If Mohammad was alive today, and had sex with a kid, would Muslims demand jail time?

Secular humanists hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. Secular humanists seek to develop and improve their ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women.

 

that is a lie.

MSH does not believe in Good or Evil.

 

I might not always fit your particular definition of Modern Secular Humanist as it's not spelled out as much as it maybe "should" be.

 

MSH do not believe in good or evil.

they believe the end results justify the means.

this proves Hitler, Stalin and Mao were MSH

 

Jesus is certainly "evil" because that psycho is ok (according to many many verses in the Bible) with, say, Muslims (as an example of non-believers), even if they are very ethical Muslims, being sent to his dad's barbaric "lake of fire".....pure evil. Jesus' hatred for Muslims knows no bounds. I love Muslims, but Jesus has pure hatred for them - I'd let ethical Muslims into "heaven", and avoid "hell", because Modern Secular Humanists are generally more ethical than Christians are. Just because a person made the honest mistake of not picking the one correct, true, "god" out of the thousands and thousands on offer does not mean that one should get burned alive. As a former Christian I was disgusted with myself, and with Jesus, once I realized the barbarity and selfishness of that zombie.

 

And with your people, who is to say that humans can't have sex with animals, marry them, and be allowed to adopt children?

Why don't you give us a sample of "YOUR BIBLE" and your basic commandments on moral behavior.

 

Jesus believed that even FEAR OF TORTURE ("hell") was justified in getting people to suck up to him, but Modern Secular Humanists are above that barbarity - we reject that savagery of Jesus.

Non-believers get brutal torture...utter savagery, and the most unfair belief system imaginable:
John 14:6: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Acts 4:12, 2 Thessalonians 1:1-10, John 3:18, John 10:27-28, Matthew 10:32, Luke 12:8, John 5:2, John 3:36, John 6:47, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, Revelation 19:20, 20:10,14-15, 21:8, John 15:6: Jesus said “Unless a person remains united with me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up. Such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, where they are burned up."

 

We don't have a "Bible" because we aren't authoritarian in nature, unlike religions that try to control people....(uh, that would be ALL religions.) We can think for ourselves, thank you very much.

 

I condemn Hitler, I condemn Hitler's Holocaust/genocide in no uncertain terms. Can you summon the moral courage to condemn "God" for his Holocaust/genocide ("flood" in the Bible) that killed more than even Hitler did, and ever killed virtually all the innocent animals, as well? A Modern Secular Humanist likely doesn't give genocidal maniacs a pass.....do you, Ronstar?

 

We can agree that gays should be allowed to adopt children, correct?

 

you can condemn all you want, but MSH believes in moral relativism and "the ends justify the means".

such belief systems motivated and inspired Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

without some form of absolute truth and a belief in Good and Evil, psychopaths run free

 

Never said I was a dude.

 

but you don't believe in Good and Evil.

which means moral relativism.

 

Unlike religious people, I can think for myself and choose to improve on Kurtz's (PBUH) teachings.

 

Wrong - Q4:34 still remains in every Qur'an that I'm aware of....every.....single.....one.

 

Well, here's an example of something that we are too compassionate to include in our "Bible" if we choose to create one: "34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings."

Can we agree that a book would be better without these 2 verses, Greataxe? Seems reasonable, no?

 

You mean like that psychopath Moses, in Exodus, where he kills 3000 people (that's actually more than even Bin Laden had killed on 9/11)? You mean like the immoral zombie from Nazareth who met with said mass-murderer in the "transfiguration"? Those psychopaths?

 

Speaking of evil - Jesus has had 1400 years to tell us that (apparently?) he is NOT actually the Messiah in Islam ("Isa" in Islam), like the Islamic texts teach - if he did that then the Jihad would be neutered by quite a bit, of course.....not doing that is a good example of evil. I condemn Jesus for not doing that....do you?

 

just because the passage remains in the Quran doesn't mean Muslims believe in wife beating.

the Torah tells Jews to kill Gays but we don't believe in doing this.

 

but MSH doesn't believe in evil, which means neither do you

 

I would LIKE to see religion end, but making religion illegal (for example) would not be the best way to go, so no, I don't believe that "the ends justify the means". Nor would killing religious people, for example, of course. God had people killed who simply had a different invisible friend in the sky (in the Bible), but Modern Secular Humanists are more ethical than god/Jesus/Christians are, generally.

 

Clearly showing that they lack the moral courage to improve said texts.

 

You are somewhat right that "evil" might not be the very very best word.....but I think we can agree that "barbaric" would be a good term to describe the heroes of the Bible who had all the non-virgin females killed in a defeated tribe.....100% barbarians. Can you condemn those in the Bible who approved of that, Ronstar?

 

They lack the moral courage to answer "yes" to this question: "did Allah get it morally wrong when he said to BEAT wives in the Qur'an?"
Can YOU answer "yes" to this question, Ronstar?

 

or maybe their understanding of ancient archaic ways is greater than your narrow minded one