Communism = Atheism = Relative Morality
Above by Michael Ramirez of Investor’s Business Daily, 26 June 2007
Above by Red Planet Cartoons. The bearded guy so prevalent on shirts is the same one who said: “If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”
Above via Moonbattery.
How many million? One hundred million.
If you want some gruesome photographic evidence of the above massacres: Here at Moonbattery.
Links regarding Communist-sponsored mass murder: This comment.
The following statements will be offensive to some, and the line of reasoning may be challenged. But I find the logic to be whole.
Communists are de facto atheists. Atheists believe that there is no God - no higher power per se.
If there is no higher power, morals and ethics are determined by man himself. Where there is no God, man makes himself god.
Therefore, morals become relative to the situation. There is no absolute definition of right or wrong - it depends on the viewer, the culture or the majority decision.
The killing of millions therefore cannot be condemned as ‘fundamentally immoral’ if there is no fundamental on which to base a definition of wrong.
If survival of the species is the determinant in a genetic code of morals, then it can be argued that killing 10 million humans is moral if it preserves the life of 100 million humans.
And if there are no longer any morals to offer restraint, then the monster within will be freely unleashed… Like in the case of that most famous of revolutionary poster-boys, Che kill-everyone-out-of-insurgent-hate Guevara.
Similarly, if homosexuality is not considered immoral, there are no moral arguments against bestiality.
If both the human and the animal willingly participate in sex and enjoy it, what protest can be made? That it is unnatural or non-procreative? The same can be also said of homosexuality.
Yet you will be hard pressed to find openly professing supporters of zoophilia, even among PFLAG and other LGBT groups. Is bestiality not yet a socially acceptable lifestyle?
Judging by such standards, I guess certain European nations where animal kinkiness, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia are legal are more advanced civilizations than America.
In conclusion, this is what I am getting at: It is not that atheism is by definition immoral. It is that by definition, atheism cannot have absolute morals, only situation-relative ones.
Right and wrong are no longer set in stone, but always in flux.
See also my post Morality: Of Absolutes and Relatives.
Tags: atheist, che guevara, communism, communist, fidel castro, genocide, kim jong-il, lenin, mao, murderers, pol pot, purge, soviet, stalin
June 26, 07 at
Religion has no absolute morals, either, only humans who claim to speak for god(s). Is polygamy moral or immoral? The answer depends entirely on what god the person asked follows. Since gods never show up to settle such questions, we’re still stuck with humans arguing with other humans. Religious arguments are just invalid arguments from authority, since anyone can say anything about what god(s) want.
June 26, 07 at
Granted. But within a particular belief system (at least, for the theistic ones) the set of moral codes and laws is treated as absolute - given by an absolute authority and meant to be absolute and not open for rewriting.
As to which religion is right about the set of moral laws, that is a question for apologetics. See my myriad posts in the category Apologia tou Kristou for various reasons why I believe Christianity to be uniqeuly true from an objective, factual and historical assessment.
Particularly relevant on historical reliability:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/isaiah-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls/
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/was-the-bible-changed-reasons-why-it-could-not-have-been/
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-internal-evidence-from-acts/
On inexplicable foreshadowing of New Testament themes in the Old Testament:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/hidden-revelation-in-the-genealogy-from-adam-to-noah/
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/a-cross-to-the-promised-land/
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/12/14/christ-as-god-in-the-old-testament/
June 26, 07 at
“But within a particular belief system (at least, for the theistic ones) the set of moral codes and laws is treated as absolute - given by an absolute authority and meant to be absolute and not open for rewriting.”
Yes, that’s one of the absolute worst things about religious belief systems.
June 26, 07 at
Agreed where the the religious texts says things like “Kill all non-believers” or “Sacrifice your newborn babies on the altar of Molech”.
But how about when it says things like “Love God and humans”, “Value innocent life” and “Give up your life for the sake of others” ?
At least with such definitive guidelines, we have a solid foundation to stand on when it comes to issues such as eugenics, racial cleansing and abortion (i.e. “Sacrifice your unborn babies on the altar of selfish liberal secular humanism”).
So the crux of the debate is this: Is it better for us to have absolute guidelines that have been set by an all-knowing, all-wise, immortal, timeless, perfect and infallible God who designed us and our entire universe in the first place?
Or is it better for us short-lived, arrogant, cliqueish, bigoted, self-centred, small-minded, under-exposed and often moronic humans to decide for ourselves what is best?
You certainly can’t tell Stalin or Mao that sacrificing your own populace for the greater future is wrong because God says so. Where there is no God, Man is his own god.
Nor can you convince an aborting mother that it is wrong to let doctors stab her babies’ brain with scissors if she believes that life has a relative value.
What guidelines do atheists adhere to, if any? Contemporary culture or the majority? I suggest that we do not call for a global vote on what should be considered moral - the billion Chinese swing vote might decide that nonCommunists are expendable for the greater future good of the human species.
More likely, it is whatever each individual thinks constitutes ‘moral’. I venture that there is little agreement between different atheist/humanist individuals or groups, since there is no overarcing set of beliefs or rules.
So then… Let’s say I think euthanizing the chronically unemployed, terminally sick, criminals and old people is MORALLY superior to letting them slowly drain away society’s resoruces. Go ahead and tell me why I am MORALLY wrong.
June 27, 07 at
Let me ask you - should homosexual acts between consenting adults be illegal?
June 27, 07 at
I use the term Christian here, but you may replace it with whichever religion or philosophy of your choice.
IM own HO, people who do not profess to be Christians should not be bound by the rules, laws and norms of Christianity. Ergo, homosexuality between consenting adults should not be made illegal through the secular laws of the nation.
They may also have civil unions, but not marriage in a Christian church - marriage being defined as a union ordained and blessed by God and accepted by the Christian community.
However, point 1: If there exist separate sets of rules and laws for different philosophical beliefs, how do we ensure that the laws are fairly implemented?
This is a problem in Muslim majority countries where nonMuslims are subject to the secular court, but Muslims are subject to the Sharia court. Thus one argument against the right to renounce religion and become apostate is that a Muslim who commited a Sharia-but-not-secular crime can just renounce Islam and get away free.
Point 2, the open demonstration and acceptance of homosexuality will have an influence on the rest of the populace. It is undesirable for Christians to have their children surrounded by LGBT friends who will be a big influence on their choices.
If that does not sound like a valid argument, note that lawsuits are brought against Christians who protelyse where they are unwelcome. If we similarly consider homosexuality a belief/lifestyle, should not protelysing by the LGBT community also be kept out of where it is not welcome?
Point 3, one which you likely will not consider valid, however I will state it anyhow. In the history of the nation of Israel, the immorality of the people’s behaviour eventually brought ruin to the nation. God gave them repeated warnings, but they kept telling God to stuff it. So God removed His protection from the nation, and bigger empires came and crushed Israel.
If we apply this notion of righteous/unrighteous living, then even if the Christians stay to themselves doing all their holy stuff, the God-displeasing actions of the rest of the community and nation could still lead to the downfall of everyone.
(That was one argument on 9-11 you know. When people asked, “How could God let this happen?” the response of some was the immorality of the nation had caused God to remove His protection from it.)
Therefore, taking all the points together, in the practical reality it is undesirable for Christians to allow unGodly behaviour - such as homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, free sex, etc. - to be legalized.
To accept such activity would be to encourage it - which is morally irresponsible, would end up influencing the weaker-willed of the believers, and might bring God’s judgement upon everyone ala Sodom and Gomorrah.
So while from a human viewpoint I do not think homosexual acts between consenting adults should be illegal, from a spiritual and practical viewpoint it cannot be permitted.
June 27, 07 at
I see, you’ll just be a reluctant totalitarian and outlaw everything that your religion “cannot permit.”
I’m glad you have no political power.
June 27, 07 at
Well, I believe in true neutrality and objectivity. After all, who’s to say that I am correct in believing Christianity to be right? I could be gravely mistaken.
Therefore to better ensure fairness, I always put myself in the other party’s shoes.
How would I feel if the LGBT community were the majority, and implemented laws stating that pure heterosexuality is illgeal - every person must have non-straght sex at least once before gaining citizenship? (Not too far fetched - many countries today de facto disallow Christians or any other non-Communist/Muslims from pactising their beliefs.
But look at it from this point of view: That Christianity’s claims are right, and persisting in ungodly, immoral behaviour will result in suffering and eternal damnation.
If that’s the case, would it be morally, ethically, socially and humanly responsible to just let the LGBTs be? Staying inside our churches all cosy and shielded from the outside world?
In real life, you can be held negligent if you just stood by as a young child drowned, or set itself on fire. It is similarly irresponsible to let the unknowing, unbelieving masses march off to doom… In fact, it’s worse, since eternity and infinity are added into the mix!
But of course, this assumes that Christianity is correct about all of this. As I said before, that’s a question for apologetics. I’ve previously given links to my posts on several reasons why I believe Christianity to be uniquely correct.
On a related note… I personally know Pastor Edmund Smith, who was once a truly flamboyant gay. He turned to men for sexual love because he did not receive love from his father.
But after many deeply disappointing relationships, he found that Jesus and God the Father offered pure, complete, unconditional and unselfish love. The love of a Man, though not sexual.
Edmund Smith converted to Christianity and renounced his former life of sin, and he found more manly love from fellow believers. It turns out that men can love one another deeply and intimately without any sexual overtones at all! (Similar to how guys can love girls as sisters, though it’s easy to cross the line.)
Today he is hapily married with one child, and runs a ministry for LGBTs called the True Love Ministry. It doesn’t force people to stop being gay or tell them that their lifestyle is wrong. By loving and caring for them unconditionally, some eventually come to know the source of the love - a God of true love. And this God of true love knows what is best for them - and it is not a homosexual lifestyle.
You can find Edmund Smith’s blog at the Blogroll on the right side of my main page, or go direct to Real Love Ministry at http://www.r-l-m.com/
June 27, 07 at
“Well, I believe in true neutrality and objectivity.”
Well, no you don’t. You think your theology should be law. And I’m sure if your theology radically changed, you’d insist that everyone obey your new theology.
June 27, 07 at
What I meant by that was, I believe that true neutrality and objectivity, based of fact and reason and logic, should be used to determine what philosophy and worldview is correct and true. Once that has been determined, I adhere to it. Every once in a while, I reexamine my stand and requestion my beliefs according to new evidence.
I can honestly say that if evidence beyond reasonable doubt were produced that showed Christianity is wrong or fake - such as ancient documents from BCE that show the New Testament is a modified rip-off - then I would reconsider and even reject Christianity.
Can you say the same for your own views, Mr. One Sentence? What are your philosophies anyway? How did you come to adhere to them?
I dare say that I chose and continue to choose my philosophy more neutrally, objectively, logically and factually than you.
Refute me. I dare ya.
PS. No, I do not think that my theology should be law and everyone should adhere to what I think is right. I admit to having a sadistic and vindictive streak - those who reject Christ’s offer of salvation can go ahead and be condemned to an eternity away from the source of all goodness, niceness, love and joy, and I’d say serve ‘em right, thats what they always wanted. (That makes me a rather uncaring, selfish Christian.)
And all that aside… In the bottom line, God’s word IS law. Sin leads to suffering, death and eternal lostness whether you or PFLAG or whichever politicians disagree about it. Votes and revolutions aren’t gonna change the fact that if you do’t want to play by God’s rules, then God’s isn’t gonna play with you.
June 27, 07 at
“What I meant by that was, I believe that true neutrality and objectivity, based of fact and reason and logic, should be used to determine what philosophy and worldview is correct and true. Once that has been determined, I adhere to it.”
But you go BEYOND that. You require that everyone else obey YOUR opinion of what is true. That’s tyranny.
June 28, 07 at
*Sigh* Little boy, please listen closely.
Nowhere did I state that I intend all people, regardless of personal beliefs, to be forced to obey God’s laws as revealed in the Bible. Show me where I said that.
What I believe is that if you want to call yourself a Bible-believing, God-loving Christian, then you have to obey God’s laws. No gay ordained ministers. No visits to the prostitutes. No voting for laws that allow abortion and same-sex marriages. (Note that I said VOTING - us Christians do believe in democracy, especially the Baptists who vote on every little church decision.)
And if you’re not Christian, then you can just go ahead and be intimately penetrated by your same-gender giraffes - just keep that stuff out of our sight and hearing.
Even God Himself does not force His laws on people. Sure, it breaks His heart to see people willingly fling themselves off the deep edge. But if He wanted perfectly obedient servants, He’d have made robots instead of sin-capable humans.
Besides, truth is NOT a relative thing! What do mean, my OPINION of what is true? If it is true that gravity makes objects fall to the ground, disbelieving it does NOT allow us to fly! If it is NOT true that a Thai transvestite is a woman, then by golly he has a Y chromosome even if he looks like a total babe!
So is it tyranny to be subject to reality?
Similarly, if God’s existence and His laws as stated in the Bible are true, there is no escaping form that fact in the end. What you or I opine about it does nothing to change the fact. When we are all dead, we will see if my assumption is correct, no?
Heck, EVERY SYSTEM OF LAW forces itself on some people. No law is fully accepted and agreed upon by every single citizen. I for one think many of the traffic rules are pooh. But I still have to follow them regardless or face a fine. By your definition, does that make the city council tyrannical?
And I shall turn your argument back onto atheism - Would it be tyrannical to force all school students, regardless of belief, to study the Bible? And force them to take exams on Applied Christianity that determine their graduating grades?
I’m sure you’ll think that’s EXTREMELY tyrannical.
But that is EXACTLY what is happening in schools today… Only the belief being forced upon everyone is Darwinistic evolution. What does evolution teach? That all life was formed and evolved without the influence of any outside factors. It was all accomplished through random chance.
No outside influence. In other words, NO GOD. That’s atheistic teaching right there. No other purported scientific theory requires atheistic assumptions.
Students can’t even raise the idea of there being an influencing, guiding force directing evolution. The understanding, fair-minded, totally non-tyrannical atheists do not even allow Intelligent Design to be taught alongside as an alternative.
And don’t get me started on the LACK of hard evidence for macro-evolution, something that other theories such as General Relativity and quantum physics and spherical Earth possess in abundance. Science nothing, evolution is an athiest philosophy with less observable proof than the Bible’s accounts of historical events.
Then again, the proofless blind faith of evolution fits in PERFECTLY with other utterly proofless ’scientific’ ideas as spontaneous generation and the steady-state universe. Which have been decisively disproven by Pasteur and the Big Bang expanding universe, by the way.
So how come evolutionists still cling to the spontaneous generation idea that produced the first DNA molecules from nonliving chemicals? They say that single-celled bacteria were the first life forms on Earth.
But do you know how crazily complex even a single cell is? With all the nucleus, flagella, cell membrane, vacuole? I’m a Biology grad, I know! For a non-layman to imagine a whole bacterial cell forming from random chemicals, well, that’s mythology right there!
Such theories as the above were/are firmly embraced by atheists, because they offer an escape to a reality that doesn’t need a God. If the universe simply always existed, they wouldn’t need God to have started it. If life could spontaneously arise from nonlife, well, no need for God to create it then!
It strikes me, sir, that atheists are the ones who are truly blind-faithed, proud, illogical and - yes - TYRANNICAL.
Or do you forget Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Phnom Penh, Castro, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il? One of their favourite pastimes was killing religious believers and destroying churches.
And so-called democratic, tolerant atheists in the West ban prayer from schools, carrying Bibles, wearing crosses and even nclduing Christ in Christmas. Atheists hijacking and subjugating the personal activities of Christians and a Christian religious celebration. There’s your TYRANNY right there.
You know, little boy, I do believe you have no greater agenda than to heckle me and look for a fight. You probably don’t even read my entire comment essays, just scan through wihtout contemplating, and then repeat your same tired point AGAIN.
It is also very convenient that you do not state your own views for comparison. What laws do YOU think we should follow? Are they just as ‘tyrannical’ as mine?
Or perhaps you feel that not having any laws is best. Everyone should follow their own rules and definition of what is right and wrong.
If that were implemented, watch and see and your neighbours ransack your house in the name of ’sharing’, rapists terrorize the streets in the name of ‘free love’, and the police ignore you and go bowling as suits their mood.
That, good sir, is one theology of what hell is like - a place where everyone is free to do their own thing, their own way. No God’s laws or rules. Unfortunately, everyone else is also trying to their own thing to, at the expense of others. And so chaos and disorder reign.
Ah, I tire of this. Go and bring someone who is well educated, deeply read and experienced in sensible debating. A least he will stimulate my mind with new ideas and thoughtful arguments. Who knows, he might even convince me on some of the positive points of his philosophy.
Whereas you, little boy, fit a message board better with your non sequiturs and - quite frankly - uninformative comments. Prove me wrong and try harder with your next one.
June 29, 07 at
However, I do want to thank you… Your prodding gave me the necessary motivation to flesh out and put into words my polemic against atheism, that until now has been gestating in my mind.
As iron sharpens iron, sometimes jelly can inexplicably mould steel…
July 11, 07 at
Sure, Atheism is relative morality, but if you believe in objective morality from some place such as the bible.. well then why don’t christians obey the laws on mildew in the old testment, or laws of unclean bodily discharge? God wanted it to be obeyed, who are you to say that it doesn’t matter?
July 11, 07 at
Simple, because we are not Jews. I happen to be a Chinaman. Oh, velly nice-o meeta you!
“And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” - Exodus 12:48-49
So unless an individual is Jewish, he/she should not partake in the Passover. Some claim that Gentiles are “spiritual” Jews, but in the flesh and blood they are not. The Jews are special people in God’s eyes; this is irrefutable. Again, Gentiles are not Jews; therefore they are not bound to keep all tenets of the Law of Moses. When Jesus partook in Passover, He always did it with His fellow Jews; no Gentile ever participated.
The above two paragraphs were taken from Point 7 of http://ahnsahnghong.tripod.com/id21.html which I had just happened to be reading. (Coincidence or God-incidence!) It’s about the Passover, but basically explains the gist of why Christians do not follow Mosaic laws.
Or take these verses from Jeremiah 31:31-34…
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
That’s what the New Testament of Christianity is… A new covenant, a new promise, a new set of rules to live by.
Other people have asked and answered your question before. The first three Google hits net me these links:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1173957
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/WhyWeDontFollowtheOldTestament.htm
http://www.decapolis.com/faith_/pages/DoWeFollowOldTestamentLaws.shtml
And this amusing article explains why even modern JEWS, even the Ultra-Orthodox branch, seldom follow the OT laws for Jews!
http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles-4/fog0000000021.html
Most Christians are un-circumsized Gentiles. But we obey the ultimate law that Jesus gave us: To Love God and love man. See http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/response-to-the-letter-to-dr-laura-on-homosexuality/ and http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/two-loves-in-balance/ for some exegesis.
July 13, 07 at
Yes, thank you for the comment about a new covenant. Ask a Christian about Christianity, and you’ll get a straight answer. Some of those rules in the OT dealt with issues relevant only at the time and place where they were given.
In my view, the issue is entirely laid to rest for those who believe in modern revelation. If one believes that God once spoke to Hebrews and gave them a law suited to their time, what stops Him from revealing things to us suited to our time? Here there is controversy among Christian sects, but I think we can all at least agree that no good father stops speaking to his children, and we hold God (according to scripture) to be the Father of mankind. This is the point of many present-day believers: “That God speaketh, not [merely] spake…”
So who are we to say that an old rule doesn’t matter? Pallawish’s point is valid, but he ignores another critical and related question: who are we to retain rules that God has revoked?
July 13, 07 at
Good point to bring up, Liam.
The difficulty and controversy surrounding the idea of modern revelation is this: Who is the source of authority to whom God has genuinely revealed His word?
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) would say that the Popes, as God’s representative on Earth, is the authoritaty on new doctrines. In deciding about a new revelation, he is considered infallible - incapable of making a mistake.
After all, the line of Popes is considered to go back all the way to Peter, assumed to be the leader of the Apostles and thus the early church.
Various cults would say that their founder is/was the source of new revelation, and cannot be challenged.
The mainstream Protestant belief is that no mere man is infallible - to be so would be mean he is without the corrupting taint of sin. And while all who put their faith in Christ are cleansed of their sins, that does not make us perfect. To wit, since there are no perfect people around, there is no perfect (and binding) new revelation.
This is one of the bigegst contentions between the RCC and non-RC churches - whether the Pope is a doctrinally infallible, or even the rightful head of all believers.
After all, where does it say that Peter was the official leader of the church? Or that Jesus meant there to be a string of successive leaders who hold full power and authority? Aren’t we supposed to have God as our direct authority, and hence, obey the word of God in form of the Bible?
That’s the mainstream Protestant belief - the Bible, and only the Bible, is the source of autoritative revelation. One line of reasoning against modern revelation laying down new, binding laws are the third and fourth last verses of the Bible:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19
Thus if one is of the conviction that only the Bible should be the basis of Christian conduct, then no new laws after the last verse of Revelation should be accepted.
This is one argument against the aforementioned infallibility of new doctrine as revealed by Popes. Another of the biggest disagreements between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the addition of new rules and doctrines not present in the Bible (such as the Sacramaents which the RCC claims are necessary for salvation).
This of course does not apply to (extra)ordinary everyday revelation… God speaking to us and the Holy Spirit guiding us. God’s personal will for each of us is more like the case of Jonah, IMO.
My own experience is that it is immeasureably comforting and assuring knowing that God has made clear His will for me. My current job and my upcoming marriage are based firmly on specific signs from God (skills and love aside). Thus I worry not at all about whether I will have provision, or whether I’m marrying the right person, or it will all last.
July 15, 07 at
Whatever new revelation from above, it must be 100% based on a principle given in the Bible. From the first ever revelation after the NT was given even to today’s theology of the Cultural Mandate, every single true revelation was drawn from a principle spoken in the bible.
A revelation is never private: It is always open to scrutiny and to discussion and prayer among different groups of elders/leaders.
In my view, while things like the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, they should be observed out of respect for God’s command to do it in remembrance of Him. Furthermore, there is a supernatural power in the breaking of the bread and in the wine which many Protestant churches seem to have lost hold of. In a nutshell, things like speaking in tongues, the Sacraments and water baptism are necessary although they don’t save you. They allow you to fulfill either 1) keeping God’s commandments or 2) fulfilling all of God’s plans for you.
January 28, 08 at
“And all that aside… In the bottom line, God’s word IS law. Sin leads to suffering, death and eternal lostness whether you or PFLAG or whichever politicians disagree about it”
YEAH! GOD’S LAW! Eternal Hellfire for all who wear cotton/polyester blends! Rayon and spandex?! Don’t come near my children you heathen! Crop Rotation is evil and should be punished by a lake of fire!
January 29, 08 at
Actually communist regimes had absolute morality. They were not relativists in any sense of the word. A good person was one who obeyed the authorities, was an informer and stood ready to oppose enemies of the revolution. Interestingly communist morality was similar to christian morality (homosexuality is illegal in Cuba). So saying atheism and communism and relative morality are the same isn’t true. Plus you have communists that weren’t atheists so that is another stake in your arguement.
So you’re saying there is no reason to condemn bestality, but your condeming it? Isn’t that like saying you have no reason to hate black people, but you hate them anyway?
Europe is more socially advanced in some ways- the US doesn’t have a monopoly on all that is good in the human race.
The only thing in your whole tirade that is true is that it is hypocritical for people to wear procommunist clothing in the US.
January 29, 08 at
I like that “God’s word is law” by the way. Well, so is the Furher’s. I also don’t get what you mean by absolute morality. You seem to believe moralities goal is to obey God. Since he doesn’t exist that would be hard. I think it means to fullfill your duties and obligations to the rest of the human race in order to achieve the best results possible. Probably should look at a dictionary first though…
January 29, 08 at
Seeing that as I also am uncircumcized, do not sacrifice young male goats for my sins and regularly eat pork, I just might be joining you down there Fetish mate…
Oops, I forgot, I’M NOT JEWISH lol!
January 29, 08 at
So you’re saying there is no reason to condemn bestality, but your condeming it? Isn’t that like saying you have no reason to hate black people, but you hate them anyway?
Actually, what I’m saying that if humans can define what is moral or ethical based on the situation, then anything is permissible if enough people agree to it. But that’s not what I subscribe to.
Intellectually, I am supportive of civil rights for homosexuals… But religiously, I do not believe that Christianity supports homosexuality. Glad I’m not the President with a bill in front of me…
January 29, 08 at
Your not a moral person if the only reason you aren’t commiting immoral acts is because you lack the power. In fact you seem to have no idea what morality is- I’ll give you a hint- it isn’t mindless dogmatism. Then you’re a utopian commie… or a facist… or a fundie. You can say their is an absolute morality, but unless you can defend it you’re just blowing steam.
January 29, 08 at
Your not a moral person if the only reason you aren’t commiting immoral acts is because you lack the power.
I have to agree with you here. Most conservatives support strict laws banning things like homosexual marriage, or even homosexuality itself, because it is immoral.
Yet if people were not even allowed to choose between accepting or rejecting something immoral, then they are not acting morally - they are simply being forced to obey the law!
This is the same argument for why YHWH did something so ‘provocative’ as place the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. Didn’t He know that its presence would tempt Adam and Eve?
But if YHWH had not allowed for SOME way for Adam and Eve to CHOOSE to rebel… How would they rebel, practically? “You can sin if you want to… But I didn’t give you the ability to!” They might as well be robots.
But on the other hand, if immoral behaviour is openly permitted or even encouraged, then the reality is that it will influence people to behave in that same way. Put a porn shop in a school, and tell me that it doesn’t unnecessarily provoke the schoolboys.
Or for an apt illustration or temptation/provocation, see the classic Ren & Stimpy sequence, The History Eraser Button: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=History+Eraser+Button
So it’s one thing to ban all possibilities of immorality, but it’s another thing to drown people in sources of temptation.
My philosophy is that things aren’t pure black or pure white, but red - just as blood is not made of pure salt or pure water, but requires a specific combination of both (and more), every problem has a solution with a precise measure.
On absolute morality, this particular Christian’s logicking is: If the Bible is proven accurate and true on things that can be proven (e.g. historical events), then what it says about things that can’t be proven (e.g. existence of God, God’s law is the best way) can be inferred to be true as well.
Hence, if God and His laws are true, then the morality He instituted is absolute - they do not change by democratic vote.
January 30, 08 at
If Marx’s guide to the revolution is accurate than his depiction of morality is accurate and you can achieve an absolute communist morality throught the correct interpretation.
Why would you put people into a situation where they can rebel without telling them the consequences? We would do it to test someone so that we could know later on if they are trust worthy- God doesn’t have that problem. He can read minds, remember? The bible hasn’t been proven accurate- well, any more accurate than the Illiad and the Odessy. Or the Vedas or the Koran… Morality doesn’t get instituted by democratic vote- it isn’t moral because it is written down either. Do you think gravity works because we agreed to obey gravity or because people wrote down “Fg= m1+m2 times G over r2? No it exists as part of our universe! You can find out morality- it is the best actions, the right things to do to ensure happiness.
January 30, 08 at
Why would you put people into a situation where they can rebel without telling them the consequences? We would do it to test someone so that we could know later on if they are trust worthy- God doesn’t have that problem. He can read minds, remember?
Well, firstly God did tell Adam and Eve that “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
The apparent paradox of God’s omniscience VS man’s free will is an age old and much debated topic. I can’t do justice to it in a short comment, but here’s one of my own original explanations:
The future exists as an infinite number of potential outcomes. Each different action now results in another set of infinite outcomes, whose actions leads to more sets of infinite outcomes, etc. Your basic quantum multiple universes theory that superhero comics are so fond of using.
With infinite-times-infinite-to-the-power-of-infinite outcomes, it is impossible for us to comprehend even one possible future for our existence. We can’t even finish reading one book, let alone the library.
But God, being infinitely all-knowing, knows the entire storyline of EVERY POSSIBLE outcome. He knows the plots and endings of EVERY book in the entire library. That is how He is omniscient.
But the outcome has not been decided yet - humans, with their God-give free will, are still choosing the words and pages that go into the book that will actually reach the public distribution stage. Thus the future doesn’t exist yet, as it is still being determined by our choices.
So the future is not chosen yet, but every possible combination for every possible future is known to God. That is how God’s sovereignty and human free will can coexist, in one way of describing it.
———————–
Do you think gravity works because we agreed to obey gravity or because people wrote down “Fg= m1+m2 times G over r2? No it exists as part of our universe! You can find out morality- it is the best actions, the right things to do to ensure happiness.
The main difference I see between physical laws and moral laws is that the former can be objectively determined and proven. Fire is hot and will burn us no matter what our opinion or vote may be.
However the latter is often considered subjective (i.e. relative).
A simple and divisive example: Abortion.
Is it less morally correct to end the life of an unborn child? Or is it less morally correct to force a woman to carry and bear a child she does not want? Liberals favour the woman’s freedom of choice, conservatives favour the unborn child’s right to life.
So even for just one example, we find no consensus on what is ‘The Universal and Objective Law of Abortion Rights’ that is already determined no matter what we feel.
If Joanne says that it is ‘clearly wrong’ to force women to support a parasite for 9 months, then a lifetime after that as a dependent, I can retort that it is ‘clearly wrong’ to murder a baby without giving him any say in the matter.
And that is what I mean by relative morality - nobody can say that he is definitely right or wrong if there is no standard manual, no Universal Constitution to refer to.
For Bible-believing fundamentalists, the answer should be clear: Life and soul begin in the womb according to several verses of scripture.
The Bible says fetuses and even embryos are human life, and the Bible is the word of the Creator of the universe and all life. Therefore babies must be preserved - Roe vs Wade, public opinion and pro-choice protest marches are irrelevant.
That’s what I mean by absolute morality - there is a standard manual and Universal Constitution we can all refer to. The only matter is WHAT is the Universal Constitution, but that’s another debate.
——————————
The bible hasn’t been proven accurate- well, any more accurate than the Illiad and the Odessy.
IMHO, the Bible is more historically and textually verified than other ancient manuscripts. I admit, it’s a work in progress, but evolution was accepted long before the necessary evidence was found.
Here’s a starter:
The Cyrus Cylinder - Not Isolated and Not Vague Verification of the Bible’s Historical Account
Which has links to more.
January 30, 08 at
Funny, I seem to remember Adam and Eve not dying. I guess God lied.
Free will and omniscience is a paradox the same way Star Trek has many paradox’s (telepathy, transporter, Federation, empires, replicator, etc…)- it can’t be resolved. If god is all knowing he will know the path we take. If he doesn’t he isn’t all knowing. It is that simple.
Morality is determined by the fact we are human. The Bible is not the word of the creator. even you a Christian should know that. The bible is what the Jews recorded and what the apostles said. The bible never discusses abortion. I know this because there are pro choice Christians- for a work of absolute morality it sure defends on subjective interpretation.
There is another problem, the fate of all command morality- would you kill children if the bible commanded it? If yes you are immoral, if no then there is another source of morality. We don’t need holy books- we can examine this other source and find a universal standard.
Of course fetuses are human life! All living things that have our geonome are human life. It is a question of scientience- we feel no guilt when we scratch ourselves, even though it causes the deaths of thousands of cells.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Bible is multiple books. And here is where it gets tricky- which books to include? The bible is not more historically verified. My evidence is modernism; a Catholic attempt to show faith can be reconcilled with reason. It was declared heretical when they relized how many errors the bible has. The bible has multiple instances of blatent contradictions- for example has two entirely different sets of listed ancestors, the prophecy doesn’t refer to a virgin (its a mistranslation), Judas dies by two different methods, etc. There are sites entirely devoted to places where the bible completely and flatly contradicts itself.
January 30, 08 at
Talking of Adam and Eve, this was a most interesting perspective (it`s in a few installments - scroll down):
Serpents of desire: Good and evil in the Garden of Eden — Beauty and the Beast
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1104/fohrman7.php3
Got me thinking on this too:
“Bernadette claimed that “monsters would be spawned” and this would be the catalyst that would make humankind rise up against such science and those practicing it.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1307508/posts
January 30, 08 at
Funny, I seem to remember Adam and Eve not dying. I guess God lied.
Uh, then how come they aren’t still around and telling us stories about washing machines made out of boulders on Martha Stewart today?
They died a spiritual, relational and emotional death immediately. And as sin took its mutative toll on their physical bodies, eventually:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. - Genesis 5:5
Quite hard to misinterpret that, if you ever bothered to read through the literatire you are so avidly attacking.
Satan was the one who lied when he told Eve, “You will not surely die.”
—————–
Free will and omniscience is a paradox the same way Star Trek has many paradox’s (telepathy, transporter, Federation, empires, replicator, etc…)- it can’t be resolved
I think you are confusing paradox (two things which cannot exist simultaneously, yet appearing at the same time) with improbable/impossible fiction.
For example, the Star Trek replicator is possible in theory - simple combine molecules of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen into a carbohydrate and eat it.
Whereas “That is a pure gold bar made out of pure mercury” is a paradox, it’s nonsensical - either it’s pure gold or it’s pure mercury or it’s neither, but not both.
—————–
The Bible is not the word of the creator. even you a Christian should know that. The bible is what the Jews recorded and what the apostles said.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Bible is multiple books. And here is where it gets tricky- which books to include?
Fortunately, I know MORE than that. The Bible is what Jewish and non-Jewish writers recorded, yes, but they were led by the spirit of God. It does in fact contain a record of things that God (and Jesus) said directly to His people.
It may seem like many books, and it was written by many people. But these dozens of writers in three languages and from vastly separated places and times managed to - coincidentally? - write towards one goal, that is God’s plan for mankind.
“You have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2nd Timothy 3:15-17
It’s not so much God the CEO saying: “Hey secretary Moses! Write down: Appointment at 8 pm!”
It was more of God prompting Moses to feel: “Hey, maybe it’d be good to write down what we were doing in the Sinai desert all these years. And I’ll go ask God what the beginning of the world was like too.”
———————-
The bible never discusses abortion. I know this because there are pro choice Christians- for a work of absolute morality it sure defends on subjective interpretation.
There are also those who claim to be Christians who are pro-homosexuality, members of the KKK, the latest prophet of God, Jesus reincarnated, in communication with alien overlords from outer space…
So you’re right on the subjective interpretation. But that’s our own shortcoming, not proof that an objective morality does not exist.
And as for the non-discussion of abortion, the Bible infers it very strongly:
“You shall not murder.” - Exodus 20:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. - Psalm 139:13
This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you. - Isaiah 44:2
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” - Jeremiah 1:5
—————————-
There is another problem, the fate of all command morality- would you kill children if the bible commanded it? If yes you are immoral, if no then there is another source of morality.
If God (not the Bible) commanded that children be slaughtered (and He has before, such as the killing of all Amalekites during the taking of the Promised Land), then I could not argue - because God is the creator and owner of life.
Why is it wrong for me to kill another person? Because I do not own or have any right to his life.
So why was it okay for God to kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah or command the Israelites to kill all the pagans? Because He created that life in the first place.
The ‘victims’ started with nothing, paid God nothing when He gave them 60 years of life - do they have a right to complain when God reclaims his property?
“Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” - Job 1:21
Of course, this does not give ANYONE license to commit murder in the name of God. After all, how can they prove in a human court of law that God REALLY spoke to them? There are no independent witnesses.
See this sarcastic response for clarifications of Talmudic law.
——————-
Of course fetuses are human life! All living things that have our geonome are human life. It is a question of scientience- we feel no guilt when we scratch ourselves, even though it causes the deaths of thousands of cells.
An apt comparison… Until you realize that even by the first Trimester, when most people can even know they are pregnant and abortion is completely legal, the baby has a skull, ribs, face…
11 weeks fetus with arms, legs and ribcage
I challenge you to view even the first two pictures through that link, and tell me again how fetuses are equivalent to skin cells.
By your definition, I wouldn’t mind having my skull hacked open with scissors and my bran vacuumed out either - I’m just an extra-large collection of cells.
I’m also quite sure the baby wouldn’t mind losing a few skin cells. Just as long as he or she doesn’t lose his or her LIFE, he or she can grow new ones.
————–
The bible has multiple instances of blatent contradictions- for example has two entirely different sets of listed ancestors, the prophecy doesn’t refer to a virgin (its a mistranslation), Judas dies by two different methods, etc. There are sites entirely devoted to places where the bible completely and flatly contradicts itself.
There are also sites devoted to refuting those claimed contradictions, which I have covered before.
101 cleared-up contradictions in the Bible
The three alleged contradictions you cited I can even debunk offhand.
1) I assume you are referring to the ancestors of Jesus as listed by Matthew and Luke. It’s quite simple to explain if you bothered to spend any time looking at it instead of recycling other people’s remarks: One lists the lineage of Mary, mother of Jesus. The other lists the lineage of Joseph, legal human father of Jesus.
2) The Hebrew word ‘ammah’ can mean either ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin’ (I’m sure you can see the similarities in meaning there). But why would ANYONE feel that a ‘young woman’ getting pregnant be at all miraculous, let alone a miraculous fulfillment of prophecy by the Messiah? Even the Jews of Jesus’ time understood the prophecy to mean ‘virgin’.
3) In Matthew, it says Judas hanged himself after throwing the silver pieces he got for his services at the Pharisees. In Acts, it says he used the silver to buy a field, fell headlong in it and his guts burst open.
But you just have to watch the Passion of the Christ to see how simple it is to find an reconciliation between the two accounts: Judas hangs himself from a tree over a cliff edge. Much later, the rope snaps or is cut, and he falls hundreds of feet down and his rotten guts splatter out.
The Pharisees got the silver, but didn’t want the blood money in their coffers, so they used the money to buy the field where Judas’ body fell into as his burial ground.
See? Just a little thinking, and it is sorted out almost immediately.
You may think that Christian fundamentalists are religious bimbos, but we have to deal with criticism, skepticism and mockery every day. That certainly helps to sharpen our minds, our doctrine and our beliefs by kicking out the lint from our ears.
January 31, 08 at
“You can find out morality- it is the best actions, the right things to do to ensure happiness.”
Whose happiness are you talking about? What if my happiness involves taking away all your happiness and vice versa? How indeed is one supposed to judge whose right to happiness is greater and thus more moral?
You can talk all you like about doing the “best” actions, but my “best” is quite likely to be different from your “best”. So whose best do we use?
January 31, 08 at
Well my mind may not be perfect, but I am a better person that you. Why? Ever heard of the Nuenberg defense? I was only following orders from God…
Seriously you can point out problems with discovering morality, but the basic truth is command morality is immoral.
To Jamie- depends on the circumstance- if the cost of you not getting what you want is significantly higher for you than me, then you get it (or vice versa) if the cost is equal than we bargian or get some method to come to an agreement. If it is life one death other, then coin toss or most probable survivor.
As for the prophecy there is a problem with that: it is refering to a different child and it’s by a false prophet. So it doesn’t refer to a virgin birth.
Yep criticsm does help sharpen doctrine. The problem with saying lineage is one parent and tone is the other is three fold. First Jesus isn’t born of Joseph so you can’t count him, second the number of relatives are off by about twenty (one list is shorter than the other) and finally Jews trace ancesty down the mother line, no the father’s. You can rationalize what you want to, but then it makes less and less sense (hint- you can only die once).
January 31, 08 at
Well there is a problem with “the bible is a moral standard”. Either you accept the old testament (proable), which is evil, you use the new covenant arguement, which implies gods rules aren’t constant, or you claim you have to interpret correctly, which implies it isn’t absolute.
I was thinking and I realized something deeply disturbing. Your criticism of the deaths in communist states isn’t because they killed people, because you yourself stated if god asked you to kill, you would. No, your object is that they did it without permission from god. In short things aren’t immoral if they kill, harm, maim, kill, or by their consequence or even their intention. They are only wrong if god says so.
Where I come from we have a word for people like you- Evil.
Is there anything I’m missing or is this the perfect example of Harris’s statement “there are some beliefs so dangerous it would be ethical to kill people for holding them”?
January 31, 08 at
heard of the Nuenberg defense? I was only following orders from God…
Which I already described as being inapplicable in a court of law, even if all the judges and jury were fundamentalist Christians.
How can I prove that God spoke to me? What witnesses were there? Moses had hundreds of thousands of witnesses - how do I prove that I didn’t make up a lie about hearing God to get myself out of trouble?
——————
As for the prophecy there is a problem with that: it is refering to a different child and it’s by a false prophet. So it doesn’t refer to a virgin birth.
You’ll have to clarify that one for me, because I’ve never heard that accusation before. Doesn’t refer to virgin birth I’ve already addressed, but false prophet? Since when has Isaiah ever been accused of that?
More info or link?
——————
First Jesus isn’t born of Joseph so you can’t count him, second the number of relatives are off by about twenty (one list is shorter than the other) and finally Jews trace ancesty down the mother line, no the father’s.
Jesus is not born of Joseph, true. But Joseph is his legal parent.
Notice how Luke 3 carefully words it - ‘He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph’.
And see how Matthew 1 words it - …and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
You can see how they take pains to acknowledge and even make clear that Joseph is only LEGALLY the father of Jesus, not biologically, as Joseph married the human mother of Jesus.
The geneaology list does not mention every single member in the line, simple as that. But even if it DID, who’s to say one line didn’t have children at a younger age than the other? Even in modern times, a nephew can be older than his blood uncle!
And where did you get the tracing down the mother line thing? In the Bible, all geneaologies mention the fathers and sons - there are very few women even mentioned by name!
In any case, Luke listed both the mother’s and father’s geneaologies to show that Jesus was descended from King David, both genetically (Mary) and legally (Joseph).
——————-
Well there is a problem with “the bible is a moral standard”. Either you accept the old testament (proable), which is evil, you use the new covenant arguement, which implies gods rules aren’t constant, or you claim you have to interpret correctly, which implies it isn’t absolute.
This alleged problem is cleared up even by the apostle Paul way back in the 1st-Century. Basically, the Old Testament laws and rituals were all incomplete previews of the perfect plan - Jesus.
For example, in OT law, any sin must be atoned for with the blood of a sacrificial animal. Because it’s just a mortal animal, the next time a Jew sins, he must sacrifice again.
But Jesus died on the cross willingly, giving His own blood as a sacrifice for all our sins. As a sinless person, His sacrifice was perfect - no repeats necessary. As God in the flesh, His sacrifice was infinite - every person can be cleansed by it.
So when Jesus came and died for us, we entered into a new covenant, a new agreement, a new set of laws. Testament means the same as covenant, didn’t you know? So Old Covenant, New Covenant.
More in-depth explanation of foreshadowing at Response to the Letter to Dr. Laura on Homosexuality, which explains why Christians don’t stone people to death anymore.
Meanwhile, this link briefly explains the history of why Judaism doesn’t stone people to death in modern times.
So in conclusion, I do not follow the Mosaic laws of the Old Testament that were meant for Jews. We are actually forbidden from following those laws unless we get circumcized and join the Israelite community, did you know?
Example: The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. - Exodus 12:43-45
(I expect you to come in whining about slavery beign sanctioned by God, but trust me - I am well prepared.)
Nor is God fickle and changing - He already had everything planned out, but revealed Part 1 to Moses and Part 2 through Jesus.
And I believe that my interpretation is correct.
———————–
I was thinking and I realized something deeply disturbing. Your criticism of the deaths in communist states isn’t because they killed people, because you yourself stated if god asked you to kill, you would. No, your object is that they did it without permission from god. In short things aren’t immoral if they kill, harm, maim, kill, or by their consequence or even their intention. They are only wrong if god says so.
Where I come from we have a word for people like you- Evil.
Now you finally reveal your true form - a plain old mud-slinging troll. I was suspecting as much as your arguments - well thought out and coherent at the start - began to unravel into shallow, easily-countered attacks on the Bible.
Firstly, I condemn the Communists for being wanton murderers - and then JUSTIFYING that murder as “For the greater good, btw, religion sucks.”
My defense that morality is defined by God is simple - My God is holy, pure, perfect, just, merciful, kind, wise, all-knowing, and loving. He is GOOD in the most perfect understanding of the word. Whatever He commands MUST BE GOOD by definition.
So would He ever command me to kill a person who has different religion or political beliefs? No. That’s the Communists - who are overwhelmingly atheist and disdain all forms of theistic religion.
Would He ever command me to kill a baby in the womb by stabbing its head open with scissors? No. That’s the liberals - who are overwhelmingly unserious about religion and mostly agnostic.
(Or did you REFUSE to look at the abortion links I gave? Here they are again: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=51268511&blogID=322352919
Tell me that those are not babies, but merely lumps of cells.)
You can call me evil in THEORY, but liberal atheists are the actual ones who are evil in PRACTICE.
Which counts for more? In secular law, intent to kill is a far lesser crime than actually carrying out murder.
And for the record, I never stated it so bluntly that ‘If God asked me to kill, I would’.
First I would use my God-given mind to ponder over whether God really spoke to me. I would also check it out with others, because as I have said many times, it takes independent witnesses to confirm that I am not being schizophrenic.
Then I would use my God-given heart to ponder over whether the loving and just God I worship would ever command a despicable act. Does it contradict His words in the Bible, such as ‘Love all man as yourself’, ‘Thou shall not commit murder’, and ‘Love your enemy’?
And I would also remember that God commanded through Paul to be obedient to the rulers of humans, including their laws. Which forbid me from killing anothr human, even if God’s law didn’t forbid me already.
So you can see how your accusation is shallow and childish. It doesn’t take into account the full knowledge of the Bible that mature Christians have.
Not everyone just skims through holy books and religion, just looking for flaws, like you do. Some people actually understand what they’re reading.
God is not an imperfect, selfish, pompous mortal like Stalin and Mao, or Guevara (whom I suspect you admire, as most Lefties do). That is why I say that whatever God commands is perfect and cannot possibly be wrong.
——————
Is there anything I’m missing or is this the perfect example of Harris’s statement “there are some beliefs so dangerous it would be ethical to kill people for holding them”?
There are better examples… People who would ACTUALLY KILL YOU because you don’t follow their religion or laws. And Christians in the modern age, no matter what you want to believe, seldom do that anymore.
But you liberals seem so gung-ho about bashing Christians while supporting the ones who actually murder non-believers! How insane and denial-of-reality is that??!!
———————–
In conclusion, I must say that your criticisms of the Bible are quite… Well, noob. No offense. But the slightest browsing would have turned up both the answers to your allegations, and more valid and difficult ‘problems’ with the Bible.
And by resorting to smear attacks, well, the religion of Humanistic Liberalism does not forbid that in its holy book of Darwinistic Evolution.
January 31, 08 at
My defense that morality is defined by God is simple - My God is holy, pure, perfect, just, merciful, kind, wise, all-knowing, and loving. He is GOOD in the most perfect understanding of the word. Whatever He commands MUST BE GOOD by definition.
So tell me little boy, killing all the inhabitants of Jericho (including children) was good? If you were a soldier serving under Joshua, you would have cheerfully beheaded eight-year-olds?
January 31, 08 at
“To Jamie- depends on the circumstance- if the cost of you not getting what you want is significantly higher for you than me, then you get it (or vice versa) if the cost is equal than we bargian or get some method to come to an agreement. If it is life one death other, then coin toss or most probable survivor.”
You are espousing moral relativism again. That is an incoherent position, as are all relativistic positions.
Honestly, can’t you see that your recommendations simply cannot work? There is no way for you to understand how significant a cost something is to me, and vice versa. To what yardstick do we measure these costs? Who, again, should decide whose cost is significantly higher? What do you mean by significantly higher? 0.1 points higher on an arbitrary scale? 0.001 points? 0.0000000001 points? A million? Who’s to decide this arbitrary scale in the first place?
Therein lies the problems with your brand of morality. Highly inconsistent, totally incoherent as is all relativism.
January 31, 08 at
So tell me little boy, killing all the inhabitants of Jericho (including children) was good? If you were a soldier serving under Joshua, you would have cheerfully beheaded eight-year-olds?
As usual, a much repeated and therefore easily familiar to respond to accusation.
So, responses:
1) God is the creator, giver and owner of life. Therefore it is wholly in His right to take back the life he gave to people - the life they never paid Him for, and didn’t even appreciate Him for. God did something like this before, with Sodom and Gomorrah, and even the Great Flood. Only with Canaan, He used soldiers instead of fire and water - but the authority is the same.
2) A hundred-thousand strong army sloooooowly headed towards an enemy town would have been ample warning to evacuate the women and children, leaving only the fighting men and stubborn citizens. Thus, when a city such as Jericho fell, only the warriors were slaughtered.
3) While the Israelites were traversing the desert and Canaan, various tribes attacked them without provocation. They often would launch ambush raids on the rear of the camp, killing the stragglers - i.e. Israelites who were weak, old or otherwise slower to travel. Thus they first declared war on the Israelites. The Amalekites for one attacked Israelites for 400 years before the Israelite’s responded!
4) God commanded the Israelites to first offer peace. If that was rejected (i.e. The Canaanites say, SCREW PEACE WE GONNA KILL YOU ALL) then they were to force the enemy to retreat out of the land. If battle continued to the end, they were to kill the men but spare the women and children. Whether the Israelites obeyed that command or whether they murdered the children is their fault, not God’s.
5) The Canaanites were not exactly innocent people - they practised incest, bestiality and child sacrifice (*cough* ABORTION *cough*). Taking into account the thousands of murders they would have committed over the centuries before the Israelites arrived, their very culture had to be wiped clean so that future generations wouldn’t follow in those abominable practices. (However, the disobedient Israelites did NOT kill all the Canaanites - and soon took up those same evil habits, thus dooming Israel from the start to the same fate.)
See also:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
Kudos to Lee Strobel for his research and interviews in A Case For Faith, which adresses the question of God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanites and other objections.
Oh, and PS…
NOOB.
January 31, 08 at
Samuel, as Jamie says, that is the problem when we have no concrete form of moral absolutes (e.g. the Bible).
Let’s say I want to kill you against your will, harvest your organs and use them to transplant into ten sick people, thus saving their lives. Is that morally wrong?
I can say, “No it is morally right. Ten people are saved for the cost of just one life.” You would then disagree.
In a subjective and morally relative world, neither of us has any authority to say “I am right and he is wrong!” We can only call for a vote. Then ten sick people would, unfortunately for you, vote for my organ-harvest plan.
And if 2 billion Communists vote that the death of 100 million victims was morally right to build a utopian future, that would make it moral?
If we do not have a solid basis, an unchanging guide to tell us what is ALWAYS right and ALWAYS wrong, then how do we tell what is an ABSOLUTE moral value? Everyone else has their own, equally valid opinion too.
You have repeated several times that we can just ‘know’ what constitutes a moral right. But can you suggest how we would ‘know’ this? What process or procedure to follow? How to tell who is insane and who is selfish when they disagree with your ‘knowing’?
Or are you the ABSOLUTE authority on what is definitely, undeniable, inarguably a moral right, and dismiss your critics as evil and illogical… Just as Stalin claimed and did?
January 31, 08 at
Are you familiar with Kant’s “people are not to be used as ends?” You see morality is complicated if only because complete and total utilitarianism doesn’t work- people are more complicated and less rational. If you are actually familiar with some of the writing about this you could learn something (brief summary- the grater good is usually more comlicated than situations like this. It is good for the people being saved, but bad for everyone else who could be harvested at any time and dammit, just use your mind.)
I don’t see how I am advocating subjective ethics- I agree with Harris’s position- there is one reality, one set of physics and one best set of ethics. Gravity isn’t determined by a vote and neither is right and wrong.
The problem with your absolute moral value is it changed. Stone people? The Jews did in accordance with god’s law. But they they don’t anymore… Why do people continue to insist they have absolute moral value given by divine right. You want to see absolute moral value? read Burtrand Russell or learn about George Washington. They aren’t perfect but they did the best they could.
I also like your “creator can destroy creation”. Guess abortion is okay- as is infanticide.
Well you see, most people are sane. You obviously are the exception, but most people have a moral sense, empathy and the ability to reason.
You can tell when someone is insane or selfish based on what they say and do. It really isn’t that hard. They might be very good at decieving people so you would need to look into their past.
Yes!! I did it! I got you to contradict yourself! The title of this post and your arguement is that atheism leads to realitve morality and communism, but you just stated that Stalin had absolute morality!
January 31, 08 at
I agree with Harris’s position- there is one reality, one set of physics and one best set of ethics. Gravity isn’t determined by a vote and neither is right and wrong.
So how does Mr. Harris propose we determine this best set of ethics experimentally? Einstein’s gravity was by determined by mathematical formula and proven by experiments such as observing the bending od light by the Sun.
What physical laws determine whether, say, abortion is morally right? Or what age boys and girls should be before they can have sex? Or whether I have the right to commit suicide?
Your notion that an objective set of morals laws (yet excluding the Bible) is sooooo easy to find and can be written out in ISO:9002 compliant standard language is incredibly naive. Childish, even, I’m sorry to have to us the word.
But SERIOUSLY - how do we determine the Perfect Moral Laws without resorting to culturally-biased philosophy, voting or force? Don’t just assume that the Laws are out there, floating in space, and we can all find them without even trying.
——————–
The problem with your absolute moral value is it changed. Stone people? The Jews did in accordance with god’s law. But they they don’t anymore… Why do people continue to insist they have absolute moral value given by divine right.
I wonder why I bother putting links if you’ll just ignore them. So here instead is an excerpt from http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/response-to-the-letter-to-dr-laura-on-homosexuality/ :
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming — not the realities themselves. - Hebrews 10:1
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. - Hebrews 9:15
And for modern Judaism, an excerpt from http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles-4/fog0000000021.html :
Q: I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A: You are forbidden to kill him yourself. The death penalty may only be administered by a court of 23 ordained rabbis (see tractate Sanhedrin). Since there are no genuinely ordained rabbis (and won’t be until Elijah returns), no competent court can be convened.
So as anyone who has more rational brains than polemic bigotry can see, Christians have good reason not to practise Old Testament laws. Or for that matter, Jewish laws.
What has changed is not the absolute morality - God is still the boss, and what He says goes. Only we have matured as spiritual people, and no longer need to be put to bed at 10pm. It is we who have changed, but God is still the source of absolute morality.
Sorry if I confused you over what my stand is.
But you are trying to force me to adhere to Old Testament, Mosaic, Jewish laws because you can’t find any valid arguments against modern Christianity, aren’t you?
———————-
I also like your “creator can destroy creation”. Guess abortion is okay- as is infanticide.
The actual point is that no human should be permitted to commit murder - especially against babies, in the womb or outside - since no human is the author of life, the giver of the soul, or the master of all creation.
———————-
Well you see, most people are sane. You obviously are the exception, but most people have a moral sense, empathy and the ability to reason.
What was I saying about the usual liberal tactics? “If you can’t argue coherently, slander!”
My point that you believe yourself to be the absolute authority on what is moral, and that you considereveryone who disagrees with your definition of morality as insane, has just been proven by your remarks. Thanks!
———————-
Yes!! I did it! I got you to contradict yourself! The title of this post and your arguement is that atheism leads to realitve morality and communism, but you just stated that Stalin had absolute morality!
………… Someone who has more mercy for fools than me, please explain the concept of sarcasm to this pitiful person.
For the record, this is what I said (and I did not edit it afterwards):
Or are you the ABSOLUTE authority on what is definitely, undeniable, inarguably a moral right, and dismiss your critics as evil and illogical… Just as Stalin claimed and did?
Claimed. It’s a small word, you must have missed it due to sleep deprivation and tired eyes.
Sigh. The more you rant, the less coherent your babbling. Is it my fault for replying with too much information?
Do yourself and us a favour - go to sleep, catch up on your rest, then when you’re mind is fresh you can come back and try again.
If you’ve been awake a few days straight, that would satisfactorily explain the decaying standard of your comments since the first few ones that were actually quite readable.
February 1, 08 at
Ah, as I suspected, you WOULD kill children if you thought your god ordered it. Yeah, real ‘moral’ there…
February 1, 08 at
Several things
Determining ethics is tough. But we can determine some ethics the same way Galileo deduced that weight of a body doesn’t affect acceleration due to gravity- thought experiments. The rest I will have to think about.
1 It is quite clear the author of this post is insane and possibly dangerous individual. He is perfect rational- just completely disconnected from reality.
2) Brian your reply says Febuary first, while my calender says today is January 31st. It is 12 AM here- are you across the dateline or something?
3) Absolute morality refers to claims. It doesn’t have to be true- only absolute to be absolute morality.
4) In the US being a liberal is only an insult in the red states. And slandering is a staple Republican tactic (and nutty leftist too).
5) I don’t consider people with different views insane- I consider people who have absolutely no moral foundation other than obedience and who defend evil as insane.
6) It isn’t slander if it is true.
7) Yes, I am slightly sleep deprived. Curse you and your accurate insults! What’s next- I’m not black enough? Yes it is random, but slandering someone and then claiming that they slandered you is hypocritical.
9) Absolute morality, by definition doesn’t change and applies equally to all people at all times. You can’t just redefine words to mean what you want them to.
10) Moral rules aren’t out in space (I’m not a fracking Platonist)- but you can fnd them the same way you find rules for economics. I’ll give you a hint- it involves both studying and people.
February 1, 08 at
Ah, as I suspected, you WOULD kill children if you thought your god ordered it. Yeah, real ‘moral’ there…
Sir troll Westley, I shall merely copy-and-paste from one of my earlier replies to Samuel Skinner. Which you obviously did not read.
———–
First I would use my God-given mind to ponder over whether God really spoke to me. I would also check it out with others, because as I have said many times, it takes independent witnesses to confirm that I am not being schizophrenic.
Then I would use my God-given heart to ponder over whether the loving and just God I worship would ever command a despicable act. Does it contradict His words in the Bible, such as ‘Love all man as yourself’, ‘Thou shall not commit murder’, and ‘Love your enemy’?
And I would also remember that God commanded through Paul to be obedient to the rulers of humans, including their laws. Which forbid me from killing anothr human, even if God’s law didn’t forbid me already.
So you can see how your accusation is shallow and childish. It doesn’t take into account the full knowledge of the Bible that mature Christians have.
———–
But let me put it in the most practical way possible.
You accuse Christians of being WILLING to kill children IF they thought God commanded it.
But meanwhile, thousands of babies are ACTUALLY murdered every day by liberals whose onlly justification is their own vain and selfish authority.
Who is the immoral one here? Practically, not theoretically?
I can tell you this, it wasn’t Bible believing, fundie Christians who did the following:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=51268511&blogID=322352919
Keep on justifying your own moralness by convincing yourself that Christians are the real evil people. I bet it makes you feel better about the tiny fingers, toes and face that are staring up at you from a pool of blood outside the abortion clinic.
February 1, 08 at
5) I don’t consider people with different views insane- I consider people who have absolutely no moral foundation other than obedience and who defend evil as insane.
Well when we’re such foolish, unwise and self-centred sacks of mental and emotional problems as we are, I wouldn’t trust us puny humans to decide what is REALLY good or REALLY bad. If God is real and He is holy and perfectly good, then why not trust His judgement instead?
I would consider people whose moral foundation is based on what they feel is right at the time to be supremely arrogant. For example, when did you decide that abortion is morally good? What about before that time, did you think it is morally bad? How long before your mind is changed again?
I repeat my statement that everyone has totally different opinions on morality, and unlike the competing theories of Relativityand Aether, no experiment exists to prove anyone’s opinions wrong or right in a way that everyone will accept as cold, hard, objective fact.
—————-
6) It isn’t slander if it is true.
But remarks like “He is insane, evil and a total religious nutcase!” are opinion, not fact. Therefore your accusation cannot and will not be proven true by means of psychiatric examination, and is still libellious.
—————-
7) Yes, I am slightly sleep deprived. Curse you and your accurate insults! What’s next- I’m not black enough? Yes it is random, but slandering someone and then claiming that they slandered you is hypocritical.
Your race or colour preference has no effect on your ability to write meaningful comments, while a lack of sleep does. I am merely observing that your quality of remarks seems to have deteriorated over time.
——————
8 ) Determining ethics is tough. But we can determine some ethics the same way Galileo deduced that weight of a body doesn’t affect acceleration due to gravity- thought experiments. The rest I will have to think about.
Galileo later carried out a real experiment to prove his theory. Then in order to verify it, others repeated his experiment and found that they got the same results. If they hadn’t, it would still be a completely theoretical notion.
I don’t see how this can possibly be repeated for something as vague as ‘what is moral’. Morality is not a physical quantity to be determined. It can’t even be inferred from the number of deaths that occur as a result of an action.
Morality is a philosophical concept, and there is no way to prove philosophy. If there were, Christianity would be a recognized science and an empirically proven fact.
——————–
9) Absolute morality, by definition doesn’t change and applies equally to all people at all times. You can’t just redefine words to mean what you want them to.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_morality :
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.
“Absolutism” is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.
It seems that you and I are actually both moral absolutists. The difference being that you believe that the perfect morality is out there to be discovered scientifically, while I believe it is dictated by an infinitely perfect God.
I don’t see how I changed the meaning in my comments at all. According to both the OT and NT, some things are always wrong. It is just the punishment for those things that changes, and how we can be absolved of the punishment that is different - the root right/wrong is still absolutely there.
———————-
10) Moral rules aren’t out in space (I’m not a fracking Platonist)- but you can fnd them the same way you find rules for economics. I’ll give you a hint- it involves both studying and people.
Wow, BAD choice of example there mate!
First up, there are dozens of competing schools of economic thought which cannot even agree on the theories to use. Next, none of them can definitely prove that their theory is correct by experiment.
If economics were hard science, we wouldn’t keep having crashes that were completely unpredicted by the prevailing theories. The so-called ‘rules of economics’ keep on being defied. (You don’t see people breaking the law of gravity every day.)
Human behaviour is just too non-linear. Predicting the economy is like predicting the weather - pure luck!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Is_economics_a_science.3F
Perhaps when we are omniscient enough to subjugate chaos theory to our wills, we can make economics a solid science. But until then, economists cannot predict the results of a single day at the markets the same way engineers can predict the results of a car hitting a tree at 50 km/h.
February 1, 08 at
5 Humans are all we have dude. Beside I am a person and I seem to have no trouble at all judging your comments to be unambiguosly evil. It isn’t extrodinarily hard with someone as blatent as you.
6 Insane- detached from reality
Evil- willing to do things that involve hurting and killing nnocents for own benefit
Total religious nutcase- defends previous two as holy
7 The “not black enough” was a joke about treatment of Obama. It doesn’t have anything to do with black people, although it is partially about African Americans.
8 Actually morality can be measured. The goal of morality is to make people happy. There are probably more nuanced definitions, but that is what is at its core. Since we know what makes people happy we can build on that.
9 Simple- you happen to be wrong, and you just admited your arguement is wrong. Atheism doesn’t lead to relativism because I am an atheist and not a relativist.
10 It is true people don’t agree entirely on economics. You know what? Some of those people are quacks- just like global warming deniers. Most of the basics in economics are agreed upon. Since morality is an infinately simpler subject I don’t see why it should be harder.
Current economic does include and explain said crashes. Unfortunately not living in a command economy means the government can’t control the business cycle- that is the job of the Fed.
The reason that economists will never be able to predict the markets is that said predictions are always factored into the markets.
I think the main problem is that you have no idea what the words morality, evil, etc mean and in the case of morality, what its purpose is.
Also three more things
1 Where the heck did the smily come from?
2 You never deny that you would do anything god commanded
3 You claim abortion is baby killing. We here in non-facist countries recognize the first step towards facism is redefining words. For those of you unaware it isn’t a baby- it’s called a fetus until it is born; then its a baby. It falls under- words have meaning.
Finally I find scary “obey the laws of the state”. Are you really a facist, or are you just creepy? Because I just finished reading American Facism and you fit the bill.
February 1, 08 at
8 Actually morality can be measured. The goal of morality is to make people happy. There are probably more nuanced definitions, but that is what is at its core. Since we know what makes people happy we can build on that.
So if it makes me unhappy that I see babies being butchered in their mother’s wombs, abortion is immoral? It’s back to opinions and relative definitions again.
Happiness as the ultimate goal is actually called hedonism.
—————–
9 Simple- you happen to be wrong, and you just admited your arguement is wrong. Atheism doesn’t lead to relativism because I am an atheist and not a relativist.
Atheism cannot have moral absolutism, because it does not believe in anything absolute. There is no God, only humans who only have a relative say in matters - no person can choose what is right for other people, according to moral relativism.
——————–
10 It is true people don’t agree entirely on economics. You know what? Some of those people are quacks- just like global warming deniers. Most of the basics in economics are agreed upon. Since morality is an infinately simpler subject I don’t see why it should be harder.
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Oh man you are SUCH a noob! You still believe in global warming? Do you even read the news?
Record snow in US, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia
‘All-Time’ High Antarctic Ice
100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming
CO2 levels are caused by rising temperature, not vice versa
35 Scientific Errors in An Inconvenient Truth
Data showing rising temperature comes from sensors placed next to barbeque grills, hot air vents, parking lot tarmac under the sun
This is gonna lead us to a whole new set of discussions lol!
Seriously, have you ever even looked at the facts instead of just absorbing what the weekend news reports?
————————
I think the main problem is that you have no idea what the words morality, evil, etc mean and in the case of morality, what its purpose is.
Perhaps my definition of morality is different.
I define morality as the set of laws and guidelines for human behaviour as lined out by YHWH, in order to make us holy and sinless in His sight, through loving God and fellow humans, which leads to true peace and joy - not fleeting pleasure that passes for ‘happiness’.
———————–
1 Where the heck did the smily come from?
2 You never deny that you would do anything god commanded
3 You claim abortion is baby killing. We here in non-facist countries recognize the first step towards facism is redefining words. For those of you unaware it isn’t a baby- it’s called a fetus until it is born; then its a baby. It falls under- words have meaning.
The smiley is caused by WordPress automatically reading 8 and ) as a smiley command,
I do not deny that I would disobey God’s command, but I give the caveats that:
A) I would seriously question if I really heard God’s command, and
B) God would never command something that is immoral (by His standards, not relativistic human standards) so no problem there
Abortion is ending the life of a human ‘fetus’, which would have grown into a full ‘baby’ if it had not been murdered. By a few weeks, the ‘fetus’ already has recognizable human features.
I agree that fascism loves to redefine words. In fact, it’s standard liberal Newspeak to use labels such as ‘pro-choice’ to avoid the gruesome reality of technical language that would make people realize what abortion really is.
For example:
“Abortion - The skull of the 16-week old human is pierced with a pair of scissors and pried open. A vacuum is then placed into the skull cavity and the brains of the 16-week old human sucked out. The rest of the 16-week old human’s body is then cut up with the scissors and the entire 16-week old human is removed from the motehr’s womb.”
How come in ‘non-fascist’ countries, it is wrong and immoral to execute a convicted serial killer, but it is good and moral to kill unborn humans who have never committed a crime?
——————
Finally I find scary “obey the laws of the state”. Are you really a facist, or are you just creepy? Because I just finished reading American Facism and you fit the bill.
As opposed to the anarchist dogma of BREAK THE LAWS AND SPREAD CHAOS? So I’m a fascist for not committing immoral crimes such as murder and rape - which the laws of the state are put into place to prevent?
Or don’t you obey the laws of your country?
Waitaminnit, aren’t Liberal Democrats the ones who want to FORCE people to pay more taxes and FORCE them to use only socialized healthcare?
Chaotics, haters of order and speakers of doubletalk because they do not wish to have their behaviour defined as wrong.
Ethical Alignments of Chaotic Liberals and Lawful Conservatives
February 1, 08 at
Sir troll Westley, I shall merely copy-and-paste from one of my earlier replies to Samuel Skinner. Which you obviously did not read.
Yes, I did read it, and if all your objections are fulfilled, you would go out and kill children if you sincerely thought your god wanted you to do that.
February 1, 08 at
You speak in theory again, because all my objections will never be fulfilled. What, you think I’m Anakin from Revenge of the Sith or something?
Meanwhile, libs like you actually kill babies every single minute of every single day.
February 1, 08 at
Having been repeatedly soundly trounced, Samuel Skinner now attempts to smear me on various blogs as a supporter God-commanded baby killing.