To all atheists:

Yeah, when I try to speak more in conciseness, I really am just leaving out many prerequisites in today's fully brainwashed society:

I didn't say the golden rule was exclusive to Christianity. See the first link at my website.

You are delusional if you think everyone is a good person. You, being an atheist, have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to not wrong someone WHENEVER it's to your advantage. So, such a philosophy (atheism) is just going from bad to worse. Believing in a maker, part of the original "drive" that "knows" what's going on, and VIA evolution, is not illogical. Random accidents creating anything better is what's illogical, proving that atheist leaders are just as dumb as today's Christian leaders. People like you can only follow those dumb far-fetched non-realities. Science today "admits" it doesn’t have all the answers, so there's NO logic proving there's no underlying intelligence.

It's the Church's sex lies in this post-pill society that's, yes, causing today's Christians to destroy Christianity. No one likes feeling damned for have unmarried sex. It's the corrupt Christians: all the cop-outs avoiding Jesus' golden rule, that's causing all the religious wars, bias, and conservative unfairnesses. The Bible Jesus was basically the opposite of today's mainstream Christianity teachings: what YOU'VE been taught / brainwashed. So, Jesus was, and my thesis is VERY liberal.

Yeah, Perry is a great definition of a corrupt Christian. My thesis is nowhere near to his. You know there's an early prophecy that says today's Pope with come through with a truth to begin a much better society. Hasn't happened yet, but I'm staying hopeful.

"Not much of a God then" (regarding not being able to do real miracles). Well, I explained how even future science can cause a valid reason to be a good person today. The only really relevance to religion we should all be concerned with is the Judgment parts. So, God doesn't need to move an actual mountain to Judge us properly in our Afterlives. He's still logical to fear without YOUR necessity of miracles (thereby further proving me right).

No, EVERYONE does better by fearing God when they hurt others (who are innocent). That IS pure indisputable logic in reality. I don't know how much simpler I can explain it. People today fear God more when they have unmarried or gay sex. So, the whole definition of right and wrong is inverted.

You have definitely not refuted anything I've said with any kind of "reality". My thesis "fits" perfectly into "reality" -- that's why I'm impelled to write it. You're doesn't, as atheism will just make it for a much more dangerous future. Again, NEITHER today's Christians nor today's atheists have it right. I wouldn't bother to write if either was right. In other words, try to think outside the box and realize that just because I support one attribute on one side doesn’t mean I agree with all of it, and oppose everything on the other side. My thesis is very unique. Your thesis is just one of today's available stereotypes. So, next time try to "explain" better or more logically how I'm personally wrong about anything, instead of "just" saying I am, based entirely on what "you've been taught.". Any moron can "just say" I'm wrong; but, NO ONE has proved me wrong yet (about my major issues).

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#1.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:08 PM EST

Grisham

You are delusional if you think everyone is a good person. You, being an atheist, have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to not wrong someone WHENEVER it's to your advantage. So, such a philosophy (atheism) is just going from bad to worse.

I didn't say everyone was a good person. It's delusional to think every Christian is a good person. Also, I resent the implication that I'm somehow worse because I'm an atheist.

I wrote an entire article on morals to debunk arguments like yours. I urge you to read it. It shows morals are an evolutionary feature. That's not faith, that's reality and science.

Also, some free advice since you're new here - plugging your own website is against the code of honor and will get you banned.

You're doesn't, as atheism will just make it for a much more dangerous future. Again, NEITHER today's Christians nor today's atheists have it right. I wouldn't bother to write if either was right.

Show me proof. You don't have any. It's just your opinion and therefore can be refuted with proof.

Your thesis is just one of today's available stereotypes. So, next time try to "explain" better or more logically how I'm personally wrong about anything, instead of "just" saying I am, based entirely on what "you've been taught.". Any moron can "just say" I'm wrong; but, NO ONE has proved me wrong yet (about my major issues).

I assure you, I'm not a moron.

People like you can only follow those dumb far-fetched non-realities. Science today "admits" it doesn’t have all the answers, so there's NO logic proving there's no underlying intelligence.

Yes, but it doesn't take the intellectually lazy way out and jump to the conclusion that a supernatural being did everything either. And there's no proof such a being exists. If you want to believe, that's your choice. Calling atheists morons because we refuse to belief in an unverified supernatural being is just ludicrous.

I don't need fear to do the right thing. And I don't follow these so called atheist leaders. I have my own mind and explore the world using it.

You are no more moral than I am. There is no need of a God to be moral and lead a productive, meaningful life.

22 votes

#1.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:48 PM EST

Mariyam

There is a childrens game called Whispers Down The Lane (also known as 'Telephone'). One person whispers (or writes) an exact phrase to the first person, that person relays the message to the next person and so on and so forth until the last person has received the message. The original message is then compared to last message and the ways in which it has been altered, interpreted, misunderstood, etc. can often be pretty hilarious.

If you've ever been witness to an event that was then reported by the media OR have relayed events to a police officer only to later discover that the story contained significant errors or that the crime report didn't contain important information that was relayed then maybe you can begin to understand why it is difficult to reconcile the beliefs of thousands of groups of people when they can't even agree amongst themselves what is true or more importantly accurate relating to the tenants of their religious beliefs.

14 votes

#1.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:56 PM EST

Reported for CoH and UA violations.

10 votes

#1.4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:57 PM EST

CommisarCain

You, being an atheist, have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to not wrong someone WHENEVER it's to your advantage.

Grisham might believe that it is bad to hurt others or he might be afraid of retribution.

And, when science is able to detect and therefore copy our memory data (soul), they will actually be able to bring a deceased person back to life (so, don't get cremated, or your brain material anyway).

That is probably never going to happen.

I do think that God can create hallucinations (at a possible cost) making people think the River Nile is flowing with blood, but not really make it happen.

If He can create the universe from nothing, changing a river to blood would be easy.

7 votes

#1.5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:20 AM EST

Uthaclena

The Goldenrule Name

You, being an atheist, have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to not wrong someone WHENEVER it's to your advantage. So, such a philosophy (atheism) is just going from bad to worse. Believing in a maker, part of the original "drive" that "knows" what's going on, and VIA evolution, is not illogical. Random accidents creating anything better is what's illogical, proving that atheist leaders are just as dumb as today's Christian leaders.

First, there is the common confusion that evolution is entirely a "random" process; yes, there are random changes, but the viable changes are selected for survival value, and this seems to hold for social evolution besides biological.

Likewise, there is increasing evidence that empathy and mutually beneficial responses are inbred in species, even if the individual doesn't get what they want all of the time. Sam Harris explores this in the "End of Faith" and Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion."

Last, as Carl Sagan discussed in his article "The Rules of the Game," there are interactions between "The Golden Rule," "The Silver Rule," "The Brass Rule," "The Iron Rule," and "Tit-for-Tat Rule" that provide for different mutually-beneficial exchanges. You, like too many people, seem to believe that there is solely "either/or" ways of describing human nature.

However, I must say, that you present yourself as a rather rude moderator; it would be a more interesting discussion if you toned it down a bit, IMO.

12 votes

#1.6 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:00 AM EST

To Grisham:

You said my statement about all the lying, cheating, stealing, etc. in the world was "hogwash." I wasn't saying that everyone is like that. In fact, I stated that some people today surely can be saved. I never said every Christian is a good person. I said more the opposite. I'm speaking generically: I don't know or really care about how wonderful your personal ethics are. Even if you're a "saint," that doesn't prove me wrong about the fact that most everyone else isn't. By the way, if you are such a great giving person to others, then Paul actually said you are saved even being an atheist if you read Romans 2, and also in other letters. Billy Graham isn't going to acknowledge that. Neither are you, because you aren't even aware of it, and never will (would) be. "I'M" the only true Christian (teacher) around here; and, my help in getting the real Jesus known also happens to be the best possible philosophy for the betterment of the world. When one "believes" in Jesus, that means they are supposed to believe what Jesus mandated in Matt. 25:34-46, that they are going to Hell if they don't have a strong golden rule. Now, you're not going to hear that factual comparison in any church in this country anyway. So, there's a HUGE problem with Christianity today. But, ruining Jesus isn't the best way to fight those who actually oppose Jesus. My doctors SURELY don't "believe" that.

AGAIN (see my other articles' comments), by email about a year ago, Newsvine allows me to cite my website because it doesn't promote anyone or any advertising. It's just full of useful facts that people need to know.

Yeah, just give me your best "debunk" here. And, I'll explain why police and the courts find it useful putting the fear of penalties like jail in people's minds who would otherwise want to commit crimes. But, they are limited in finding all the facts to properly prosecute, and can't always catch the bad guys. So, a Fear of God is the next level. So, I just debunked your "morals are an evolutionary feature" without even having to read it. Low libido women would still get off masturbating today in the stands to the death of humans like they did in the ancient arenas, if it was still society acceptable. So, what we are taught in pride is what our morals are. And an "anything goes" atheist society can't be ANY improvement, even over all of today's Church cop-outs, which does cause the majority of world problems. Again, no one would be an atheist if Christianity was taught correctly. There would be no need to deviate with what logically fits best, and Fair Afterlife Punishment "fits" with... Fairness best. People would just look like an idiot opposing what "appears" to be the everyone-agreed strong value of Fairness. Again, even if God doesn't exist, future people will demand fairness out of whoever they decide to bring back to life (if it doesn't already exist in the spirit / small / subatomic realm).

Proof that I'm right is all the preventable problems in the world based on the "haves" not sharing enough with the "have nots." Atheism isn't going to change that! Atheism isn't going to change our inherent excessive selfishness. Proof that atheism will just make it worse is just in the logical reality of what people are really all about. You're living in a big fairytale fantasy apparently. My website is the only one in the world on the top of these problems, even down to proof that an abundance of free food existed prior to the monopolization of the land for agriculture, showing that welfare is not given but (partly) given back to the poor and mothers. Agriculture just allows the "haves" to force the "have nots" to labor further for the "haves" so the "have nots" can simply eat.

Thanks for telling me you're not a moron, now prove it.

I'm not using the word "supernatural" that's your word. "Supernatural" just means we can't fully explain it... yet. The underlying intelligent "drive" that is "God" is something that science can eventually find or explain. In fact today on the news there was something science calls a "God particle." Possibly that's some coming proof of the "drive." There could still be many more underlying levels. The "effects" of the "drive" are all over the place, and that's my proof. But, some like you aren't going to be able to understand anything until someone you look up to teaches you about it.

I don't call God a "being" either. That makes it sound like He's somewhere and not everywhere. God is everywhere, everything, good and bad. But, when you are sick, you want to get better also. The term "God" is used like "He's" a person just so our weak human minds can somewhat better comprehend it. We need these comparisons that we can relate to or we simply are unable to understand anything about it. You are great proof of that. All early humans, even animals look to the sky and such, internally knowing that there's something out there (or within everything) that knows what's going on. So, ask them how to better explain something that's hard or currently impossible to explain. You atheists can't feel it because what we are taught and brainwashed totally controls what we think (except for true self thinkers like me). That's actually one of the flaws in having high communication skills, over the other animals. I've even explained that our perspective of what God is would make Him very unintelligent at the beginning of the universe. So, science isn't going to find some super genius behind the point of the big bang, like most incorrectly "assume."

My thesis doesn't debunk any factual science or any atheist's rational theories of reality. So, insult me further by saying I'm cherry picking the logic from both sides, in a thesis where much of the seemingly contradictions can both be right. Like in the long time factor of evolution; where God's slight fallible adjustments is the only thing that is allowing thing to improve. Genesis' "day" added on assumption (probably by Moses) obviously was contradicting in that one of those days was the passing of four seasons. Therefore, the original Genesis fits with Darwin. Our drive to live and do things is just a powerful emanation of the same "drive" of what God is. We have much faster acting power over tangible things, but the part of "God" that created us is still limited and more constrained, but can still "see" or "feel" everyone's desire at the same time. I'm getting into inspiration here, so I'll try to get back on track with this issue of why people are bad.

Look, I can tell by the way you people argue that the only way you would even be able to understand my thesis is only if someone you looked up to teaches it to you. So, just give the name of whoever your atheist leader is. Is it Richard Dawkins? Then he would be the only one I should probably be explaining things to. I just target the Pope anymore, instead of wasting my time trying to explain valid truths to every following "Christian" today. You see, there's a "reason" why most people will run to their deaths towards a machine gun; and, it's the same basic reason why I'm having troubles today getting understood. Again, I'm not trying to just insult everyone, but "dumb" is the word that properly explains these problems with the most "accuracy."

So far, you stereotype well with standard atheism.

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#1.7 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:13 AM EST

To CommisarCain:

Our memory data is there somewhere, or our minds would not be able to remember. So, science can very likely eventually find it. Our minds are constantly remembering; so science may just have to only duplicate what we are all already doing, but in more perfection. I've got a theory that everything's (even a rock's) particle history is located in geographic trails from the big bang; and, our minds are just able to simply vibrate it out and relate the "copied" information it into making sense by simple comparison themes. But, that's not a discussion for this particular forum.

We're even messing with the substance cloning part today.

No, just because God placed things in motion, that motion is consistent, and it would be very hard to deviate those set laws of physics to a large extent. God can manipulate things that are very small, like our DNA mutations; but, trying to instantly move a mountain could disrupt the entire laws of physics of the entire universe. Part of what makes everything work is much in its constraints. Yes, God could change the consistent constraint rules, but the consistency could have very unpredictable results. It may be hard to deviate part without upsetting the entire base. Yes, I could be wrong about this particular point. Genesis 1 (amazingly) talks about God making noteworthy evolutionary changes, but only (basically) in emanation of a previous; and, calls / judges it either good or bad. Therefore, God changes small things NOT knowing for sure of the results or if He will be pleased with the results. Now, that's the real Bible: not what idiots have interpreted it as through the centuries. His advice for Jesus and me are based on that He knows what's really going on everywhere, hears all the prayers, and therefore knows a whole lot more than some atheist individual about what's the best next step for the betterment of the world. Clearly few can perceive all the realities that God knows, or more people would be much more concerned about starving people in other countries, etc. God would know things like how Hitler's atrocities aren't any different to what we did to Japanese civilians or against the American Indians who where on our land. Or, that it is just as "fair" for Iran to produce a nuclear defense, simply because we allow ourselves to have it. Very, very few individuals (especially congress) are able to know or understand that kind of superior factual knowledge and reality, until they are taught it, and only by someone they can look up to: someone who satisfies most on one's selfish desires first, and/or who others / peers say to look up to.

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#1.8 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:02 AM EST

CommisarCain

Our memory data is there somewhere, or our minds would not be able to remember. So, science can very likely eventually find it.

There is no evidence that science will ever be able to raise the dead.

Part of what makes everything work is much in its constraints.

God created the universe from nothingness. He can handle turning a river into blood.

God would know things like how Hitler's atrocities aren't any different to what we did to Japanese civilians

Hitler's atrocities were far worse.

1 vote

#1.9 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:17 PM EST

Checkmate-983933

Actually, Commir, look up the experiment of suspended animation involving the dog. That animal was pretty much dead at first.

3 votes

#1.10 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:43 PM EST

To Uthaclena:

I've written and agree that God or "underlying intelligence" may just be selecting the positive "viable changes" created by random accidents; but, that's "some kind of" intelligence doing it. The fact that it survives can't be the only way to create things better. That's putting the cart before the horse. Yes, "God" has made modifications based mainly on survival, or I should say survival of the fittest, but now with the high communication skills of humankind, Fairness is God's goal; not only so we don't all kill ourselves in a nuclear war, but because working together has proved much more wonder for us and God to appreciate than working against each other. I'm just trying to help along that transition, which Jesus set in stone (the Goldenrule). And, logically, an open bi-sexual desire could be the only thing powerful enough to make it happen (created by a simple fashion and acceptance). There's a "reason" why men don't like killing women. So, when men also sexually desire men (CAUSING them to be looked at as "a" value) as much as they desire women, all war games and even prejudices will end. Hence why Baptism moreover relates to Cotytto's gay priests (a super finding); while agape love was defined as sexual love in the actual Greek Old Testament that Jesus Himself actually carried. (Oops, I didn't explain the prerequisites first. But, I guess many would not like it if I told you where to go to find those details.)

So, the continued evolution of "empathy and mutually beneficial responses" isn't going to cut it. Just make everyone like everyone sexually, then it WILL be done. And, let's do it before the next President starts WWIII by attacking Iran (no, that's not just me talking, that's George W. Bush, and Bill O'Reilly talking also). Plus, Obama might go ahead and defend Israel if they attack Iran tomorrow. So, go ahead and just think I'm the idiot.

The "drive" we possess, that motivates us, is the same drive that created the universe. No, it's not in us exclusively now: It's still "everywhere." But, does have "limitations," as we should all know. It's a fallible universe; but, somehow today's Church can make gullible people believe that God has made everything exactly the way He wants it. So, if everything is perfect now, then why's is there a future?? It's rational logic that Biblical writers, even prophets, aggrandized God. The only thing we should be concerned with is if it is rationally logical if He can make us suffer equally for our wrongs against others. Everything else should just be looked at as commentary -- and that's even what the Jewish "Talmud, Shabbat 31a" says. (So, Israel is definitely not obeying their laws when it comes to insisting that they have control over the Holy Land. They can move to West Texas if they want to be void of persecution. But, NO ONE is going to be smart enough to deduce that logic. It's because no one has been taught it yet.)

I don't think I was the first to be rude in these discussions. But, still, my rudeness is factual: I'm not "just saying" someone is a moron without a rational explanation. "Dumb" I've EXPLAINED many times at my website, mostly in my former email newsletters ("Idiots of Mass Destruction.") I do possess an aptitude far better than anyone else's on my major issues. That's the ONLY reason I feel obligated to write. The reason people disagree is mainly because they've been taught or conditioned otherwise. So, "dumb" just explains that reality most accurately; and if I deviate, I'm simply not explaining the base reason as correctly. People need to learn EXACTLY WHY they think the way they do. Look, most people will run at a machine gun to their assured deaths, just because someone tells them to. So, "dumb" is the reality I'm having to address. Anything else is just bootlicking to curry favor.

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#1.11 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:14 AM EST

To CommisarCain:

There is no evidence that science will ever be able to raise the dead.

I know there's no CURRENT evidence that science will ever be able to raise the dead. That doesn't discount the rational theory that they can when they "advance," as again, our minds are constantly retrieving that SAME memory information. So, I don't need to build a proton collider to be able to realize that our memory data is "there" somewhere and in "some" format just waiting for someone to find it technically. And again, we're already messing with DNA that would be essential in recreating the same body. Your statement equates with someone, say, 200 years ago telling that there's no evidence that we would ever be able to put a man on the moon. I will try to refrain from calling you "dumb"… but, it didn't work. So: No, you didn't prove me wrong just because you are dumb.

God created the universe from nothingness. He can handle turning a river into blood.

No, creating the universe can certainly be based on placing things in motion without first knowing the result. Placing things in a certain kind of motion, then adding quantity, doesn't take near as much effort as changing part of all that sequential or time emanating quantity or consistent motion to all of a sudden deviate a sudden large part of it all, without unpredictable results. To elaborate what I said earlier about major deviations of the laws of physics, I think God can do it, a real deviation of the laws of physics here on earth might just create another galaxy from where we sit, and I don't think we'd really want that, nor would God. Or, even a little one might cause like a nuclear explosion or something. It just makes more sense and fits better into reality the way reality really works in appearance, that (real) evolution explains that small subatomic intelligent reaction "adjustments" from "something" that knows what's going on, different then what we know is going on. We only know what our five senses detect, and can only correlate that data alone. What makes us surpass the other animals is our ability to communicate, and our enhanced ability to correlate that data; which just proves something underlying enhanced that ability beyond our control. Look, random accidents alone didn't by chance create our fear of heights, the reason why we don't turn to eat our feces, sexual desire, etc.: there's something else "smart" that has programmed all that into us. That's all I'm trying to establish here.

Saying God can do anything unfairly degrades like the victims of Joplin. My thesis explains why tragedies happen much better than today's religious standards. You see, RICH PEOPLE want to think that God can do anything, so when no bolt of lightning hits them after they do unfairness against others, they think God is allowing and supporting their great selfish cause; and, they are willing to pay a church more to here its reiteration every Sunday.

Hitler's atrocities were far worse.

I don't know if Hitler killed more "innocent" enemies that we have in history, but he killed them for the same inconsideration that we kill our "innocent" enemies. That "ethical" basis is identical. Interview an "innocent" person in each arena and let them try to explain to you the difference. There is no difference when it comes to true ethics. I'm just saying our leaders and most of our people are "just as" selfish and evil minded as Hitler. You all don't automatically know this. So, I’m telling you all something that you would never be able to figure out on your own, that IS a real danger in this world and for this country. So, "just" insult ME some more! I'm not telling you all this to make you like ME, I'm telling you all this so hopefully there is someone around who is smart enough to understand the logic ALONE. The definition of "patriotic" IS siding with one's country RIGHT OR WRONG. So, I'm telling you all something that no bootlicking dictionary is allowed to tell you! So, hate ME instead of them. And, let me know AGAIN how the word "dumb" shouldn't come into play here.

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#1.12 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:41 AM EST

I don't think I was the first to be rude in these discussions. But, still, my rudeness is factual: I'm not "just saying" someone is a moron without a rational explanation. "Dumb" I've EXPLAINED many times at my website, mostly in my former email newsletters ("Idiots of Mass Destruction.") I do possess an aptitude far better than anyone else's on my major issues

Yes, I will agree there, The Goldenrule Name does have a knack for trolling.

No, you didn't prove me wrong just because you are dumb.

Trolling your own seed? That's just sad.

Or is it all just more lousy plugging for your site that nobody wants to visit?

4 votes

#1.13 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:25 AM EST

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is worthless when you are dealing with avarice egomaniacs who believe in a dog eat dog world.

Atheist know that the circle of life is a part of NATURE and man is natural, not supernatural. Good people try to leave the world in a better place then when we came to it for the children of the future, that’s eternal life. Not polluted and exploited.

6 votes

#1.14 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:56 PM EST

Silvaria

But, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. is almost impossible to curb without a logical Fear of God or Fair Afterlife Punishment (for real harmful sins; not for unmarried sex).

Nope.

I am an atheist, and I don't engage in those activities because they hurt other people, and because they are against the laws of society.

Since I want society to remain civil and avoid chaos, I obey the laws.

It's really just that simple, and I hope that helps. 8)

5 votes

#1.15 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:52 PM EST

Roy Batty

But, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. is almost impossible to curb without a logical Fear of God or Fair Afterlife Punishment (for real harmful sins; not for unmarried sex).

OK, let's look at some data....

1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons Statistics

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:^[8]

Catholic 29267 39.164%
ï»¿

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%

Nation 1734 2.320%

Rasta 1485 1.987%

Jewish 1325 1.773%

Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

Moorish 1066 1.426%

Buddhist 882 1.180%

Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

Adventist 621 0.831%

Orthodox 375 0.502%

Mormon 298 0.399%

Scientology 190 0.254%

Atheist 156 0.209%

Hindu 119 0.159%

Santeria 117 0.157%

Sikh 14 0.019%

Bahai 9 0.012%

Krishna 7 0.009%

So almost 4 out of 10 people in prison are Catholics, in fact 99.8% have a religious affiliation, and about one fifth of one percent are atheists.

Thoughts?

7 votes

#1.16 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:08 PM EST

If you are born a sociopath nothing will help you, no law can give you the emotion of Love or empathy, it can only compel you to behave and if you are born altruistic, you don't need any civil law or never need any religion except for Bingo… This is the natural RANGE of human condition and cultural memes can influence behavior but only within a certain limit. And If a sociopath thinks they can get away with murder or rape or whatever is to their benefit, nothing will stop them from it, doesn't matter if they are the Pope!

Morality is the term we use to describe the inherent trait found in all social animals that keeps them from eating each other. Because man is a more evolved form, his morality is as advanced. This is the general rule in all social animals, and as with all things there are exceptions, but it's false reasoning that make exceptions the rule.

You don't need to believe in a god if you are born with strong moral sense not to do harm to others.This is repulsive to most of us, unthinkable, regardless of what faith you fellow, or not. We make laws to compel the exceptions, not to control the majority, who are good people who don't need any compelling to do right by others, from the state or the church.

"The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species.

I sincerely... believe... in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities.

I believe... that [the sense of justice] is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816.

Welcome to the Age of Enlightenment that is the consummate of the establishment of America. Christians are about 300 years late because they still deney they are animals and think they own the patent on morality...

"When we come to the moral principles on which the government is to be administered, we come to what is proper for all conditions of society... Liberty, truth, probity, honor, are declared to be the four cardinal principles of society. I believe... that morality, compassion, generosity, are innate elements of the human constitution; that there exists a right independent of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

3 votes

#1.17 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:14 PM EST

ryoushi12

Wow, voodoo believers are more moral than christians? Santria for the less informed are basically your garden variety voodoo practioner.

1 vote

#1.18 - Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:30 AM EST

Some are yes, it’s false reasoning to generalize one way or the other.

I know christians have to deny this fact that morality is a trait of all social animals in a greater to lesser degree, and in a range of strength like all abilities of man that vary, like seeing, 20/20, nearsighted colorblind,

if christians don’t own morality they have no bases to their faith, it’s a core belief. But the evidence for it is incontrovertible.

3 votes

#1.19 - Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:20 AM EST

gmross

Roy Batty,

So almost 4 out of 10 people in prison are Catholics, in fact 99.8% have a religious affiliation, and about one fifth of one percent are atheists.

Thoughts?

Just one, I don't see any Wiccans, listed there.

Thoughts?

2 votes

#1.20 - Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:56 PM EST

lastone

Roy, you have an accompanment to that to show the general population percentage of each of those group?

Context is everything.

I could point out there are more white people in prision, so how could the system be racist in any way?

2 votes

#1.21 - Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:49 AM EST

Roy Batty

We are not discussing race, but belief systems. Keep to the point.

2 votes

#1.22 - Mon Jan 2, 2012 12:23 AM EST

Chris-735081

But, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. is almost impossible to curb without a logical Fear of God or Fair Afterlife Punishment(for real harmful sins; not for unmarried sex).

Yeah I don't buy that for one moment.

I think the exact opposite is true. So long as people have ready-to-order absolution for whatever 'sin' they commit and a dogmatic excuse that nothing they do is permanently wrong so long as they square it with "god", then I think people are doomed to live in a state of moral limbo neither knowing why things are wrong or being motivated to improve the way they think about the basic human interactions that cause suffering.

I believe that "god" is a crutch that people use to re-assure themselves that they are a decent human being when all other evidence points to a serious need for them to re-evaluate the way they think and act.

When I was a child I prayed multiple times a day because I was told that "god" would both forgive me for the things I had done wrong and would otherwise help me with the bad circumstances I was born into. I had serious problems that needed to be addressed with real world solutions, not pandering to the wishes of some ignorant nomadic tribesmen.

12 votes

#2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:22 PM EST

Are you guys playing games with me? I'm speaking the opposite of "absolution" and religious cop-outs. I agree those things are wrong. Are you understanding what I'm saying or are you just stereotyping me with today's corrupt Church? My corrupt doctors I mentioned surely use "absolution" to justify their lies against my health. Fearing "Fair Afterlife Punishment" is the total opposite of absolution or what you were taught as a child. God does not forgive you for the things you do to hurt others. You have to read the actual Bible. And, all those areas where "Jesus Paid for your sins" etc. wasn't contradicting Jesus' mandating of His Fair Afterlife Judgments entirely based on how well we treat others: the very definition of exactly who will and who will not go to Hell (Matt. 25:34-46). "Sin" in Greek is talking about "martyrs" who sacrifice their lives for their deity, which was very popular in the pagan / gentile world back then, which is where Christianity was practically entirely initially established by Paul. Jesus just needed to overrule all the human and animal sacrifices, that's all. -- Totally irrelevant today; including the eucharist, as nobody does human sacrifices today (within the law). The later Church changed the word "martyr" to "sin" and defined "sin" to cover all wrongs, just for another cop-out.

I'm either not explaining my stuff right, or not going back enough to my 1998 writings starting with all the necessary prerequisites. I'm apparently wrongly assuming that many of those simple prerequisites fairly intelligent people would already be able to figure. But, I think I'm wrong. What part of "Fair Afterlife Punishment" don't you understand??

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#2.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:04 AM EST

Grisham

I'm apparently wrongly assuming that many of those simple prerequisites fairly intelligent people would already be able to figure. But, I think I'm wrong. What part of "Fair Afterlife Punishment" don't you understand??

So now you're calling us less than fairly intelligent because you're failing miserably to get your point across?

Wow.

I think you need to go back to those writings you talk about and create a coherent article that anyone can understand. It isn't up to the reader to 'figure out' what you mean. It's up to the writer to make them understood.

15 votes

#2.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:10 AM EST

Gnostix1

So long as people have ready-to-order absolution for whatever 'sin' they commit and a dogmatic excuse that nothing they do is permanently wrong so long as they square it with "god"

Hmmmmm... sounds like a certain political figure in US politics, currently leading all polls in the GOP primary contest.

That being said... I can't decide which is worse in this seed -- the banal theology or the inept expression. It is an insult to God to suggest that the pinnacle of His creation cannot manage basic morality that rats, cats, and chimpanzees manage without fear of eternal damnation.

As Hannah Arrents observed: Evil is ultimately banal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil)

From whence I ask: Is banality ultimately evil?

11 votes

#2.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:17 AM EST

Kyle-2710718

But, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. is almost impossible to curb without a logical Fear of God or Fair Afterlife Punishment(for real harmful sins

Hmmmmm, Let's see...

I'm a military veteran, a police officer, a family man, a father of 2... And, an atheist.

I don't go around lying, cheating or stealing. I have no fear of your fictitious god(s), and I do not need your hokey religions to be a good person.

More harm has been done to the Human Race in the name of (or the hatred of) your various religions, false deities, and corrupted dogmas than anything else in history. Persecution, prosecution, slavery, torture, rape, murder etc., in the name of your great and benevolent god(s), simply because other people believe differently, you (collectively) view them as immoral, or evil. When will it end?

Why can't we all just mind our own damned business and learn to live together in peace?

14 votes

#2.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:30 AM EST

To Chris-735081 (more):

Let me put it this way: There's a "reason" why everyone slows down when they see a police car on the side of the road. It's "logical" because they fear a traffic ticket, that would include a fine, a ruined evening, insurance rates to increase, threat of losing their license, etc. Therefore, if people are taught that "whenever one hurts an innocent person" (only) that the rational equivalent of that suffering be addressed by a God in an Afterlife situation, instead of the irrational solution of absolution cop-outs, or the "simple" cop-out of becoming an atheist, then JUST the rational Fairness of the proposition should cause it to stick! Because today, everyone pretty much either believes in today's Christian "Jesus paid your penalties" (totally contradicting Jesus) cop-outs; or, just use the "anything goes" atheist cop-out. So, really no one today is anywhere near being sufficiently taught what should work, in OPTIMAL Fairness. You see, if people today can believe so much in all the irrational reasons for the cop-outs, then people should be able to MUCH BETTER believe or understand the rationale of true Fairness. Believe me, when you're all taught it, and all your peer friends believe it, then you are also going to also believe it. With today's church stressing sin as "victimless" unmarried and gay sex, then yes, it makes PERFECT sense that even atheism will make more sense.

It makes sense and is "logical" that a God that knows what's going on, who can create an Afterlife for us, would also create a Fair Afterlife Punishment, as Fairness is a VERY EXPECTED NECESSITY for humans. Matt. 5:23-26 supports my theory VERY WELL. Just look how almost all relatives of the victims in murder cases in the courtroom expect and actually demand that justice be served -- to apparently educate you all in something you all don't realize the "reality" of. So, a correct teaching about Fair Afterlife Punishment, pertaining ONLY against anyone who hurts an innocent person, should place a better rational reality kind of fear of God, then say someone who has unmarried sex or doesn't go to church, as neither rationally "justify" punishment in any intelligent person's mind, only those who "just trust" the brainwash of authorities.

You are basing your criticism on the FACT that today's Church has SO MANY cop-outs telling the rich exactly what they want to hear. You're not smart enough to realize this FACT, so you put down Jesus who is really the total opposite of today's majority of church goers. Jesus was the ultimate liberal, and today's church is mostly occupied by selfish rich people. Read the red letter parts of the Bible first before you go along with what the cop-out atheists are also trying hard to ignore! Just realize the miracles are really irrelevant, other than what was necessary to make Him the most popular religious figure ever (so, believe in miracles or don't); and that the unmarried and gay sex slams are actual corruptions; and that "love one another" (John 13:34) definitely included sexual and bi love. You will ONLY believe them when they say it wasn't sexual love, because your are "dumb" and "gullible" -- I don't know any "better" way to explain it!

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#2.5 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:58 AM EST

To Grisham:

So now you're calling us less than fairly intelligent because you're failing miserably to get your point across?

No one is explaining how I'm wrong other than they've been taught different. I certainly can be right when an entire stereotype is wrong. Millions of Germans were apparently following the wrong person during WWII, right? And, those were the guys with the guns. Therefore, it is VERY possible for a multitude of people to be wrong. Brainwash is very easy for multitudes of humans to fall for. Close-minded people are the standard with humankind, along with never admitting error. I am simply explaining facts and logic that is way above your head. I realize this, but I say it anyway because I do know there's a God, and that Jesus is His only full voice, and therefore I am trying to put everything together (logic and Christ) to help the future of mankind. You all obviously only care about yourselves and saving face.

Again, I'm not wrong JUST BECAUSE many of you are dumb.

Your definition of a "coherent article" would have to be something that fits into your established stereotype; that is, it'd be saying the same thing you already know. So, why bother saying or repeating something you already know. Oh yeah, if I need to make you like me personally, right? Well, I decided a long time ago to give it my all knowing that their would be conflict: I've decided not to give you a piece at a time, then some bootlick to make you like me, then another piece, etc. Otherwise, I'd never be able to get it all out. Scaring people to make them (really) good to others is a REALITY that can happen, just ask your local policeman. And, it'd be good for mankind, regardless of what satisfies YOUR selfishness, and saving face ego today. NONE of my writings, NOTHING at my website does me personally any good; ESPECIALLY when I'm putting down practically everyone. So, everyone assuming I'm SOMEHOW doing all this for my benefit is… wrong! Sure, a nicer world would surely benefit me as well as everyone else (except maybe the rich man), but that reality is probably not going to materialize in my lifetime even if my stuff gets disseminated tomorrow. But, you all are just trying to fight me on it, just so you can attain you established irrational cop-outs, that allows you to hurt anyone you want (whenever it's to your benefit, likely). So, if you don't need to, that just means you're "lucky" and have enough resources and things good in your life to lessen that "need"; THAT'S ALL! But, the adamancy that you write against me implies that you do every once in a while like to wrong others for you personal advantage, and don't like it when someone rationalizes why you shouldn't.

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#2.6 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:14 AM EST

Comment collapsed by the community

http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/cms/info/codeOfHonor

2.Newsvine's primary purpose is to provide a place for people to share and discuss topics relating to the news. Self-promotion, seeding links to your own site(s), and advertising are not allowed. More +
a.Posting full articles (using the "Write Article" feature) that also appear on your blog or web site is acceptable but seeding your own stuff is not.
b.Do not seed links to any sites you're affiliated with.
c.Posting links to drive traffic elsewhere for personal or financial gain is prohibited.

I'm pretty sure that means to NOT plug a link into every one of your posts.

First, I would sacrifice my own life before I'd be a baby killer like you

I've explaining why, you idiot!

1.Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation. More +
a.Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to moderation.
b.Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated, and patterns of such behavior may result in account cancelation.

I'm pretty sure that calling people childish names falls under this section.

4 votes

#2.8 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:30 AM EST

tyler

I would sacrifice my own life before I'd be a baby killer like you

I've explaining why, you idiot!

The Goldenrule Name, you're suspended for a week for violating #4 and #2 of the Code of Honor. Lose the signature with your website in it, don't attack other Newsviners - especially in your column.

As the host of your column, you are expected to foster healthy, open discussions by setting a good example.

12 votes

#2.9 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:15 PM EST

Thankyou, Tyler.
*hugs*

9 votes

#2.10 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:53 PM EST

Thread reported.

10 votes

#3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:23 AM EST

I don't think God can do real miracles

Wait, so this being that is claimed to have created the universe is real, but it has magically been neutered so that now it cannot even do the water to wine thing?

The ONLY solution is a true and rational Fear of God.

You are utterly confusing rationality and faith.

8 votes

#4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:36 AM EST

To I'm Ringo (above):

Both my theories that there is underlying intelligence behind everything (God), and that miracles can't really happen, "fit" with reality better than anyone else's explanation that I've ever heard. Again, my stuff doesn't fit in with any current stereotype, or why should I bother to talk if it did? Rational theory is the best kind of faith. Both cannot be proved in the here and now, but what makes the most sense is where faith can grow best. The more rational and the better it fits into "reality" the better faith can be. Today's church is losing members rather quickly, as they're still holding on to the sex lies. Allow the sexual truths about Jesus, His denunciation of marriage, etc., and the church will begin to regrow, simply because "faith" in a God is basic realistic theory. Again, it's not "if" there's a God, it's exactly what is God that is the question.

The Goldenrule Name ( http://www.the-goldenrule.name/ )

#4.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:23 AM EST

Rational theory is the best kind of faith.

Rational is something utterly lacking in your theories. You're simply trying to explain away why you think your faith is better than someone else's faith......well, in between insulting people, posting links to your lousy site, etc.

3 votes

#4.2 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:34 AM EST

I'd probably be personally better off if I just underhandedly lied, cheated and stole all my life, just like an atheist

You'd probably be personally better off if you used your time more creatively than just trolling on the internet.

6 votes

#5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:55 AM EST

SW Missouri Mule

The writer is the one who needs to read and understand the Bible, not Atheists. This article is pure bull@!$%# with contradictions and self-worship.

8 votes

#6 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:09 AM EST

The Goldenrule NameDeleted

So, any Christian website that doesn't have "Golden Rule" or "Goldenrule" at the top, is already secondary to mine. Everything at my website falls under the Goldenrule, and is elaborated only with the intent of making it a better world. That's the uniqueness, because I haven't seen any others that even come close.

, there is no way I could be writing this stuff for my own self-worship.

Oh yeah, because there is NO way that anyone would ever plug their website and tell everyone else how inferior they are out of a sense of self-worship....suuuuuuuuuuure.

4 votes

#6.2 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:37 AM EST

Dare To Hope

I can't get past being called a baby killer because I'm a veteran to read anymore of this garbage. Reported as advertising.

4 votes

#6.3 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:26 PM EST

I can't get past being called a baby killer because I'm a veteran to read anymore of this garbage. Reported as advertising.

"Reported as advertising"? That definite lie just further PROVES your [very moral] stance.

The Goldenrule Name

#6.4 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 6:28 PM EST

gmross

It seems to me that this article might have been written by a re-reg.

1 vote

#7 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:48 PM EST

smellsofpoo

Wow, what a heavily brainwashed person that Golden rule is. Personally, I am glad he didn't call this Vet a child killer to my face. There would be some facial re-arranging.

4 votes

#8 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:11 PM EST

Agreed

2 votes

#8.1 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:00 AM EST

To Smellsofpoo (and Abby):

"Wow, what a heavily brainwashed person that Golden rule is."

Our military soldiers are agreeing to kill babies just because someone tells them to, and "I'M" brainwashed??

"Personally, I am glad he didn't call this Vet a child killer to my face. There would be some facial re-arranging."

I don't understand: Are you saying you're not a baby killer, or are you just wanting to kick my ass because I speak the truth?

Can't it occur to you that I might have an antiwar thesis? Well then: WELCOME TO THE 1960s, man! Try to get yourself up to date.

Look buddy, I'm not wrong that you military people are baby killers just because you aren't man enough to admit it.

You military people need to realize that I talk a strong GOLDEN RULE when I call you all "baby killers." It's FOR the "innocent" babies, not the "guilty" perpetrators. And, remember, if you eat meat, then you're an animal murderer also.

***NEW EVENT***

You people where successful in getting Newsvine or MSNBC to suppress my Freedom of Speech (for a week). Great, because now I can add that ALL the wars the US has been engaged in were total lies and totally in vain, because the only reason we supposedly fought all those wars was for our unique Freedoms, that Hilter, Stalin, etc., e.g., suppressed. So, ALL those Americans died in the battlefield to protect NOTHING! as Newsvine or MSNBC just proved by suppressing my Freedom of Speech. So, as far as Freedom of Speech is concerned, America today is the EXACT SAME as if Hitler, Stalin, etc. took over the world, and got their way! (Oh I know like Hannity's definition of Freedom is freedom for the rich to screw the poor, but I'm telling you that the PRIDEFUL reason that everyone "thinks" we are fighting to protect, is Freedom of Speech.)

Even IF our military didn't kill innocent people, why would I want to fight for a country that suppresses my Freedom of Speech?? So, this blatant suppression of my further comments proves that even every "enemy" soldier on the other side that our soldiers have killed was also "murdered": in addition to the civilians we murdered.

Maybe you should read my Newsvine article titled Hiroshima.

The Goldenrule Name (Sorry, those wishing a quick link to more PERTINENT information, now need to toil longer in a quick Google Search for it.)

#8.2 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:42 AM EST

Look buddy, I'm not wrong that you military people are baby killers just because you aren't man enough to admit it

Correct. The reason you're wrong is that you're stating a blatant falsehood.

And, remember, if you eat meat, then you're an animal murderer also

Actually, it has to be illegal to be murder, so your statement makes no sense.

You people where successful in getting Newsvine or MSNBC to suppress my Freedom of Speech

1) you are responsible for that
2) it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can say what you like on your site....on this site you are bound by a CoH to which you agreed.

4 votes

#8.3 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:40 AM EST

To I'm Ringo:

"Correct. The reason you're wrong is that you're stating a blatant falsehood."

It seems you can only make such a [very intelligent] "personal attack", but fail to "explain" how I'm wrong. I've never heard any of our soldiers admitting (even to themselves) that they've killed or would kill babies, yet there was Hiroshima for one. In fact, it seems at this forum that they are trying to imply they don't or wouldn't.

"Actually, it has to be illegal to be murder, so your statement makes no sense."

According to my dictionary "murder" isn't limited to secular statutes or bias authority. You really are wasting my and everyone else's time in bring up these kinds of [brilliant] issues, to take attention away from the real issue in hand.

Again, Newsvine's COH #4 is pretentious imagery of the lie they're trying to instill that things aren't as bad in this world as they really are. They are part of the kind of [smart and nice people] that vastly judge people entirely on how "nice" they speak to others, while inwardly they (the nice speakers) are wolves in sheep's clothing. Real problems in the world are never going to be able to be solved without allowing one to talk turkey. And, when someone sets your baby on fire just to anger or terrorize your leader, the "nice talking" wall comes down. Again, all the "nice talk" the media tells about Americans, ignoring our atrocities, was the real cause of 9/11, and will be the cause of any future ones as well.

The "essence" of COH #2 is to stop businesses from posting articles that are really ads for selling something, or for any other kind of self gain. My website isn't selling anything nor is in any way for my personal gain/benefit (other than my working for God in a conceded effort to help OTHERS, which IS the "essence" of Newsvine). So, these Newsvine moderators are [not ignorant] people.

The Goldenrule Name

#8.4 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:03 PM EST

It seems you can only make such a [very intelligent] "personal attack",

You stated something that was obviously wrong. I pointed out that fact. It wasn't even about YOU, so there is no way it could be a personal attack.

According to my dictionary "murder" isn't limited to secular statutes or bias authority.

Murder is an UNLAWFUL killing. No law, no murder.

Again, Newsvine's COH #4 is pretentious imagery of the lie they're trying to instill that things aren't as bad in this world as they really are. They are part of the kind of [smart and nice people] that vastly judge people entirely on how "nice" they speak to others, while inwardly they (the nice speakers) are wolves in sheep's clothing. Real problems in the world are never going to be able to be solved without allowing one to talk turkey. And, when someone sets your baby on fire just to anger or terrorize your leader, the "nice talking" wall comes down. Again, all the "nice talk" the media tells about Americans, ignoring our atrocities, was the real cause of 9/11, and will be the cause of any future ones as well.

The "essence" of COH #2 is to stop businesses from posting articles that are really ads for selling something, or for any other kind of self gain. My website isn't selling anything nor is in any way for my personal gain/benefit (other than my working for God in a conceded effort to help OTHERS, which IS the "essence" of Newsvine). So, these Newsvine moderators are [not ignorant] people.

The Goldenrule Name

It doesn't matter if you LIKE the CoH. The point is that you agreed to abide by it

3 votes

#8.5 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:38 PM EST

To I'm Ringo (again):

If I had to pick up my son at a police station for stealing a car, I might call him "stupid." But, it wouldn't mean I didn't love him or not what what's best for him: It would mean I just wanted him to think about what I'm saying and realize a possible fault. COH #4 was implemented for negative, aggressive, destructive comments, mainly just for spite, mainly just to hurt a person; like the many "personal attacks" against me. Since you just don't like my rational logic, where your rebuttals just show even a more pitiful reality, YOU people can only rebut with an emotional or irrelevant ("murderers" like) tort. In other words, 2000 years ago, I would be sentenced to death. Burned alive 500 years ago. The "essence" of COH #4 I believe is not to stifle "constructive" criticism, but to curb "destructive" criticism. All my criticisms are "constructive" and constructive to YOUR and everyone else's advantage, not mine. But, like how police are supposed to use discretion in certain secular laws, Newsvine moderators should try to determine certain realities; especially when they don't censure others: others who actually provoked my like elevated responses. In other words, some laws and rules are made just to combat the real wrongdoers one is targeting, but knowing there will be exceptions or justifications. I don't feel I violated the essence of any COH, especially the one allowed by Viki Gonia, Newsvine Guide at "Newsvine Help". Newsvine moderators just can't understand or arbitrate discretion. Their bias against me and none of the other posters proves that they are the true violators of their own COH, in that they are just supporting those who simply don't like my rational logic, and wish me actual harm for spite (for just me being right). And, you Ringo knew what I meant by murderer (better emphasizing the crime against God), so you bringing up such an issue is more harmful to the entire purpose of the important gainful points that Newsvine was created to find. But, I know that when someone loses their argument, attacking the winner is what [strong] people do.

If you would like to know where God ordered us to not eat meat (to even justify Ringo's definition of murder), since I now can't link it to my page about the Hebrew corruption of Genesis 9:3-4, you're all just going to have to search Google for it. Plus, Acts 10 is really a message that the walking / real Jesus ordered Peter to not eat meat as well, and is a lessen to not trust every "dream" you have, or to not trust any contradiction of the One walking, talking, tangible Red-Letter Jesus in the Gospels (only); and, that ANY before or after contradiction (as Peter said was definitely the case concerning the eating of meat) deserves invalidation. Jesus even specified His authority by overruling the Old Testament in Matt. 5:38-39. So, any OT contradiction of ALL of the characteristics of human "love" (including sexual) that Jesus ordered us to do to "one another" not "one other" is the ruling settlement for us to follow. But, churches will "simply" lie and "just say" Jesus' love was a Greek word not including sexual love -- and you ALL "just believe" them -- but the Song of Solomon's agape in the Greek Old Testament that Jesus actually used PROVES it a definite lie. Today's Church could MUCH MORE correctly say that Jesus ordered open love. And, that today's "conditional" love in marriage is just a form of the Bible's denounced "prostitution": another corruption of the word "fornication." Many people believe all these end times prophecies may not be the violent destruction of the world, but a HUGE difference in the way we think about a major religious issue, "a turning point for earthy life." So, this sex lie IS it. There can be no larger of a changeable revelation, to such a victimless issue. Well, I'll give the vast amounts of artificial salvation cop-outs and atheism a step up, but the a religious based open sex society would strongly create more faith in God, instead of how it's now the key reason why atheism and other evils are growing. Open sex is powerful enough to be "the key" to the solution to everything else, even in stopping the slaughter of innocent animals.

I moved to Newsvine hoping that news people would be a bit more intelligent than the other places I've been. But, I'm finding no difference.

I was saying not my violations but more the fact that Newsvine has and enforces those Freedom of Speech restrictions in the first place. Lots of people have tried to suppress my thesis, but this is the first time someone has mandated how I say it (since grammar school) limiting important emphasis. Any kind of pretentious suppression of speech are based on the concept that dishonesty is good or better, even in vulgar slang. If one is disallowed to sadden another's self pride using truth and reality, then that is definite suppression of progress. Sure, such would allow all the emotional assertions intended to just hurt another, but mine are not to hurt but to help. Spite just really shows where someone has failed in argument. So, allow it as well. Newsvine's moderators apparently lack realistic discretion.

Now, police shouldn't mistake discretion for bias. Police are still at fault when they side with women in domestic issues, side with the wealthy over the poor, age discrimination, etc. A good police officer stays consistent in his discretions, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, etc.; and, doesn't ever use or support excessive force, which only teaches the criminal that's it's okay for authorities to break the rules but it's not okay for the criminal to sell pot, etc. This is probably why many come out of prison worse than when they went in. "Fairness": it's expected from EVERYONE today! But, concerning Fair Afterlife Judgment, both Christians and atheists seem to not see a need or even a desire for it. I do get victims of false standards emailing me thanks all the time: People who were born out of wedlock, people who want to be a "good" person but still desire others sexually, etc.

I am disallowed by Newsvine to say the word that best describes why certain police use excessive force (because they are "").

Realize that the selfish human mind does tend to block out its own misdoings, and many victims don't even know they've been victimized many times, as many wrongs just trickle down, while others may be more direct. Most wrongs today are via deceit, and deceit means one has been deceived, and therefore does not even know they've been deceived / victimized. And, a form of deceit is trying to make a big deal about something like a definition of "murderer" to redirect people's attention about the real debate, that you, Ringo, lost. Now, "just say" you didn't lose the debate without explanation. -- That's another kind of deceit or misleading of reality; that I might mention many other [really smart] people will "just trust". So, it's definitely to your advantage at this forum. Realize that many times saying nothing or ignoring something is deceit. I get A LOT of that!

After becoming victimized by this COH pretentious dictatorship, and the reality of it being just for favoritism, I've been better noticing the MANY "personal attacks" on CNN and Fox News. Bernie Goldberg even did an entire bit about all the personal attacks he gets. The LA police spokesman called their unapprehended arsonist an "SOB." That's a personal attack. It's just the way people communicate today. Think more like: sticks and stone can break your bones, but words can never hurt you. You see, calling someone an idiot is constructive criticism actually explaining the root reason why people are limited to only what they've been taught, to motivate them to try to think outside their box. Calling someone an SOB or the "F" word are really non-constructive non-helpful criticisms, not specifying the area one needs to improve, just showing spiteful, revenge-seeking emotions. It does show, however, that they have an intent to destructively hurt the person. I'm definitely not saying the police spokesman wasn't justified: I'm just trying to explain the differences that the COH is trying to lessen, but still shouldn't even then.

(Obviously I'm hoping someone intelligent will be reading all this someday.)

The Goldenrule Name (I realize that what I do is SO unique that it justifies Newsvine moderators to misunderstand it.)

1 vote

#8.6 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 7:47 PM EST

You sure type a lot. I just hope that one day all your typing could have something to do with the topic and be devoid of CoH violations. Looks like I'm out of luck so far.

5 votes

#8.7 - Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:39 AM EST

Looks like I'm out of luck so far.

If I was a betting man...but I'm a woman. Still, the odds aren't in your favor.

4 votes

#8.8 - Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:47 AM EST

ibfishin

Morality comes from the heart not having some hypocritcal bunch of morons trying to tell others how to act.

2 votes

#9 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:56 AM EST

To "ibfishin":

"Morality comes from the heart not having some hypocritcal bunch of morons trying to tell others how to act."

Boy my article assumed people would already know a lot of its prerequisites, but apparently no one can really think outside the box: If it's not taught to them then they flat-out don't know it.

So, the lesson here is: ALL babies are born totally lacking of the Goldenrule moral. They are 100% selfish, because they don't really know that others even exist yet, much less that those others have similar feelings. When they learn these things, they STILL have an embedded desire just for themselves, and are going to still act upon ANYTHING that's to their advantage, but hurts another. They may not care if their brother is playing with a certain toy, but they will grab it out of his hand WHENEVER they decide they want to play with it. They only LEARN the Goldenrule, e.g., when (1) they get hit by their brother for taking the toy, (2) get spanked by their parents, (3) grow up spoiled and get beat up for being mean to someone else, (4) go to jail for committing a crime (rightly for something they did that hurt someone else), (5) have read Matthew 5:23-26 and 25:34-46, (etc.) So, none of us are "just" born moral or immoral. It's NOT in our DNA! Our "environment" and "everything our five senses detect up to this moment" is the ONLY determining factor when someone does or doesn't hurt another: Whether we are raised in the ghetto, raised by a wealthy family, peered by idiots, peered by intelligent / wise people, personal health, our looks, our intelligence, our communication skills, luck, etc. all determines our Goldenrule morality (and even where traumatic experiences can make or break a person). That's why there needs to be a fair and correct Fear of God teaching. Not some religious church VERBAL teachings that "suggests" we be good to one another, but is overruled by the MANY religious "hypocritical" absolution cop-outs (like "Jesus paid your penalties"), designed not by the authoritative Jesus, but from spin and corruption of Paul's letters and the Old Testament. Oh, something else none of you would ever be able to figure out on your own, is that "the money" determines what the Church "verbally" tells everyone today; and, even ALL you atheists (apparently) "just believe" them (of what Christ really didn't say and FIRMLY contradicted). And therefore NONE of you have the slightest idea how to make the world a better place. Only "I" have figured it all out -- and, with the help of the true Jesus: the One in the Bible, not the one you're going the hear about in any corrupt church. It’s a HUGE corruption! It's the basis of MANY unfairnesses and hurting of innocents in the world! I don't know how else to explain it to ALL you people who already know it all. Christ is a good figure to follow. Atheism can never put the true Fear of God in anyone, to alleviate or stop people from hurting others. The courts are very limited in their help.

The Goldenrule Name (You know my website is entirely beneficial for YOU and EVERYONE ELSE only: It does me absolutely no good. I have sacrificed years of my time for YOU, and this is how you repay me.)

1 vote

#9.1 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:59 AM EST

Reported.
Advertising

4 votes

#9.2 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:05 AM EST

ol doc gold

But, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. is almost impossible to curb without a logical Fear of God or Fair Afterlife Punishment (for real harmful sins; not for unmarried sex).

Thats garbage buddy, you are basically implying that atheists are amoral by nature. It also doesn't explain the multitude of theists that SAY they believe in god, yet still sin on a regular basis.

Call me crazy but if I truly believed in god and the afterlife...I would be a friggin saint. I mean anything short of perfect life and you are risking divine intervention or eternal damnation!

What is more scary to me is a person who believes in god, and therefore believes that god's forgiveness is all that is required during such transgressions and they have literally NO concern over their effect on society. Like that freak show in florida that was burning korans for @!$%#s and giggles.

5 votes

#10 - Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:13 AM EST

"The compulsions of the law seem to have been provided for those only who require compulsions." --Thomas Jefferson to Albemarle County Commissioners, 1780.

3 votes

#10.1 - Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:23 AM EST

To "ol doc gold"

"Thats garbage buddy, you are basically implying that atheists are amoral by nature. It also doesn't explain the multitude of theists that SAY they believe in god, yet still sin on a regular basis."

No, I saying EVERYONE is amoral by nature. Again, today's "Christians" use their absolution (artificial salvation cop-outs) that ALSO removes their Fear of God. You are delusional implying that all atheists are moral (never hurt an innocent person), in your attempts to conclude that there is no need for a Fear of God. [I hope the word "delusional" is not a "personal attack" because it is the best English word for the valuable point I am trying to describe.]

Again, many of you atheists like to correctly point out all the hypocrisy in today's Christianity, to justify your case that there's no God or that Jesus didn't speak contrarily. The ENTIRE reason for today's Christian's MANY violations is simply because of all their artificial salvation cop-outs that the rich man wants to hear in today's churches (otherwise churches wouldn't get near as much money). Like "Jesus paid your penalty," "faith alone," "amazing grace," etc. If I tell my son that he needs to go to school, but say there's no penalty if he doesn't, then I've obliterated what he "needs" to do and HE'S JUST GOING TO DO WHAT HE WANTS! Today's Goldenrule is taught in (some) of today's churches but is obliterated by just one cop-out. I apparently am the ONLY person who is addressing this real problem in intelligence and in Jesus factuality. Becoming an atheist is just ANOTHER kind of cop-out. Atheists are NEVER going to be able to better solve the world's unfairnesses. The arguments you atheists are giving me are even more unrealistic that the arguments today's Christian's cop-out on. When you atheists denounce God and Jesus just because of all of today's Christian hypocrisy, instead of fighting the hypocrisy alone, you are proving that you also just seek total cop-outs; which just further proves to me that I'm working on something that's big: the no one is aware of. "Fair Afterlife Punishment" is "Fair" and logical. Today's "Christian" vast absolutions (of "Fair") and atheism are neither good promotions for "Fair." [Again, I'm addressing atheists and Christians as a whole: I'm not trying to violate Newsvine's COH with personal attacks.]

The Goldenrule Name (Find my website and take what is yours!)

#10.2 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:13 AM EST

Reported
More advertising

2 votes

#10.3 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:06 AM EST

Reported
More advertising

http://www.answers.com/topic/advertising, "advertising" : "The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business". Are you [not insane]?? I'm not selling shoes here.

The Goldenrule Name

#10.4 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:29 PM EST

Reported.
Personal Attack.

7 votes

#10.5 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:15 PM EST

Hortus custodis

How about actually adhering to your name?

This vine is a blatant attempt to promote your own website, thus, it is advertising! Your definition of "advertising" is much to narrow!

Finally, you repeatedly use ad hominems in your responses. I am surprised that the entire vine has not been deleted by the mods!

5 votes

#10.6 - Mon Jan 2, 2012 8:33 AM EST

To I'm Ringo (at Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:30 AM EST):

"2.Newsvine's primary purpose is to provide a place for people to share and discuss topics relating to the news."

All my subjects are newsworthy, and relate to current news issues. E.g., I don't need to seed an article first to an existing article about the well known conflict between the Creationists and the Evolutionists, for people to know that that hot topic exists in today's news. Again all my Newsvine "newsworthy" articles relate to research I've done posted at my totally non-commercial and totally non-self-promotional website. It is "reasonable" that interested readers would want to also read that researched information.

My definitions like "baby killer" or "idiots" aren't vain, "childish names" emotions. They are FACTS that NEED to be brought into light. I'm only being frank. Just because you don't like those realities doesn't mean I'm in error specifying them. I'm not going to be like today's news leaders who only tell one side of the story concerning international conflicts. It's today's news leaders who CAUSED 9/11, the Iraq war, etc., BECAUSE they aren't giving the American people the correct or adequate or fair reasons why these terrorists are angry. Therefore, the "stupid" American public will actually think our enemies are angry for no good reason: that they are all "just" evil and "just" crazy. Then they will pressure our equally stupid President to just "continue" the same kinds of unfairnesses, somehow thinking that's going to make our enemies not want to kill us. So, "stupid" IS the root cause of these kinds of problems; SO, I'm going to be the only one who is really trying to help the world. I'm the "one" who really deserves the Noble "Peace" Prize. The reason our news organizations don't want to ever say anything bad about America is because their ratings will go down if they do. You see, THEY have "self-promotional" financial interests! So, what I do is VERY unique and VERY important; and VERY non-self-promoting!

If it was YOUR baby that was just killed by an American soldier, then you WOULD NOT be "stupid" then! But, you retain your stupidity EVEN AFTER I explain it to you. So, "stupid" is really a mild word for it. Again, you all ONLY know YOUR stupid baby selfish emotions, that all! You ALL only know what you've been taught, and can't "think outside that box" hardly at all. So, don't put ME down because I can.

Ringo, aren't you ABLE to see that it's people like YOU who throw out MINDLESS insults, when you say: "Trolling your own seed? That's just SAD. Or is it all just more LOUSY plugging for your site that NOBODY WANTS TO VISIT?" But, again, Freedom of Speech for you allows your mindless chatter, so I CAN respect it. YOU PEOPLE need to LEARN how to respect my Freedom of Speech, my civil rights: the one thing that we "say" we're fighting all these wars for. That fact that we're really not fighting all our wars for it doesn't diminish the fact that such (Freedom of Speech) would be a very, very proud thing to die for. So, I'm not going to let you "kill" my writings here either! LEARN that the unique thing about Freedom of Speech is that it allows someone to say stuff even though some or even many will not like it or agree with it. Otherwise, Freedom of Speech would be nothing if one had to always please, like, the communist government, e.g. If you don't like what Freedom of Speech really allows, then move to China or Iran or wherever it's suppressed. Realize, I'm not using any words or tones that you aren't going to hear in a heated / in-your-face discussion on the O'Reilly Factor. So, when I'm talking about the unfair death of innocent people, realize I'm not going to pull any punches, just because YOU want to live in a BIG LYING fairytale world. I'm not going to talk to you people like I'm reading you a bedtime story, while YOU'RE all provoking me!

Surely 200 years ago the South would have wanted my speech against slavery stopped in THIS same manner as well. Well, who would have been right? So, QUIT standing in the way of the progress of mankind, and just shut up unless you have some "reasonable" evidence telling how I'm wrong about anything, other than the fact that you've "just" been TAUGHT otherwise.

Again, I received a reply email on "January 19, 2011 10:53 A" from Viki Gonia, Newsvine Guide at "Newsvine Help" per my unique request, stating "You can provide a discreet link at the bottom of your article, but please beware of posting self-promotional links. You may want to also list the website on your column."

The Goldenrule Name

#11 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:28 AM EST

But, you retain your stupidity

YOUR stupid baby selfish emotions

So you still have nothing but more trolling. Not long until you are suspended again for your blatant disregard of the CoH.

2 votes

#11.1 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:49 AM EST

I like the fact Ringo that that's the only thing you have to rebut.

#11.2 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:07 PM EST

And yet you cannot do it, because there is no honestly denying by anyone that you willfully and blatantly violate the CoH.

I don't even read most of what you post, since you make it clear with such actions that you are not really trying to communicate anything.

3 votes

#11.3 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:11 PM EST

Again Ringo, it's REAL "easy" to "just say" the things you say. It's people like you who need my medicine the most.

#11.4 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 7:53 PM EST

No thank, I avoid the use of hallucinogens.

6 votes

#11.5 - Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:32 AM EST

Priceless, Ringo!
Well said!
:D

TGRN,
Reported for advertising.
If we want medicine, we'll see a doctor.

5 votes

#11.6 - Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:29 AM EST

To tyler (at Newsvine):

*** The following is a verbatim copy of the reply email I sent 12-23-11 from an email I received 12-22-11 from the "Newsvine Team" stating that I violated "the Newsvine Code of Honor (COH) #4 and #2": ***

Please find my separately forwarded email I received January 19, 2011 from Viki Gonia, Newsvine Guide at "Newsvine Help" (nvhelp@msnbc.com) stating: "You can provide a discreet link at the bottom of your article, but please beware of posting self-promotional links. You may want to also list the website on your column."

Nothing on my entire website, articles or comments is "self promotional." If fact, I don't even give out my personal name. My articles and "pertinent" totally non-commercial website, and "constructive" criticisms are the greatest possible examples of Freedom of Speech that is allowed and practiced in this country. Learn to respect it. Realize that all these people trying to suppress my Freedom of Speech are doing it ONLY because they DON'T LIKE the subject matter of what I'm saying. Learn that the unique thing about Freedom of Speech is that it allows someone to say stuff even though some or even many will not like it or agree with it. Otherwise, Freedom of Speech would be nothing if one had to always please, like, the communist government, e.g. If you don't like what Freedom of Speech really allows, then move to China or Iran or wherever it's suppressed. Surely 200 years ago the South would have wanted my speech against slavery stopped in THIS same manner as well. Well, who would have been right? Try to realize that MANY people can be wrong about a subject. The proud thing about real Americans is that they welcome facts and ideas that conflict with the status-quo. Otherwise, how would ANYTHING ever improve??

Concerning my tone, I'm not talking to my opposition any differently than they are talking to me, and they are the ones who started the bad tone. One comment was actually a criminal threat against me. I'm not using any obscenities. But, I'm not going to talk to them like I'm reading them a bedtime story, while they're provoking me. I'm only being frank. Again, if I told that there was proof of a God because birds fly south in the winter, then they wouldn't get so angry, because that thesis isn't reasonable evidence. The ONLY reason why I struck a nerve with this subject is BECAUSE it's reasonable evidence, and it very much places holes in their years of adamant base conclusions. But, their adamant conclusions are hurting lots of people and I explain why. So, please quit trying to suppress the progress of mankind, and allow me to do my talk here. Any knowledgeable psychologist will tell you that getting someone angry motivates them to better think about the issue. So, try to realize I'm handling my end on these discussions actually perfectly.

Realize, I'm not using any words or tones that you aren't going to hear in a heated / in-your-face discussion on the O'Reilly Factor. And, I do not want to suppress any of the speech, tone or even the threats of my opponents. Let them say their insults as well. Okay? Allow "reality" to be "reality" please, and quit trying to live in a big fairytale world, and then wonder why your station has low ratings. I'm going to keep fighting fire with fire regardless of how perfect of a dishonest image you want to portray about today's society. I shouldn't have to feel like I'm in the military here where I'm being told how and when to speak. Please, quit thinking you need to be "my" Big Brother.

And, it would be appreciated if you could somehow make a note to other Newsvine employees that I have been allowed to link to my totally non-commercial website listed below, so this kind of article discussion interruption doesn't occur again.

The Goldenrule Name ( xxxx://www.xxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx/ )

*** I never received a reply to my above email, so I wrote another 12-28-11 as follows: ***

This is pursuant to my email to you on 12-23-11, which I have not yet received a reply:

If you people plan to change my January 19, 2011 email from Viki Gonia, Newsvine Guide at "Newsvine Help" (nvhelp@msnbc.com) stating: "You can provide a discreet link at the bottom of your article, but please beware of posting self-promotional links. You may want to also list the website on your column," which is an allowance to link to my website, then please have a supervisor review the case first, then simply acknowledge that the January 19, 2011 permission was once given, but is now being rescinded. Otherwise, I will only assume that your left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, which will be justification for the Viki Gonia 1-19-11 allowance to remain if effect.

Because the link you provided detailing my supposed violation of COH #4 first didn't work prior to my above 12-23-11 email to the Newsvine Team, but worked later, I have the following comments:

Regarding my statement of: "I would sacrifice my own life before I'd be a baby killer like you" made in reply to "To Kyle-2710718" after his comment that he is a "good person" therefore doesn't need my "hokey religions":

This statement was not so much as a "personal attack" but was obviously a generic statement covering EVERYONE who served in our military. It was said to include him so that he may understand that our military's killing of civilians is NOT being a "good person" which would "rationally" prove his argument that he is a "good person" in error; further showing that he DOES personally need my "hokey religion[]" to improve. (My Newsvine article titled "Hiroshima" is a great example of our military killing innocent people. Anyone who just cooks a meal for our soldiers is a contributor and therefore just as guilty. A true Christian will not do anything that contributes to hurting innocent people.) The best explanation why a baby killer will actually think in their own minds that they are a "good person" is based on a word that I am now disallowed to be frank (or pithy) about, but is addressed in my next supposed violation of COH #4:

Regarding my statement of: "I've explaining why, you idiot!" (to the same Kyle-2710718 comment)(which should be "explained"):

Realize when you Newsvine Team allow the overwhelming "personal attack[s]" against me, I'm going to respond in like. Please note my "constructive" criticism should not defined as "personal attack[s]." Otherwise, you are disallowing people to talk realistically. I'm just trying to talk turkey. We're NEVER going to be ABLE to solve world problems when they are not allowed to be discussed in the REALITY that they deserve. I mean Republicans, e.g., are ready to start WWIII via attacking Iran, unless someone like me can criticize their motives properly. If I've got to constantly watch what I really need to say and the best way to say it, then you have no excuse when that war has made this planet unlivable. Realize how US authorities never realized that their (vain) threats would cause Pearl Harbor.

Also realize that I previously answered and refuted his same kind of misleading directing revolt from another commenter. So, Kyle-2710718 needs to be motivated into reading all my replies before posting the same arguments. ("Misleading" meaning since they assert they are "good" people, that I would thereby have to be wrong in my statement that other atheists aren't; and therefore there's no problem needing to be solved. It's a typical kind of deceitful / dishonorable spin that most all "good" people today use to their advantage. Therefore, they are just "further" PROVING me right, and further proving that they are not "good" people.)

Your #4 also states: "Do not delete comments based on disagreement." Well, wake up and realize the ONLY, again the ONLY (real) reason why my opposers are trying to get my Free Speech suppressed. Therefore, YOU are just helping them violate your COH. I shouldn't be cut-off just because of the fact that THE TRUTH BURNS. So, fairness is on side.

You are proving this because you are not censuring all my opposers who are attacking and PROVOKING me personally? Even without factuality to my pithy / concise / brief word "idiot," just my emotional tone alone was justified. He called my religion "hokey." Isn't that an insult AND PROVOCATION?? And, HE asked "Why can't we all just mind our own damned business and learn to live together in peace?" and the correct answer is because of people like him who lack in intelligence, so the pithy statement "idiot" was the most appropriate and accurate answer to HIS question.

Regarding my statement: "I would sacrifice my own life before I'd be a baby killer like you", you are saying I'm not allowed to have an antiwar thesis. I'm not allowed to address things that are killing innocent people? I'm not allowed to tell that I'm a better person than those? Well, then you need to pray to God that there is no God because you now are part of those murders of innocent people. Don't you realize it's the 1960s? Or later? Try to get up to day.

Why did Kyle-2710718 tell he was a veteran if he wasn't inviting an opinion about that?

But, again, I'm not trying to get you to censure Kyle-2710718 simply because that's the real way people argue subjects on the Internet. You see, I DON'T want you to suppress his Freedom or Speech or the Natural Flow, either. Try to realize that some of your COH's should be read with a grain of salt. Discretion should be realized. (Not because you disagree, but realistically and in fairness to the heated discussion; and that I don't link commercials or personal beneficial information.) Obviously, those complainers JUST DON'T LIKE my well presented points. First ADMIT to yourself that that's the case, then allow people to talk the way they've been accustomed to talk. TRY to realize that the essence of COH #2 is trying to stop spam and my articles and website is the farthest thing from using your venue to try to sell shoes. Everything at my website is FOR you and everyone else in the world, and is not for me personally. The fact that such IS so unique and rare justifies you're assumption that it isn't.

When things get hearted over a very big and touchy subject, you are allowing my opposers to fully attack me and personally, but are forcing me to pull my punches. That is not fair journalism. One cannot have a realistic open discussion here, especially when it's one sided, where just about everyone can attack me personally, but I can't do the same back.

Bill O'Reilly and MANY other news commentators "personally attack" their opposition individuals ALL THE TIME. Try to get up to date. Turn on the standard news channels and learn how people debate in the real world. Learn that when someone make a stupid statement or reasserts something I've already refuted, then calling them stupid is more the "honest" and direct approach. Quit thinking these issues are going to be better solved while holding back on truth and truthful opinion.

If it was my personal son or daughter that our military dropped a bomb on, would you ALLOW me to simply tell our soldiers that they "killed" my son or daughter, or would I still have to suppress my natural right to tell it??? Well, "realize" that you're now talking with only true righteous person you have ever talked to, where I give voice to the many people who don't have a voice (especially in today's media).

If I don't receive a responsible reply to this email I will be contacting the executives and anchors at MSNBC. And, if I still don't receive some simple common respect for my concerns, I will contact CNN, Fox News, Associated Press, etc. seeking them to do a story about it, concerning your suppression of my Freedom of Speech.

The Goldenrule Name

(To date [12-31-11] I have not received any email reply from anyone at Newsvine.)

#12 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:36 AM EST

Well, "realize" that you're now talking with only true righteous person you have ever talked to,

........................................

2 votes

#12.1 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:12 AM EST

If I don't receive a responsible reply to this email I will be contacting the executives and anchors at MSNBC. And, if I still don't receive some simple common respect for my concerns, I will contact CNN, Fox News, Associated Press, etc. seeking them to do a story about it, concerning your suppression of my Freedom of Speech.

Pffft. Don't suffer from low self-esteem anyway. Read the UA and CoH. You don't have "free" speech here, or many other places. Read up on the First Amendment. It's fascinating. It's Newsvine - There are rules. Follow them or hit the road. Pretty simple.

4 votes

#12.2 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:17 AM EST

To neenie1991:

"Read the UA and CoH. You don't have "free" speech here, or many other places."

Thanks for admitting why I would never fight for this country in a war. There's too good a chance that an enemy would better force everyone, even private enterprise, to allow Freedom of Speech (and both sides of international stories), expecially one in of the media.

#12.3 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 7:59 PM EST

Wow. Went right by you. C'est la vie.

4 votes

#12.4 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:38 PM EST

To SW Missouri Mule:

"The writer is the one who needs to read and understand the Bible, not Atheists. This article is pure bull@!$%# with contradictions and self-worship."

Lesson one: YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO HEAR WHAT THE WEALTHY WANT TO HEAR IN CHURCH. Or, today's churches would attain A LOT less money.

I understand the Jesus parts of the New Testament. Most churches today ignore Jesus as much as possible (but use the name a lot). That's why the Old Testament and Paul's letters are quoted more often. Jesus overrules anything before or after, so the OT and anything not in red letters is secondary and to be read with a grain of salt. And, "Jesus paid your penalties" is absolutely ludicrous, and fully CONTRADICTS His golden rule instructions and assured Fair Afterlife Punishments! I'm am fighting the worse possible evil ever: today's cop-out Church: the full "Antichrist."

I'll assume you disagree with my speculation that the miracles didn't happen. You may be right. The fact is: It doesn't matter: Jesus' instructions for what we are mandated to do, are all that matters. And, that's "summed up" in the golden rule, as Paul also said. So, any Christian website that doesn't have "Golden Rule" or "Goldenrule" at the top, is already secondary to mine. Everything at my website falls under the Goldenrule, and is elaborated only with the intent of making it a better world. That's the uniqueness, because I haven't seen any others that even come close.

Why write if all I'm just going to say is what you people already know or believe? Such writers are trying to serve self gain. BECAUSE I write in total frankness, even crossing all invalid taboos, there is no way I could be writing this stuff for my own self-worship.

Again, any moron can "just say" I'm wrong, but try to "explain" my "contradictions." Also, in John 11:11, "explain" why Jesus was wrong when He first told that Lazarus was sleeping, other than to indicate that that was the true reality.

Believe me partner, if I started performing miracles, YOU'D believe and do anything I'd say. But, since miracles are "lies of reality," that only fuel the rich to sustain their selfishness and evils in justification, and since reality really works best dealing with real reality, then people are going to HAVE TO believe me based on my LOGIC only! We are right on the edge of WWIII where everyone will likely defensively shoot off everything they have based on the realistic and mindless threats by just Hillary Clinton; so, my stuff had better come into light to the general public pretty quickly. We are a very, very bullying nation, and think our threats can only make our enemies back down, but Pearl Harbor tells a different story. And, most all Republican candidates want to start a war with Iran, which will set the whole thing off, and that's according to both George W. Bush and Bill O'Reilly. So, if this country elects minds that can only know what they've been taught, who can't think an inch outside the box, like Rick Perry, then it's all over before my stuff can even have a chance to work. But, if Iran gets solved, it'll be something else five years from now, with all the cop-outs we're all taught in church.

The Goldenrule Name

#13 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:48 AM EST

I should mention that there are a growing number of computer viruses from people who definitely don't Fear God, which will likely reach the point where all computers and the Internet will become unusable. (Give it maybe ten more years.) So, again, I (only) am trying to fix a HUGE problem for mankind.

(1) Even IF there is no God (no original "drive"), and the impossibility of random accidents made all improvements, THERE CAN STILL BE "FAIR AFTERLIFE PUNISHMENT," simply because if the random accidents can make all improvements, it could have also made all the underlying intelligence that we know is there, and therefore it certainly could have created an Afterlife for us, with Fair Judgment / Punishment. In other words, if / since random accident evolved to make us humans, who have intelligence, then it certainly could have pre-evolved all the underlying intelligence, that we all know as God and the Bible, and therefore Fair Afterlife Judgment / Punishment. So, it is well to advise that you atheists STILL obey the Goldenrule, to evade Fair Afterlife Punishment. (YES, I'm TOTALLY aware that today's Christians are also bad people or hypocrites. AND, I'm ALSO aware that not EVERYONE is a bad person.)

(2) Even IF there is no God and no Fair Afterlife Punishment, then the world would STILL be much better off teaching that there is. Especially since people NATURALLY do believe in some kind of intelligence beyond our immediate reach or understanding, so it WOULD BE an EASY sell.

The Goldenrule Name (slowed but not gone)

#14 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:09 PM EST

Reported. Again.

2 votes

#15 - Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:38 PM EST

Same here.

2 votes

#15.1 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:27 AM EST

I'm sorry, this is some kind of joke article, right? Poorly executed satire? I wouldn't have doubted that it is just a bad joke, but if Grisham is taking this seriously, then I have to wonder.

I mean, the lack of a link between religious devotion and moral behavior alone makes the entire premise scream false. Fear of God has shown to be a non-issue in preventing criminal behavior.

And empathic reciprocity is such a simple concept that it is even found in social animals that don't have a language, let alone philosophy or religion. If pack animals can follow the golden rule without fearing a god, what makes anyone believe it requires one? To think religion is needed to foster it seems pretty absurd.

4 votes

#16 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:07 AM EST

To dakaiser11:

"Fear of God has shown to be a non-issue in preventing criminal behavior."

Not all crimes hurt innocent people. Believe me, criminals that hurt innocent people would NOT do their crimes if they thought they HAD TO "suffer equally" in their Afterlife. AGAIN, today's Church has so many cop-out lies and contradictions of Christ to overrule one's Fear of God that allows "Christian" criminals to try to get away with whatever they want. Atheism isn't any better. You're not reading all my stuff.

"If pack animals can follow the golden rule without fearing a god, what makes anyone believe it requires one? To think religion is needed to foster it seems pretty absurd."

Good, you're telling me of another prerequisite that you're in the dark about: Yes, some people do the Goldenrule without a Fear of God. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT the one's who DON'T have a strong Goldenrule because they feel no Afterlife retribution. THAT'S were the problem lies.

Nice try.

The Goldenrule Name

#16.1 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:17 PM EST

Holy crap! I think you are serious. wow... no, this has to be a joke. With such ridiculous arguments pathetically trying to prop us such disgusting concepts, this can't be for real.

Show me any kind of proof that fear of God has statistically reduced criminal behavior. Otherwise, your point is dead. Just asserting that other Christians didn't really fear God proves nothing.

You are assuming things about human nature that just don't seem to follow reality. The idea that fear of god would inspire proper behavior is great in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.

today's Church has so many cop-out lies and contradictions of Christ

And you have it all figured out./s I get so sick of Christians insisting that they somehow interpreted the Gospel correctly while the billions of other believers got it wrong. Is your God that incompetent that he can't even communicate to his own followers?

Yes, some people do the Goldenrule without a Fear of God.

A swing and a hit! Easy trip to second base.

I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT the one's who DON'T have a strong Goldenrule because they feel no Afterlife retribution.

And tagged out trying to steal home from second over the pitchers mound. Many of the most civilized nations with the lowest crime rates are highly secular with a majority population of people with no fear of afterlife retribution.

Do you want to know which nations have the highest belief in afterlife retribution/reward? Islamic countries, most obviously in those run by overly conservative sharia run governments. And oddly, those nations are famous for their immorality in the eyes of the rest of society.

Treating this life as nothing more than a proving ground for the next leads to dismissal of this life, the lives of others, and devotion to personal interpretation of God's demands. This can easily lead to fanatical acts of terrorism in the name of a vengeful God.

That's where the problem lies.

5 votes

#16.2 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 11:40 PM EST

Three star post dakaiser11!

(fyi, that is out of a possible 3 stars.)

5 votes

#16.3 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 11:49 PM EST

Seconded!

5 votes

#16.4 - Sun Jan 1, 2012 11:52 PM EST

To dakaiser11:

Holy smokes. Wow! Like you can’t even figure what probably any ten-year-old could figure.

“Show me any kind of proof that fear of God has statistically reduced criminal behavior. Otherwise, your point is dead.”

No, I, uh, don’t have statistics, man! It’s just a kind of thing you should be able to already know without someone having to explain it to you. Okay, let me think… Remember when I said: “…criminals that hurt innocent people would NOT do their crimes if they thought they HAD TO ‘suffer equally’ in their Afterlife”? Yeah, that’s like because the penalty would be too high or too much. Uh. That’s right! Let me “think”… YEAH… If I like slapped an innocent person in the face… YEAH! -- I wouldn’t want to get slapped back… ever! So, if I believed in Fair Afterlife Punishment, where I’d get slapped back -- like if all the churches taught it that way -- then, yeah, I wouldn’t want to get slapped back. So, I like maybe -- no… I wouldn’t do it in the first place… then! Yeah, I think that would be right. Yeah! You got it yet, man? NO? Do this: Slap a little person some time, and they probably won’t slap you back. Then sometime slap a big innocent person. Then maybe you can understand why you wouldn’t like getting slapped back. Right? Hey, don’t try this is a country bar. Otherwise, you’re bound to get more than just one slap back.

“You are assuming things about human nature that just don't seem to follow reality.”

Okay, go ahead and try it in a country bar.

“Is your God that incompetent that he can't even communicate to his own followers?”

Wait… I’m looking it up in the dictionary. I am. Yeah, there it is -- the word says “hypocrisy”. Not you: I’m not allowed to attack you personally. It’s all them durn rich believers makin’ all their churches spin Bible hearing the way they want to hear it. When they like it like that, that makes them rich guys want to put more of their money in the church plate. You know, they don’t have to give nothing if they don’t want to! Since other folks sit in the church also, they hear the same talk the rich guy wants to hear only. Well, if you can read, looky in the real Bible sometime, and you will read that that there Jesus dude don’t really like the rich people too much. He didn't! Instead, He liked them poor folks better, who are unlucky. He thought they deserved more than the rich guy was giving them. I know you’re not gonna understand something like that neither, but it’s right!

I know you don’t believe that that many rich people could be that bad, but, yeah, you’re right: it’ll stay a secret until they tell everyone they’re bad. So, I don’t know what to do until then!

“Do you want to know which nations have the highest belief in afterlife retribution/reward?”

Yeah!

“Islamic countries, most obviously in those run by overly conservative sharia run governments. And oddly, those nations are famous for their immorality in the eyes of the rest of society.”

I told people once or twice by now that: GOSH! I haven’t yet found the perfect religion doers. Not yet. NO!

"Treating this life as nothing more than a proving ground for the next leads to dismissal of this life, the lives of others, and devotion to personal interpretation of God's demands. This can easily lead to fanatical acts of terrorism in the name of a vengeful God."

No. The Jews, for a big example, like to do their praying for things to God at that place where they think God is only. And, so does the Muslims, too. I try to be smart and think when they show a mean face at each other, because each one has to have it all to make it better there, they ain't "doing" that "summed up" golden rule one thing that the Bible -- again read it there -- to one another very well there in this case of the two kind of believers. No, they're NOT! So, I'm thinkin' IF they were to obey it right, not wrong, it'd be much better and okay.

The Goldenrule Name (Hey, it was me who put that two worded saying into one. Now that BIG God dude can like me best. So, why can't that God just leave me alone and I just know it all alone by myself? I want it that way because it real easy to know just One Word, but God says One Word is too hard for others to just know.)

#17 - Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:46 AM EST

No, I, uh, don’t have statistics, man!

Oh, in that case allow me to give a rebuttal. Christianity causes immoral behavior. It is the greatest evil brought upon mankind, and fear of God only causes terrorism and torture. But I don't have to prove it because I can just assert that any ten year old could see that.

Yeah, that’s like because the penalty would be too high or too much.

People rarely think of repercussions before acting.

Okay, go ahead and try it in a country bar.

I grew up in a country bar. And I watched people get in fights with people they knew would beat the crap out of them.

the word says “hypocrisy”. Not you: I’m not allowed to attack youpersonally. It’s all them durn rich believers makin’ all their churches spin Bible hearing the way they want to hear it.

Firstly, I'm an atheist, so there isn't hypocrisy in my statement.

Secondly, try looking up hypocrisy again, you are using it wrong. They are being true to their beliefs, they are just interpreting a book falsely to re-enforce those beliefs. That's not actual hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be calling yourself "GoldenRule" and then treating others as you would not wish to be treated, like implying they were stupider than a 10 year old.

Thirdly, you didn't explain why your god is such a pathetic little thing that he cannot even communicate simple ideas.

I haven’t yet found the perfect religion doers. Not yet. NO!

I agree. Not even in your mirror, as evidenced by your article and comments.

they ain't "doing" that "summed up" golden rule one thing that the Bible

First, Reciprocity is also in the Talmud and the Quran. Just in a different form.

Second, I seem to remember Sampson in the Bible, and God really liked him. He was a terrorist that brought down a building in a suicide attack to kill thousands of people. Just because you found a few passages that suggest Reciprocity doesn't make Christianity all about that one idea.

6 votes

#17.1 - Tue Jan 3, 2012 3:09 AM EST

To dakaiser11's (Jan 3; 2:09 AM):

When one misses a lot of good 2nd and 3rd base points, it makes me to have to write a lot more basics, causing others to overlook the entire thing because it's simply too long. Plus, I have to give up on trying to be pithy.

"they are just interpreting a book falsely"

Right. So, we should be able to agree that it's not the book (or Gospels), it's today's readers that are the problem.

Boy, you sure are trying hard to miss the point on the word "hypocrisy." I can't speak very concisely with you atheists. And, you all want me to think you're smart people.

Hypocrisy would be calling yourself "GoldenRule" and then treating others as you would not wish to be treated, like implying they were stupider than a 10 year old.

It's called "tough love." I welcome "constructive" criticism from others, so I am following the Goldenrule by giving it out. I also side with the many voiceless victims, instead of the causers of problems. I've heard very little "constructive" criticism at this forum: Most everyone is just trying to be difficult as much as they can, right or wrong, rationally or irrationally. I'm trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt thinking that none of you have yet reached first base; as it makes sense that the cop-out of atheism would aggrandize a lot of spin, or ignoring of rational points (emphasizing small facts while ignoring big truths), capitalizing on the fact that most people (especially PhDs) are very gullible. Politics proves that those who are very educated (in what others know), have great personalities, look good, are very articulate, etc. are the ones who can't think diddly outside that box. When one's mind is very good at thinking inside the box, it seems to lack an ability to think outside the box. So, never have we had a qualified President. But, outside the box is where today's solutions can be found.

"Thirdly, you didn't explain why your god is such a pathetic little thing that he cannot even communicate simple ideas."

I did somewhere, but regardless: A "pathetic little thing" can do a lot at that very small level: the level where our soul or memory resides. It doesn't have to be able to move a literal mountain to make your soul feel pain. I believe God can communicate through prophets; so, you're hearing it now. But, how can you tell the difference between a true prophet and another who just thinks he's a prophet, since you have no idea of right and wrong (or you'd better understand my stuff). (Everyone only knows right and wrong from what they've been taught, and only deviate for self interest. I know you will disagree; that's why I try to use the most accurate word "idiot" often, but can't now.) Well, the one who gets recognized as a prophet just tells the rich what they want to hear. Otherwise, a true prophet would have to do miracles. But, years after the people kill that prophet in dislike, then Its teachings somehow make it through, then all the rich feel justified in their sins because God would stop them if He can do miracles (when they don't get struck down by a bolt of lightning, they think that God is approving of their wrongs against others). And, if God doesn't 100% assure the rich man to do whatever crimes he wants by showing miracles to others, then atheists will either expect the miracles or have their cop-out excuse to disbelieve the entire scenario. The matter rests with the fact that the world operates best when it operates based on how the world really words. Thereby the (necessary to believe) miracles just mess up everything more than helps. If God did everything for us, there'd really be no reason for our existence: we would not progress and determine diversity in our different / unique kind of way. In fact, if God could do anything, there'd be no reason to set the universe in motion in the first place. But, since stars do eventually fail, that really shows more that God is just sitting back enjoying the next wonder of it all, not always knowing what's going to happen next.

Again, I don't believe that God can "just" do real miracles; but I could be wrong. I do know that if God directly communicated to us, we'd all just have our hands out, and not do the important progress and things we do in this world. You see, God made everything including us, simply because something is better than nothing, or that something new or better is better. Therefore, the progress, new things and diversity we do God likes. The only problem is when what's good for one becomes bad for another, that's where the Goldenrule has to come in.

You advise how teachings in the Old Testament aren't good. Well, that just proves that there was a need for a coming Messiah (Jesus) to overrule it and get it right. That's why I only account to Jesus; anything before or after I read with a grain of salt. It's those selfish rich people who retain and like the Old Testament so much, because it caters to their selfish wants more than Jesus did. In fact, I'll hear "Christian" teachings where they say Jesus' name many times; but, when they start quoting the Bible it's usually always the Old Testament or Paul, etc. Most churches and pastors have to be careful when quoting Jesus, or they'll find a lot less money in the plate. So, you tell me the best way to break this catch-22. Realization has to be the first step.

You advise me how many Christians are in prison to substantiate that a Fear of God doesn't prevent crime; but, I explain how the reason is because of all of today's artificial salvation cop-outs. Sure, Christians initially Fear God, but that's why they go to church, say some cop-out words, and/or "trust" that Jesus overruled all His commandments by dying on the cross to pay the penalty for everyone's sins. So, all those cop-outs are the CAUSE why most of today's Christians don't fear Fair Afterlife Punishment (as a result). I tell you that such cop-outs are logically devised just to tell "the money" what it wants to hear, yet you're still not getting it.

I don't think you want to find the truth in these matters, I think you're just trying to be difficult just to save face. But, if you win, then nothing really improves in the world. If you would like to fight today's Church corruption, support of evil, including the Bible sex word corruptions, then my website is the ONLY way.

If I had a church, I'd tell people how to properly pray. I'd teach them to say: God, please make certain that I suffer equally in either my earthy life or in my Afterlife, for the times I've hurt innocent people, for those who I wasn't able to locate to personally make amends to. (I can't believe I'm wasting my time telling this to an atheist.) Such would definitely cause true followers to never sin again. But today, everyone only prays for the opposite: that God have mercy on their self-centered soul. So, my thesis is VERY different than that of today's Christians. …VERY advanced. …Nothing in the future could ever be better.

Generic:

I think many of you atheists don't believe that people who experience a conscience trembling threat of Fair Afterlife Punishment would deter their hurtings of others, simply because none of you have yet been victimized enough to understand the need for it. -- A very hurtful and/or long lasting victimization. I'm sure many of you will say you have, but still simply don't have anything to compare it to (within yourselves). Sure, you can have fallen off a cliff and have felt tremendous amounts of pain, but I'm talking about feeling that pain knowing that someone purposely caused it, and got away with it! Since you are obviously embedded to atheism, it makes sense that you can't feel a "conscience trembling threat of Fair Afterlife Punishment," so you can't emotionally see how others could. All I'm talking about here is all those too dumb to come in out of the rain religious people, who aren't "smart" enough to be a atheist -- who haven't been embedded with overruling artificial salvation cop-outs. They may only exist a small percentage; but, all I'm saying is that those people aren't going to hurt an innocent person BECAUSE they happened to only read the Gospels (or, Fear God correctly).

Also, since sinners (whether atheists or Christians) don't really feel the hurt of the victims they hurt, they're a lot less able to realize retributive desires.

THIS ALL MORE PROVES that no one is really aware of the wrongs of their (harmful) sins until they've felt the actual suffering either on earth or in Purgatory. Therefore, a God who is aware of everything, would be aware and compensate for this "bug in our (human) software" by creating a Purgatory, before we can live-on somewhere better.

Obviously I have to repeat that you all need to see my page quoting the Goldenrule from just about every popular religion that has existed, to prove there is only one God. But, the citing I like best, that is pertinent to the above three paragraphs, is from Yoruba (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

I also like the way Jesus said it via The Didache 1:2: "First, thou shalt love God who made thee; secondly, thy neighbor as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thee, neither do thou to another." That means without a Fear of God, few are going to do the second; which is God's only real intent.

The Goldenrule Name

#17.2 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 4:51 PM EST

Right. So, we should be able to agree that it's not the book (or Gospels), it's today's readers that are the problem.

No. The message in the Bible is flawed for a different reason. The flaw of those preachers is greed of money. The flaws in the bible include bigotry, genocide, and the idea of transferability of sin.

But I could call you a hypocrite for accusing others of "wrongly" interpreting the bible when by all accounts you are not provably any better. Though getting in such a discussion with you would be fruitless because just like all of those believers, you refuse to believe any interpretation but yours is correct.

It's called "tough love." I welcome "constructive" criticism from others

Implying stupidity is not constructive, and it's not "tough love" when it detracts from the message and only serves to make people dislike you and thus your message.

Insulting people never helps get across any message except hatred or disgust. As Jesus said, "And whoever insultsa brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool' will be sent to fiery hell."

But it wouldn't be hypocrisy for you to call me more foolish than a 10 year old unless you were a Christian. Since I guess you aren't a Christian, it's not a problem for you.

But, how can you tell the difference between a true prophet and another who just thinks he's a prophet

So your only method of telling if someone is a real prophet is that the real ones don't help the rich? There are plenty of crazy people that think they are prophets and don't get any attention (or are put in insane asylums). Your method doesn't separate you from a crazy person.

I do know that if God directly communicated to us, we'd all just have our hands out,

No. Christians pray to him for stuff all the time, but they still go to work every day. We have gotten along fine without him for a long time. If he can communicate, he could just say, "I'm here. Be good. Now stop begging me for crap and rely on yourselves and each other."

You advise how teachings in the Old Testament aren't good. Well, that just proves that there was a need for a coming Messiah (Jesus) to overrule it and get it right

Finally! A Christian that agrees that God was an evil prick!

"trust" that Jesus overruled all His commandments by dying on the cross to pay the penalty for everyone's sins.

Wait.... You just said that the Old Testament teachings were bad and a tool of the rich. Now you are angry that modern Christians throw out those teachings for ideas of salvation?

So which is it? The part where God killed millions, destroyed city after city and had the Israelites killing in his name for generations to instill fear is the part you like? Or the part of Jesus saying that the only real commands are to love god and love your neighbor, and love your enemies. The Jesus message comes with lots of "forgiveness" ideas and very little wrath of god stuff.

I don't think you want to find the truth in these matters, I think you're just trying to be difficult just to save face

If I wanted to save face, I could just stop lowering myself to trying to rationalize with a person that thinks he is a prophet.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time telling this to an atheist.)

See, and that is where you prove more than ever that you are a vessel of clay. Not only do you consider it a waste to attempt to bring the light to the non-believers, but you dismiss your fellow man instead of loving them.

Fair Afterlife Punishment

A tooth for a tooth has a major problem. Some people would sacrifice a tooth to take one from someone else.

simply because none of you have yet been victimized enough to understand the need for it.

It's a group of people that have been hunted and killed by the church in the past. Even now an outspoken atheist is considered less American than homosexuals, Muslims, and Jews, and is less likely to get elected to government office than any of those minorities even though they are often the most educated members of society.

4 votes

#17.3 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:13 PM EST

Obviously, you are just trying to be as difficult as possible, right or wrong. I think you've spun off the base issue in contention enough to say I won that argument: concerning whether folks will treat others better when they believe they will face Fair Afterlife Punishment, with no cop-outs. I really don't have the time to detail every misunderstanding you're deliberately arguing.

I should add that if God revealed Himself to us, and communicated directly to us and assured us that there is an eventual Afterlife Paradise (Heaven), many would kill themselves to get there sooner. But, again, that would disrupt the full reason for our existence and our productive purpose. So, again, the world works best based on the true ups and downs that are in the real world. Miracles whether real, hallucinations or just made up are necessary to get people to follow a true prophet, especially in the minds of atheists. Sorry, I don't work with miracles, as they just later justify too much selfishness for the wealthy; so, you're just going to have to believe me based on my logic alone.

"Finally! A Christian that agrees that God was an evil prick!"

No, I'm saying the Old Testament ended up with so many secular writers and editors who all just thought they were square with the Lord, that the OT scrolls ended up being more problematic than useful. "Fornication" is a great example of a word definition corruption changing the New Testament. God can't or doesn't just zap it correct once the power of corruption changes it.

In the last four verses of the entire Bible, God tells that corruption can happen (and very likely has), and that God can not or will not just zap it correct. Where Jesus mostly overruled the OT is in His "new commandment" to "love (nothing excludes sexually) one another" (and, not "one other"), in John 13:34. ANY single or gay person can use this to overrule ANY possible before or after contradiction. Yet, nobody seems to use its overruling power to justify their lifestyle against today's liars (church leaders). Why? It's because the church leaders "just say" (verbally) that Jesus' agape love excluded sexual love, and EVERYONE "just trusts" them. That to me is the definition of a very stupid being (humans). Again, the Song of Solomon in the Septuagint which Jesus mostly read the Old Testament from, definitely tells that agape love includes sexual love. The reason today's church leaders won't tell anyone is just to save face. And today's media leaders are SO dumb that they allow them to save it. Again, the more educated and social someone is, that also means the more susceptible to and embedded with the brainwash they are. And, those are the ones with the power. I've got the whole thing figured out.

My mid-'90s reckoning concluded that the world only needs more Goldenrule; then I found that Jesus and Paul supported it probably more and better than any other religion: See the numerously more Christian Goldenrule citings under the first link at my website. I'm really not an expert on other religions, but Jesus was sufficient enough that I feel secure to base all my work on Him. My commentaries fit much better to explain Jesus than all the others. I even explained why He told us to "hate" members of our own family, while telling us to love everyone else. It all has to do with lessening unfair partiality sidings; which is also the base of ALL wars. Since it's such a big problem, it needs a big word like "hate" to properly fight it. "Lust" is just seeking the more attractive (compare Matt. 5:28 with Proverbs 6:24-26; 34), thereby unfairness to the "ugly." Today's Church says lust is all levels of sexual desire period, but such would end the world if everyone were able to suppress it entirely, as no one would reproduce. If everyone dated both attractive and unattractive people, then it would be a better / more fair / Goldenrule world. But, today's Church isn't even to first base on this issue as they still (incorrectly) prohibit sex between single people. That's the BIGGEST hurdle to overcome. Future atheists won't have any problems being believers once all of today's Christian falsehoods are brought into light. Again, if YOU want to fight the bad things in today's Church, start with this sex corruption issue, greatly researched at my website. All someone high in the media has to do is present the question to the Pope or other religious leaders, based on my research. Then the public will be aware of their lies, and eventually they will have to admit to it. I guess first base here would be first to read it on my website. I mean I already do what I want sexually, this information is for the benefit of the rest of the world. Imagine all the shame and guilt being removed from the consciences of all the growing number of singles and same-sex relationships -- that turns most of them into atheists, and therefore no Goldenrule. I know you atheists think you're great Goldenrule people, but most of the replies and intentions at this article proves different.

"So which is it? The part where God killed millions, destroyed city after city and had the Israelites killing in his name for generations to instill fear is the part you like? Or the part of Jesus saying that the only real commands are to love god and love your neighbor, and love your enemies. The Jesus message comes with lots of "forgiveness" ideas and very little wrath of god stuff."

I'm saying that "Jesus paid the penalty" is a cop-out. That was just to overrule the then popular animal and human sacrifices told to be necessary (creating a BIG hit to first base). It's based on the Greek word "martyr": one who dies for his god: the greatest sacrifice one could make. Again, antiquated today. All my stuff fits under the Goldenrule, and when in conflict I have to argue for the innocent victims instead of the perpetrators. We are instructed to forgive others mainly because we are all too stupid to know how to judge correctly, and it just causes more problems than good; but, eye for eye is still the correct fairness. It was necessary for Jesus to overrule it. I am repeating a lot of stuff that's on my website, but I realize it's a lot (that the world IS in the dark about).

"See, and that is where you prove more than ever that you are a vessel of clay. Not only do you consider it a waste to attempt to bring the light to the non-believers, but you dismiss your fellow man instead of loving them."

No, I meant I was talking 2nd or 3rd base material to an atheist who's not even on 1st base. I believe my website research is long enough to prove I care to help everyone.

I tell you today that I take a vessel of clay and slam it against the wall, stomp on it until it is flat, and then will sweep it out the door, just to show that I rule over it! Well, it'd be okay to do as long at it didn't hurt an innocent person.

The Goldenrule Name

#18 - Fri Jan 6, 2012 10:20 PM EST

Obviously, you are just trying to be as difficult as possible, right or wrong

um, that's not very constructive. How is it that I cannot say that about you?

I think you've spun off the base issue in contention enough to say I won that argument

Oh, in that case I declare that I won also.

But if your problem is that I'm "getting off base", I'll be more direct so you don't get so lost.

==============================

Your response is entirely bunk not resolving the two problems I have pointed out.

1) The Bible contains a great amount of immoral teachings. Your only defense is that the Bible is corrupted. If that is so, then it is an untrustworthy document as a whole. Since you would then only choose the messages you wish to year, your message is no longer of God, and is of yourself. At this point, the "Holy Text" is no longer the basis of your belief, since the message of "Golden Rule" could easily be the result of "secular addition". For all you know, those "additions" were adding all those good things, and the truth is only the immoral destruction god of wrath.

2) Fear of retribution does not dissuade negative action. In fact, certainty of retribution does not dissuade negative action. Many people will gladly pay later for something now, knowing the payment will be far higher than the current reward. Does the term "impulsive" mean anything to you? An intelligent rational person is indeed disuaded by weighing the costs of an action. But nobody is acting intelligently or rationally at all times, and some people seem to never act intelligently or rationally.

4 votes

#18.1 - Sat Jan 7, 2012 12:26 PM EST

Okay, we're making "some" improvement in the way you debate.

"Since you would then only choose the messages you wish to year, your message is no longer of God, and is of yourself."

Again, I only account to Jesus. He is to overrule any prior or later contradiction, which definitely includes all those places in the Old Testament that is unfairly cruel. How many times do I have to repeat this for you to understand by stance? If I'm "cherry picking" to only Jesus, since He is the most popular person who has ever lived (just look at everyone's calendar), then I'd say I'm on the proper track. Canonization was determined by man, not God or Jesus.

"At this point, the 'Holy Text' is no longer the basis of your belief, since the message of 'Golden Rule' could easily be the result of 'secular addition'."

I'll let them say it:

Matthew 7:12 (Jesus speaking, Sermon on the Mount): "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for THIS IS THE LAW and the Prophets."

Galatians 5:14 (Paul speaking): "For ALL THE LAW IS FULFILLED IN ONE WORD, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Well, I literally put it in "one word": Goldenrule.

Romans 13:9 (Paul speaking): "… if there is any other commandment, are ALL SUMMED UP IN THIS SAYING, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

I believe both Jesus and Paul are going to agree that the Goldenrule should stay at the very top of MY website. And, that EVERYTHING under it should be ruled by it (the Goldenrule). All added commentary is just elaborations of the Goldenrule. Tell me where I'm incorrect.

Even in Judaism:

Talmud, Shabbat 31a (c. 400-600 AD): "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. THAT IS THE ENTIRE LAW (TORAH); ALL THE REST IS COMMENTARY."

So, yes, any ill treatment in the Old Testament is even essentially overruled by the Jews.

I'm not going to all this trouble countering today's vast Christian cop-outs, without correct and substantial information and valid, ultimate support from both Jesus and Paul.

I don't know if this is the way they teach debate in schools, but it's like I'll say the sky is blue, just to get to first base, then you'll (cruelly) tell me I'm wrong because it's not at night. If you're the best debater atheism has, then your methods are sure not convincing me I'm wrong about anything, and contrarily are just assuring me more that I'm right, in that you have no genuine / fair rebuttals. I'm aware that there are exceptions to just about everything, but you will use those exceptions not only trying to twist the exceptions to be the majority but the entirety, which you would have to do to prove me wrong.

You atheists think it's Jesus who should be thrown under that bus, because of all the problems in the Old Testament and today's abundance of hypocrisy (or, define is as: "Christians" who don't do what Jesus really said to do). I say you should target the actual wrongdoers and quit trying to blame Jesus for people who aren't following Him correctly.

"Oh, in that case I declare that I won also."

Yes, consistency in the way you debate affirms your assertion. To not speak concisely, I've debated my issues with a lot of people over the years, and when they all of a sudden change the subject, it just tells me I won my point, and that they don't want to admit it. So, again, they change that subject. They don't tell me they have learned something that they personally would have never been able to figure out if they lived for a thousand years. They don't share my far superior look at reality and logical conclusions with others, in an effort to make it a better world. Self-centered pride is their only purpose on this planet. None really want to help the future of mankind; they just want to save face for their here and now, in what personally pleases them in the immediate. And, it's same whether they are atheists or Christian. Now, I could be wrong about this, but my observations have told me that today's Christians are nicer up front, more honest about small things, but vote for the poor to give to the rich. Atheists seems to be more rude up front, people who will lie to you more just for entertainment, but seem to vote more for the rich to give to the poor. So, I'd rather have a Christian living next door to me, but an atheist in Congress.

I'm not ignoring any valid points you've made to justify your above assertion; in fact I'm having to lower myself to have to explain things like how alcohol mixed with personal disputes can make an exception to my country bar example. Most people would be able to understand what I mean without having to take all my time to explain all your missing-the-point cop-out exceptions. Therefore, let me have to add that you're not drunk (feeling "bulletproof" -- ask Travis Tritt) at the time; you hit a big guy in a place far from home, where you don't know anyone, so you don't have any person grudges. Even then, yes, there is an exception if your name is Jared Loughner. But, even he likely wouldn't have shot all those people if he had been correctly taught all his life a Fear of God, that he would have to feel each exact level of pain of being shot and whatever level of pain that one has to experience that kills a person. Ronald Reagan even learned and told that getting shot really, really hurts. Have a friend hold your head under water for a minute so you can analyze totally unacceptable levels of pain and a Fear of God. Do it especially right after you've jogging a mile. Then you'll know to give God the benefit of all possible doubts. So, even if there are some exceptions still out there, that doesn't mean that my examples don't fit with the vast majority. I remember shortly after 9/11, some loon tried to attack a pilot in mid-flight, and another started to spray something harmless inside a federal building. I thought starting a fight in a country bar must be old hat, and that certain people have now found much better ways to accomplish getting their ass kicked with the best possible results.

But, heck with rare exceptions, you atheists say Christ was a fake based on today's multitudes of "followers" who really don't follow His word; and based on the errors of the Old Testament that Jesus directly overruled (like John 13:34's "new commandment"). Any honest person could EASILY see the deceitful error of you people's argument, and how you're comparing apples to oranges. If the Old Testament had it all correct, then why was there a need for a coming Messiah?? And, today's prophecy is called a "Second Coming of Christ" meaning it's just the same "summed up" Goldenrule, but acknowledged of its previous highly ignored teachings and cop-outs; which would make all the difference in the world; meaning today's church isn't preaching it right. And, you people aren't even close to understanding that. And, you call yourselves smart and honest. That's pathetic! A smart person (by today's standards) would be your local pastor who is able to trick you and everyone else into thinking that he's preaching Christ correctly, while making a ton of money serving what's correctly called the Antichrist. Today's church is really for the rich, but Christ was for the poor. You atheists are way off track in trying to make the world a better place to live, both in intelligence and in honesty. And, I'm apparently the ONLY person who is fully on track (in teaching it correctly). I'm the only person trying to save Christianity. Yes, tell everyone about the Old Testament faults, and today's Christian hypocrites, but don't blame it on Christ! John Lennon was also apparently fooled by all the church tricks and cop-outs, as there are SO MANY! How can you in honesty blame any war on a guy that ordered us to "love our enemies"?? Jesus Christ was probably ten times the antiwar pacifist that John Lennon could even think about being.

I should add to my talk about Christ's teaching how we should forgive others, that we all can forgive others MUCH easier once we're taught that Christ will see to real wrongdoers' punishments in the Afterlife. It just make a whole lot more sense that someone would be apt to seek revenge more if he thinks that's the only way the wrongdoer is going to get punished. With an "assurance" (Matt. 5:26) that Christ will punish the wrongdoer, victims can more sit back in satisfaction; and to you atheists: even with that teaching alone without a God or Afterlife being real. So, ALL my stuff "fits" with Christ and the / His Goldenrule. My fitting commentary only goes against much of what you've been taught about the Church; all "later" formulated to help the rich get rich; which you've already told me I'm wrong about; only because you can't admit you're that gullible. If everyone was a machine programmed for honesty, I wouldn't be having all the problems I'm having with everyone else's self-centered pride disallowing EVERYONE to not be able to admit how horribly stupid and gullible they really are -- the base explanation for just about all my claims, that I'm not allowed to personalize at this venue. You see, I realize that high communication skills allows brainwash and erroneous information to flourish, dependent entirely on who says it, not it's logic; otherwise, no one would run at a machine gun to their assured deaths. No animal would. No animal gets stressed out just because its parents weren't married.

I think you atheists should first TRY to think that if everyone forgave others and loved their enemy, if it'd be a better world. Then TRY to not destroy that VERY established writing, whether it be Real or we all just "got lucky" that it just happens to be what's best to teach mankind. You atheist could say that the random accidents that made up Christ, made things better, once again.

"Many people will gladly pay later for something now, knowing the payment will be far higher than the current reward."

Sure, but in Christ's world they will at least know that the small wrong will still be accountable. And, believe me, that will likely prevent 99% of all wrongs. There are even cases where the advantage of hurting one innocent person can prevent the hurting of another innocent person. So, the question would be asked if the (eventual) price would be worth it. And, most times it wouldn't be. In rare occurrences where like a police officer has to purposely shove an innocent person onto the floor to catch a man planning to blow up an entire subway station, then yes, the price would be worth it. I would forgive the police officer if I was the innocent person and ended up with just a few bruises, knowing the reason; but, would I forgive him if he purposely shoved my wife and daughter into a passing train to catch the criminal? So, this issue can get rather touchy; but if God allows the innocent killing of one to save millions, then God just allowed the murder of ALL the innocent people killed in war, as both side's say the other side's leader was the cause. Then, why draw the line in war, but just in any dispute? No, the line is if one has something legitimate against you, you'll going to suffer equally in your Afterlife. If you have to hurt some to save others, then you'd best find a better way to save the others, or face the Judgment, and realize that the down-deep feelings of your innocent victims and their loved ones are basically going to be your judge.

Say if in 1983, the Soviet Union invaded the US, nuked a few large American cities and was able to take over the United States. Say YOUR closest loved ones were killed in those attacks, just because Ronald Reagan refused to give up our WMDs that posed a real threat against the Soviet homeland. And, say that those Soviets who killed your loved ones were standing guard at your street corner; and, that you owned a gun. Are you going to tell me that you're not going to want to shoot one, two or all of them in revenge when you get the chance, and join the US insurgency? Well, that's what the Iraqi insurgency was all about. So, realize, hardly any human can figure right from wrong. Realize that most everyone ONLY can know what they are taught, especially when they become President or get become highly educated (highly brainwashed). And, as easily as people can be "educated" or instilled with "brainwashed," even running to their assured deaths toward a machine gun, you're trying to tell me that a correctly taught Fear of God is not going to do any good?

(Now we're going to do the same exact thing to Iran. If it's being prevented, it's likely because of my emails to the White House since 2006, cut off to the media since Feb. '10 because private enterprise [only] defines spam to include Freedom of Speech, different than the government's definition. You veterans who want to hurt me, realize it very well could be that my antiwar emails could be what's allowing many of you to be home right now with your wives and kids. So, quit thinking that I am only a friend to those innocent people you've killed.)

Generally the US does not negotiate with criminals or pirates for the release of hostages, because if we did, it would cause more hostage situations in the future. Neither will God negotiate with wrongdoers, especially when it's only profit that is their advantage. In the business world, when a company makes more money because their advertising implies falsehoods, usually their added profit would not be worth the suffering hurt of their millions of product / service victims. Therefore, many times the price of Fair Afterlife Punishment would be too high (once educated correctly). My thesis with proper teachings would stop that kind of deceit, atheism would definitely not. And my "equal" suffering is based on like eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but there are other parts of the Bible where the penalty is like seven or more times the severity of the crime. Most secular laws base penalties on three times. So, my "equal" assumption could be in error. I just think equal suffering would be enough to discourage the vast majority of wrongs; because, like the secular has three times under the average that you probably committed the crime or shoplifting at least two other times and didn't get caught, but with God, all things can easily be known and taken into account, so "equal" seems more fair to me.

The Old Testament should be all read with a grain of salt, but much of it is valid. The main reason to keep the Old Testament around is because it can interpret much of what Jesus said and referred to. Also, the context of the Greek Old Testament, since it was the one mostly used by Christ and by the writers of the New Testament, is a valid dictionary for all New Testament original Greek words. Not so much for their need back then, but I use it a lot to validate later word definition corruptions today, especially in the English Bible's words "fornication" and "love."

Sure, while atheism is still in working remonstration, some are purposely going to show how honest they can be over others; but, once atheism becomes the predominate standard, all that showiness will end, and the real essence of atheism will create the worst possible ethical standard that could possibly exist.

Like I said earlier, there's an exception to just about everything, but what would change as a majority is not what you are willing to look at. For example, likely an overall taught Fear of God would prevent the person from wanting to blow up the subway station in the first place. The police pursuit in the subway example even proves there are exceptions to Jesus' love your enemies, but such is still better to teach for the vast majority of cases. There can NEVER exist a perfect (or near perfect) utopia of honesty and kindness, in your atheist based agendas, where "all" wrongs are okay as long as one can get away with it in secular laws (or, can slide out of the country bar quick enough).

Again, very few if any people today have a proper sense to Fear God when they hurt others. There are nothing but justifications and cop-outs today in the society. Therefore, it's very understandable if your mindset matches theirs more than mine. So, I understand why you can't "honestly" feel in your mind that I could be right. So, keep searching for more really far-fetched scenarios and I'll keep refuting them using logic; but, please try to refrain from "just" telling me I'm wrong without rational and realistic explanation: looking at all the angles / possibilities.

The Goldenrule Name

#19 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:17 AM EST

I'll let them say it:

This was followed by Bible quotes. But you already said that the Bible contains additions from men that are not inspired by God. Thus the quotes from the bible that followed could be the quotes from men, and not actually words of Jesus. As soon as you admit it has contradictions and wrongly added information, how can you insist that the words you like are actually god's words?

I've debated my issues with a lot of people over the years, and when they all of a sudden change the subject, it just tells me I won my point

In that case, I take this lengthy divergence by you as me having won my point.

And instead of dissect the many logical flaws in your attack on "atheism," I'll keep to the point.

Sure, but in Christ's world they will at least know that the small wrong will still be accountable. And, believe me, that will likely prevent 99% of all wrongs.

You can't prove that. You just want me to "believe" it on faith. You ramble about global war (irrelevant) but you fail to show how true belief in payment will make people deny impulses. Global policy actions are not impulsive. Since most crimes are impulsive and thus disregarding long term cost, this just can't hold up.

People act on impulse every day, and many times they regret it later. They buy something they shouldn't, or say something hurtful they wish they could take back. They knew they would have to pay for it, but they weren't thinking clearly at that moment. If they could look at it rationally, weighing the cost, before the act, they wouldn't do it. But they are acting impulsively or emotionally. So unless you can prove 99% of crimes were premeditated and the assailant wouldn't commit them knowing the cost, you are just throwing out lies as truth and demanding me to believe.

2 votes

#19.1 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:35 PM EST