United States Texas State Board of Education Adopts an Optional "Bible Infused" Curriculum for Public Schools.

[King Arts]

An atheist is a Christian who goes one further.


You are so full of shit that it's coming out of your mouth. You are claiming that an atheist libertarian who holds themselves to NAP is less moral than the Muslim immigrants who demand that dogs be banned, and who run around and assault and rape non-Muslim women? Get out of here with that shit if you want to be taken even remotely seriously.

He did not say that.

 

[King Krávoka]

What moral lessons do they want kids to learn from the Bible anyway?

In a perfect world it would be some like this:

• If widespread sick behavior is not in living memory, then it's about to be. And once it's gone, you just have to overlook the entire society that allowed it to happen, or else you will be too busy spitting on your countrymen to ever accomplish anything ever again.
• Do not respect moneylenders. Do not legalize moneylending. Do not mistake moneylenders for people.
• Dogma can be good, but it can't stay good without the outspoken people whose conscience hasn't been lobotomized by temporal cultural trends. Progress sometimes calls for a little regression.
• Republicanism is God's chosen governmental system that was always viable in every location and era without exceptions, and monarchism is a blasphemous usurpation which always reveals its colors in as little time as a lifetime, incapable of ever being at peace with Zion especially when one rules her. Friendly monarchs are lying or delusional and the perfect window of opportunity for her to annex the offended country and erase all of its tolerance for the existence of anyone that dares to steal the name "king" from God and Men. Glory onto liberalism.
• War must never be profitable.

 

[King Arts]

In a perfect world it would be some like this:

• If widespread sick behavior is not in living memory, then it's about to be. And once it's gone, you just have to overlook the entire society that allowed it to happen, or else you will be too busy spitting on your countrymen to ever accomplish anything ever again.
• Do not respect moneylenders. Do not legalize moneylending. Do not mistake moneylenders for people.
• Dogma can be good, but it can't stay good without the outspoken people whose conscience hasn't been lobotomized by temporal cultural trends. Progress sometimes calls for a little regression.
• Republicanism is God's chosen governmental system that was always viable in every location and era without exceptions, and monarchism is a blasphemous usurpation which always reveals its colors in as little time as a lifetime, incapable of ever being at peace with Zion especially when one rules her. Friendly monarchs are lying or delusional and the perfect window of opportunity for her to annex the offended country and erase all of its tolerance for the existence of anyone that dares to steal the name "king" from God and Men. Glory onto liberalism.
• War must never be profitable.

What are you talking about? This is utterly delusional, God frequently supports and affirms and even appoints some monarchs. From the House of David being the most prominent. But even pagan kings were accepted by God. Cyrus being the biggest example. The Bible says to obey Caesar. The Bible says absolutely nothing about Republics, it is neither condemned NOR supported. Monarchy has support AND condemnation for it. Before the kingdom of Israel it was under the rule of the Judges, this is not a Republic, unless you are using the VERY BROAD definition of Republic as any form of government that is not explicitly a monarchy.

 

[King Krávoka]

What are you talking about? This is utterly delusional, God frequently supports and affirms and even appoints some monarchs. From the House of David being the most prominent. But even pagan kings were accepted by God. Cyrus being the biggest example. The Bible says to obey Caesar. The Bible says absolutely nothing about Republics, it is neither condemned NOR supported. Monarchy has support AND condemnation for it. Before the kingdom of Israel it was under the rule of the Judges, this is not a Republic, unless you are using the VERY BROAD definition of Republic as any form of government that is not explicitly a monarchy.

The Hebraic monarchy started as the adoption of an immoral trend from powerful nations. In other words, they went woke and the punishment was the crime. Biblical monarchs are either degenerates or hospitable pagans that are inevitably replaced by a degenerate.

 

[Typhonis]

Shoot the Almighty, himself, warned them when they asked for a king.

These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. (1 Sam. 8:10-17)

 

[SoliFortissimi]

...nothing useful, then. Might as well teach them lessons from DragonBall Z. At least the latter will make them think self-improvement is a good thing.

And I hate DragonBall Z.

 

[King Arts]

Shoot the Almighty, himself, warned them when they asked for a king.

These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. (1 Sam. 8:10-17)

@King Krávoka
Yes God does not say monarchy is perfect. He tells you there are serious problems with it, so I'm not like supporting monarchism like some people do when they simp for aristocracy. I'm just saying that he has blessed monarchs and not said the government of a king is illegitimate.

 

[What's the sitch?]

He did not say that.

Basically I was saying your living off Christian morality even if you aren't one. I never claimed you had shit morality yourself. I did say that living under Islam is better than what has happened in "lets reject god/religion and worship the state/the greater good" communist take overs.

 

[Abhorsen]

• Do not respect moneylenders. Do not legalize moneylending. Do not mistake moneylenders for people.

This isn't even a clear message of the bible. The last part of it is certainly unbiblical. The moneychangers in the temple are bad, but they don't even lend money, they exchange it at bad rates. And it's more that they exploit people trying to worship in the Temple.

I mean, even the mass murderer Saul, the most wretched man around, could be saved by Jesus. The idea that a simple moneylender isn't considered a person according to the bible is absurd.

• Republicanism is God's chosen governmental system that was always viable in every location and era without exceptions, and monarchism is a blasphemous usurpation which always reveals its colors in as little time as a lifetime, incapable of ever being at peace with Zion especially when one rules her. Friendly monarchs are lying or delusional and the perfect window of opportunity for her to annex the offended country and erase all of its tolerance for the existence of anyone that dares to steal the name "king" from God and Men. Glory onto liberalism.

Also not taught by the bible. They never even mention republicanism. I think you've written what you want into the bible.


I'd go for simpler messages: there's no true king but Jesus. Do good to even those who do you ill. Jesus saves even the most wretched among us, all you have to do is accept His free gift of salvation.

...nothing useful, then. Might as well teach them lessons from DragonBall Z. At least the latter will make them think self-improvement is a good thing.

And I hate DragonBall Z.

There's a ton of useful stuff in the bible. For one minor thing that I enjoy, tax collectors are considered to be just as bad as prostitutes in the new testament. Both are sinful occupations.

 

[King Arts]

This isn't even a clear message of the bible. The last part of it is certainly unbiblical. The moneychangers in the temple are bad, but they don't even lend money, they exchange it at bad rates. And it's more that they exploit people trying to worship in the Temple.

I mean, even the mass murderer Saul, the most wretched man around, could be saved by Jesus. The idea that a simple moneylender isn't considered a person according to the bible is absurd.


Also not taught by the bible. They never even mention republicanism. I think you've written what you want into the bible.


I'd go for simpler messages: there's no true king but Jesus. Do good to even those who do you ill. Jesus saves even the most wretched among us, all you have to do is accept His free gift of salvation.


There's a ton of useful stuff in the bible. For one minor thing that I enjoy, tax collectors are considered to be just as bad as prostitutes in the new testament. Both are sinful occupations.

Based taxes are theft.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

tax collectors are considered to be just as bad as prostitutes in the new testament. Both are sinful occupations

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.....

 

[Captain X]

Basically I was saying your living off Christian morality even if you aren't one. I never claimed you had shit morality yourself. I did say that living under Islam is better than what has happened in "lets reject god/religion and worship the state/the greater good" communist take overs.

No, you said what you said, and I called you out on it. Don't try to backpedal now. Own it.

 

[What's the sitch?]

Believe whatever clipped parts and interpretations fit your narrative, its a free country, for now, I respect it. My whole thing from the start was that alleged atheists are still following Christian morality, they believe that without Christianity(or any religion) in the background shaping them and their neighbors they would still magically have turned out that way as decent people. I'm saying that that way leads to bad things and not the utopia you believe it does. A Muslim run country is better than communism/state worship and you may find that if pushed to that point, that is what will happen in your determination to denounce all religion as being unnecessary.

You can choose to embrace the glory and wonders of Islam instead of tolerating Christianity if you really want, a lot of confused people on the left have done so just to spite them, even though it would be curtailing much of their rights and getting thrown off roof tops and such instead of just not being degenerate in public and stealing their children, which is all modern Christians want.

 

[Abhorsen]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.....

If you are talking about yourself here, you are correct. But the bible is far better than a stopped clock. God's warning about establishing kings in Israel was completely correct. Jesus is right that all of us fall short, and thus forgiveness is necessary. He condemns murder, theft, upholds up monogamy, etc. It's not really a surprise though that the creator of all would be correct though.

Believe whatever clipped parts and interpretations fit your narrative, its a free country, for now, I respect it. My whole thing from the start was that alleged atheists are still following Christian morality, they believe that without Christianity(or any religion) in the background shaping their and their neighbors they would still magically have turned out that way as decent people. I'm saying that that way leads to bad things and not the utopia you believe it does. A Muslim run country is better than communism/state worship and you may find that if pushed to that point, that is what will happen in your determination to denounce all religion as being unnecessary.

You can choose to embrace the glory and wonders of Islam instead of tolerating Christianity if you really want, a lot of confused people on the left have done so just to spite them, even though it would be curtailing much of their rights and getting thrown off roof tops and such instead of just not being degenerate in public and stealing their children, which is all modern Christians want.

Again, assuming communism is the only result of a non-religious belief system is deeply wrong and a bad assumption.

 

[What's the sitch?]

And yet it seems that it and things claiming to be it/adjacent to it are what result as can be seen in other countries around the world. Losing the lottery isn't technically the only result of buying a ticket for it, but its usually what happens. I live in real world land, not theoretically happens if everything goes right and everyone is selfless and full of virtue world.

 

[Abhorsen]

And yet it seems that it and things claiming to be it/adjacent to it are what result as can be seen in other countries around the world. Losing the lottery isn't technically the only result of buying a ticket for it, but its usually what happens. I live in real world land, not theoretically happens if everything goes right and everyone is selfless and full of virtue world.

If you are going to claim that all of western morality descended from Christianity (which is dubious), you need to also accept that so did Socialism, for all it tries to reject Christianity.

If not, there's Confucianism, for just one major example, of a non-religious originated morality that is better than a religious one.

More than that though, a ton of religious origin world view suck. Ignore Islam, there are even worse ones, like Vikings or Aztecs, and I'd put Aztecs as worse than socialists honestly. Moloch worship was an actual religion with actual baby sacrifice, and I could go on.

No, the actual argument you should make isn't that religion is somehow better than no religion. Instead argue that Christianity is better than not-Christianity.

 

[King Arts]

If you are going to claim that all of western morality descended from Christianity (which is dubious), you need to also accept that so did Socialism, for all it tries to reject Christianity.

If not, there's Confucianism, for just one major example, of a non-religious originated morality that is better than a religious one.

More than that though, a ton of religious origin world view suck. Ignore Islam, there are even worse ones, like Vikings or Aztecs, and I'd put Aztecs as worse than socialists honestly. Moloch worship was an actual religion with actual baby sacrifice, and I could go on.

No, the actual argument you should make isn't that religion is somehow better than no religion. Instead argue that Christianity is better than not-Christianity.

Confucianism is an edge case though. As the justification for sons to obey their parents, wives obey husbands, subjects obey their rulers to have a stable society was because "It pleases heaven"

 

[Abhorsen]

Confucianism is an edge case though. As the justification for sons to obey their parents, wives obey husbands, subjects obey their rulers to have a stable society was because "It pleases heaven"

But to a Confucianism, heaven isn't actually related to a deity. It's more sorta a meaning of 'rightness'.

I'd rate Confucianism as about as much as a religion as Randian Objectivism. It makes a bunch of metaphysical claims, but there's no real talk about what a deity wants.

Also, the key point is really that there are a bunch of shit religions, even worse than communism. Aztecs, for example, are worse than communists. Even communists weren't trying to set records for mass murder (they just did anyway). Aztecs made human sacrifice the end goal. If Aztecs had a similar level of power to any 20th century communist nation, the death toll would be so much worse than communist ones, and so much crueler as well.

There's nothing special about religion versus another method of conveying a set of morals. Unless the religion is the true religion.

 

[Crow gotta eat]

An atheist is a Christian who goes one further.

I find that is one of the stupider "clever lines" for atheism. "Well, you don't believe in these gods, so why not go one further?"

Because there are two different questions. The first being "Is there a Divine reasoning behind existence?" which if the answer is yes then leads into the second question "How is the Divine governed?" Just proclaiming "I just believe in one less than you!" is not an argument, because of the differences of viewing the world just from those two different viewpoints. Polytheists can easily understand monotheists and the reverse, usually the difference is in how they view ins and out of spiritualism and how the Divine should be properly worshipped.

Atheists, or at least ones that don't follow something like Buddhism or something similar, outright deny the spiritual. So no, an atheist is not "a Christian who goes one further."

It is an inherently stupid thing to state, because it does not even address the issue of "Is there something Divine in existence or not?" Unless you are spiritualist atheist (and even then it could be argued), the "in believing one less god than you" line does not work, because believing in just one god fundamentally changes the way you view the entirety of existence.

If you are going to claim that all of western morality descended from Christianity (which is dubious), you need to also accept that so did Socialism, for all it tries to reject Christianity.

This is true, it basically tried promising Heaven on Earth, and was at least partially based on the Christian views of "equality" or "fairness" kind of values, except taken in a completely materialistic way, with spirituality being either inconsequential or outright in the way of the "Glorious Revolution!"

Thus is a way, Communism and Socialist thought could be considered a Christian Heresy. One that outright denies God rather than misconstrues him, at least when they are the type to go "Religion fundamentally gets in the way of the Revolution!"

 

[King Arts]

But to a Confucianism, heaven isn't actually related to a deity. It's more sorta a meaning of 'rightness'.

I'd rate Confucianism as about as much as a religion as Randian Objectivism. It makes a bunch of metaphysical claims, but there's no real talk about what a deity wants.

Also, the key point is really that there are a bunch of shit religions, even worse than communism. Aztecs, for example, are worse than communists. Even communists weren't trying to set records for mass murder (they just did anyway). Aztecs made human sacrifice the end goal. If Aztecs had a similar level of power to any 20th century communist nation, the death toll would be so much worse than communist ones, and so much crueler as well.

There's nothing special about religion versus another method of conveying a set of morals. Unless the religion is the true religion.

Nah Confucian is different from Randians. As when they talk about heaven they are envisioning a government with the Jade Emperor and the other gods as part of the celestial bureaucracy.

Also religions don't HAVE to worry about a deity Buddhism while it acknowledges the reality of gods is ambivalent about them.