Fred Winters, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Maryville, IL, was shot to death during a morning service today.
A 27-year-old gunman walked up to the pulpit, exchanged words with the pastor, and fired four shots. The gun jammed after he shot the pastor, so he pulled out a knife — thankfully though, a large group of attenders tackled the man.
It’s not clear what the motive was yet. Hopefully he was just crazy and not part of a skeleton in the pastor’s closet.
Turn the Other Cheek? Yeah Right.
I’m glad these Christians disobeyed the command of Jesus to “turn the other cheek” and tackled the murderer. Here are the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 5:39:
Do not resist the one who is evil. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Though they claim their morality comes from the Bible, this shows they innately knew what was right — they disobeyed their God’s command in order to do what was really moral.
I find that admirable.
Doubting God
Pullquote: Our great God is not surprised by this, or anything. But we know we can trust Him no matter what.
These kinds of events cause many Christians to doubt. That’s why Nate Adams, the executive director of the Illinois Baptist State Association, had this to say:
“Our great God is not surprised by this, or anything,” Adams said. “That He allows evil and free will to have their way in tragedies like this is a mystery in many ways. But we know we can trust Him no matter what, and draw close to Him in any circumstances. Let’s draw closer to Him and to one another during this terrible tragedy, and renew our faith and obedience to His purposes for however many days we have remaining to serve Him.”
But why trust God and draw closer to him? If God knew this man was going to murder the pastor, why did he let it happen? Why didn’t he make the psycho’s gun jam before he shot someone, instead of after? Or if he couldn’t do that, why not make the pastor sick so he had to stay home? Or any number of other options?
The usual answer given is because God uses these events to work everything for the greater good (Rom. 8:28) — which is often defined as making God look good (”glorifying God”). But does God really have to use these kind of horrible events to make himself look good? Is his ego worth all the suffering that happens? Even if it was, if he is all-powerful, couldn’t he do it a less violent way?
What could possibly be worth this man’s murder — that his family could be more patient or kind or godly? How does this event make God look good in any way?
If there was a man who could have easily stopped this, and yet didn’t, we would hate and shun him. Yet Christians are supposed to love God more when these things happen. It’s bizarre.
The Real Mystery
Pullquote: God doesn’t exist — that’s why he didn’t protect his spokesman, and that’s why the attendees had to take matters into their own hands.
To me, it’s obvious God wasn’t involved at all. He doesn’t exist — that’s why he didn’t protect his spokesman, and that’s why the attendees had to take matters into their own hands. If they would have waited for God to intervene, they would have been waiting a very long time indeed.
The real mystery is not why God allows or causes these things to happen — it is why people continue to cling to a delusion when even they admit it doesn’t make sense.
Regardless, we can all agree this was a horrible tragedy. It must have been a very traumatic experience to those forced to watch this firsthand — especially his wife and kids. I offer my sincere condolences to the family, friends, and church members of Fred Winters.
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
Leah: These people came to my school and protested…. I can’t help wondering if maybe they are just a... 
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. 
Francesco Orsenigo: It’s scary. As much as I support total freedom of speech (for example, I don’t like laws against... 
402 Comments
The parishioners were wrong to act. They were supposed to “pray until something happens” instead, as instructed by various preachers and church signs.
My heart goes out to the poor folks who were in that church. The snippet I heard from the news made it sound like a gruesome killing. There must be a lot of traumatized people tonight. I can’t imagine what I’d do in their place.
I hope I’m wrong, but there seems to be more of this kind of shooting going on. There’s this guy and then the ski-lift operator from your earlier post. Then there’s Dannie Baker, a Christain minister/musician who charged into a meeting of Chilean exchanges students and open fired a couple weeks ago. Back a bit more, there’s Jim David Adkisson who charged into a Unitarian Church in Knoxville.
All these people were deranged, but I’m afraid the turbulent times are pushing more lunatics into the street with guns.
Wow. You are so ignorant.
All it takes to disprove a universal is ONE counter-example.
So you think that slavery is right?
You think that genocide is right?
You think that the oppression of women is right?
In today’s day and age?
Because that’s what your bible says.
AND, yes, if a tribal society in South America leaves their malformed baby on a mountain side to die, who am I to judge? They don’t have the resources to raise that child! It is VERY unfortunate and I DON’T like it (especially as I AM a SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER) but who the hell and I to judge them? Who the hell are YOU to judge them? You are nobody to them as am I.
Please answer the RELEVANT question:
What is your source for absolute morality?
“because in a little place I like to call the real world, there are a lot of different ideas of what’s right and wrong. Some people think raping babies is a good idea. ”
– He may think it a good idea for gratification purposes of some sort, but honestly I don’t think anyone, with a sound mind, thinks without a doubt that raping babies is a ‘moral’ thing to do.
“My point is that absolute morality has to be based on something other than one cultural group’s feelings on what is good or bad”
- It isn’t about what one cultureal group feels is good or bad. It is inherent in us Humans. I don’t know how to explain it any simpler than that. God = logic rationality, morality = l,r,m world = l,n,r humans.
Pascalle,
We have something common then, english isn’t my first language.
“People have different views on what’s right and wrong, how can that be if it’s inherent in all of us.”
- This is what we cannot agree on: I believe that we inherently know right from wrong. You believe that we learn the distinctions as we go through our lives.
Is there really nothing that is absolutely evil? If you believe this, then fine. But I beg to differ.
No, see, this is where you’re wrong. There is NO inherent feeling in people about what is right or wrong. It is all based on what they are TAUGHT!
but it’s not inherent! There’s a tribe in New Guinea that believes that they have to rape their young boys for them to ever be able to father children themselves. It used to be a common belief over most of that world. They honestly and sincerely believe it’s the right thing to do. And so every year scores of young boys are anally and orally molested at the age of about 7, out of a genuine concern for their futures. These people don’t see how it can be wrong. So where’s your spark?
Also, you have to show how God is necessary for logic, morality etc. You can’t just take it as a given.
*that part of the world, not “that world”. I’ve seen ethnographic observations from the 50s of that belief over most of New Guinea and parts of Australia.
Michael,
Is there *any* moral standard you can come up with that defends “but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man”?
(Numbers 31:18 NIV)
The Bible is not a good source for morality.
“we were created in God’s divine spark etc etc (long and boring explanation to you for sure.”
And please don’t assume you know me. I WAS a christian for many years.
NO. You know what is right or wrong based on what you are taught. (If not then why the christian fuss over sinful kids who don’t know right from wrong due to original sin?)
I also believe that, in your heart, you know that decapitating babies is morally wrong. In fact I believe that even if the whole world were delusional and believed it to be “ok” I think you would still think, in your heart, that is is evil.
It takes greater faith (excuse the word) to believe that morality is relative.
Michael,
If logic, rationality, and morality are all a reflection of the nature of a god, what kind of god do you think exists?
Human logic is overwhelmed by emotion, our rationality is subverted by our tendency to succumb to illusion, and our morality has changed and evolved from place to place over thousands of years.
“inherently know and are able to perceive right from wrong – right?”
Uhhh, no, not really. Right and wrong are social conventions as well as individual inferences. This is especially true for more complex ethical questions.
Do we know inherently if all abortion in all cases is right or wrong? Do we know inherently if euthanasia in all cases is right or wrong?
Yes, we do have some sense of morality ingrained within us, but I don’t see how it extends as far as you imagine it does.
But did you read it in the original Klingon?
I’d be interested to learn more of the “proof” you’ve found that God does not exist. I ready your page about how you came to this conclusion but you gave no specific citations of proof.
By the way, my response was not a platform to believe in God. I was not saying God caused this tragedy and good would result. I was saying I believe in God and evil. I was explaining my position in response to your comments that God does not exist.
really interesting to read your posts when you know what you are talking about much more so than many Christians, and to try and pull them into a discussion they are ignorant about is a little distasteful.
I know you know there are many scriptures throughout the Bible that talk about different forms of defense and using Mat 5 in that case is totally taking it out of context for what was going on in those scriptures.
I do enjoy reading your posts though, keeps me on my toes and thinking :)
Excuse me? You just claimed moral absolutes! You most certainly DID!!!
Like I said, our existence has morality rationality, logic, because we were created by a logical, rational and moral God.
I think LRA just finds your answer as unsatisfying as I do
I looked up inherently in a dictionary, because i didn’t know what it exactly meant (english is not my first language, so at times i do need to look up some stuff)
“existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute”
So if morality is that, how can it be absolute?
People have different views on what’s right and wrong, how can that be if it’s inherent in all of us.
This is not logical.
Studies relaibly show that spanking children does not encourage them to moral behaviour. On a more practical level, countries where spanking is common (such as America) tend to have far higher rates of crime and other social problems than those where any spanking is treated (and punished) as child abuse (such as Sweden). Obviously, spanking doesn’t account for all the difference, But it does seem to account for some of it.
Spanking does not do any good.
The weasel word there is “excessively”. How do you know when you’re punishing your child “excessively”? I honestly believe that any physical punishment is excessive, and I think that hitting a child for any reason is both evil and counter-productive. If someone believes that breaking their child’s bones is “for their own good” and not “excessive”, are we to take their word for it, or do we need to have some kind of external ruling that delineates exactly what “excessive” means? Do you get to make that decision? Do I?
If Hitler was taught that killing Jews was acceptable behaviour, he learned it from Martin Luther, who was a strong advocate of that kind of behaviour.
Luther also believed in an inherent morality handed down from God. If killing Jews was a God-given moral duty in his day, why wouldn’t it be in Hitler’s?
Exactly. Please explain to me how you are NOT being contradictory.
Several dozen years from now, it may become moral to kill babies, because the world cannot handle the population getting past a certain point. Look at China, for example. They’re becoming a world power which means they’ll spread out, but if they hadn’t, they still have the limitation on how many children a family can have. I don’t know what happens if you go past that limit (probably a fine), but that limit is there for a reason, and it probably has a cushion zone as well. When that cushion zone becomes threatened, and overall health of the population is threatened due to over population, it may very well become the right then to do for them to kill babies and/or old people and/or disabled people in order to “cull the herd”.
Do I think it’s right on a personal level? No. But that’s the thing, what’s good in the eyes of a culture may be a horrible act in the eyes of another.
Religion is viewed that way by most atheists. Good in the eys of a culture, but horrible (or foolish) to the (atheist) individual. Nothing else has been used and abused like religion has by the ambitious and the hateful to justify evil acts.
And the kicker? Those who abuse it for personal gains, they have been SUPPORTED and followed in their conquest and corruption by men and women who, in any other circumstance, would never do such terrible things on their own.
Also, don’t make the Ray Comfort argument. It’s already been refuted (yes, it has, and if you don’t understand the argument against it then that’s a reflection of your education, not a failure on the part of the response).
What God are you talking about? The christian god? The islamic god? The sub-saharan african god? The japanese sun goddess?
Michael,
If our human existence has inherent morality, why do we have such diverse and evolving moral systems?
If our human existence has inherent rationality, why does our emotional wiring take primacy over our decision-making? Could it be that evolutionary factors are a better explanation than “Goddidit”?
If our human existence has inherent logic, why are we so prone to optical illusions? Why are we do easily deceived? Could it be that biology has better explanations than theology?
I don’t see how our faulty human morality, faulty rationality, and faulty logic is proof of a Creator?
while I also do not believe in God as well, also remember that an even more important mantra of the Christian faith is that one should never be a bystander of an unjust act. Christians are constantly reminded of this, and you just ignored that whole, ‘inaction is sin’ idea.
Very interesting article and it was eye-opening to the behavior that sometimes goes on, as well as insight from you, Daniel.
However, I do not think that tackling the man would have been sin (assuming God exists in this instance). The turn the other cheek would not apply in this situation because they were not trying to retaliate back at the man – they were trying to protect those around them by incapacitating the man.
Still, I enjoyed reading this article and in many ways it asks many of the questions I ask myself about God.
“Wow. You are so ignorant.”
– Now, now LRA. There’s no need to be rude.
“All it takes to disprove a universal is ONE counter-example.”
– Which You clearly have not provided.
“So you think that slavery is right?
You think that genocide is right?
You think that the oppression of women is right?
In today’s day and age?
Because that’s what your bible says.”
– Really? Where does it say that “in this day and age” – it is right! where?
“AND, yes, if a tribal society in South America leaves their malformed baby on a mountain side to die, who am I to judge?”
– Well, this is quite revealing of your character. So why then do you decry thousand-year-old genocides if thats the case?
Then why does god ask Jacob to sacrifice his only son Isaac?
“Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.” So Abraham…cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place…that God had shown him… Isaac said to his father Abraham,… “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together.”
not really… the moral sense has strong basis in humanity’s evolutionary history. There are sound group-dynamics reasons for it to be there without postulating some completely unproven and infinitely complex “god” to put it there.
Moreover, I believe morality is absolute, based on a few basic principles which can be decided by logic and the use of the Veil of Ignorance, which is a far more sound footing than basing it on something which almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Yes, I think that decapitating babies is wrong based on my CURRENT and CULTURAL world view. I can’t judge past societies, nor would I encourage their morals TODAY!
Michael,
“It takes greater faith (excuse the word) to believe that morality is relative.”
It takes great faith to believe that all human beings inherently have the same beliefs about complex ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, embryonic stem cell research, the justice of war, and whether drugs should be legalized, and that these views are not also social conventions in addition to individual preferences.
Your position is faith-based, too, Michael.
How can your assertion that morality is not relative explain the differences in opinion on complex ethical questions? How does your position account for those differences?
ok- off topic but…
I like to read blogs when I watch tv. Makes me feel like I’m not completely wasting time by watching tv.
Anyhoo-
I’m watching family guy now and this was said:
Brian (to Stewie on Peter being gay): You’re judgementally quoting random bible verses and you can’t even read.
Stewie: Welcome to America, Brian!
This is tragic in any case–lunatic or skeleton in pastor’s closet. Who knows? And you’re right. Me and the Christ followers I know do not have a logical explanation and hopefully won’t try to comfort anyone by making one up. Better to use efforts to support family and friends tangibly and in prayer.
There is the supernatural element for faith in God that scientific method does not support. Without having a personal experience with God(however that looks like), I don’t think anyone’s mind will be changed to believe.
In times like this, I can’t fully understand or explain why things happen aside from free will to choose good or evil and it sucks when evil is chosen. Could/should He have stepped in to stop it? I don’t know. I’m not running the universe. I don’t get to say when one dies and another does not. Even if there was no God, I’m still not in charge of the universe. I still don’t get to pick. I am just so sorry for the congregation and especially the families. I have lost family members and friends to both disease and tragic events and it just hurts. But hurting while clinging to God’s comfort of hope in a new life beyond this one is better than clinging to no hope at all.
Well said, Daniel.
Tragic, and my condolences to his friends and family.
I did claim that morality is absolute. I didn’t make the claim that the bible is “the moral example of all time” – huge difference there.
well the word “genocide”changes everything. You use the word, appropriately, because the people killed all belonged to a particular ethnic group. But, say if, all the people in that ethnic group were ‘terrorists’, wouldn’t that be the same as ‘wiping out the terrorists’ and not simply ‘genocide’?
Perhaps you can explain to me where your absolute morality comes from. Maybe you can change my mind.
even their children? Their children are terrorists?
If it can be proved that every single one of them is a terrorist, it would be right to take them into custody and try and show them that terrorism is wrong. Maybe, if there was no way to do so, and they were going to kill a lot of other people, it would be right to kill them all. But when in history has a people ever been entirely guilty, with no innocents at all?
Better yet, explain to me where yours comes from.
I’d like to see Michael respond to my examples which demonstrate that absolutely morality is not inherently evident in human moral reasoning.
Immediately before Noah’s Flood? In Sodom and Gomorrah?
Oh, you meant in real history. Sorry. But that might be why Christians believe that it’s a valid argument.
terrible story. these kinds of random events happen all the time. reminds of how the tornado hits the church instead of the brothel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36uAoe8e2dY&feature=channel
OMG. You are clearly illogical.
We live in a society that disagrees with slavery. The bible clearly condones slavery. COUNTEREXAMPLE:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
“f you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Shall I continue?
YOUR character is the one in question, NOT mine. I don’t believe in culturally devastating people for the sake of proselytizing, but clearly you do.
In the news report the pastor held up his copy of the bible to protect himself from the gunman. Unfortunately the “word of god” didn’t save him. Irony?
I expect you to be intellectually honest, not do judge what would be boring to me. You clearly aren’t capable of that.
My favourite irony is the Pope riding around behind 3 cm of bullet-proof glass.
If there is a god, he doesn’t work in mysterious ways, but in completely predictable ones, which is to say, he never does anything to interfere with anything.
The logical next question being: even if he does exist, why should we bother with such a useless and sedentary idol?
Honestly Daniel, this is what seems to be your tactic in convincing people that the religious are stupid:
person X is a Christian, and he is stupid ; therefore Christians are stupid.
Very shallow reasoning.
I saw this comment on reddit and thought I’d post it here. It’s an interesting point — and I wonder if this would have been adverted if people would have understood what was going on sooner. Maybe not, though:
NOT leave them alone! BUT not wipe them off the face of the earth either. False dichotomy!
Michael, I do believe that morality is absolute… I’m not sure that you do, though. Your support for genocide in particular worries me.
LRA,
its simple really. I equate the “genocide” to “wiping out terrorists”.
“Yes, I think that decapitating babies is wrong based on my CURRENT and CULTURAL world view. I can’t judge past societies, nor would I encourage their morals TODAY!”
- But we as a society has yet to ‘evolve’ So, by your admission, your ‘belief’ is merely your opinion as someone who is still ‘evolving’. Why should anyone give importance to your ‘opinion’? Your opinion itself is relative, given your worldview, so don’t you dare go forcing people to give it any importance – especially future societies.
I’d like to know why your opinion is worth anything at all, too, Michael
So no, I’m not contradicting myself like you say. I don’t think the bible is immoral. But I never said it was the most “moral example of all time” – what does that actually mean anyway.
Well, then, your system of morality is not well thought out, is it?
you equate the genocide to wiping out terrorists… but from the most obvious reasoning, it’s more like what Israel did when they invaded Palestine (to keep our examples in the same part of the world), but wiping them out completely. It assumes a false dichotomy between wiping them out and having them attack you later, when the Israelites could just as easily have settled there and traded and intermingled peacefully with them, and not had to kill any innocents at all (isn’t that nice!).
Wow. evolution happens in populations, not in individuals. your point is diluted and diluted as you continue to talk.
What… no answer? Typical christian… full of sh#*.
The terrorist attacks were crimes, not acts of war. They should have been dealt with as criminals, rather than by invading two countries, only one of which had any remote connect to the terrorists.
Also, we probably shouldn’t have given Al-Qaida everything they asked for (all US military bases out of Saudi Arabia, and an endless war between America and the Islamic world).
You are what’s wrong with the world. Instead of compassion for a supposedly compassionate man, you insinuate that this killer was a skeleton in the closet. Save your false sympathies, I do not believe you. The world is going down the crapper so fast, and all people can do is wait for your mistake to shove it in your face. If something makes me happy, then why do you insist on challenging it at every turn? Because you think I’m wrong? Because you want to have a pseudo-intellectual discussion? To make yourself feel superior? Is the goal of atheism to tarnish the memories of the recently deceased?
Oh so what should we do then? Imprison them? What are you saying?
Are you suggesting that we kill women and children of Islamic terrorists in addition to the men?
but you follow the faith of the Bible… which puts up several acts of genocide as condoned by God… who you claim is the source of all morality.
LRA,
“However, a “relative” view of morality doesn’t mean anything goes! It means that we construct morality within the bounds of what is culturally acceptable. In other words, Christians living 150+ years ago would say that slavery was fine (as the bible says), but Christians living today would not say that. Can we agree that morality evolves as culture evolves? Can we agree that not just ANYthing goes?”
– Er.. No. We don’t agree because theists believe that morality is absolute. Decapitating babies could never be morally right, it doesn’t matter if a majority of society condones such.
Essentially what I’m saying is, why do you decry thousand-year-old genocides if you believe in what you just stated – that morality is relative?
So, you believe in moral absolutes? What is your source, the bible? Cuz morality clearly changes there.
Also, how do you access moral absolutes? Do you have some direct connection to Plato’s heaven? How do you know what is absolutely right?
I think genocide is wrong because we have evolved as social creatures and we now know that wiping entire peoples off the face of the earth deprives us of their value. If the Israelites are to be judged by scholarly history, the we have no right to judge them with our hind sight. But if, as you assume, morals are *universal* then, yes they are horrible examples of how to behave. I use them as an example to point out the absurdity of following the bible’s morals (which are actually amoral/immoral).
If the babies being left out saves others from dying of starvation, then that is the less wrong path.
The genocide, on the other hand, was obviously wrong, a selfish action to allow the Hebrews to have access to Canaan without sharing.
But Michael, if absolute morality is based on logic and the Veil of Ignorance, without any input from God, your opinion is wrong. That’s what I’m arguing with, because if you take God as the source of your morality, you have to accept as moral a lot of things that are absolutely despicable.
Seriously… do some reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Is it more moral than a government which, in that situation, would ban contraception and abortion as “against God’s will”?
I think the killing would occur at the blastocyst stage anyway…
The difference is, according to your book, God killed babies and children quite reliably. I’m sure that someone here and list a few passages that outline God doing just that.
I know he was very pro on killing children to teach the parents a lesson, but I don’t have the specific passages memorized (yet). So, to me, a -theistic- government is far worse. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a branch of Christianity that has something against condoms? What about abortions? What about vasectomies?
Also, I never said that I didn’t mind killing babies. Infact, I said, quite clearly;
“Do I think it’s right on a personal level? No.”
Regardless. Even if your specific branch of Christianity doesn’t have those stances on birth control, they do have similar stances. Let’s start with what your religion tells you to hate, and you do as told? Who do you hate, and why?
Is it the gays? The Godless? Those who believe differently than you?
Terrorists?
But it is YOU who is the christian, not me!
You are shifting the question put to you. The question asked of you is not about what the Bible says. To justify your condemnation of moral relativity you must answer LRA’s examples of God clearly condoning slavery. Please explain this issue without resorting to moral relativity. Please explain what you mean by “We live in a society that disagrees with slavery” without resorting to relativity.
I found this version of the account rather interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting
The headline reads, “Police: Ill. pastor deflected gunshot with Bible.” Apparently despite the fact that the dude died, they’re still trying to spin a miracle out of this. If the implication is meant to suggest a miracle occurred, let me be the first to say that that’s the worst miracle I’ve ever heard!
“I mean, you are claiming that the bible is the moral example for all times…”
– Er.. No, I didn’t do anything of that sort.
semantics wazza
LRA,
“Do you want us to keep those standards now?
I would think not.”
- We do keep those standards now. Are you being naive? We kill people who we believe would be detrimental to our way of life. Thats why we smart-bomb (although, apparently not so smart) terrorists. Right?
wazza,
The Christian worldview believes that logic, rationality and morality are a reflection of God’s nature. I do believe that you, inherently know and are able to percieve right from wrong – right?
really? So the Population of, say, California, isn’t composed of individual Californians? I used to be a Californian, oh wait I didn’t use to be part of their population?
Actually, no, I don’t hate the gays and godless/non-believers. I don’t even assume that you “non-believers” are going to “hell”. Like I said, we all inherently are able to perceive right from wrong, If you don’t believe in God because of your circumstance – like maybe you grew up in an atheist family – your eternal destiny would be a result of your own volition (choosing right over wrong or vice versa) and not your circumstance. So, although, you believe differently from me (don’t believe in God), I’m not going to say that you are going to hell, I’ll leave that for the other Christian nuts.
winterminute,
on spanking children, thanks for the information, you may be right, but that was just an example used. I don’t claim to know the psychological effects spanking can have on a child and/or the advantages or disadvantages such would bring.
“If Hitler was taught that killing Jews was acceptable behaviour, he learned it from Martin Luther, who was a strong advocate of that kind of behaviour.
Luther also believed in an inherent morality handed down from God. If killing Jews was a God-given moral duty in his day, why wouldn’t it be in Hitler’s?”
– Interesting. I didn’t know Martin Luther wanted to kill Jews (really, no sarcasm involved). However, my point was, if our perception of morality is what is taught to us – just imagine the implications of such an assumption. I’d like it better if we, as organisms, ‘evolved’ to have a notion of morality – I don’t believe this is where morality comes from – but it certainly would be a better reality than the one LRA is espousing; that it is only what “we are taught”.
That’s fine, but not a full answer.
I asked who you DO hate, and why.
Come on, LRA, let’s not get into the group selection theory debate here…
The quote from Romans, along with some others, are perhaps what I find most troubling in the Bible. If I were to believe those, as I assume a Christian must, then I could only respond to this event by saying I’m glad he’s dead. Sounds sick, but his death is part of God’s work towards the greater good, and if I can’t find joy in that then there is no joy in anything.
Fortunately I’m not a Christian, so I’m saddened by what happened, particularly for his family, and hope they find great comfort in each other.
logic IS semantics. Quit avoiding important questions.
Uh… no. Wiping out terrorism entails killing, capturing or winning over guilty people, that is, people who have committed crimes. With genocide, the only crime for most victims is that they are members of a particular ethnic group. Is that worth killing them for?
LRA,
Moses obviously thought that killing the Midianites was a good and proper thing to do, just as Bin Laden thought that it was good and proper to kill 3,000 Americans by flying airplanes into the Trade Towers, and just as America thought it right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end WW2. Is killing always ‘wrong’? If so, is that not a declaration of a moral absolute? Isn’t a moral absolute a direct contradiction of moral relativism? If so, is moral relativism wrong? Is it proper to make the observation that different cultures have different moral values and to then make the statement that they are immoral, simply because their moral values differ from our own? We must admit that we are immoral by another culture’s standards; can you see the resulting hypocrisy?
Excuse me? First of all you need to defend your belief of moral absolutes!
Secondly, moral relativity does NOT mean that anything goes! See Quine’s web of beliefs:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Sorry, but you are just WRONG!
but how does this perception of right and wrong work? In particular, why do people have different views of right and wrong if it’s a gift from god? And how is this any different from the idea that we work out what’s right and wrong based on logic and cultural cues?
AGAIN, please ANSWER what your source if ABSOLUTE MORALITY is. PLEASE.
not IF but OF
“we are inherently able to perceive right from wrong”
Are we able to inherently delineate the pros and cons of tough ethical quandaries? No, we’re not, as I’ve demonstrated in most of my previous replies to you.
He prescribes senseless dietary rules for the Israelites.
Uh, seeing as how they came before the miracles of refrigeration, preservatives, and antibiotics, many of those dietary rules are actually pretty good advice.
I’m no hypocrite! I know that my standards come from my culture and my time!
Moral relativism claims that people make moral decisions based on their experiences and reason. It in no way implies that one cannot make moral judgments or decisions.
Jesus (God) changes the moral ground of slavery which He set up in the OT. How is this not moral relativism?
We live in a society that disagrees with slavery. The bible clearly condones slavery. COUNTEREXAMPLE:
We can debate the immorality of the Bible all day long. But that isn’t the essence of what I was trying to say.
I still don’t think you’ve provided an (counter)example that shows morality to relative – as you claim it is.
You still haven’t answered me on why you find the thousand year-old genocides immoral – given your moral relativism, not to mention your apparent belief that we should remain complacent when babies are being left to die at some remote location of a society that condones it. You even shout (the thousand yr old genocides) it with indignation. Other than proving to me that you are a hypocrite, I don’t think you proved anything else.
“Are you suggesting that we kill women and children of Islamic terrorists in addition to the men? ”
– No I was suggesting that we, ofcourse depending on the circumstances, should wipe out terrorism. If terrorism can be wiped out through diplomatic talks- the all the better. But this is obviously wishful thinking.
There are also women and children terrorists. If it is conceivable that we could change them without having to kill them, then that would be so much better. But to be realistic, in the end – we always do everything to protect our way of life.
If everything were merely our opinion – then yes, none of it is important.
If morality were relative – then what we think is currently moral is just an opinion, decapitating babies cannot be absolutely immoral, hey maybe sometimes it can be moral.
But if morality was absolute, then the opposite is true.
The absoluteness of morality may just be my “opinion” but if it were, then we are both expressing our opinions that are equally unimportant.
Ok, well I DARE you to show ONE example of this moral universality that you talk about. Yes, I judge anachronistically because I do NOT want those values taught today. Apparently, you do.
Michael: Could you please outline where you get your absolute morality from?
wazza,
Sorry, but I dont see how I’m wrong.
I said, we are rational, logical and have a sense of morality because the universe is rational, logical and morality exists in it – because God is rational, logical and moral.
What do you mean “without any input from God”.
Your saying I have to take the “despicable” things in the bible as being moral right? But Like I said, on Moses and the medianites, Is it impossible to have a ‘just war’ ?
Iv’e explained this a couple of posts ago. I didn’t think I should repeat it to you – just thought maybe you missed it.
“If it’s from a divine spark, how come people do kill? and are greedy, and hurt eachother every second of the day, while you on a personal level find this wrong? ”
- Really? this is the question you end up with? People kill for a lot of reasons : Jealousy, anger, for theft etc. To put sense into what your saying, I’ll have to assume that you initially assumed that these things are done under the premise that they aren’t wrong – which now makes me think narrowly of you.
And yes, at a personal level, I do find these things wrong. You don’t?
“You really need to come with something better because this is no absolute to get your absolute morality from. ”
– You might wanna ask ‘wazza’ this one (since you aren’t satisfied with my answer). It seems he believes in absolute morality too.
of course you don’t. bless your heart.
Because the religion is used to spread hate. So, who do you hate, and why?
Personally, I hate people who don’t use their blinker in traffic. I also hate people who selfishly lie, either flat out or by omission. I hate people who rape, murder, and steal. I hate people who let their greed overcome their basic human goodness.
I hate a whole lot of things, but these are brought about by personal experiences, observations, and opinions. These opinions are influenced by my friends and family, but I don’t hate anything just because my dad hates it too.
Who do you hate, and why?
Your point only holds if there is a god… but if there isn’t?
Also, you seem to be basing it pretty heavily on what people “know” is right. What about the 4% of the population who show signs of psychopathy? (US figures: in prisons, the number is 25%) If they don’t feel right or wrong, does that mean nothing is wrong for them? Did god decide not to give them this “spark” you seem so keen on? Or maybe there is no god, and logic is a human construct?
Sometimes I wish this subject wasn’t so logically one-sided, and that believers had better arguments. I can’t help but feel like I’m playing chess with the dog, and then laughing because he sucks.
A population is made up of the average of all individuals. You used to be in their population, but that doesn’t mean you would represent the average Californian. And so any judgement of you cannot be used as a judgement of the whole.
“that was replying to Michael… OK, Michael, morality is from God… so how do you know what’s moral?”
From the Christian worldview: we inherently are able to percieve right from wrong, since we were created in God’s divine spark , so to speak.
“Michael, I do believe that morality is absolute… I’m not sure that you do, though. Your support for genocide in particular worries me. ”
– I didn’t support genocide. I supported ‘wiping out terrorists’, remember.
I just did! inherent in humans! divine spark! etc hello?
Yeah. He’s explained his idea of where it comes from, it’s just that you think it’s bs.
Personally, I think morality comes from culture and the laws of the government, but all of that (currently) has been heavily influenced by the Bible, so it really comes down to being a survival and cooperation mechanism that’s been traveling with man ever since we distinguished ourselves from the rest of the animals in the world, and at some point it was glorified, and eventually became ethics/morality, then was put in the Bible, and so on.
you haven’t explained what it is, though, how we can tell it from other urges…
you can’t just wave your hands and say “Divine spark”, you have to actually say what it is and how it works differently from basic logic in a godless world.
Well, its not INHERENT if it CHANGES over time and between cultures, is it?
as I said, Christians: full o’ shi#*.
“I’d like to know why your opinion is worth anything at all, too, Michael ”
– My opinion isn’t worth anything. Because it is an “opinion”.
“Wow. evolution happens in populations, not in individuals. your point is diluted and diluted as you continue to talk. ”
- Who forms populations? Individuals right? Good grief.
“LRA
BTW I have degrees from universities you could NEVER hope to get into. Don’t EVER call me STUPID! ”
- Point taken. I apologise. I did, however, answer that question many posts ago. Its odd your still asking that.
Nate Adams, the executive director of the Illinois Baptist State Association, had this to say:
“Our great God is not surprised by this, or anything,” Adams said. “That He allows evil and free will to have their way in tragedies like this is a mystery in many ways. But we know we can trust Him no matter what, and draw close to Him in any circumstances. Let’s draw closer to Him and to one another during this terrible tragedy, and renew our faith and obedience to His purposes for however many days we have remaining to serve Him.”
What mystery? This tragedy is the result of the actions of an obviously mentally deranged individual who’s neither evil nor truly possessing free will. He’s sick!
As usual, the true believers are quick to conjure up some supernatural reason for anything that happens, good of bad, and Nate Adams is no exception. Unfortunately his delusions are uncritically accepted by the majority of people.
Jesus says “Don’t resist the evil one.” Don’t you think they did a bit of resisting?
“Well, its not INHERENT if it CHANGES over time and between cultures, is it? ”
- LRA, this is getting tedious. I was arguing that it didn’t change – remember the terrorists = medianites thing? Must I really talk in circles with you?
I made arguments, that you say aren’t satisfactory – then fine, thats your opinion. But no one is avoiding your questions here, and you asserting that just to gratify some ‘intellectual superiority complex’ that you seem to be afflicted with, doesn’t make any of it true.
This is a response to the whole comment mess with michael.
I have read it all.. and i still don’t see where you get your absolute morality from.
You say “a divine spark” but that is so not absolute and therefor contradictory that it boggles the mind.
Absolute means the same for everybody.
If it’s from a divine spark, how come people do kill? and are greedy, and hurt eachother every second of the day, while you on a personal level find this wrong?
You really need to come with something better because this is no absolute to get your absolute morality from.
“That’s fine, but not a full answer.
I asked who you DO hate, and why. ”
- Can I ask, what is the purpose of this question?
I currently don’t hate anyone. I used to hate the kids who bullied me. Oh, and one time, I hated my boss coz he shouted at me.
“Is beating a child wrong?”
– Yes, if it was for the sake of simply hurting the child.
“Is slapping a child to punish it wrong?”
– Depends If you slapped the child for getting a cookie – then it is wrong. If spanking the child (i.e he stole something) would be the only conceivable way (at the moment) to educate him on something he isn’t supposed to do, then I don’t see anything wrong with that. You are essentially doing it for HIS own good.
“When is it allright to slap a child? What wrongdoing does it make ok to slap a child? ”
- Really? This is your moral dilemma? Obviously if you are punishing him for his own good – then thats ok. As long as you don’t punish him excessively – thats wrong. (obviously)
“How does your divine spirit tell you those tiny differences “absolutely”? ”
– We inherently know right from wrong. I’m not going to repeat my explanation. If Hitler was taught that killing all those people was right – we shouldn’t blame him then eh? – since LRA, says we know right from wrong based on what we are taught.
Jesus said turn to the other cheek implying that you shouldn’t pay revenge on someone.
Tackling someone to stop a person killing people is hardly paying revenge.
sorry I worded it wrong..
“tackling someone to stop him killing people is hardly paying revenge.”
I mean, the attenders didn’t kill the murderer, right?
Bible verses for all who say “Where was their god” while all this was going on? GOD allowed it!
Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;,
Wow, I just posted a positive comment and then I read this post. ha ha.
Let me just say this: “Turn the other cheek” is NOT the same as “Bend over and take it up the butt.”
(yes, you can quote me on that.)
THIS type of thinking that these Christians went against their beliefs and tackled this guy is flat stupid. Surely you would have learned a little context in your sad dive into your fundamental world back then. Or maybe that’s the problem – not sure.
Of all the times you’ve quoted the Bible and missed the actual meaning, this is one of the top five, bro.
It is really sad that you are using a tragedy such as this as a platform to promote athiesm. This event was the result of sin, not the result of the non existence of God. If you will recall, former Christian, the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God was sin and its ramifications entering the world. Therefore, the need for atonement was introduced. Then God in his great kindness sent his son as atonement for our evil deeds. This does not mean there is no longer sin but rather there is a way to be freed from sin and its eternal result of separation from God. This is what those who believe in Jesus Christ have. However, we live in a world tainted with evil and sin. We will be effected by it, believer and non believer alike. God did not promise us a perfect, tragedy free life. He did promise us to be there when tragedy happens and an eternity of joy with him in heaven for those who believe.
Please take some time to read the Bible. It is truth and the only way to life.
Michael: “…God is rational, logical and moral.”
Rational? In the Pentateuch God repeatedly flies into rages and proceeds to kill everyone in sight. Sometimes Moses has to calm him down and talk him out of killing everyone.
Logical? He creates light and darkness before the sun. He prescribes senseless dietary rules for the Israelites.
Moral? He prescribes eternal damnation in Hell for billions of unbelievers. Even Hitler would be shocked by that level of malevolence.
Michael: …I equate the “genocide” to “wiping out terrorists”.
Does that include wiping the small children terrorists and the domestic animal terrorists as God commanded the Israelites to do when they entered the Promised Land?
Michael: We have something common then, english isn’t my first language.
So, that’s the reason for the gobbledygook you call reason?
Michael: Interesting. I didn’t know Martin Luther wanted to kill Jews…
And what else don’t you know? Have you ever read the entire Bible?
Oh wow really? Then I guess… Okay! okay… He doesn’t really exist.. happy now?
Elemenope: “And as I pointed out way up above, the ethical theories and structures with which Jesus and his followers would be familiar would not have encouraged people to view his pronouncements as rules to be programmatically followed, but rather as suggestions for building good character.”
You mean like the good character of the Jehovah god? Let’s see now, He’s omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and several other omni’s. Being omnipotent, why doesn’t He make everybody into good people, just the way He likes them? Then He wouldn’t have to send anyone to burn eternally in Hell.
Don’t give me any of this free will crap. If He’s omniscient, free will is a logical fallacy.
I think the clue to why he created Hell for billions of people can be found in the Pentateuch. We are often reminded there that God loves the sweet savor of the animals roasted as a burnt offering to Him. I think that He’s looking forward to the sweet smell of souls roasting in Hell just like people enjoy the smell of T-bone steak sizzling over glowing charcoal.
True Christians (including those who examine God’s Word) never allow worldly facts and circumstances to bring them doubts. What was Jesus reaction when John the Baptist was decapitated? What about Stephen’s Death when stoned? What about the Apostle Peter who was crucified upside down?
Nobody knows yet the reason the Shooter had… regardless
The Bible says: “Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.
These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. Hebrews 11:35-40
Daniel, do you ever doubt what you believe? Maybe you’re not right after all. Maybe, for years, you didn’t understand the very thing before your eyes. Could it be that you misinterpreted Truth, rather than the source misrepresenting Truth?
So far as I’m aware, deaths from food poisoning were no less common amongst the Hebrews than amongst those cultures that didn’t keep kosher.
I am unaware of empirical evidence either way. But it stands to reason that if you don’t eat pork, there will be fewer trichinosis infections. No?
tragedy
Ok, a few things.
First, calling ALL Christians stupid and full of $hit is a bit of a stretch for me. For all the logic and education you have you would realize that it only takes 1 example to prove your statement false. Since you could not have possibly met every Christian, you can’t make statements like that.
Second, “most” people are stupid. look around, that’s just how it is. It doesn’t matter if they are Christian, Atheist, Islamic, or whatever. I don’t sit here and claim that All atheists are stupid, there is no reason for you to say that all Christians are full of $hit. Again, most people are stupid. That includes most Christians and most atheists.
Next, nowhere in the Bible does it say that life is just going to be great and our perfect God will save us from anything bad happening. Anyone using a pastor being shot as evidence that God doesn’t exist is just trying to push their own agenda. The only thing that is claimed is that He will be there to provide comfort. When something bad happens in your life, is it easier to deal with if you have support from a caring friend or family member or completely by yourself. He is there to comfort when nobody else is.
Finally, while I am a Christian, I try to look at everything from both sides of the coin. I understand your arguments against Christianity, I just don’t agree with them. You choose to not believe in God because of your experiences, I choose to believe in God because of mine.
I know you have heard this before, but if you are right, so what, we both die and get buried and that’s it. I lived my life as a good person that people will remember fondly and maybe the same for you. However, if I am right, I get to spend eternity in Heaven with my God. I don’t claim to have any idea what will happen to you.
Daniel does not mention any proof, so asking him for it is somewhat pointless.
Do you believe in the existence of Thor? If not, I’d be interested to learn more of the “proof” you’ve found that God does not exist.
Do you see the point?
“I’d be interested to learn more of the “proof” you’ve found that God does not exist.”
Happy to oblige once you posted proof that Zeus doesn’t exist.
The burden of proof is on you to prove he does.
Tutie,
For me, it is not so much a matter of “proof”, but rather a matter of probability.
At the end of the day, does a supernatural hypothesis provide a better explanation than a natural one? If so, how do we distinguish one supernatural hypothesis from any of the other ones?
The Bible reads more like it was compiled by humans than divinely inspired…church history owes much more to human fallibility than to divine guidance…natural explanations have done wonders for our civillization and supernatural explanations have not been invoked to explain natural occurences.
Why do I need proof? The evidence is all around us.
So-
You’ve tried every religion in the world and know with certainty that christianity it THE ONE TRUE religion?
No? You haven’t?
(Full of #$#@).
Point proven.
Many people make these type of statements because they do not know what the Bible really teaches. I suggest anyone who has questions about what the Bible teaches to take the time to sit down and read. We are all entitled to our own opinion but this is a serious matter that has taken place and this shouldn’t be joked about.
“Turning the other cheek” refers to our not retailiating in kind. The people of course did not disobey God because their response was not in anger, with hatred or with a vengeful heart. Their motive was to protect, to care for others, to help and this indeed reflects the heart of God.
I know of few holly rollers who would claim that God is capable of metaphysical impossibility (creating square circles and married bachelors would be quite beyond even an omni-omni deity’s capacities), and so depending on the metaphysical structure of the concept “goodness”, it very well may be He had no choice in its manner of production.
I tend to agree that the theistic account of deity in the Bible (and pretty much everywhere else for that matter) is puny, being as they are stories told either by or through us puny humans. But honestly even the popular conceptions of God have moved quite beyond the entity portrayed in the Bible (much as many Christians would deny it), incorporating elements of Hellenic philosophy from very early on, and then going through quite remarkable changes due to the influence of a few people throughout the concept’s history.
There is a reason why we have freewill. Would you love your father if he FORCED you to love him? no. That’s why there is freewill. God wants us to love him back by choice. Unfortunately because we have freewill people take it to the extreme and disobey all that God had intended for us.
If you haven’t experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, please, for your sake, ask God to reveal Himself to you. It’s amazing and miraculous. What this guy did was a demonic force trying to INTERVENE with God’s will. God could intervene at any moment but why would he? He does when he needs to. Listen, that pastor is better off. I’d love to be dancing with Jesus in heaven right now. As horrible as this is, we need to see the positive instead of being pessimistic, doubtful and full of hate. That’s exactly what Satan wants. If you’re in that position, you’re playing with a very strong and dangerous force. You can doubt if God exists but don’t be suprised when something comes to light and you find out the truth. Faith is evidence of things not seen.
I would be no where with out God. Analyzing gets you no where except further from the church and in a big mess.
Please don’t let something like this make you hate God even more.
Well, if he was actually capable of forcing such a thing, then yes.
Besides, just because we can freely choose to worship god or not, why does that imply that we can freely choose to shoot people, any more than it implies we can freely choose to fly to Mars?
“If you haven’t experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, please, for your sake, ask God to reveal Himself to you.”
- Actually, no. Just act morally (which I’m sure you all do) and you all can go to heaven (good huh?)
God is merciful and just. If you don’t believe in him, thats ok, he is just. If you do believe in him and try to follow his will – he will be merciful. Your eternal destiny would be no a result of your circumstance but your own volition.
The motivation to believe in God would be this though: Myself, if I committed a crime, I’d rather stand trial against a jury who is more merciful than just.
I sincerely don’t believe in saying : “atheists your going to hell, change now!” – Thats crap.
at miguel
…. What does morally mean? How do you know what morally means? …..
mark…… ok please answer this question miguel. please dont evade i am very interested to read what you may say. i went to websers online and this is the deffinition i got .
….. 1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue …….
also i found part of the deffinition at wpedia, if you disagree with the deffinitions of morality i have provided, please let me know.
here is the wpedia description of morality. or at least part of it that i think desribes what we all understand morality to be.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) has three principal meanings.
…… In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be “common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time.” ……
so my question to you now is
if god can drown babies during the flood and still be considered moral then why wouldnt i be moral if i saw a child drowning and didnt attempt to help even if i knew i could save the child.
if i walked by a lake and i saw 50 babies drowning and did nothing would i be following gods code of conduct.
also if you have the almighty beyond why do you evade question and run instead of honestly dialoguing with genuinely interested people. if you have got the ultimate back up on your side why are you always running away from us.
“If there is no punishment for non-belief, and I don’t see/feel a need to believe, what excatly would be my motivation to become a believer? ”
– There is no motivation. You can be a non-believer all your life and still go to heaven as long as you don’t act immorally. Like I said God is just and merciful. You don’t believe in him – he will give you justice. I believe in him and I try (but fail mostly) to follow his will – hopefully he will show me mercy.
But like I said, would you rather you were shown justice or mercy? If you committed a crime, for example, – would you rather the jury be ‘just’ with you or be ‘merciful’ with you?
This, for me, would constitute motivation to believe in God. I would rather be judged with mercy.
“I would rather be judged with mercy.”
As an honest person, I’d rather be judged with justice. Mercy is for people who want to wiggle out of their crimes. Since I haven’t committed any crime against god, assuming there is one, (and certainly have NO original sin due to someone else’s crime that I don’t even know), I’m quite comfortable facing god (if that indeed happens).
As a Christian, I first want to say that I am praying for the family of pastor. No doubt, this is horrible and painful for them and the church. But, I want to ask some questions to get at some of the ideas that are floating around here:
1) If you do not believe there is a God (Intelligent), is there such as thing as “suffering,” “evil,” or good/bad? If so, how is it qualified? Who has the authority to say that what the shooter did was even wrong?
2) If you believe that perhaps there is a God, and believe that by allowing “evil” acts to occur such as this would make God worse than the evil, where do you get the audacity to say what is fair or good or bad, etc.? And, if there is a God, would not this Creator, Intelligence greatly surpass our “understanding” / ability to reason – aka have much higher intelligence?
3) Would you not agree that having “free will” is the greatest expression of love (from God)? If God ordained everything to happen without any “bad” stuff (still have to define that) and would not allow any harm at all, would we truly have free will?
4) Lastly, we should also shake our fists at God for allowing lots of other “bad” stuff – people drinking while driving, teens having sex (disease and unwanted pregnancy), etc.
The ultimate display of suffering and tragedy came when Romans beat the slop out of Jesus and nailed his hands and feet to a cross – innocent, but murdered for nothing. That’s the greatest tragedy, and triumph, of all. Thank you for allowing to comment.
LRA,
1) So, if we make up new rules concerning murder, rape, stealing, etc. that would be okay if the majority agrees or if a few lawmakers decide? Why do you disagree with murder (if you do)? Shouldn’t it simply be every person for themselves? What/who defines rational?
2) If there are absolute right/wrongs you are not prevented from thinking. If there is no authority, then it goes back to anything goes – therefore our government is terrorizing the people with laws against murder, stealing, driving over the speed limit, and the other 10000s. We should picket and lobby against any laws because they are offensive to some.
3) Is there really suffering though? Where does that concept come from? Is stubbing my toe suffering? Not having enough money for a plasma suffering? Death of a loved one? Children starving? If it’s not suffering to me, and it is to another (vice versa), who is right?
4) By the way, I was sexually, verbally, emotionally abused as a child and it was Jesus who came to my rescue – he didn’t prevent what happened. In fact, he grieved with me, healed my hurt and pain, and those who did those things will answer to Him. I am stronger today, can help others going through similar things, and have seen many come to Jesus through it.
Anyone on here could swap wound-stories, scars ranging from abuse to paralysis, to people starving, and more. It’s okay to question and to process the things that happen today in our world. I would suggest reading the thoughts of people like Philip Yancey, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Joni Erickson Tada, Francis Shaeffer, Frank Turek, Timothy Keller – and I have others. I myself read the spectrum – Dawkins, Hitchins, Barker and see where their thoughts range.
I do empathize with your anger/pain/disillusionment. Most people (not saying you) have not read unbiasedly the teachings of Jesus. The New Testament conveys the compassion and love of God.
Oh man, that is almost exactly how I feel! I try logic and reason and challenging premises, and after I’ve repeated it several times they just don’t get it.
I don’t care to hit and run, but after I’ve repeated what say to the best of my ability several times, and one is still demanding an explanation, I have to either re-repeat, or give up.
I’ll go up against really spiteful, nasty posts from “loving Christians”, but after enough hateful spite-spewing, I’m going in circles, like water that can’t sink into rock (or skullbone).
For several years, I have told my friend, “Not many people can win by out-arguing me, but they can easily out-asshole me.”
In spoken rather than written word, that is accomplished by interrupting and shouting.
Thank you for your analogy!
I found it! A search actually brought up Troy Britains’ blog, pigeonchess.com. Is that funny or what? He posts the quote in a prominent corner.
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
What I was saying with free will is that if we are controlled by a Creator (God) then it would assume that nobody would really be able to show love because you would not have the choice to love. Likewise, if God made everything robotically to operate and function, then there would not be suffering, as there would not be any feelings – love, joy, pleasure, because it would be planned out for us – a robot, computer, etc can’t feel. That God would allow us to be free in thought, word, action implies a greater love – the fact that I can choose to reject Him – wow a great risk on his part.
Also, how does anyone explain why we die? Why is there death, pain (I have a serious back injury), hurt? Evolution should keep evolving so that we can eliminate death and we just live forever.
Just some other thoughts. : )
Daniel,
Another interesting post, but you are misinterpreting Scripture. You either knew this and used this passage to create a 400 comment post :) or you are not very good at interpreting Scripture.
Either way, I’ll turn the other cheek and let it slide this time. :)
BD
” Another interesting post, but you are misinterpreting Scripture. You either knew this and used this passage to create a 400 comment post : ”
mark: Ok why dont you enlighten us with the correct interpretation. If you have the secret code please enlighten us.
Why even comment at all if you are not going to point out where daniel is wrong. Or are you a f#cking troll. Or maybe a better question is this, if you have god on your side why are you to much of a punk to actually say what specifically you disagree with him about.
Scott, so you think that Jesus thought it was okay to “resist those who are evil” at times? That seems contrary to what he taught. According to the gospels, he went to his death not resisting those who were evil and telling his disciples to not resist as well (like telling Peter to put away his sword).
If the context makes that verse mean something different, please explain it. It is in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount and seems pretty straightforward to me, just like his other teachings there.
If you wanted to go for a narrow reading, the passage seems to enjoin a person against defense of self, not defense of others. So the pastor wouldn’t be able to use violence to resist the evil acts perpetrated against him, but the others would be able to act to attempt to prevent it/end it.
There is also a wider problem, which is in no uncertain terms Immanuel Kant’s fault. :) Modern discussions of ethics have tended to be in terms of absolute duties, categorical imperatives, all towards an attempt to come up with a *formula* of rules that would apply in all situations. This is directly opposed to the Aristotelian approach (with which the people in Jesus’ time and reason would have been familiar) which puts emphasis not on rules and imperatives but on the foundations pf character and the broadness of ethical experience.
Read in the context of advice about building character, rather than ethical rules to be programmatically followed, one could reasonably argue that Jesus was saying that refraining from recourse to violence is salubrious to producing good character, and not saying that the “rule” could be applied slavishly in all situations.
well, I would say, what he (Elemenope) said :)
that isn’t a very intelligent response but he said it pretty well. True the context was the Sermon on the Mount but you just pulled out a typical “eye for an eye” argument on a murder in 2009.
You could have very well picked out any number of other verses to illustrate your point, doesn’t mean it isn’t taken out of the context for a shooting in today’s time.
That isn’t really the root of your argument anyway. The point is, no one there did anything wrong other than the gunman, which we both agree.
I am not going to just sit by, hold hands and sing kumbaya until the cows come home hoping I don’t get shot in the mean time, I would hope that I would do SOMETHING, but some would do nothing but sit there until they were killed.
Maybe that isn’t what God would want me to do.
Not ironic. Just a case for the manufacture of metal Bibles.
It’s actually completely reasonable. Small caliber pistol rounds often can be stopped simply by a sufficient stack of paper. A .22 rimshot will flatten like a pancake about halfway through a phone book, and even a .22 rifle cartridge won’t usually make it through a hard-cover book. Even a .38 special can be deflected occasionally in this way, though a 9mm parabellum will generally not be deflected sufficiently to avoid injury.
More, thinner sheets are better than fewer, thicker sheets for slowing and deflecting projectiles. Hence, the average Bible is about the best one could do short of a phone book.
Theodore Roosevelt once saved his own life from a would-be assassin’s bullet with a copy of his own speech; the bullet was slowed so much that it barely caused a flesh wound on the back end of the speechpaper. He still gave the speech, while wounded.
I read that the pastor was able to deflect on bullet with his Bible and it was the subsequent ones that got him.
Michael, did I call anyone stupid in this post? The only person I purposely insult is the murderer.
Also, I don’t think all Christians are stupid and I have never said that.
It would be shallow reasoning, but you won’t find it here.
Frankly Michael, this is one of the most civil forums on the subject I have encountered. But let’s not quibble.
Religions make some pretty grand claims. In all other areas of life most people use logic and reason to get through the day …except one. When it fails, or their grand claim is debunked and they get called out on it, they try to paint themselves as a victim (perhaps a little like your trying to do in a roundabout way). Most religious people are not stupid. Not all atheists are smart, but most tend to have the courage of their convictions.
While I’m here: My heart goes out to the people of Maryville for what was a senseless and tragic crime. This man’s wife lost a husband and his children lost thier father. Whatever motive is discovered, these will not change.
First, you are wrong assuming that this is the reasoning that goes on.
Also (though we may not know specifically about this case yet):
Getting sidetracked on one specific point (even if it weren’t mistaken), or saying “No True Scotsman/Christian would do that”, or falling all over yourself protesting that all Christians shouldn’t judge by “that” (Of course I judge Christians by that! What the hell OTHER religion did you think it was?), are all tricks to distract attention from a fact – you can’t escape from this one:
That whatever loony being discussed IS one of the group “Christians”, and WAS acting from his Christian beliefs.
Not the most reliable source, but apropros:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/revealing-reasoning-of-believer-review.html
Christians don’t reason well, apparently.
NO. YOU are what is wrong with the world! You tell us that people dying at the hands of “evil” (mentally disturbed) people is god’s will. You say the world is “going down the crapper”, I say the world is evolving. If religion makes you happy, then fine. But it doesn’t make me happy. REASON makes me happy, something that religious people reject. I And YES I think you are WRONG! I think religious people can’t think their way out of a paper bag. It is YOU who insist on “pseudo-intellectual” discussions. If you had actually read the bible, you’d know that already.
Dude, calm down a notch. Reading into comments in the least charitable way that the text allows is almost never a good approach.
If something makes me happy, then why do you insist on challenging it at every turn?
It is not so simple as this. If your beliefs lead to a change in your behavior (and I tend to think that the major difference between having a belief and merely having an *idea* is that a belief is lived as opposed to merely thought), then it is likely to affect people besides yourself. If people perceive the effects of your beliefs on your behavior towards them and society in general to be negative, why would they not complain?
And when I say “it is YOU that is what is wrong with the world” I mean you and other religious people who assume that their worldview is the only right one… like Islamic terrorists.
And in response to your anticipated answer, NO, atheists do not have a dogmatic, set worldview, they tend to have diverse world views. Case in point, Daniel is a libertarian and other atheists lean toward the left. What they have in common is a doubt as to your ridiculous world view (which is contradictory and requires magical thinking).
Hey, ‘Nope,
You and I haven’t talked much, but I want to say that I appreciate your cool and intellectual approach to your responses! I know I tend to get fired up (as I am passionate about the things I say), but you always come through with a really, really great point of view that is clearly well informed and even-handed. Thanks! :)
“Religions make some pretty grand claims. In all other areas of life most people use logic and reason to get through the day …except one. ”
– Patrick, your wrong on this one. We use our logic and reasoning too. Although we immediately diverge in paths when it comes to topics such as these, a lot of us theists have, sincerely, arrived at our conclusions because of logic and reason.
“When it fails, or their grand claim is debunked and they get called out on it, they try to paint themselves as a victim (perhaps a little like your trying to do in a roundabout way).”
– Has it been debunked? When did this happen? If I call you an idiot and say you are ridiculous – am I not, in a sense, victimizing you? Everyone who gets “called out” in the manner just stated – would paint themselves as a “victim”. C’mon now, stop being a hypocrite.
“Most religious people are not stupid. Not all atheists are smart, but most tend to have the courage of their convictions.”
– Oh, are you suggesting that the religious do not have the “courage of their convictions” ? Thats a bit presumptuous now isn’t it?
You don’t use logic when you believe in a god that condones genocide, rape, child sacrifice, slavery, the subjugation of women, etc.
No, you certainly don’t use logic.
“And in response to your anticipated answer, NO, atheists do not have a dogmatic, set worldview, they tend to have diverse world views. ”
– Christians have diverse worldviews too. Like some believe in Aliens. Some, the more nutty ones, believe the earth is 6000 years old. It doesn’t matter how diverse atheists worldviews are – they are all worldviews that absent the existence of a God – therefore, everything is relative, even morality.
So this whole “were not dogmatic, we have diverse worldviews” things is crap. We can say the same for theists.
LOL. Magical thinking. I’m so keeping that one, LRA.
Thanks, LRA. I gain much from your contributions as well. Sometimes a more fiery response is called for than I feel comfortable making. :)
Perhaps you’re British? (I have British family– me as a Texas woman, though… look out!!!) Perhaps you’re just more wise that I am! Perhaps you have dealt with people who make ridiculous claims more than I have and have become immune to it?
:)
What ever the case, I clearly admire your grace under fire!
@LRA
“Perhaps you’re British”
… erm I think you need to met some real British people to see the error of your statement!
Huh? I have family that is British. They are way more “cool” than me!!! :)
The fact is that I get annoyed by insistent, stupid people. I need to learn to have better grace under that fire. I admire it in people like ‘Nope. Just a higher ideal that I’d like to work towards!
@LRA
That’s merely to your face :-) … moaning about people and things in general is a national pastime — the buses and the weather are a particular favourite — but never to someone who may get offended. I don’t know any other nation that uses the word ’sorry’ so much.
:) ok, I take you at your word! However, I guess I could be a little “cooler” (but not capable of that at this time!!!)
@LRA
“The fact is that I get annoyed by insistent, stupid people.”
… and you live in Texas you say. Well that must be interesting!
Hey now! That is SO not fair! I lived in NYC for four years and experienced more stupid people there than at any point in my life!!!
LRA,
Did you study theology?
Hypothetically speaking, whats so bad about genocide that occured thousands of years ago for someone who is a moral relativist? You don’t believe in absolute morality, so who knows, in your worldview, that could’ve been a very moral thing to do back then when people were less ‘evolved’ . Are you being a hypocrite now?
Do you want us to keep those standards now?
I would think not.
I mean, you are claiming that the bible is the moral example for all times…
BTW, yes I have a degree in philosophy. How about you?
Michael, you seem to think that moral relativism is the same as “anythying goes”. Implying that an ancient genocide “could’ve been a very moral thing to do” is just plain stupid.
In fact, the only people I’ve ever heard condoning the genocidal aspects of the Bible are the fervent believers. They reason that those people really deserved to die because of their wicked ways.
To them genocide is okay as long as it is God who commands it. Talk about moral relativism…
Er.. No TRJ. that wasn’t what I was claiming, you might have misunderstood me. On hindsight, I can see that I’ve phrased it sloppily – which is why.
ok— so do we agree, then?
However, a “relative” view of morality doesn’t mean anything goes! It means that we construct morality within the bounds of what is culturally acceptable. In other words, Christians living 150+ years ago would say that slavery was fine (as the bible says), but Christians living today would not say that. Can we agree that morality evolves as culture evolves? Can we agree that not just ANYthing goes?
Since you are inferring that Biblical moral principles are objective and absolute, please explain the actions of the god(s) and his/their obedient followers in the Old Testament without relying on moral relativism.
I would laugh, except that some poor man died! I feel for his family, even if their beliefs are totally off!
“So, you believe in moral absolutes? What is your source, the bible? Cuz morality clearly changes there.”
- Yes I believe this. It is the Christian worldview -that logic, rationality and morality are a reflection of God’s nature. We have them in our ‘world’ and we have the ability to recognize them because we were created in God’s divine spark etc etc (long and boring explanation to you for sure.)
“Also, how do you access moral absolutes? Do you have some direct connection to Plato’s heaven? How do you know what is absolutely right?”
– Let me ask you instead, How do you know something cannot be absolutely right? I, like many others (with Plato) have reached this conclusion through logical reasoning. How have you reached yours? How do you know something can never be absolutely right?
“I think genocide is wrong because we have evolved as social creatures and we now know that wiping entire peoples off the face of the earth deprives us of their value.”
– So, you believe that wiping out people who sacrifice their babies by dipping them in hot lead would be wrong?
Is it wrong for you to wipe out people who plot the destruction of our society by guiding planes through buildings? Do you think it would be impossible to have a ‘just war’?
“If the Israelites are to be judged by scholarly history, the we have no right to judge them with our hind sight.”
– Really? That certainly not what this statement: “the bible’s morals (which are actually amoral/immoral).”
means.
UMMMM NO! George Bush (and his fundie cronies) do that. Now us thinking people.
NOT not NOW
Oh, ok, I’m sorry. I didn’t know that you would rather leave the terrorists alone – because wiping them “off the face of the earth deprives us of their value.”
What difference does it make if you were a Christian for many years? I said the explanation would be long and boring to you. Are you suggesting to me that it wouldn’t be so?
I was an atheist for many years too (well, sort of a semi-atheist, or a deist if you prefer), but now that I’m a Christian, I still think its a long and boring explanation as it is an ‘explanation’ I’ve heard many times.
The book of Philemon is used to show that slavery was wrong by many. In it, Paul begged Philemon to take back his slave, Onesimus, and treat him like he’d treat Paul. Christian abolishonists pointed to this book often in the 1800s.
Slavery was different in the Old Testament times compared to the 1800s, too–at least God viewed it that way. People could even opt to sell themselves into slavery! Under certain conditions, slaves were to be set free in the year of Jubilee.
There are many commands throughout the Penetuch saying how to treat slaves. If I’m remembering correctly, if you killed your slave, you were to be killed. In the end, you weren’t supposed to be harsh to a slave that you may have because, even though they were your servant, they were still a human–something that African slaves lost when they went to the south.
Although, God never comes out and says that slavery is okay, his allowing of slavery is much like his allowing of polygamy. It was something that he tolerated. I’ve never taken the time to study why he tolerated it but, I may here in the upcoming days if time allows it.
Well, then, pray tell… what is your source?
A question Micheal. If morals are absolute, how do you explain that morals from 3000 years ago aren’t considered morally right now? If you truly believe morals are absolute, why aren’t you and those that believe as you do trying to get the laws changed back to when rape victims were executed or forced to marry their rapist.
Hahahaha!
Killing is always wrong, as is allowing others to kill when it could be prevented. Unfortunately, the world is ordered such that our choice is often not between right and wrong, but between wrong and more wrong. In that case, we must choose to kill in order to prevent more deaths.
There is no need to be overly-detailed. We both know an analogy can never be a 100% representation. I was merely implying that the ‘moral standards’ that you suggested were no longer in practice today – still are.
you want to wipe out terrorism, and that’s well and good… but how is it in any way like genocide? You’re trying to use is as an example of condoneable genocide, but it’s nothing like it
So, will you concede that if (note the “if”) Moses killed these people to prevent more deaths/or the like – that would be right by you?
I’d also like to extend my condolences… Pastors at smaller churches like this, in my experience, are often fairly decent people who try to do good things. I hope his family will be able to cope with this, and that the trauma doesn’t lead to further tragedy.
that was replying to Michael… OK, Michael, morality is from God… so how do you know what’s moral?
Then you believe ‘morality is absolute’ then good. Certainly better than a moral relativist like this LRA guy.
first of all, I am not a GUY and I hate that you assume that!
Secondly, you are intellectually dishonest if you will not educate yourself about moral relativity (as you call it)
Moral relativity does NOT imply that anything goes! Some morals have BETTER arguments to support them than others.
Gees, take an ethics course.
then why are you arguing for it and putting down other peoples’ ideas of morality in favour of your own opinion?
Well, again, in the Christian worldview, people do not have different views of right and wrong. Ofcourse some people think democrats are right and republicans wrong and vice versa – but thats not the point I’m trying to make.
You, for example, know killing babies is wrong. It is the Christian view that, even if you were born in somalia or wherever – you would still hold those views to be true.
“I did claim that morality is absolute. I didn’t make the claim that the bible is “the moral example of all time” – huge difference there.”
“From the Christian worldview: we inherently are able to percieve right from wrong, since we were created in God’s divine spark , so to speak”
Ummmmm, contradictory much?
Yeah, dude, you’re really not answering the question. It doesn’t matter if “in the Christian worldview” people all think the same about morality… because in a little place I like to call the real world, there are a lot of different ideas of what’s right and wrong. Some people think raping babies is a good idea. What happened there, did the spark not take? My point is that absolute morality has to be based on something other than one cultural group’s feelings on what is good or bad, and so we have to base it on logic.
WRONG!!!
So claiming morality is absolute is exactly like saying “you know what, the bible is the moral example of all time!”
- stupid much?
Excuse me? Bless your heart. You are the one being contradictory, not me.
Again I ask WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE OF ALL THIS SUPPOSED UNIVERSAL MORALITY???
BTW I have degrees from universities you could NEVER hope to get into. Don’t EVER call me STUPID!
He did answer the question of what his supposed source is… the problem is that he can’t tell us how it works or why it’s absent in a lot of people.
LRA:
I remember the Texan definition of “Bless your heart”… and I crack up in agreement every time you say it.
“Several dozen years from now, it may become moral to kill babies, because the world cannot handle the population getting past a certain point. ”
– And this is why an atheistic society is to be more feared than a theistic one. Imagine electing this guy president. Instead of actually ‘killing babies’ why don’t you just impose population control of another sort – like giving free condoms or, since, you suggested the hypothetical society occuring several years from now, encourage the invention of condoms that would give a “not there” feeling.
I think it is your ‘education’ that is questionable here, since you don’t mind ‘killing babies’ to stave of an over-population problem.
25% of pregnancies fail at the blastocyst level. GOD is the ultimate abortion doctor.
Abortion is a moot issue because we aren’t able (yet) to decide if that lump of cells at that stage could already constitute a human being – so obviously its different. If we have undeniable evidence that it is already a human being, than that would make the analogy more sound.
I take it Miquel = michael.
How does this divine spark tell you what is right and what is wrong?
Example.
Is beating a child wrong?
Is slapping a child to punish it wrong?
Is slapping the same as beating (both are hurting the child) ?
When is it allright to slap a child? What wrongdoing does it make ok to slap a child?
How does your divine spirit tell you those tiny differences “absolutely”?
I would have to agree with Daniel, sorry… there are many STUPID Christians because there are many stupid people in the world, and that doesn’t make all Christians stupid, but either way, I don’t recall him ever taking that tactic directly, Daniel tries to have pretty factual arguments, which is why he has several Christian readers, like me.
Decapitating babies could never be morally right
What about killing every firstborn son – including infants? Could that ever be morally right?
“Decapitating babies could never be morally right”
A mad man has captuerd you and 25 other people. He is going to slowly torture those other 25 people to death unless you decapitate a baby.
Is it immoral to sacrifice the one save the 25?
Actually most people would say that it is immoral to make such a trade-off. More people find it acceptable if you make it a passive act (e.g. if you allow the baby to be decapitated, rather than having someone actively do it).
Bill, you have yet to reply to my response at the other post. Conceded?
In order to establish that moral relativity is wrong you must give an answer to LRA’s post in which your god clearly condones slavery and you must give an answer in which your god’s morality is not relative to the age. I think you are backed into a corner where you either must accept slavery as morally absolute or that God is a moral relativist.
Michael,
My argument isn’t that morality is relative so much because it’s changed over time (though I believe it has), but my examples demonstrate that human beings do not have a fully consistent perception of what is moral that is universal in its applications, today, at this time.
Could you address those points?
it was a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. he would have needed three, possibly four bibles to deflect that.
His book, The Jews and their Lies is still in print. It includes such gems as:
And:
Luther had his good points, but religious tolerance wasn’t one of them. And, just to make the point, Hitler frequently quoted this text in his speeches and in Mien Kampf. He was clearly very strongly moved by it, or he expected the (Christian) majority of Germans to be strongly moved by it.
My opinion is that both are correct; there was evolutionary pressure towards a morality that would allow social groups to remain together without murdering each other for an extra mouthful of food. However, this basic morality can be extended or subverted by societies (for example, by defining exactly who counts as being in the ingroup that defines who you need to be moral towards).
Michael- You may wish for a better reality, and bless your heart for doing so, but the fact is that I live in a reality where all kinds of bad stuff happens, despite how we’ve evolved. I disagree with bad things because I have LEARNED about them. Otherwise, I might act like a soldier in Darfur who rapes and pillages his way through life.
Thanks!
You know, you should really study the Bible with an open mind if you want such questions answered. But if you must know my view on the matter.. Ok, on slavery:
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings.” The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms, mostly in the southern states. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16 ). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
The flipside to your proposition is this: will LRA admit to being a hypocrite since she, being the moral relativist that she is, claims, with indignation, that the Bible is immoral?
But taking prisoners of war as slaves is encouraged.
So, do you think that slavery, as described in the Bible (including the whole beating-almost-to-death thing in Exodus 21:20-21) is a moral institution and should be legal?
Ummm, NO. Fathers were perfectly well within their right to sell their daughters into slavery. This is not an indentured servant situation, this is outright slavery.
Therefore, according to the assumptions in your post, some forms of slavery are morally absolute. This includes the forced separation of husbands and wives as God clearly directs in Exodus 21:2-6; the selling of children away from their parents as God clearly states in Leviticus 25:44-46; and, the selling of one’s own daughter as in Exodus 21:7-11.
If you stick to your argument that God is morally absolute, then your and His morals are evil.
Miguel,
I have studied the Bible with an open mind…but it wasn’t when I was a believer.
It’s much different studying the Bible without first believing that everything in it is true.
It’s easier to navigate without the heavy burden of predisposed assumptions.
I think it’s funny that when Christians say “study the Bible with an open mind”, they really mean “study the Bible and make sure that you’re already assuming it to be true”.
If you really wanted people to have an open mind when they read the Bible, perhaps you actually encourage them to set aside their assumptions about religious belief before they read it.
But this is probably too much to ask.
BTW my culture and my time are far more advanced than the bible’s culture and time and that is why I claim it immoral. Period.
Yes, your standards come from your culture and time, but you did say something to the avenue of “we don’t have a right to judge the past from hindsight” which you clearly did. Your a moral relativist, you should have already known that the ‘morals’ they had then were suited for their time – you should’ve already understood this. So whats with the indignation? Hypocrisy right?
yes, they were suited for THEIR time, not for OURS.
And you STILL have yet to prove moral absolutes (good luck with that btw).
“yes, they were suited for THEIR time, not for OURS. ”
- yes, which makes you a hypocrite.
I don’t think you know what the word hypocrite means.
and I STILL expect a proof of moral absolutes…
and day now…
A moral absolute is transcendental in nature. How exactly do I get proof of that? Can you give me proof of any law of logic?
What exactly are you talking about?
“I don’t think you know what the word hypocrite means.”
- hahaha! fine, your not a hypocrite. happy? I was doing that for fun.
oh ok then *laughs*
Could you give me a SPECIFIC morally universal law that ALL people agree on and that is NOT contradicted at some point in the bible?
and YES logic (including mathematics) is FULL of proofs. Otherwise, things known “a priori” are definitions.
“Could you give me a SPECIFIC morally universal law that ALL people agree on and that is NOT contradicted at some point in the bible? ”
- Killing people for fun is wrong.
oh, ok, Cause God doesn’t commit genocide in the bible. Yeah……
Well he doesn’t commit genocide for fun.. haha
you listed a motivation and an action. The action is wrong (by my standards) regardless of the motivation.
Oh.. well okay.
how do you know they are bad things if you simply ‘learned’ them from someone? Lets hope your teacher ‘learned’ from someone who knows right from wrong, and her teachers teacher also had the good fortunes of learning from someone who knows right from wrong too, and so on and so forth to the point of absurdity.
Or are you suggesting that it isn’t just “what we are taught” – as you initially asserted?
Damn. You have no education do you?
We have fields in both psychology and philosophy that research morality. This is how decisions get made in civilized societies. WE LEARN.
ps learning isn’t simple. It takes years.
“Damn. You have no education do you?We have fields in both psychology and philosophy that research morality. This is how decisions get made in civilized societies. WE LEARN. ”
And how do these “fields in both psychology and philosophy” learn? C’mon, they must have a place they can derive their ‘learnings’. Seriously, are you this dense? How are they able to ‘learn’ that killing babies = bad? How do you actually ‘learn’ that?
Why don’t you just admit that you would really like to take back your initial assertion that it is just “what we are taught”. If it stems from ‘evolution’ than it isn’t something that we were “just taught”.
Oh goody, more of your “I have a high educational background, I’m so smart! ” retorts. Oh please LRA
Oh by the way. Do you honestly think a soldier who rapes and pillages is under the impression that what he’s doing is morally right? Isn’t it more conceivable that he rapes and pillages for physical and financial purposes? Come on. People know what their doing is wrong, but they do it anyway – for reasons I’m sure your ‘high educational background’ has led you to understand about.
Ok, so suddenly having an education is a liability for me? Really?
Morals can be argued from sentience. They can be argued from consensus. Yes, these things are researched and talked about.
And the raping pillaging soldier DOES believe his actions justified. That’s why he does them.
BTW I brought up my education because you called me stupid and dense. I am neither.
Well you called me stupid and dense first!
I did NO such thing. I called you ignorant.
You also said I was illogical and full o shit.
I call em as I see em.
*turns the other cheek*
that’s hilarious! thanks!
well, I will say that you have a great sense of humor!
So, you don’t think that Jesus actually meant that, if someone hits you on the cheek, you should give him the opportunity to hit you again on the other cheek? He doesn’t actually mean that if someone steals your coat, you should also give him your cloak? He doesn’t literally mean that, if someone forces you to walk a mile with them, you should voluntarily go beyond that?
“Bend over and take it up the butt” is exactly what Jesus is advocating when he tells people not merely not to resist evil against them, but to aid their aggressors in their aggression. How can it possibly mean anything else?
Gaaaahhhh!
Another drive-by, hit-and-run Tangled Webb of Hypocrisy! from Stephen “I-post-comments-for-others-to-read-but-refuse-to-read-their-comments” Webb!
winterminute,
You scored one against the Rabbis. Christians believe that Jesus came (new testament) to change a lot of things – which he essentially did.
oh, wow. Playing the Jesus card, huh? *laugh*
Why were you defending Biblical slavery, if you think Jesus declared it to be not moral any more?
Also, can you point out where he says that the rules on slavery have changed? I can’t find it. Thanks.
“Why were you defending Biblical slavery, if you think Jesus declared it to be not moral any more? ”
Er.. I dont know? Wow I’m tired of debating. Can I say that you guys just won? Will that make you all happy? I’m sure there’s an answer for all your questions, but I don’t know it just yet. Maybe If I had some time to research huh? It was interesting though.
Don’t be dumb! I know you are trying to be funny but this is not a funny situation.
@ Daniel, Also I thought a few people in the church tackled the man because he was trying to stab himself with the knife. I took that to mean that they wanted him to face his consequences not that they wanted to hold him down and bit the snot out of him. In other words the only one in this situation who could turn the other cheek was the pastor and he couldn’t do this because he was dead. The men who subdued the killer were never shot so how is what they did turning the other cheek.
Turning the other cheek has nothing to do with violence you idiot, it is a metaphor to teach people to be more forgiving rather than just being vengeful bastards.
Yikes. Yeah, paper doesn’t do much good against a .45.
Hyperbole to underline that a lesson is a break from tradition is a common rhetorical device. “You have heard it said that…but I say unto you…” structures are reinforced by the hyperbole, it is meant as emphasizing how *wrong* the old way of thinking was.
And as I pointed out way up above, the ethical theories and structures with which Jesus and his followers would be familiar would not have encouraged people to view his pronouncements as rules to be programmatically followed, but rather as suggestions for building good character.
“Please take some time to read the Bible. It is truth and the only way to life.”
Ignorance, thy name is Tutie. Scroll up please.
If so, then it is really sad that you are using a tragedy such as this as a platform to promote Bible God. It works both ways.
PS: I’ve read the complete Bible many, many times.
“This does not mean there is no longer sin but rather there is a way to be freed from sin and its eternal result of separation from God. This is what those who believe in Jesus Christ have. However, we live in a world tainted with evil and sin. We will be effected by it, believer and non believer alike. ”
mark: But shouldnt a man of the cloth be safe in the church especially when he is praising god. Also adam and eve are responsible for the seperation of god from man, per gods rules of course.
So let me understand this correctly a preacher was murdured in church on the so called sabath day, expressing love and appreciation to your god. Instead of your god intervening he allows murder to happen in the midst of people attempting to worship him.
If we are tainted by sin and evil please explain to me who created sin and evil in the first place. It appears your god is leaving booby traps around for his allegedly beloved creation and then holds present man accountable for something that happen 6000 years ago.
What a fair, just. loving and logical god.
Tutie! Your wrong! God isn’t real! as I’ve found out after debating them.. ahaha
@Tutie00:
I can show the world I’ve got intellect to spare by writing a long, oratorical column of rebuttal, slinging around my abstruse vocabulary (without even consulting a dictionary!) until it obfuscates everything in sight – including whatever the hell point I was trying to make. But I scroll down past the long-winded ones. On the chance that others do the same, I will say this:
*snort*
Support even ONE of your sentences with ANY fact, as opposed to what you choose to believe.
I’m living just fine without the bible, thank you.
I don’t think that a book that has been altered by humanity this often can hold any real truth, not morally or historically.
John 3:16 in Klingon:
Last night, my daughter did not realize inherently that it wasn’t okay to hit her little brother. If I would not have scolded her for her action, she never would have learned from experience that it was a bad move.
p.s. i dont hit my kids just in case anyone thinks that’s what my scolding consisted of. =)
For starters, i never said which kind of morality i have, so you claiming which one i have is just odd.
The thing that’s not logical is how every person would inherently know right from wrong, and if you ask 100 different people, you will get 100 different views on what is right and what’s wrong.
You and i won’t agree on it either, so how can it be the same for everybody?
Conclusion: as morality is different for every person, it can’t be inherrent, because than it would be the same for everybody.
Nice!
My personal favorite is the LOLcat Bible.
So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez ‘Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u purrz wit him u wont evr diez no moar, k?
What about the SMS bible?
And yet, every other culture on earth managed just fine, eating cheese with beef, or fresh shellfish, or even unrefrigerated pork.
So far as I’m aware, deaths from food poisoning were no less common amongst the Hebrews than amongst those cultures that didn’t keep kosher.
Since the posts on this blog went from whether the source of morals is bible or culture (at least, maybe, I think), to food rules in the time and place of a culture:
“Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches” by Marvin Harris.
I read it a few decades ago, but I still remember the chapter on how “pig love” (eat lots of pork) fit in with island culture, and “pig hate” (THIS god says you can’t eat pork) fit in with the conditions of the middle east at the time.
The rules of a religion fit in with the conditions of a culture; they justify each other. Funny how that works!
Good stuff!
“Uh, seeing as how they came before the miracles of refrigeration, preservatives, and antibiotics, many of those dietary rules are actually pretty good advice.”
Of course this begs the question why the all powerful god didn’t just give humans the gifts of “refrigeration, preservatives, and antibiotics?” Or better yet create humans immune to disease?
hahaha you misunderstood. I simply forgot to put ” ” On that paragraph, which was not mine.
anyways, you win, you win.
Amen, hallelujah, now you get it, he’s imaginary, just like Zeus, Wotan, Allah, and the FSM.
what about Santa then?
Robot Santa is real.
Heck, everyone loves a good BBQ.
Think god does Texas style? Or Kansas City style?
You mean like the good character of the Jehovah god?
Yahweh never said “you should act like I do”, so far as I know.
Being omnipotent, why doesn’t He make everybody into good people, just the way He likes them?
Perhaps there is something about the character of goodness that resists, on a metaphysical level, its being poofed into existence. Perhaps goodness is a process and not a quality. I’d submit that we presently know very little about the metaphysics of morality (or, heck, ontology generally) and so are not in a very good position to judge the relative logical possibilities.
Don’t give me any of this free will crap. If He’s omniscient, free will is a logical fallacy.
That, again, depends on quite a few metaphysical assumptions, not a few of them controversial. There are coherent metaphysical speculative structures that include both an omni-omni deity and free willed temporal beings.
——–
Personally, I like teriyaki.
I’m going with Texas style!
Of course, someone else will go with KC style.
Then, we’ll get into a war and blow each other up in God’s name!
I’m partial to Kansas City style. I hope God won’t punish me if he prefers Texas style.
No, But I WILL!
BBQ SMITE!
May your KC style be dry and dusty! Ew.
There’s probably a thousand explanations for the OT prohibitions but the most convincing one I read from Jewish sources is that there was actually no point to them other than that was what God established as an obligation for the Jews. It isn’t meant to go any deeper than that.
But I did read one explanation that the pork prohibition had to do with the biological similarity between pigs and humans. I have no idea if what I read was true but the list of details comparing the two seemed reasonable and it was sufficiently icky enough to almost put *me* off of eating pork.
Pigs and humans have an almost identical immune system.
In the same way that it stands to reason that if you eat less beef, there’ll be fewer cases of E. coli, yes. But beef, despite being more likely to be infected than pork is apparently fine to eat.
Trichinosis is actually pretty rare, and easily combated by proper cooking.
Cello:
I’m under the impression that it’s about category errors. Don’t eat things that live in water but don’t have scales. Don’t eat things that fly but aren’t birds. Don’t eat things that have cloven hooves but don’t chew the cud (pigs), or things that chew the cud but don’t have cloven hooves (rabbits).
Only eat things that fit into the proper categories, because there must be something wrong with other things.
@ wintermute
I’m under the impression that it’s about category errors [...] eat things that fit into the proper categories, because there must be something wrong with other things.
That seems like a reasonable psychological theory for why they chose those specific prohibitions. My only point was, almost by accident probably, their rules were a decent way to avoid some of the nastier food-borne illnesses in the region.
And I thought that the nastier E. Coli strains (the ones like O157:H7) were evolutionarily pretty damn new, like newer than a One all-Fluffy God new (IIRC, coincided with a large uptick in human consumption of meat and massive concentration of humans in cities following the industrial and agricultural revolutions.)
Why does it vex you so?
Oh, I guess it’s leftover anger when he made his statements, complained he never got answers, never read them, never saw the rebuttals….
For superbowl Sunday my boss always flies in KC BBQ for the party. I have to say, I’ve become quite a fan of the KC style.
May all Texas style heretics be drowned for all eternity in a vat of overly sweet sauce, and my their meat be naught but gristle, while they drink naught but burning hot light beer.
Ty!
You dare to question my absolute moral law! May God roast you in dry rub forever!!!!!
Now now, people, this is not the proper BBQ spirit. Besides, we all know who the real enemy is – those filthy vegetarians!
DIE, HERBIVOROUS SCUM!!!
That’s selling humans a little short, isn’t it?
that’s really interesting
Elemenope: “Yahweh never said “you should act like I do”, so far as I know.”
Unfortunately, there were several people in recent history who did act as He did, e.g. Hitler and Stalin.
Well I think it is debatable that the Bible God likes good people. What the Bible God actually likes IMO is obedient people.
@ nope
“Perhaps there is something about the character of goodness that resists, on a metaphysical level, its being poofed into existence. Perhaps goodness is a process and not a quality ”
mark: No offense I understand that you are trying to fair and playing the devils advocate.
But please keep in mind that according to the holy rollers god created everything in the universe. Naturally that would include good and evil. So if good is process and not a quality that would be gods doing.
There is no way holy rollers can get around this, from what I understand about the holy rollers beliefs there was nothing in the universe other than god before god created it.
So the statement that good could be a process still includes the fact that it wouldve been god who made the act of bieng good and not a process.
To put it simply god created the game and every last rule that the game is played by. If in the game that god created things dont go the way he wants then for god to get made is very strange indeed.
For a perfect god to be made at the way his game is bieng played would be the equivalent of a farmer being made about strawberries growing in his field when he planted them in the first place.
“Personally, I like teriyaki.”
Awww, Nope! Always the peace maker!
:)
I have seen the Daniel Florien light and will attempt from now on to quell my tongue for the sake of getting people to listen better. Thanks Nope and Dan!!!! :)
Not when they’re designing by committee.
None of us is as stupid as all of us.
Yarp.
I’d say the God-character in the Bible is seriously conflicted. I think that’s what happens when you get written by a lot of different people.
True, but how one relates to the other is beyond me.
@ nope
“Perhaps there is something about the character of goodness that resists, on a metaphysical level, its being poofed into existence. Perhaps goodness is a process and not a quality ”
mark: My other comment came out with too many misspellings so I just reprinted the comments.
mark: No offense Nope I understand that you are trying to be fair and playing the devils advocate.
But please keep in mind that according to the holy rollers god created everything in the universe, naturally that would include good and evil. So if good is process and not a quality that would be gods doing of course.
There is no way holy rollers can get around this, from what I understand about the thier belief system. Before god, there was nothing in the universe other than god so everything and concept must have been created by god.
So the statement that good could be a process still includes the fact that it wouldve been god who made the act of bieng good a process and not a quality.
To put it simply god created the game and every last rule that the game is played by. God also played all of the characters (including man) that are featured in his game. If in the game that god created things dont go the way he wants them to, then since god is perfect and without any flaws that must be the way that god wants it things to be.
For a perfect god to be upset at the way his game is bieng played would be the equivalent of a farmer being upset about strawberries growing in his field when he planted them in the first place.
@markbey
I think this comes back to our differing definitions of “perfect”. A perfect hammer can drive all sorts of nails, but is nevertheless fairly useless at peeling an orange. The notion of a perfect creator could have all sorts of meanings, none of which *necessarily* include the ability to “set” the (metaphysical) “rules”.
I agree with you and most others here that Christianity tends to make claims about the features of their God and those claims tend to be incoherent, bordering on downright silly. But all that seems to be tied back to this persistent historical artifact that they keep re-publishing for who knows what reason, and the history attached to the people who interpret the stories therein.
Which is one of many excellent reasons to see that we made the whole damn thing up to begin with.
@nope
“But honestly even the popular conceptions of God have moved quite beyond the entity portrayed in the Bible (much as many Christians would deny it), incorporating elements of Hellenic philosophy from very early on”
mark: That is not the point, the point is this according to the holy rollers there was nothing in the universe before god.
If man is failing and not living up to gods expectations, it still is a fact that god created us extemely flawed and fragile. The god that the holy rollers believe in is 1 billion percent unreasonable for setting a standard that no human bieng can or ever has lived up to.
The christian belief system (as well as all other religons) is a joke and you keep making excuses for it. I aint mad but you are giving the holy rollers respect and deference that they have never ever earned on the intellectual battlefield.
In fact they never even come close to proving thier case, but even still I respect you for at least trying to be fair to the holy rollers although they are full of sh#t.
@ nope
mark: By the way I dont say they are full of sh#t because I think thier religion is a fairy tale. I say that because the holy rollers as long as I have been living are always making statements that they cant back up and when you call them on it they pretend like they cannot read or missed your comment.
This thread is a perfect case, when LRA asked michael on several occasion what does he base the claim that god is moral on the dude did not answer the question and tried to evade as they all do.
Thier is nothing in the bible that indicates that god is moral when you take into account a perfect bieng drowning thousands of babies or giving instructions on how to sell ones daughter into slavery.
For instance no when you aske the holy rollers simple questions such as, if god is moral exactly why does he advise against eating shell fish but says nothing against slavery they pretend they cant read or dont know how to answer questions.
This is why holy rollers are full of sh#t not because christians.
Someone much smarter than me said (I wish I could remember who it was so I could attribute this quote), said that arguing with religious fundamentalists is like playing chess against pigeons.
Instead of paying attention to the rules and conventions of the game, they knock down all the pieces, crap on the chessboard, and then finally fly back to their flock and declare victory.
What post? The mights doesn’t make right post?
If that’s what your refering to, I abandoned the discussion as I watched disagreement spiral. We were either talking past each other, or you were deliberately ignoring my points and it was getting tiresome. Plus your cicular logic was starting to hurt my head.
Well, hopefully you’ll acknowledge that the human relationship with morality is more complex than you had previously imagined. I think that is a safe assumption to take away from this debate.
Yes.
I believe your translation was accurate.
“These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised.”
What a wonderful definition of religion.
Wow, so all those pastors who admit they’ve had doubts are not TrueChristians™? CS Lewis had doubts. Martin Luther had doubts. Most Christians I know have gone through periods of doubt. Everyone has doubts sometimes if they are honest.
Or perhaps you are the only real TrueChristian™ that exists, since you have never had the freedom and thinking ability to doubt?
at tracker
…. These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. …..
mark…then why would god make promises in the first place that he would not keep. also if god says hell do something and then dosent do it wouldnt that make god a liar.
Never open your mind and let yourself be confused by the facts!
“True Christians (including those who examine God’s Word) never allow worldly facts and circumstances to bring them doubts.”
That’s another great definition right there. This guy is a gold mine.
Well ok. But I think you were the one getting all circular with your logic since you think a perfect being should be able to be irrational (to show he was all-powerful) – which I said was illogical and would make him imperfect . A perfect being could be illogical (like saying creating a rock he can’t carry) – but thats an imperfect decision, so you can bet that He would never choose to do such, being the perfect entity that he was.. blah blah blah.
Nevertheless, it was interesting. Thanks.
To tutie00:
Yeah. What Teleprompter said.
This kind of thing is so simplistic. With less of a Christian background than Daniel, I know what kind of doubts and unsureness about – sheesh – anything in Christianity NOT being right, are right there for any open, inquiring mind. He calls it “cognitive dissonance”, about almost any component of Christianity.
I’m not going to repeat them – read the blogs yourself!
This “are you sure you’re not going to turn back to Jesus?” is so breathtakingly naive, disingenuous, dumb, simpleton, missing the point… I’m at a loss for words.
Are you sure the doubts shouldn’t go the other way around?
Are you sure you’re going to stay that blind and clueless, instead of doing the hard work of thinking?
*snort*
Terrence,
I doubt everything I believe. But this was hardly the case when I was a religious believer. I didn’t allow myself to ask if my religious beliefs had any support or evidence in their favor.
By the way, if “Truth” is misrepresented and diluted constantly, throughout history and all societies by a variety of sources, then what does that say about the quality of the original source or sources?
The Pentecostal “Truth”, the Catholic “Truth”, the Anglican “Truth”, the Baptist “Truth”, the Orthodox “Truth”, the Lutheran “Truth”, the Unitarian “Truth”, the Mormon “Truth”…are they all true?
What about the Sikh “Truth”, the Hindu “Truth”, the Muslim “Truth”, the Buddhist “Truth”, the Jewish “Truth”, the Bah’ai (sic?) “Truth”, or the Jain “Truth”?
Which source of “Truth” is better than any other? What is your standard for discerning between all of these “Truth(s)”?
See, I meant “ingenuous”. I really was at a loss for words!
Pascal’s Wager…like the smell of napalm in the morning…is the smell of agony.
“I know you have heard this before, but if you are right, so what, we both die and get buried and that’s it. I lived my life as a good person that people will remember fondly and maybe the same for you. However, if I am right, I get to spend eternity in Heaven with my God. I don’t claim to have any idea what will happen to you.”
If Daniel is right, then I haven’t wasted the rest of my life on religious observances. If you are right, there would appear to be a malevolent god that may not be too happy. If my Muslim friend is right, he’s going to heaven with Allah, and who knows what will happen to you, me, and Daniel?
Pascal’s Wager is lame because:
1) It doesn’t account for the time wasted on religious observance if there is not a god or gods.
2) It doesn’t account for your possible eternal fate if other religions besides Christianity are true.
And really, if there is a god or gods that is omniscient, I think such a being could tell if you were believing because of a bet. I think such a being would probably prefer an honest disbeliever to a “believer” who is only hedging the odds.
If you were really serious about Pascal’s Wager, you would choose the religion that had the worst possible hell and follow that one, to reduce your chances of suffering.
Pascal’s Wager is great because it is just as suitable for Islam and other religions as it is for Christianity, which is actually accurate for most religious “arguments”.
“Finally, while I am a Christian, I try to look at everything from both sides of the coin. I understand your arguments against Christianity, I just don’t agree with them.”
Well that’s all very nice but I suspect what you really mean is I hear the arguments point forward but I have blind faith that god exists so I will ignore or twist facts to suit that core assumption. All facts must conform to the blind faith I have in god and the attributes that I have assigned to this entity.
I’m confused — do you really think I said “ALL Christians stupid and full of $hit”? If so, could you point me to where I said that? I don’t think any such thing.
LRA,
Yeah, but if you seriously thought that any of the other religions had value, it just wouldn’t be the *ONE TRUE RELIGION*, now would it?
(This was posted after seeing the light!)
Really? It seems to me that it can be interpreted in several different ways. Very much like everything else in the bible that people take as absolute certainties.
“For starters, i never said which kind of morality i have, so you claiming which one i have is just odd. ”
For starters I didn’t claim “which one you have” thats why I said “if you believed this”. It was, by the way, a logical assumption that you believed in such because you claimed that ‘morality being inherent’ was not logical, and you validated this assumption in your response, here it is :
“Conclusion: as morality is different for every person, it can’t be inherrent, because than it would be the same for everybody.”
I already conceded the argument. But let me just answer this one.
“f you ask 100 different people, you will get 100 different views on what is right and what’s wrong.”
– Yes, because people are different. But it would depend on what you ask them about right and wrong. Is killing wrong? – well that depends, I certainly wont mind Binladen getting killed because his death would probably save thousands of lives. Is abortion wrong? That depends if the lump of cells being aborted, by that stage, already constitutes a human being – some people believe this, some don’t, so yes you are likely to get different answers here.
But there are times when you will get just one answer. Do you think killing people for fun is wrong? Do you think anyone would say that that could be morally right? Sure, Dahmer had perverse fantasies to gratify – but do you have proof that he would say “Yes that is the moral thing to do, in fact I don’t see anything wrong with that!”
“You and i won’t agree on it either, so how can it be the same for everybody?”
– We wont agree on a lot of things because we are different. But there are things we, and the rest of the world would definitely agree on. I’ll bet that we could all agree that ‘killing people for fun’ would never be cool. If we could all agree on this – sounds like a moral absolute.
As I already said, your statement “killing for fun is wrong” is not absolute. It has an action (killing) and a motivation (for fun). Motivations are notoriously hard to prove as it is likely more that there is more than one reason to motivate a killer.
So, if a soldier in the army really enjoys killing the enemy (out of some hatred for them), is he evil? What about a revenge killing in which, lets say, a young girls feels satisfaction/elation/relief after killing the man that raped her repeatedly?
As I said, not absolute.
@ michael
“But there are things we, and the rest of the world would definitely agree on. I’ll bet that we could all agree that ‘killing people for fun’ would never be cool. If we could all agree on this – sounds like a moral absolute. ”
mark: Mike please enlighten us on what those things we all agree on are. Are you telling me that there arent some crazy or deranged folks who think killing people are cool. If not how do you explain ted bundy, jeffrey dahmer and all of the other serial killers.
Once again as has been pointed out to you on this thread thier are no moral absolutes that all or most people agree on.
BTW Micheal exactly where do you think absolute morality comes from?
“As I already said, your statement “killing for fun is wrong” is not absolute. It has an action (killing) and a motivation (for fun). Motivations are notoriously hard to prove as it is likely more that there is more than one reason to motivate a killer. ”
– I didn’t now we had to prove the ‘motivation’ here. There is one reason motivating the killer in this hypothetical : for enjoyment.
“So, if a soldier in the army really enjoys killing the enemy (out of some hatred for them), is he evil?”
- Well why does he enjoy killing the enemy? Is it because he enjoys killing? If so, then he is evil.
“What about a revenge killing in which, lets say, a young girls feels satisfaction/elation/relief after killing the man that raped her repeatedly?”
- Doesn’t seem like the young girl killed the man who raped her because she enjoys killing. Her motivation here was revenge, not enjoyment of killing people.
So it’s OK to enjoy killing a specific person, so long as you don’t enjoy killing in general?
If Son of Sam didn’t enjoy killing in general, but he did get pleasure from each of the murders he committed, that would make him not-evil, right?
“Mike please enlighten us on what those things we all agree on are. Are you telling me that there arent some crazy or deranged folks who think killing people are cool. If not how do you explain ted bundy, jeffrey dahmer and all of the other serial killers.”
– Well, like I said, we could all agree (I hope) that killing for fun is wrong. And thats why we call people who do these things ‘evil’, “crazy and deranged”.
On your second question – I think I’ll pass. This will bring me back to square one.
“So it’s OK to enjoy killing a specific person, so long as you don’t enjoy killing in general?”
- Its never okay to enjoy killing people. But if the girl was killing the man who raped her, what is the motivation for the killing? Was it for revenge? Or was it because she enjoys killing?
“If Son of Sam didn’t enjoy killing in general, but he did get pleasure from each of the murders he committed, that would make him not-evil, right?”
- Why did he get pleasure from each of the murders? Is it because each of those victims once raped him or caused him great suffering? If he just got pleasure, because he finds killing pleasurable – then yes he is evil.
“On your second question – I think I’ll pass. This will bring me back to square one. ”
mark: Which you never answered my friend. My problem with you is this, according to you (and other christians) your religion is gods word.
You and other christians make the claim that morality comes from god but when you are questioned you play games. Kinda like the games you played with LRA yesterday, when she asked you a simple question and you wouldnt answer.
Also if you have god on your side and that christian god is the way forward then I would think you could at least provide some kinda of reasoning as to why you believe god is moral when making an argument it is on the person who is making the argument to explain why they think the way they do.
You sir are playing games and besides if your god is all knowing, powerful and wants all of his children to follow his word. Then I would think god would inspire to be honest and at least try to answer legitimate questions.
Michael if you have god on your side why are you afraid to share what you know about him and explain questions we have about your beliefs.
“mark: Which you never answered my friend. ”
– mark, I did answer it. But I can see how the answer would seem ‘unsatisfactory’ to atheists – thats why I believe it would be, somewhat useless to explain. But as you wish, I’ll answer it again: You asked where I think we get absolute morality from? Ok, the simple answer is, from God
“but when you are questioned you play games. Kinda like the games you played with LRA yesterday”
– I’m sorry if it seemed that way. I didn’t want to make it seem I was “playing games”. I may have tried a little humor with LRA, coz both of us sneaked in a couple of insults – I just wanted to calm the air. I was “questioned”, and I
answered. She said it was unsatisfactory, so I conceded. I’m not playing games, honest – I’m trying my best to answer.
“Also if you have god on your side and that christian god is the way forward then I would think you could at least provide some kinda of reasoning as to why you believe god is moral when making an argument it is on the person who is making the argument to explain why they think the way they do.”
– I don’t really get this. I was trying to argue my side. I was questioned many times again, but those were after I already conceded the argument – so I didn’t bother answering every point. I just thought of answering pascall’s particular question, I had no intention of going back to the whole argument.
“You sir are playing games and besides if your god is all knowing, powerful and wants all of his children to follow his word. Then I would think god would inspire to be honest and at least try to answer legitimate questions.”
- Nope, not playing games. I’m trying to answer the questions. You haven’t refuted my last statement. Is this a tactic – When you cannot refute a statement, you go say “oh well, your playing games”? C’mon now Mark.
“Michael if you have god on your side why are you afraid to share what you know about him and explain questions we have about your beliefs.”
- I’m not afraid to answer anything. And I don’t think “God (is )on my side”, I don’t think he bothers with stuff like these, come on, what does that actually mean.
I gave an example of what I think is a moral absolute. Refute it, than I’ll concede if your refutation is “satisfactory”. Saying I’m playing games does not refute anything. Are you playing games coz you cannot refute it? – see works both ways.
Sorry bout the insults. But you still can’t show HOW your morality in your mind comes from God except by the bible or divine revelation. Neither is absolute (or universal).
at michael
….. I think we get absolute morality from? Ok, the simple answer is, from God …..
mark…. what makes you think we get morality from god. please explain where this idea comes from i am asking out of curiosity.
please dont beat around the bush, a direct question i have to you is. exactly what is it about chrisitianity that makes you think morality comes from your concept of god.
what specific message from god makes you think that morality comes from him.
please provide some quotes so i know exactly what you are getting at.
thank you.
“mark…. what makes you think we get morality from god. please explain where this idea comes from i am asking out of curiosity. ”
– Well, if morality is absolute, I think we can only get something like this from a transcendent entity. This is if morality is absolute. Unless you have a better explanation on how we can get absolute morality elsewhere. Like I said, we inherently know this (a lot of you disagree, well thats well and fine.) If I asked you, for example, what you thought would be something we could all agree is evil, thus could be an absolute, you would undoubtedly come up with the conclusion that hey maybe we could all agree that killing for fun is evil.
“what specific message from god makes you think that morality comes from him.”
- I haven’t found one. I guess logic would say that if morality was absolute – then it must come from something/someone transcendent. How did I get this? The most honest answer is – I just read thats all, it made sense to me.
Good point! I just don’t understand how anyone can value ONE religion over all of the others. I think it makes more sense to say that either all religions are an attempt by man to reach for god (hence the reasons for each of their flaws) or that no religion has value. In progressing through my own doubt, I went from christianity being the true faith, to all religions being true, to no religions being true as I read about and explored various religions and saw a pattern emerge that correlated religion to evil acts.
“I think it makes more sense to say that either all religions are an attempt by man to reach for god (hence the reasons for each of their flaws) or that no religion has value.”
mark: Exactly especially sense no one has ever been able to provide solid proof for one religion that any other religion couldnt provide. The holy roller’s whole concept of god is based totally on emotion and not anthing that can be proven or even tested.
What’s the bible really teaches?
I have read the bible and I still don’t get it.
Thank you.
PD. I haven’t read anybody joking about the tragedy.
I know exactly what you think it teaches, JW. It’s not particularly compelling.
It’s also pretty weak sauce to assume that people who disagree with the bible haven’t actually read it.
But I’m sure you scored an extra day of everlasting life by coming here to witness to us. Good job!
Oh, wait, didn’t the Watchtower specifically warn not to read online material of the type published at this website? And warn against online debate of exactly this type?
You need to do more study!
Well, for one thing it teaches you the proper way to sell your daughter into slavery. And not to eat lobster.
Wintermute, that is the Old Testament, and it was not literal. When Jesus came he abolished all of that. Now it is all about love and the coming kingdom of Jehova. And we are to study the bible through the Watchtower.
Isn’t that right Jehova’s witness?
I am really expecting you to help me here.
Just FYI, the JW’s will dismiss your arguments out of hand if you misspell ‘Jehovah’.
Sorry, I was thinking of the Spanish Jehova. Will He send me to the gehena for that (damn it, I misspelled gehena).
I thought Heaven was full. Don’t the Jay Dubyas believe that only 144.000 of them are going there? The rest apparently get to pile up on the soon-to-become perfect Earth or something, no?
While flux is being rather rude about it, perhaps the better point would be to look at how the words spoken or written would have been interpreted by the people they were originally (allegedly) being spoken to. If the dominant way of interpreting ethical statements at the time was as a character development lesson rather than a categorical imperative, it is less defensible to interpret them as an imperative unless there are obvious textual reasons why such an interpretation would be warranted.
FWIW, there aren’t any here. Jesus doesn’t say “now, do this all the time or else!” He outlines the failings (in his opinion) of *prior* moral lessons (i.e. “You have heard it said…”) and substitutes his own lesson plan (i.e. “But I say unto you…”).
Thanks for finding that! Now I can give a proper citation of it, haha.
Agreed and agreed.
LOL. For the record (from above) I am not, despite appearances, British. But I am from New England, so temperamentally I might as well be. :)
sorry… before not after, my brain is sooo tired today… Japanese exam smack!
This is because the slave is a Christian, and all Christians are equal. Paul is very clear on this point, and it’s why many preachers in the 19th Century would not try and convert slaves to Christianity. Because then, keeping them as slaves would be immoral.
And, of course, for every Christian abolitionist, there were three who believed that slavery was endorsed by god. The Southern Baptists split off from the American Baptists over this every point.
Yes, you could only beat a slave to the point where he couldn’t move, and died a few days later.
Luke 12:42-48. Jesus says that the relationship between god and man is that between master and slave; that he has every right to beat his property, even if they didn’t know that they weren’t doing what he wanted. I find it hard to believe that he was claiming that the relationship between god and man was iniquitous.
Fortunately, our morals have grown beyond those of the author of the Bible, and we no longer “tolerate” such abominations.
Obviously, to punish people who don’t stick to the dietary laws with rates of food-borne disease so much higher that the difference can almost be measured.
“Would you love your father if he FORCED you to love him?”
If I was “created” to be incapable of not loving my father, I would have no choice but to love him. Your question assumes the ability to make a choice about loving him, which presupposes the existence of free will. Since free will was allegedly god’s gift to humans, this is not a very good analogy, as god had the choice of whether to allow choices about loving him or not.
“God wants us to love him back by choice.”
How do you know this?
“If you haven’t experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, please, for your sake, ask God to reveal Himself to you.”
I have, she never returns my calls.
“Faith is evidence of things not seen.”
No – faith is belief in things without evidence.
“Please don’t let something like this make you hate God even more.”
I don’t hate god. I just don’t believe in her.
How is it free will to have to love god or be sent to hell? Where is the free will in that?
Free will means love god if you want to, and if not, well, no big deal. God can handle it, he’ll just love someone else and so can you (you know– that’s how we mature adults handle love– we don’t obsess).
” It’s amazing and miraculous. What this guy did was a demonic force trying to INTERVENE with God’s ”
MARK: Wait a minute isnt god the creator of all things in the universe good or evil?
How can a force/bieng that your perfect all knowing god created attempt to interfer with his will. Thats like saying a stove I turned and left on all day long unattended attempted to burn my house down.
Your god knew what this demonic force was doing in fact your god created this demonic force that is supposedly trying to interfer with his will.
If your god dosent want demonic forces to interfer with his will then why would your all perfect loving god created evil in the first place?
I asked. He didn’t. Why do you think he forsook my jive ass? Maybe I didn’t pray hard enough, huh? Maybe I didn’t already have Jesus in my heart when I asked him to come into myheart? Maybe I’m posessed by a #^$%ing demon? Is that it?
Don’t be insulting. I asked God to reveal himself repeatedly. He didn’t.
Game over. Metro 1, God 0.
It’s so nice that the author has all of you to take up for him regarding the proof matter. All I asked for was references to his research. Not hard. A simple request.
claidheamh mor
What were the facts for his non existence that you listed? I missed it.
The complete absence of any evidence in favour of his existence. Exactly the same as the “facts for the non existence” of Thor, or the invisible dragon in my basement.
Feel free to prove me wrong my providing positive evidence that a god does exist.
” Actually, no. Just act morally (which I’m sure you all do) and you all can go to heaven (good huh?) ”
How do you know this?
What does morally mean? How do you know what morally means?
If there is no punishment for non-belief, and I don’t see/feel a need to believe, what excatly would be my motivation to become a believer?
…. Don’t be insulting. I asked God to reveal himself repeatedly. He didn’t. …….
mark…. exactly i begged thier god to let me know what the deal is, but he never did.
in fact i wrote a giant post about it detailing exactly why i lost faith in god. http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/2006/04/if-god-is-out-there-then-why-no.html
what annoys me is thier ultra incoherence and sillyness about where thier god teaches them about morality. just a qoute or a passage, something heck anything to at least get them to provide an understandable explaination that proves their god exist.
p.,s another reason why the bible is a joke is the very concept of god bieng a male. that is obviously a male chauvinistic conceptualization of god. the bible is beyond sexist.
i have not been able to understand why thier all knowing and power god is rough and disconnected in the way that he handles his business.
has anybody ever wondered how come these folks supposedly inspired by god cant give even somewhat legitimate decent arguments to prove that thier god exist is even possible.
wouldnt you think that thier god would inspire them to dominate the debate. instead everywhere and every time i have seen atheist and christians debate the online the christians usually get smashed and run.
also they refused to answer simple questions.
i would really, really love to know from any christian, why if they are telling the truth and representing the most power and just bieng in the universe. then exactly why do they keep running once you force them to answer simple questions.
“What does morally mean? How do you know what morally means? ”
- Maybe I used the wrong word (like I said english isn’t my first language). Basically what I wanted to say is If someone knows what is ‘right’ and chooses to do what is ‘right’ – then even if he did not believe in God, God would show him justice.
How do I know what is ‘right’? Well my previous argument was that we inherently knew what was right as opposed to what was wrong (like, we know killing people for individual personal gain is wrong). The complexities of modern life compound our ‘right and wrong’ dilemmas – like, say, abortion – we don’t know if it is right or wrong because we do not know whether the thing being aborted is already human, but thats beside the point.
Theres no need to show me ”
definitions of the word ‘morality’ – I’m sorry if I used the wrong word, something ‘moral’ to me just meant something that is ‘the right thing to do’.
“if god can drown babies during the flood and still be considered moral then why wouldnt i be moral if i saw a child drowning and didnt attempt to help even if i knew i could save the child.”
- Thats why I conceded that I cannot argue for the morality of the bible – I have answers but I know you won’t like them (not that I’m claiming to know you, or being “intellectually dishonest” as LRA once put it after a similar situation). One answer is this: Life isn’t temporal, God can let a baby experience suffering in this life, but what is that compared to what God can give in the next? Would it be immoral for me to take your last 5 bucks, but with full intention of repaying you 1 million dollars after?
This is one answer, there are other similar answers that I wouldn’t be satisfied with if I were an atheist because they are major question beggars.
“also if you have the almighty beyond why do you evade question and run instead of honestly dialoguing with genuinely interested people.”
- Like I said, I’m not evading questions. I left many un-answered questions above because before those questions were answered, I already conceded the argument – thats why I didn’t care to answer every one of them. I can go back and answer each on if you would like that. Go ahead ask me a question, I promise I’ll answer, if you are genuinely interested – then I’d love to answer anything (as long as I know the answer to it)
“How do you know this?”
- Bill, theologists have derived these notions from studying the Bible. Thats all I can answer you. I haven’t been subjected to any divine revelation.
Maya Angelou: “I did what I knew, and when I knew better, I did better.”
That about sums my morality up.
“As an honest person, I’d rather be judged with justice. Mercy is for people who want to wiggle out of their crimes. Since I haven’t committed any crime against god, assuming there is one, (and certainly have NO original sin due to someone else’s crime that I don’t even know), I’m quite comfortable facing god (if that indeed happens).”
- Thats well and fine. If you live a good moral life – then there is nothing to be afraid of.
I on the other hand would like to be judged with mercy – because I haven’t lived a good and moral life so far as I can tell.
1) we as rational members of society determine what is right or wrong. it is up for revision and it evolves over time
2) no audacity needed. we can think for ourselves and can learn and adapt. Can’t do that with “absolute” morals, can you?
3) no. freedom from suffering would be the greatest expression of love from god. But in the bible god’s obsession, he needs us to suffer for his love (hence free will which leads to evil)
4) I CERTAINLY shake my fist at the bible god!
I was beaten senseless for 6 years as a child at the hands of people who were supposed to love me. Little girls are raped and tortured in Africa all the time. Do you really think that Jesus’ suffering (as a full grown adult) for three days compares to this? Now, if Jesus was tortured as a child and STILL in hell, you might have something.
No, it really shouldn’t. Because individuals don’t evolve; populations do. And having individuals living forever consuming resources is not good for the species. At least, not so good that it worth the massive amount of energy that it would take to stave off decay indefinitely.
@ Q&A
All your presumptions about morality……
Consider for just ONE second that the bible was just written by humans……. Not God or Gods will.
Your argument collapses as collectively men and woman HAVE made a early attempt at the golden rule and how collectively humans would like to live and by what moral values…. And written it in a book. It was NOT divinely inspired. Just like these things appear in books you DONT believe were divinely inspired although millions of others may do.
There is commonly accepted moral views that spring up globally though all the different religions, cultures and non-religious countries, You just can’t claim any of these virtues unique to belief in YOUR specific deity, any more then a Muslim or a Jew etc… every religion. The truth, when you accept it is:
That you are part of a group of billions of individuals who claim a divine ‘Truth’ while utterly convinced that every other divine ‘Truth’ is a delusion.
THAT is the delusion
What is meant by populations evolve? Who says not good for the species – what is good or bad – who’s defintion? Still doesn’t define why the minute I was born, I began to “die.” What’s do wrong with my internal organs/system that it gets sick, ages, worsens, until finally death?
A breeding population of organisms changes over time as mutations are introduced into the gene pool and natural selection weeds out those genes that reduce fitness in the current environment.
“Good”, in this case, means increasing the number of grandchildren you have. It’s a little more complex, obviously, but that’s a decent first-cut measure. Spending energy on longevity means less available for producing offspring. Obviously, it also means more time available to teach offspring how to survive to have kids of their own, but there’s an obvious trade-off. In addition, extreme longevity means that children are always competing for resources with their great-great-great grandparents, so they are far less likely to reach maturity and have kids of their own. Thus, evolution stops.
Besides, why should immortality be the ultimate aim of evolution, any more than being able to fly to the moon, or weighing a thousand tons?
Flies don’t live very long at all, but they’ve been hugely successful in producing more copies of themselves. Would they be more successful if they lived for thousands of years?
Entropy. Thermodynamics. Read a physics text.
BD, it’s not my interpretation — it is many, many churches interpretations. Of course there are different ones. That’s the nature of interpreting a 2,000 yr old text in another language that we don’t have original manuscripts for. :)
Look out Daniel, you stepped in a big steaming pile of No True Scotsman.
Man, that stuff is all over the place.
I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. I was not referring to you / the article, I was referring to the thread. Note: see LRA below.
3 Trackbacks
[...] the issues of the Christian faith is Unreasonable Faith. He wrote this post about the shooting, Illinois Pastor Shot to Death at Church, which brought up some very good questions. Questions I couldn’t possibly address in one [...]
[...] god distracted? Certainly he intervened eventually, right? Nope. The shooter was tackled to the ground by mere mortals who apparently proved more capable of thwarting this monster than [...]
[...] Illinois Pastor Shot to Death at Church Fred Winters, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Maryville, IL, was shot to death during a morning service today. A [...] [...]