Golden Rule, Ephesians 5:22 and elsewhere).
  3. Thou shalt not accumulate wealth beyond reason. (“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” and the three Christian virtues, one of which is charity. If one has a large excess of money, their charity is lacking.)
  4. All leaders, religious and secular, shalt be humble, and servants to their people, and never enrich themselves from public service. (“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”—Jesus Christ. [Mt 20:25–26a] [Mk 10:42-43] [Lk 22:25])
  5. Thou shalt not troll people online or in person as disingenuousness is a form of deception not in service to the Lord.

Got any more?

127 Comments »

  1. Each Christian is bestowed different gifts. Healing, spirit, mercy, tongues, leadership, etc. Honesty isn’t a gift bestowed by the creator, but the gift of bypassing ambiguous contradiction is given out like candy. The ultimate, unchanging morality from god and the Bible is non existent. There isn’t one. Here again we see the preaching doesn’t add up to what we see in reality.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by jim- — July 23, 2018 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  2. Steve,

    I was always pretty much taught, both in church bible-studies and in seminary, that the Beatitudes (followed by the Woes mirroring the blessings, Luke 6:24-26) were an easy 8-Point synopsis of Christian ideals focusing on the most important traits of the Christian: love, compassion, spirituality, humility, and mercy (Matt. 5:3-12). For Christians, simply reading these two sets of passages daily should soon put them on one of the PREMIER witnessing lifestyles that I personally think mimics MOST what a True Christian looks and sounds like. Let’s emphasize:

    • Love
    • Compassion
    • Spirituality (as vague & confusing as that is)
    • Humility
    • Mercy

    I RARELY ever see all five of these highest Christian characteristics reflected in a “proclaimed Christian” online or WordPress, much less one or two of them in conjunction at the same time. It’s almost as if online Christians only know or remember about 20% – 30%(?) of their Gospels and 10% – 20% of their New Testament as a whole. Knowing and understanding 100% of their ENTIRE canonical Bible the percentages are embarassingly low for Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Professor Taboo — July 23, 2018 @ 1:43 pm | Reply

    • Why be bothered by DETAILS? Much more important to quote John 3:16 (and any other scriptures that seem to fit the occasion) so all us heathens can be SAVED!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Nan — July 23, 2018 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

      • Whatever takes the least amount of effort or brain-power, eh? 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Professor Taboo — July 23, 2018 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

        • Brain power? I’m not sure some believers even know that those words mean. It’s all about quoting those Jesus Saves scriptures.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Nan — July 23, 2018 @ 3:18 pm | Reply

      • Is that the one that says that their god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself? Surely there are less convoluted ways for such a powerful being to accomplish such a petty goal. He could snap his fingers and start over with an entire crop of new humans without the rebelliousness, for example.

        On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

        >

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by Steve Ruis — July 24, 2018 @ 11:30 am | Reply

        • Of course he could! I mean … that flood thing was an attempt to accomplish such a goal, wasn’t it? Didn’t seem to help …

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Nan — July 24, 2018 @ 11:54 am | Reply

    • And how do these quite admirable traits translate into “rules for good and bad behavior”? How does “love” translate. According to Jesus it was to love god with all of your might and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. I have met only a few people who might qualify as examples of the second rule. And, I am not opposed to rules that ask us to strive for ideals (or what’s a heaven for?) but without some teaching examples, it is hard to implement such things, which is why we generally have more explicit rules of good behavior. Jews had 600+ commandments regarding behavior. Where is the Christian list?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 24, 2018 @ 11:27 am | Reply

      • Excellent questions Steve. Few Christians would be able to give you cumulatively consistent, biblically-based answers. However, those whose livelihood depend on having “answers” (ministers, evangelists, church-staff, etc) to these sorts of valid questions would utilize the pat answers from the Apostle Paul like Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 5:22-23, then the much later renditions of (possibly, improbably) what Jesus said: Luke 24:27 and/or Matthew 5:17–18.

        In other words, according to the historically rising trend of seperating from everything Jewish and its 600+ laws (that Greco-Roman Gentiles loathed!) of which Gentiles really wanted nothing to do with — and with Paul’s new popular version of “faith” not works — the Christological lifestyle was left open to all sorts of interpretation, subjective extrapolation, and made into a much more convenient globally appealing lifestyle quite suitable for the Roman Empire by 325 CE.

        Besides, most humans never truly want all sorts of restrictions, repressions, suffocating rules, depressing daily/nightly routines, or precise Do’s and Don’ts. It is not in our DNA, never was, never will be… well, except for maybe those too afraid of life, don’t want to be held FULLY accountable for their behavior, words, and life, and just want to be religious robots or puppets. There are certainly those types today and all throughout history. 😄

        Like

        Comment by Professor Taboo — July 24, 2018 @ 12:45 pm | Reply

        • Yeah, which is why most churches do not have a code of conduct. They want the room to weasel around any topic. A clear statement that having sex with children, especially altar boys, is verboten would be nice. Maybe the punishments for covering up sexual abuse of children, too? (Hmm, Adolf Hitler was an altar boy and an acolyte at a Benedictine Monastery as a youth. I wonder …)

          On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Steve Ruis — July 24, 2018 @ 1:35 pm | Reply

  3. #5, good to see the bible well-ahead on the nature of social networks.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by john zande — July 23, 2018 @ 2:29 pm | Reply

    • What good is being all-knowing if you can’t prepare people for the future?

      On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 24, 2018 @ 11:28 am | Reply

  4. Can’t believe you spent as much time and effort as you did with the individual in question. His entire argument boils down to the same old atheists can’t be moral or ethical because they don’t have a fairy wog dog to tell them right from wrong.

    Like

    Comment by Holding The Line In Florida — July 24, 2018 @ 8:04 am | Reply

    • But if enough people pound on enough monkeys eventually we get Shakespeare, no?

      On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 24, 2018 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  5. One of their religion scholars spoke for them, posing a question they hoped would show him up: “Teacher, which command in God’s Law is the most important?”

    Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.” (Matthew 22:34-40)

    Like

    Comment by Loy — July 24, 2018 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

  6. For the record, “the individual in question” never suggested that atheists can’t be moral or ethical. What “the individual” said, is that Atheism contains no moral principles. This exercise of “Writing a List of Christian Rules for Good and Bad Behavior” demonstrates the point. You cannot write a list of ‘Atheist Rules for Good Behavior’ without borrowing ideas from religion (usually Christianity).

    You atheists don’t have a fairy wog dog to tell you right from wrong. So where did you get the idea that it’s wrong to have sex with alter boys?

    Like

    Comment by John Branyan — July 24, 2018 @ 6:31 pm | Reply

    • Before accepting moral standards from a god, you should at least be able to show that particular god exists.

      Like

      Comment by Nan — July 24, 2018 @ 7:44 pm | Reply

      • Really? Do you accept the golden rule even though you don’t believe in the Christian God?

        Like

        Comment by John Branyan — July 24, 2018 @ 7:50 pm | Reply

      • If one does not accept that Good objectively exists as such (which is what we mean by God), then by definition there are no standards of criteria, and moral choices are merely arbitrary preferences.

        Like

        Comment by Loy — July 24, 2018 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

        • Could you at least list ten objective moral values that can be definitively traced back to the Christian god?

          Like

          Comment by Arkenaten — August 5, 2018 @ 10:00 am | Reply

        • No, “Good” does not correlate with “God.” Read your bible for verification of this.

          Like

          Comment by Nan — August 5, 2018 @ 1:03 pm | Reply

      • Nan, haven’t you heard about the Moral Argument for the Existence of God? I’m shocked! Their god exists because morals exist! And, of course, morals cannot exist without their god, so, can you spell circular argument, boys and girls?

        On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

        >

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Steve Ruis — July 25, 2018 @ 8:27 am | Reply

    • We cannot write an “Atheist Rules for Good and Bad Behavior” because atheism isn’t a philosophy and has no basis for doing so. There are, however, secular rules for good and bad behavior that do quite well. And stop trying to hijack morality and ethics. All of the precepts in your scripture pre-existed your scriptures and then a great many Greek and Roman ideas were “absorbed” into Christianity after its conception.

      Regarding sex with altar boys, I didn’t get it from religion. The Catholic Church for the longest time declared it was not right for married couples to have sex, unless certain prescriptions were followed. I got is from imagination. I placed myself in that position and asked myself whether I wanted to be that boy. I also have read quite a few accounts by those so abused and had emotional responses of disgust and outrage. I needed no Christian education for any of that.

      On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 25, 2018 @ 8:18 am | Reply

      • “We cannot write an “Atheist Rules for Good and Bad Behavior” because atheism isn’t a philosophy and has no basis for doing so.”
        TADA! That’s what I said from the beginning.

        Your imagination informs your morality. Because you personally don’t want to have sex with a priest, it is “wrong”. That’s cool.
        Just don’t hijack the rest of society with that morality.

        Like

        Comment by John Branyan — July 25, 2018 @ 8:35 am | Reply

        • Now you are just turning around my words as if that makes sense. I clearly stated that secular ethics existed but cannot exist based upon atheism because there is no “there” there and you whoop like you triumphed. Hello? Atheism provides no basis for a banking system, or a political system, or an ethical system, and therefore cannot be criticized for not doing that. If you do you are, in essence, complaining that cats do not bark like dogs.

          Secularism, invented by the Catholics but having a life of its own, offers a firm foundation for ethics and morality without religion (or with it). Atheism doesn’t and can’t, nor can it do anything in particular. You are punching down, John, way down if you are putting your religion on a field to contest with atheism.

          On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Like

          Comment by Steve Ruis — July 25, 2018 @ 8:52 am | Reply

          • Now you are dropping your own moral explanation like a hot potato. If you want to claim “secularism” as your worldview, that’s cool. That’s a step up from atheism. We’ve dropped the silly notion that you are “non-religious”.

            How does a secularist decide that it’s wrong to have sex with alter boys? Does everybody use their imaginations?

            Like

            Comment by John Branyan — July 25, 2018 @ 9:07 am | Reply

            • It’s a democracy John. Take a poll or stage a vote. How many people, religious or non religious, would check the “Okay by me” bow on this topic? Even all of the Christians in prison wouldn’t vote that way.

              On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

              >

              Like

              Comment by Steve Ruis — July 25, 2018 @ 10:30 am | Reply

              • I don’t want to misunderstand you. Are you claiming that morality is determined by the majority?

                Like

                Comment by John Branyan — July 25, 2018 @ 10:36 am | Reply

                • Yep! Can you imagine what the US would be like if it weren’t predominantly Christian?

                  Imagine you saw a boy kick a dog for no obvious reason … and no one reacted one way or another. What do you think would happen to the rates of “dog kicked for no apparent reason?” And if this majoritarianism were not true, why then do Christians teach moral and ethical behavior?

                  On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                  >

                  Like

                  Comment by Steve Ruis — July 25, 2018 @ 10:45 am | Reply

                  • If morality is determined by majority and the US is predominantly Christian, then your secularism is immoral.

                    Like

                    Comment by John Branyan — July 25, 2018 @ 10:51 am | Reply

                    • How would you know? Have you looked? Are secular morals different from Christian morals? If so, how?

                      On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                      >

                      Like

                      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 25, 2018 @ 12:51 pm

                    • I am not a secularist. I have no idea how they differ from Christianity. If secular morals are identical to Christian morals then we can end the conversation right here.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 25, 2018 @ 1:05 pm

  7. John…et al (John B…I would have commented on your blog but you don’t allow comments)

    Atheism is just a rejection of the theist claim of a god. Secularism is just a government that is separate from religion. (ie. not a religious government). Just because a government is secular does not mean it’s people or leaders are not religious. It more or less means that are laws are created to favor all instead of one religion. (or one religion rules over another). I’m hoping i don’t have to explain this further.

    Secularism is not a religion.

    True, Atheism in itself (being it is just a rejection of the theist claim), does not deal with morality but that does not mean atheists are not moral or have no source of morality. And just because part of Christianity contains a moral system, it does not mean they all follow it. Most people do not get their foundation of morality from their religion. I’ll defer to Matt Dillahunty for his discussions on morality because he gives a good explanation of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by David K — July 25, 2018 @ 3:44 pm | Reply

    • Couldn’t have said it better myself. As to what John will do, I think he has established that he is not looking to learn and understand, so I doubt he will check out any of Matt’s video’s except as a source of fodder to feed his world view.

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 9:14 am | Reply

      • In my effort to learn and understand I asked you to explain the difference between secular and Christian morality. Still waiting for the reply.

        Like

        Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 9:41 am | Reply

        • What exactly is Christian morality? Can you list some of them? Are you referring to the 10 commandments? Perhaps some places in the bible?

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 10:34 am | Reply

          • That’s precisely what I’m asking Steve to do. Name the significant difference between Christian ethics and secularism.

            Like

            Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 10:54 am | Reply

            • If you give me some ideas on Christian morality, I can give my input.

              Christian Morality…Kill the Lamb!
              Vegan Morality…Don’t Kill the Lamb!
              Vegetarian Morality…. Tofu Lamb!
              Jewish Morality…Lamb yes! Pork No!
              Secular Morality… Lamb Burger with Bacon Please! 🙂
              Surgeon General… in moderation.

              Like

              Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

              • No wonder the lamb avoided the lion!

                On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                >

                Liked by 1 person

                Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

        • In a nutshell:

          Morality refers to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

          However, Christian’s believe all moral are derived from their god.

          If someone such as Branyan was able to demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt then Yahweh would undoubtedly be given the nod.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Arkenaten — July 26, 2018 @ 10:37 am | Reply

        • Here is a start:

          It’s obvious that people disagree about moral issues, but the extent of that disagreement is often exaggerated. The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. For humans to live together in peace and prosper, we need to follow norms such as do not kill, do not steal, do not inflict pain gratuitously, tell the truth, keep your commitments, reciprocate acts of kindness, and so forth. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans. This is why we see these norms in all functioning human societies, past and present. Any community in which these norms were lacking could not survive for long. This shared core of moral norms represents the common heritage of civilized human society.

          and a start on a Secular Ten Commandments

          1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. (Jeremy Jimenez)

          2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. (Matthew Main)

          3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. (Isaiah Jackson)

          4. Every person has the right to control of their body. (Chris Lager)

          5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. (John Roso)

          6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. (Jamie Andrews)

          7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. (Carol Fly)

          8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations. (Michael Marr)

          9. There is no one right way to live. (Eli Chisholm)

          10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. (Maury McCoy)

          Like

          Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 11:40 am | Reply

          • I appreciate the effort, Steve. But I don’t think it’s possible to encapsulate morality in a list of rules. On your list, #3,4,5, and 9 aren’t commands.

            The original 10 commandments are given weight by the belief that they are from God. If there is no God, the 10 commandments are simply the opinions ancient shepherds. Given statement #5 on your list, why are your secular 10 commandments superior to the original 10 commandments?

            Like

            Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

            • None are commandments because there is no authority to give commands. It was just a narrative structure.

              And why should they be superior to yours? I am not the one claiming that there is no morality outside of religion. I am just saying “Yes, their is.” I am not saying it is superior, just not affiliated with a religion.

              Clearly you do not want to understand anything or look up things in order to understand, you seem to just want to play the role of “foil” in the movie of your life. Have fun with that. I am out.

              On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

              >

              Like

              Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

              • Sorry. I falsely concluded you were listing commandments when I read the title, “Secular 10 Commandments”.

                Number 2 on your list is: “Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. (Matthew Main)”

                Dismissing me with the accusation of not wanting to understand anything seems like a violation of that commandment. Good thing there’s no God keeping score!

                Like

                Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 1:56 pm | Reply

    • I wish you guys would quit saying I don’t allow comments on my blog. That’s not true.

      Again, I did not say atheists are not moral. Neither did I say that Christians follow the morality of Christianity. All I said was that atheism cannot comment on morality. I’m hoping I don’t have to explain this further.

      I’ve watched many Matt Dillahunty videos in an effort to understand how Atheists explain their moral convictions. I’ve not heard a good explanation. Can you tell me what you heard Matt say that will help me get with the program?

      Like

      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 9:47 am | Reply

      • I wish you guys would quit saying I don’t allow comments on my blog. That’s not true.

        Of course it’s true! You banned me. So stop telling lies, Johnny.

        Like

        Comment by Arkenaten — July 26, 2018 @ 10:42 am | Reply

      • I wanted to comment on your blog but there was no place to comment but I’m fine with responding to the true source.

        No, Atheism itself cannot comment on morality as explained.

        Why are atheists any different from anyone else in how they get moral convictions? Did you get all of your moral convictions through religion? Did you learn them as you grew up? Did you learn any of them thru your experience in life? Did you learn any from your interactions at school? from friends? Maybe you learned some through what is deemed appropriate and inappropriate where you live. If human civilization is (random number) 10,000 years old, civilization has had that many years to learn by trial and error. Was it an acceptable practice at one time to have slaves, was it accepted that men were superior to women, whites superior to blacks? Indians? Has our morality changed from when the aforementioned examples were considered “acceptable”?

        Morality is simply what society finds acceptable or not acceptable. We may not always agree on what is right and wrong in morality but a secular system does not allow one religious views on morality to apply unjustly to those who do not follow that specific religious view. Why as a follower of Buddhism should I have to follow Christian views on morality and visa versa.

        Matt describes morality as “well being”. It is in our best interest to focus on the well being of all. Here is a recent episode that basically goes over his thoughts:

        Dave

        Like

        Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 11:25 am | Reply

      • Neither can the IRS but then … asking something from a source that doesn’t have that to give is disingenuous. Atheism isn’t a moral system, neither is Christianity.

        On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

        >

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 11:36 am | Reply

        • Christianity is a moral system. That’s not even controversial.

          Like

          Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 11:58 am | Reply

          • So, behaving well and doing good deeds will be rewarded then?

            On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

            >

            Like

            Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 12:11 pm | Reply

            • What do you mean by rewarded?

              Like

              Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 12:27 pm | Reply

              • Moral systems have enticements, rewards, and punishments, no … otherwise why would anyone pay any attention whatsoever.

                On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                >

                Like

                Comment by Steve Ruis — July 26, 2018 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

                • What entices atheists to be moral?

                  Like

                  Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 12:38 pm | Reply

                  • Laws… Well Being… Having friends.

                    Like

                    Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

                    • I agree. Those things would count as “rewards” for moral behavior.

                      There are many times when atheists behave morally and they don’t get rewarded for it. I’m not sure how to account for that. Some chemical altruism or something…?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 12:52 pm

                    • There are many times Christians behave morally and they don’t get rewarded for it. Many people go out of their way to be a really good person and get nothing in return but they still are good people.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 1:38 pm

                    • Correct.
                      Christianity references God as the standard of “good”. The scripture tells us to be “imitators of God”.

                      Atheists have no standard for good. Atheists are not compelled to be moral agents. Still they do morally good things. There must be a natural, evolutionary explanation for this. Do you think it’s a chemical phenomena or does it have something to do with gravity?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 1:47 pm

                    • It has to do with the well being of society. I already covered this 3 hours ago. See my post with the Matt Dillahunty video? I explained the different ways atheists and all people learn about morality.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 2:35 pm

                    • I understood the point about well being 3 hours ago. As I said, I’ve listened to Matt Dillahunty many times. He hasn’t addressed the question. What natural explanation is there that causes a concern for the well being of society?

                      Christianity says the moral law is “written on your heart”. I’ve interpreted this to be what we call the “conscience”. I’m told that’s superstitious and unscientific. So I’m asking for the scientific, non-religious explanation of this regard for the well being of others.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 2:48 pm

                    • Interesting question. How did we get vision, hearing, sense of smell, taste? the capacity to use our minds and store information…etc..etc. Why can a starfish regenerate one of it’s body parts and we cannot?

                      Maybe science has some answers, maybe not. Should we go with the god of the gaps?

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 3:48 pm

                    • I’m sorry, is that a “straight answer”?

                      If there is no God, everything has a natural explanation. It’s okay if you don’t know the answer. We’ll just go with science of the gaps.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 3:58 pm

                    • Yep, that’s a straight answer. You expect an answer for everything and I am pointing out other things we don’t necessarily have answers for. Sometimes it’s fine to just answer “I don’t know”.

                      and I already addressed “Science” by saying “maybe science has some answers, maybe not”. But it’s always helpful that if you’re not sure, you research… If science doesn’t address it, it does not mean “it must be god”. Maybe “Google of the Gaps”?

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 4:57 pm

                    • Morality determined by Google. We’re on the verge of a brave new world here!

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 5:04 pm

                    • Yep, in this day and age, you can google just about anything. “How does a starfish grow its arms back”, “How your brain powers your thoughts”, “Christian interpolation”, “Where do we get our morals from”, sometimes you have to separate the wheat from the chaff… Like on facebook, If a sick person gets 1000 likes… it will cure them!

                      Go ahead and “Google of the Gaps” it!

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 5:52 pm

                    • OMG! “Christianity references God as the standard of “good”. The scripture tells us to be “imitators of God”.” Really, you set an impossible standard of goodness and then gloss over the fact that emotional and physical abuse is part of His makeup (Abraham order to sacrifice his son to prove his faith, Lot’s wife, King David’s 75,000 subjects killed … to punish David, there are too many to list here). This is the standard we are to strive for. Abominable!

                      On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                      >

                      Like

                      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 27, 2018 @ 9:03 am

                    • “This is the standard we are to strive for. Abominable!”
                      On atheism, there is no standard for “abominable”. We’ve covered this already.

                      You should consider ditching Atheism for a more robust worldview. I suggest deism. That will provide you with a god over whom you are morally superior.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 27, 2018 @ 9:19 am

                    • You keep claiming that atheism is a worldview, wtf? How does atheism help to see the world? All we reject are invisible deities that cannot be seen. You are the one saying there is something to be seen that we cannot because we reject invisible supernatural entities.

                      On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                      >

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 27, 2018 @ 11:05 am

                    • Just because something is invisible does not mean it doesn’t exist. You believe atheists have morals. Morals are invisible. Gravity is invisible. Thoughts are invisible. Emotions are invisible too and I don’t think either of us would reject them as part of reality. Rejecting God just because He is invisible isn’t terribly intellectual.

                      The reason I’m calling Atheism a worldview is because atheists freak out when I call it a religion, belief, or faith. What word would you prefer me to use?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 27, 2018 @ 11:19 am

          • Buddhism is a moral system, they do fine without a god.

            Like

            Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 12:43 pm | Reply

            • Right. Morality doesn’t exist apart from religion.

              Like

              Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 12:45 pm | Reply

              • Err, no.
                Morality is based on the society you live in. There are many sources of “morality”, not just religion. (Buddhism is religion to some, philosophical to others). Have you missed my other posts? or just want to keep the gag going?

                Like

                Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

                • Err, no.
                  Society derives morality from religion, not the other way around. Is this a gag to you because I thought we were having a discussion?

                  Like

                  Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 12:56 pm | Reply

                  • Morality comes from civilization.

                    I’m still waiting on your examples Christian morality. You never answered the question.

                    Like

                    Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 1:41 pm | Reply

                    • You just changed the word “society” to “civilization” and repeated yourself. You’re still wrong.

                      Religion gives rise to civilization. There are no cultures anywhere in history that became civilized and then developed religion. The morality of civilizations comes from religious beliefs. The only reason to deny this is secular (atheist) bias.

                      Human morality doesn’t prove that God exists. As you pointed out, Buddhists have morals. If right and wrong didn’t come from God, then it’s gotta be something natural. Maybe sun spot activity…?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 2:07 pm

                    • You still haven’t given me examples of Christian morality. I’m starting to wonder if you even want to go there.

                      I’ve pointed out where morality in society comes from. Religion is not needed.

                      Oh well… I guess we won’t be getting straight answers from John today.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 2:39 pm

                    • You need examples of Christian morality like “don’t murder” and “don’t steal” so you can say, “Atheists have those morals too! See? Religion is not necessary!” The list of rules doesn’t matter. What matters is the motivating force to follow those rules.

                      Atheists have no compulsion for following ANY list of behavioral rules. But you still have this inexplicable sense that certain things are right and others are wrong.

                      You have NOT pointed out where morality in society comes from. You continue to assert that religion is not needed. You have repeatedly ignored my questions asking for the natural explanation for morality (or “well being” if you prefer).

                      It is not me who is refusing to give straight answers.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 3:02 pm

                    • but you said all that morality comes from God… So if “don’t murder”..etc comes from Christianity, why did the Jewish people also believe murder is bad? why did the pagans believe murder was bad? why did Buddhists…? Why did cavemen figure out murder was bad?

                      Cavie, the caveman had a brother name Capt… Capt Caveman. Cavie was trying to push a boulder in front of the cave because of an oncoming storm… he didn’t realize it but Capt was walking towards the cave at the time and…. ooops… Cavie pushed the boulder as Capt was underneath it. It was a hideous sight! Capt died. Cavie no longer had a brother who would help him fish and hunt. He missed all the good times he had with Capt.

                      There you have it! It’s the same way we find out certain fruits and nuts are edible or not edible.

                      Anything else I can go over for you?

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 3:58 pm

                    • Nope. I get it.
                      Murder is wrong because it inconveniences me. When my well being is negatively affected, it’s “bad”.
                      Thanks for clearing it up.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 4:02 pm

                    • I guess you didn’t go along with the premise. Well, it turns out a few years later Cavie was angry that his cave neighbors woke him up in the middle of the night. Cavie remembered how he accidentally killed Capt…. So as revenge for waking him up, he setup a boulder at the entrance of his neighbors cave and Cavie startled them in the morning… when they came out of the cave, he pushed the boulder on top of his neighbors and they died.

                      It just so happened that the now squashed neighbors had family coming to visit but upon seeing them squashed they were saddened. Maybe it was an accident they thought. The sound of the crying made Cavie angry and that night, he went to the mourning families cave and did the same thing but this time, there were witnesses. They soon discovered what Cavie had done. “This is not the way things should be” the cave dwellers shouted! …and they passed a law saying that this was a bad thing and you shouldn’t do it.

                      Unfortunately, Cavie, who was out of his mind at this point kept smashing people with boulders so they locked Cavie up so he could do no harm anymore. (In some instances of this story… Cavie was himself stoned… and given the “death penalty”. )

                      What’s next? Will we be analyzing people being happy and sad and where that came from?

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 4:50 pm

                    • I get it.
                      Murder is wrong when you get caught. Cavi should have killed the cops first.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 5:00 pm

                    • You are overlooking the fact it caused everyone involved to mourn. I think you get my point.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 26, 2018 @ 5:41 pm

                    • Why the hell should Cavi care if everyone else mourns? Well being determines morality.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 26, 2018 @ 5:53 pm

                    • Everyones well being, not just Cavie but apparently Cavie just thought of himself and his own well being in this instance…

                      Thanks everyone for watching the Dave and John comedy hour!

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 27, 2018 @ 9:33 am

                    • …Why the hell should Cavie care about everyone’s well being? Cavie is the fittest for survival, so why not kill those weaklings before they pollute the gene pool?

                      Tip the waitstaff everyone!

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 27, 2018 @ 9:37 am

                    • Because when Cavie is the only one left, he will have no one to help him fend off the Saber Tooth or Carnivorous Dinosaurs! He will “die, or get seriously maimed or injured.” -Dobby (Harry Potter)

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 27, 2018 @ 11:38 am

                    • David, I hope you realise that Branyan understands the argument perfectly ?
                      He is simply being the little scamp Giant Nob we have all come to
                      love laugh at.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 27, 2018 @ 11:46 am

                    • I see comedy when I see it 🙂

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 27, 2018 @ 1:10 pm

                    • I hope to the gods you don’t see comedy in Branyan!
                      That would be almost tragic.

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 27, 2018 @ 1:18 pm

                    • I don’t know, It seems like a ruse to me. If I wanted to learn about morality outside my own worldview, I’d search the internet, go to discussion boards that are focused on that. Talk to people who have a background in morality…

                      Now, if he is looking for ideas for his comedy show… and wants to mess around with people, he’s doing a fine job, lol

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 27, 2018 @ 1:31 pm

                    • There have been several times reading his comments that I have thought he is winding people up.
                      But then I remember that he is a re-born and a Christian Comedian ( if there is such a thing) and then one realizes he actually believes what he writes.
                      And he has been punting the same non- arguments since I first ran into him.
                      His daughter is just as bad.

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 27, 2018 @ 1:37 pm

                    • I understood you the first time.
                      Killing my tribe affect my well being.
                      Selfishness will keep me alive.
                      I didn’t say Cavie would kill everyone else. I said he would kill the weaklings.
                      You didn’t explain why we shouldn’t kill the weak ones. What’s wrong with purifying the gene pool?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 27, 2018 @ 11:48 am

                    • Selfishness doesn’t necessarily keep you alive, the selfish one may become a pariah to his tribe.

                      What defines weak? They say David beat Goliath… but I thought it was just a great Sunday morning cartoon and I never say David beat his dog Goliath. There are some who are weak in body strength but strong with their mind. (They probably made the laws!)

                      But purifying the gene pool… Who makes that decision? and on what basis? Do we let the Nazi’s decide? Some rogue country in the middle east?

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 27, 2018 @ 1:26 pm

                    • You were explaining how morality works without religion, remember?

                      Survival of the fittest making you squeamish?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 27, 2018 @ 1:39 pm

                    • Ah … and now the sleaze bag little Johnny B. begins to show his true colours.
                      Come on Johnny B. Enlighten us with your definition of survival of the fittest.

                      Seeing as you are so moral and understand these things, right?

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 27, 2018 @ 3:59 pm

                    • Survival of the fittest doesn’t make me squeamish but based on your previous messages, it doesn’t sound like you have a good grasp on the term, As Arkenaten asked, what is your definition?

                      It is a good question because many people purposely take it out of context. Are you speaking of Natural Selection? or Artificial Selection? Other?

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 7:01 am

                    • This is the problem with Atheism, David. It forces you to talk in circles. You have completely backed away from your Caveman explanation of morality. And you haven’t even tried to answer the question, “Why not kill the weak people to purify the gene pool?”
                      So I’ll give you the correct atheist answer for future reference.

                      “There is no reason not to kill anyone who upsets my sense of well being. Noisy kids. Greedy politicians. Stupid drivers. In fact, I can kill people just because I enjoy killing! Serial murder brings me joy! As long as I don’t get caught, there’s nothing “wrong” with murder.”

                      You know this is a ludicrous worldview but you’re stubbornly clinging to Atheism so you pretend that I’m misunderstanding survival of the fittest. You pretend that “well being” is universally understood to mean the same thing to everybody. And you pretend that you can be “moral” without religious guidelines for morality.

                      Ditch atheism.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 7:59 am

                    • @ Branyan.

                      Hey, Dickhead! ( as the line in Grumpy Old Men goes).

                      Will David be going to Hell if he doesn’t ”Ditch Atheism”?
                      (As you will be in heaven, of course, I can think of no better reason to remain an atheist!)

                      Thank you for the post, by the way. It made me laugh …. again!

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 28, 2018 @ 8:05 am

                    • I was attempting to explain the origins of morality in a way you would understand, John. You seem to think the origins are from the Christian god but I’ve pointed out that you do not need a god to understand morality.

                      I responded to your question on the gene pool but you backed away from my follow up questions… I wonder why? Probably because you know where I am going with it… similar with the “can you give me a list of Christian morality”… you know that morality is not a Christian invention.

                      Atheism is just the rejection of the theist claim. Your stuck on it being a worldview. My worldview is not atheism, my worldview is a collection of thoughts and ideas that have been evolving my entire life. There are many influences on my worldview. I enjoy the study and history of world religions and philosophies.

                      Unfortunately, you are stuck on one religious belief- bearing false witness about others.. it’s a shame, seems like you don’t know the difference between right and wrong… lol

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 8:20 am

                    • “My worldview is not atheism, my worldview is a collection of thoughts and ideas that have been evolving my entire life.”
                      We are the same in this.

                      Please stop asking me for a list of moral behaviors. It’s unnecessary. I haven’t asked you to list your secular values. I don’t need to see your values and ethics written out to believe that you possess a sense of morality.

                      I completely understood your explanation for the origins of morality. Do you understand my criticisms? Can you articulate those criticisms?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 8:28 am

                    • I’ll stop requesting a list of moral behaviors when you stop bringing up new examples and asking everyone to explain them.

                      I keep hearing you say you understand but you are in fact moving the goal posts whenever anyone addresses anything. The last thing you mentioned was “Survival of the fittest” and instead of clarifying what you meant by that, you do a song and dance. I have no doubt that your definition of “Survival Of the Fittest” will differ from mine. I can’t comment on your criticism until you give me some background on your thought process.

                      Why not list your criticisms now so we can address them.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 9:32 am

                    • What is your definition of survival of the fittest?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 9:34 am

                    • That’s not how things work John, that is the aforementioned “song and dance” I mentioned above when I requested more information from you. I’m definitely not going to toss out my definition of it so you can try to attack it. You need to define it and address your criticism before I can address your criticism.

                      Please address all the criticism you have for it so we can focus on that. I don’t want you to bring in further elements and continually move the goal posts on me.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 10:03 am

                    • Sure!

                      Survival of the fittest: “The continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.”

                      My criticism remains that there are no morals in naturalism. Morality is a product of religion.

                      There. Right through the goal posts!

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 10:10 am

                    • “The continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.”
                      https://quizlet.com/136228816/biology-evolution-flash-cards/

                      Awesome John! But you talked about cleansing the gene pool. I thought for sure you were going somewhere else with “Survival of the Fittest”. Your definition and your criticism of said definition is certainly detached.

                      How do you know there are no morals in Naturalism? Can we find any morals in human nature? Has morality evolved in the last 100-200 years? If so, what explanation do you give for that?

                      I see you made the claim that morality is a product of religion. If religion is a product of man, then morality would be the product of man. Since we have several different religions that include various different morality claims… and religion is not the product of man, then we must have several different gods giving each religion their own version of morality, right? (and there are a few religions without a god)

                      …and then we have the question if a god (or gods) exist at all.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 10:55 am

                    • Now who’s singing and dancing?

                      It is your turn, David. Weak, crippled, handicapped people are not the best adapted for survival. Why shouldn’t we eliminate those people from the gene pool?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 11:09 am

                    • Let’s stay on topic and answer the questions I posted to you. In your response you have added elements that have nothing to do with your definition and criticism of “Survival of the Fittest”. In fact, the definition you used was the biological definition and now you are straying away from that definition.

                      Your response is called moving the goal posts. Instead of addressing my questions, you’re doing your song and dance.

                      I’ll await your response to my questions because they address your original question on the source of morality. I’m heading out to run some errands so maybe I will address your secondary questions later. But I’m definitely not going to answer them if you continue to move the goal posts.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 11:40 am

                    • Your response is called moving the goal posts. Instead of addressing my questions, you’re doing your song and dance.
                      I’ll await your response to my questions because they address your original question on the source of morality. I will address your secondary questions later. But I’m definitely not going to answer them if you continue to move the goal posts.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 11:45 am

                    • I asked you the definition of “Survival of the Fittest” and there was a reason for that. I wanted to find out if you took a Creationist view of Darwin’s theory but to my surprise, you gave me the biological definition. I think it’s quite ironic that you gave me a definition, word for word, from a flash card website.

                      Your criticism of “Survival of the Fittest” has nothing to do with what you defined it as. Darwin used the term Natural Selection (but changed it to “Survival of the Fittest”) both terms reference to animals and plants.

                      When you speak of weak, crippled, handicap..etc, it sounds like you may be referring to Social Darwinism. (A corruption of Darwin’s theory).

                      “Weak, crippled, handicapped people are not the best adapted for survival. Why shouldn’t we eliminate those people from the gene pool?”

                      I’m sure historically, the sick, weak and handicapped were left behind. The “Trail of Tears” is one example of that. Even 50-100…200 years ago the sick and infirm were left in an institution to live out their lives (more or less to eliminate them from society). Imagine for a moment we allowed Stephen Hawkins to wither away and die when he first became disabled. We would have missed out on a great mind. We have the good fortune today to cure the sick and improve the lives of the handicap. I see no reason why we would need to eliminate people from the gene pool.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by David K — July 28, 2018 @ 4:01 pm

                    • You said, “I have no doubt that your definition of “Survival Of the Fittest” will differ from mine.” How does yours differ from mine?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 28, 2018 @ 11:43 pm

                    • Other than copying and pasting from a Flash Card website and using a very condensed version. The biological definition comes close to how I would define it. I probably would have covered that it applies to plants and animals, pointing out that certain traits or genetics help improve their chance to live longer and reproduce- Thus allowing the traits/genetics to be transferred to their offspring.

                      Your criticism at that point is that we could only get morality from religion. Then your focus was on cleansing the gene pool. That is disjointed from your initial definition as explained because it is more along the lines of Social Darwinism which is a mis-use of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest… especially the way your defined it.

                      If you knew anything about Darwin, it could lead you to morality in the animal kingdom. Animals don’t have religion but they seemed to have a sense of morality. I wonder how that happened?

                      I see you still haven’t answered the questions I had above…

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 29, 2018 @ 8:00 am

                    • Animals have morality?
                      Can you give me an example of something animals do that you would consider immoral?

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 29, 2018 @ 8:41 am

                    • John, Morality is knowing the difference from good/bad, right/wrong. It took me all of 2 seconds to come up with an example of what could be deemed as immoral behavior in the animal kingdom but why bother explaining it to you?! You haven’t answered questions and you keep deflecting from the topic at hand. It’s just not worthwhile to continue on.

                      It’s kind of ironic that you argue against something that you hardly even have an understanding of. I don’t even think you are interested in learning because if you did, you would actually research things outside what fits your religious belief. Instead, you seem stuck.

                      I’m glad when I have questions, that I don’t have to seek only answers that are god or religious centric.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 29, 2018 @ 10:41 am

                    • You don’t have a single example of animal immorality.
                      I’m glad when I have questions that I can’t answer, I don’t tell the questioner he’s disingenuous.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 29, 2018 @ 10:49 am

                    • John, You have the tools to do your own research. When you can’t stay focused on a topic, when you can’t answer questions that are presented to you and just redirect the conversation then you are wasting my time.

                      I think it’s quite ironic that you are crying about me not answering a question and because of that, I don’t have an example. Yet, you have not answered any questions… using your logic, I guess I asked questions that you can’t answer.

                      I’m done with the conversation but would be willing to give the OP my examples and have them make a determination if these are examples of immoral behaviors in animals.

                      but other than that, your wasting my time. Research it yourself.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 29, 2018 @ 11:36 am

                    • I’ve done the research. That’s how I arrived at my conclusions. I’ve answered your questions. You should research previous comments to confirm.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — July 29, 2018 @ 12:44 pm

                    • I am sure you have realised just how disingenuous Branyan is by now, David.
                      His entire worldview is based on a presuppositional belief that begins and ends with his god.

                      For example, just because scientists have demonstrated that the biblical flood is simply a work of fiction, this has not stopped YECs from continuing with the charade.
                      Branyon is no different.
                      He cannot demonstrate how his standard of morality is actually derived from the creator character in a book, so he will do everything he can to make a mockery of every other position, even though there is ample evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the very position he tries in vain to rubbish.

                      He probably feels that his god is cheering him on because of some warped belief that by behaving like a willfully ignorant fool – and then once he has hit the wall by playing the hard done-by, self-deprecating victim he is demonstrating some sort of grovelling humility.

                      I have never known him to write a sincere post on his blog or write a sincere comment when he visits the blogs of non-believers.

                      He reminds me of the child that covers its eyes with its hands and then says: ”You can’t see me!”
                      However, where the child is cute, Branyan is just a Nob.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 29, 2018 @ 4:32 pm

                    • That’s kind of funny that you mentioned his presuppositional belief… that begins and ends with god, I was going to write that in my one of my last responses to him … but, I figured it just wasn’t worth it to continue on.

                      I still can’t believe he copied and pasted a definition word for word from a flash card website. smh

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 29, 2018 @ 6:36 pm

                    • It is the only way he could get anything that didn’t have Yahweh or Jesus in it!

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 30, 2018 @ 3:36 am

                    • I see that he posted a blog concerning “Survival of the fittest”, and comparing it to handicap parking space and handicap accessibility. He attributing that to Religion, claiming that science would have just let them wither and die.

                      I can’t believe that someone would honestly be that ignorant, it’s got to be a gag, it’s got to be him trying to be clever. But if that’s his honest belief, then I am glad I left Christianity.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 30, 2018 @ 5:51 am

                    • Yes, it is quite baffling. But when you read the comments from his Fun – da – Mental groupies you realise that they truly believe it, lock, stock and smoking NRA barrels.
                      James, (Isaiah) for example , is a full blown YEC ( dinosaurs on the Ark – I kid you not!)

                      Both John and his daughter Amanda are fans of David Wood ( he who nearly beat his father to death with a hammer – because he thought it would be a good idea) He later found god and is not a huge apologist and anti- Muslim.
                      Now there’s a bloke to admire, right?
                      And the Branyans’ are fans.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wood_(Christian_apologist)

                      Go figure?

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 30, 2018 @ 6:00 am

                    • It seems no matter what, once a fundamentalist, always a fundamentalist. Whether it is a hammer or a bible.

                      Like

                      Comment by David K — July 30, 2018 @ 8:35 am

                    • Quite!

                      Like

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 30, 2018 @ 9:08 am

                    • Typo: Is NOW an apologist

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by Arkenaten — July 30, 2018 @ 6:01 am

                  • @Branyan

                    Society derives morality from religion,

                    As humans invented all religion, then to some extent one could say your assertion is correct.

                    This is evidenced by the vast array of religions and their accompanying morality, which varies considerably depending on which religion one cares to look at.

                    Christians don’t generally burn heretics at the stake any more but some of the more fundamentalist types from the US have been known to support the extreme persecution of homosexuals in at least one African country and consider such action perfectly moral.

                    At one time the church had no qualms about liquidating all opposition – consider the Cathars – and the Jews have so often come under special scrutiny of the church, actions considered perfectly okay and sanctioned at the highest level.

                    The NGK church in South Africa was fully behind Apartheid, and used the bible to justify its support. All considered moral and ethical.

                    Fortunately, the more enlightened societies have moved on from these heady days of fervent god belief and religious righteousness where many religions held sway over life and death.

                    While the world still has to contend with the extreme morality as ”preached” by Islam, at least giant Arse-Hats such as you are going the way of the Dinosaurs and dying out.

                    What a nice thought!

                    Like

                    Comment by Arkenaten — July 26, 2018 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  8. @ Branyan.

    Were you in the least concerned when your daughter contemplated suicide?
    And if so, why?

    Like

    Comment by Arkenaten — July 26, 2018 @ 3:22 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: