Why atheists, Satanists, heathens, etc can't be Americans or Westerners

[MarcusA]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

You're nuts.

 

[MarcusA]

You're nuts.

Oh really?

An atheist can't have any objection to rape, murder, or other immoral acts by virtue of some "lack of belief in a God".

He can only steal or culturally appropriate those moral axioms from religion, of course.

So yes, a monotheistic religion which prohibits rape and murder as immoral, is decidedly more compatible and acceptable with our Law than a weak and effeminate little atheist who has no morality to speak of beyond that perhaps of a beast, or what he has stolen from his moral and religious superiors.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

Oh really?

An atheist can't have any objection to rape, murder, or other immoral acts by virtue of some "lack of belief in a God".

He can only steal or culturally appropriate those moral axioms from religion, of course.

So yes, a monotheistic religion which prohibits rape and murder as immoral, is decidedly more compatible and acceptable with our Law than a weak and effeminate little atheist who has no morality to speak of beyond that perhaps of a beast, or what he has stolen from his moral and religious superiors.

Aristotle had ethics. The ancient Greeks had ethics. Did not rely on the Christian God.

 

[Charoite]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

What you wrote is nuts. I'm a very non-secular Christian by the way. Your basis defies the Christian path and what it means. It is abrasive in condemnation and its means to indoctrinate.

 

[MarcusA]

What you wrote is nuts. I'm a very non-secular Christian by the way. Your basis defies the Christian path and what it means. It is abrasive in condemnation and its means to indoctrinate.

The point is that atheists than those with no morality to speak of beyond that of a beast or dog can't be trusted to govern or regulate themselves without the aid of a comparatively enlightened individual, so to indoctrinate them in to the right and moral superior way and path is the duty of the god-fearing and enlightened, much akin to a shepherd hearing a flock of sheep, who would otherwise be lost if left to their own devices.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

The point is that atheists than those with no morality to speak of beyond that of a beast or dog can't be trusted to govern or regulate themselves without the aid of a comparatively enlightened individual, so to indoctrinate them in to the right and moral superior way and path is the duty of the god-fearing and enlightened, much akin to a shepherd hearing a flock of sheep, who would otherwise be lost if left to their own devices.

You are a fundamentalist.

 

[AProudLefty]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

Bad thread is bad.

 

[MarcusA]

You are a fundamentalist.

So why should one who by virtue of their own views claim any moral qualm against rape, murder, child molestation, and vile things of said nature.

I see no reason why such and individual should be presumed to have any rights or means of self-governance; they should merely be quarreled and chatteled like the feral animals which they have so much more in common with than a comparatively enlightened man or woman.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

So why should one who by virtue of their own views claim any moral qualm against rape, murder, child molestation, and vile things of said nature.

I see no reason why such and individual should be presumed to have any rights or means of self-governance; they should merely be quarreled and chatteled like the feral animals which they have so much more in common with than a comparatively enlightened man or woman.

What atheist said murder is good?

 

[Trumpet]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

Are you referring to right wing Christianity ??????????????????

 

[Trumpet]

The point is that atheists than those with no morality to speak of beyond that of a beast or dog can't be trusted to govern or regulate themselves without the aid of a comparatively enlightened individual, so to indoctrinate them in to the right and moral superior way and path is the duty of the god-fearing and enlightened, much akin to a shepherd hearing a flock of sheep, who would otherwise be lost if left to their own devices.

That sure sounds like Donald Trump????

 

[Trumpet]

Oh really?

An atheist can't have any objection to rape, murder, or other immoral acts by virtue of some "lack of belief in a God".

He can only steal or culturally appropriate those moral axioms from religion, of course.

So yes, a monotheistic religion which prohibits rape and murder as immoral, is decidedly more compatible and acceptable with our Law than a weak and effeminate little atheist who has no morality to speak of beyond that perhaps of a beast, or what he has stolen from his moral and religious superiors.

Donald Trump has sexually harassed women and has swindled many people, does this sentence include him???????????

 

[Cinnabar]

You're nuts.

No, not nuts...just downright dumb!

 

[jacksonsprat22]

No, not nuts...just downright dumb!

Fair enough.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

Dude, God is just Fake News unless you have some proof that a God exists.

We'll wait for you to prove it, but we will understand if you can't!

I suppose you are as mad at and hate those who do not believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth fairy as well!

It's OK, we understand you are just an old fart religious eccentric bigot!

 

[MarcusA]

Dude, God is just Fake News unless you have some proof that a God exists.

"Proof" as defined by your nonsensical terms, sure.

We'll wait for you to prove it, but we will understand if you can't!

I suppose you are as mad at and hate those who do not believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth fairy as well!

It's OK, we understand you are just an old fart religious eccentric bigot!

Yawn, just another idiot conflating simplistic icongraphic imagry and symbolism, perhaps akin to Carl Jung's archetypes to God, which isn't depictable with imagry to begin with.

Simplistic images, whether "ghosts, goblins, flying spaghetti monsters" are just what atheists and simple, heathen people picture and imagine like they always have, akin to whatever silly media characters or "celebrities" and their silly, mythical, and rather fictitious and childishly simplistic notions of them are to begin with, as opposed to God, of course, which is transcendent, intangible, and not able to be depicted with simplistic images to begin with.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

"Proof" as defined by your nonsensical terms, sure.


Yawn, just another idiot conflating simplistic icongraphic imagry and symbolism, perhaps akin to Carl Jung's archetypes to God, which isn't depictable with imagry to begin with.

Simplistic images, whether "ghosts, goblins, flying spaghetti monsters" are just what atheists and simple, heathen people picture and imagine like they always have, akin to whatever silly media characters or "celebrities" and their silly, mythical, and rather fictitious and childishly simplistic notions of them are to begin with, as opposed to God, of course, which is transcendent, intangible, and not able to be depicted with simplistic images to begin with.

So, your God is a god of hatred.

 

[MarcusA]

So, your God is a god of hatred.

Hatred of evil? Why is that "bad".

Even in the Old Testmant, it was forbidden to make a graven image of God, like those of "heathens" whose pagan "gods" were simply akin to powerful "mortals", probably more akin to TV celebrities and the superstitious ways in which idiotic voyeurs fictitiously imagine and idolize them.

On the other hand, God as in the Supreme Being of the Cosmos was transcendent, unable to be depicted with the imagery and simplistic of the childish and simple-minded atheist or heathen. (Much as even in the days of the Medieval Church, images of God were not said to be "God" himself, but merely depictions of God for those who were not literate).

So no, simplistic imagery, or Jungian archetypes like "ghosts, goblins, flying spaghetti monsters", and ugly and inferior little things of that nature are merely the property of the atheist, the heathen, and comparatively simplistic, materialistic, and unenlightened rabble.

God, on the flip side, the Supreme Being or Principle of all the Universe, so infinite, like mathematics, that it could never be depicted in words or symbolism which a mere simpleton could comprehend to begin with.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.

Oh look! Father FoxTrump has sent us yet another prophet to explain why we're all so stupid except for him!