HaloScan.com - Comments

Considering that this situation is very much like what Abraham was asked to do it seems that this question has long been answered.
Jon | 02.12.07 - 8:05 am | #

Danke Vox.

An addendum from the other thread, and also regards Abraham, is to argue first and obey later. A fine and storied biblical tradition.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 8:22 am | #

What "atheists" fail to understand is that the lack of an "absolute" results in a lack of a moral foundation.
"All other ground is sinking sand", as the hymn goes...
Pablo | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 8:25 am | #

If God were to tell me to kill in such a way, there would be a reason for it. It would not be just for an act of faith. He doesn't understand this. There is a reason for all that God asks us, commands us to do. Atheists always apply the standards of mortal men to God's way of thinking.
Rloz | 02.12.07 - 8:41 am | #

I've heard a few arguements made as to 'why' would have ordered the killing of children on several occasions in the OT.

The 'because He's God, and He can' arguement is valid. I suppose you don't have to carry it any further than that.

I've always assumed that it was a very disagreeable (to Him), but absolutely necessary, strategic move made with the 'big picture' in mind. Perhaps history needed a push in the right direction so that His plans could be fulfilled.

In any event, the children who died before the age of accountability were certainly better off than they would have been had they grown up to be happy, well-adjusted worshippers of Moloch.

But Vox is right. The fact that God ordered it makes it right. That we feel bad doesn't make it less right. A careful reading of the Bible will show that God isn't 'happy' about destroying people.

Perhaps we can assume that any other alternative would have violated man's free-will or God's justice.
PORCUS | 02.12.07 - 8:46 am | #

The main reason it drives atheists crazy to contemplate the case of the Amalekites is that underneath their veneer of fake moral outrage is a chilling fear that they themselves fall into this category.

It is not an accident that leftists constantly implore everyone to not be judgemental (despite being in harsh judgement of those who are). They are in mortal terror of being judged for their own actions, and thus it is in their best interests to convince everyone that no absolute moral standards can even exist.

One should weigh the worth of their arguments in the the same light as the serial killer who makes a "logical" case for why the death penalty is wrong.
VQ | 02.12.07 - 8:59 am | #

I've always likened the destruction of the Amalekites to surgery - if gangrene sets in and the surgeon has to amputate, well, you sure are sorry to lose a limb, but most people acknowledge losing a limb is better than a slow painful death.
Arielle | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 9:13 am | #

Nigger, *please*. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and if God ordered me to do wrong I'd spit in that sumbitch's eye.
damaged justice | 02.12.07 - 9:14 am | #

Interesting that an athiest would use the arguement of destroying children. The people who were supposed to destroy these children are sickened by it. Even if they know it is right. No one likes to kill children.
Athiests are morally outraged at a God they don't believe in. And yet they go on and tell you how morally right it is for a woman to abort her child based upon a womans right to choose.

It just seems a bit hypocrtical.
Starbuck | 02.12.07 - 9:16 am | #

Nigger?

Umm... I bet you wouldn't spit in God's eye. You don't have the courage.
Starbuck | 02.12.07 - 9:17 am | #

I think Genesis 18:25 offers a good guide for what to do in this case.

That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Nemo Ignotus | 02.12.07 - 9:21 am | #

A good (but VERY long) look into the whys and wherefores of the Amelekite situation here: http://www.christian-thinktank.c.../ rbutcher1.html
CJ | 02.12.07 - 9:26 am | #

Jefferson repeatedly demonstrates an ignorance of the Creator God based simply on his own hubris.

I note that he repeatedly postulates inane questions, that boil down to:

If God did something that was obviously completely and directly contradictory to His own nature, what would you think?

(I'd think the questioner doesn't have a clue.)

He does not understand the difference between the capricious, arbitrary nature of the false pagan gods, and the real One.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 9:26 am | #

It's interesting (to me anyways) that this self-posed question was one of many issues revolving around why I left the Faith.

You're walking through the woods and God roasts up some shrubbery to get your attention.

"Yes, my Lord?"

"See that guy over there? No, no the short one. He made fun of my buddy's haircut. Smite him."

"Yep, on it. Good thing I just came from a birthday party and still have my bear costume on. I'll scare the little turd out of his shorts."

"By 'smite' I meant rub him out. Give him a new set of concrete shoes. Whack him. You getting any of this?"

"Right, gotcha. Good thing I just came from a birthday party and still have my switchblade on me. Evil buggers, kids at birthday parties." (Elisha, wasn't it?)

For any sufficiently advanced dementia -- or good drugs, bad times -- could one tell the difference between a one-on-one with God and fantasy? Heck, today the Prophets would be diagnosed as schizophrenic in record time regardless of the truth of the matter.

Given that I'd have to demur. And then God would roast up a small body of water for me.

"Anchors away, dumbass. You'll listen next time, won't you?" -- God to dumbass

Nothing particular to Christianity; but nonetheless one of many items that gave me pause.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 9:29 am | #

In Genesis 6, the world was full of violence.

God's soloution.....Kill most of them.

Nothing stops people from violence like killing all of them.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 9:38 am | #

This is just another version of the Euthyphro's Dilemma.

See here for a Christian response to it.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?pa...Article& id=5236

The short of the long of it is that God would never command an evil act since it isn't in His character.
Earth and All Stars | 02.12.07 - 9:41 am | #

The response that Vox gave to the question is, of course, what makes some christians very dangerous. Because unlike Vox, who is likely attempting to be merely consistent for the sake of argument and would never take a knife to a two year old no matter what delusion he was overcome, there are some folks out there who feel it is in their and everyone else's best interests to, say, stone gays to death.

The larger point, in my mind, is that the worship of the chrisitan god by many is simply a mindless act.

This kind of mindlessness is also evident in their view of atheists and particularly when they claim that non believers' understanding of morals and ethics is based simply on "I don't like it". This is another exmaple of the mindlessness that theists often display.

The fact is, the non-theist thinks far more deeply about issues of right and wrong than the theist does. They are obligated too. And the non-theist's reasons for believing something is right, wrong, moral or immoral is a much more deeply considered position than the theists' allow for their own deliberation on this issue.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 9:51 am | #

I'm just picturing jefferson with fist raised to the sky ala Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty screaming, "SMITE ME, OH MIGHTY SMITE-ER!"

Good luck with that jeff.
Josh | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 9:55 am | #

is a much more deeply considered position

Ironically that's the largest problem from the Atheist side of things. There's likely nothing the mind is better at than making justifications for its own wants. Which is, ironically, the same thing you're claiming Vox is afoul of.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 9:56 am | #

Jefferson says- a much more deeply considered position..

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- a theist might say, so what? Ponder right and wrong all you like, with out a supreme God there is no defenitive end to the pondering.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 9:59 am | #

"Ironically that's the largest problem from the Atheist side of things. There's likely nothing the mind is better at than making justifications for its own wants. Which is, ironically, the same thing you're claiming Vox is afoul of.
John Quincy Public "

No what I'm claiming is this:

In considering what to do in a situatiion the christian thinks A) what does god say.

The Theist thinks A), B) and at least C), if not D-G.

The simplicity of the the christian mindset is what allows many to say, "yes" I'd kill the children. While in the end the non-theists' mind set gets boiled down to a set of principles, it does take into account the complexity of life and the world we live in as well as the fact that each of us is responsbile for constructing the moral framework under which we will strive to live.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:01 am | #

When jeffy says something that starts:
The fact is, the non-theist thinks far more deeply...

you just wish there was a laugh track.

Can you fix that, Vox?
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:03 am | #

"Dr. Hodgemunberg says- a theist might say, so what? Ponder right and wrong all you like, with out a supreme God there is no defenitive end to the pondering.
Dr. Hodgemunberg"

Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:03 am | #

No matter how much consideration you do, the morals an athiest comes up with are still "I feel it". It's still arbitrary, it just took longer than a basic impulsive response.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 10:03 am | #

The fact is, the non-theist thinks far more deeply about issues of right and wrong than the theist does.

This is an absurd claim considering the Euthyphro's Dilemma was detailed by Plato a who was a theist.

This dilemma has been answered by Christians and theists which is why even the wikipedia article is small and it isn't discussed in philosophical circles much anymore.
Earth and All Stars | 02.12.07 - 10:04 am | #

It's still arbitrary, it just took longer than a basic impulsive response.

Actually, only the justification part, Chris S. ;)
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:04 am | #

"you just wish there was a laugh track.

Can you fix that, Vox?
Mark Call"

Well, perhaps Mark this gives you some insight at to how many people react when they here a theist admit they believe in god.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:04 am | #

The Theist thinks A), B) and at least C), if not D-G.

Which gives the mind more opportunities to rationalize and justification that meets the mind's wants. That's my point.

By the way, I forgot to ask: Do you care to answer Vox's question about why it would be wrong to rearrange atoms? -- other than "I don't like it", natch.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:05 am | #

Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?
-- Jefferson

Because whether or not you like it, there IS a Creator.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:05 am | #

Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

Are you serious? If there is no universally accepted standard, why would it be wrong for me to kill you for "looking at me funny"?
Winston Webb | 02.12.07 - 10:06 am | #

If u cud sphell, jeffy, the inane responsus wud be funnyer.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:06 am | #

Jefferson really needs to ATTEND a first-year philosophy course before tries conducting one in the halo-threads.

What God used to distinguish himself from the other gods in the midst of Israel was that he was the LIVING God. He demands LIVING relationships with his people. Relationships no less real or intimate than that of a father and child, or that of a husband and wife. This is why God tells Israel he KNOWS them, in the way a husband knows his wife.

I suspect this is the problem that deep down so many secularists and atheists have with the notion of God. They're either not intelligent enough or too authoritarian to be able to asbtract a living, human relationship wihtout having a direct object to cathect upon.

Maybe also it's the fear of not being in control, of having the utter most recesses of your being naked before something you cannot manipulate or bullshit.

Perhaps ultimately, just as God loved Jacob in his mother's womb, while hating Esau, we don't choose God, God rather chooses us.
abe | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 10:09 am | #

Jefferson says- why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Bad response.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:09 am | #

And it's good to see you back, Dr. H. !

(Some of the atheist dialog lately was starting to remind me of the old Monty Python 'argument room' skit...)
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:10 am | #

Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

I'll concede to you there's no need.

With that out of the way: Why then, as an Atheist, do you claim you have definitive and objective morality that's opposed to Christianity? And further, if there are no universal morals, then all morals are equally valid. How does this explain your continued distaste for Christian morals?
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:10 am | #

"Which gives the mind more opportunities to rationalize and justification that meets the mind's wants. That's my point.

By the way, I forgot to ask: Do you care to answer Vox's question about why it would be wrong to rearrange atoms? -- other than "I don't like it", natch.
John Quincy Public "

John:

"I don't like it" is the actualy the christian response to why they should not do something. The existence of the bible or their belief in God is merely one source that informs a theists' values. In the end, the theist decides if if they approve of a particular set of rules and decides if they will live by them...or try. The same way a non-believer does.

So in this case I throw myself in with the theists and claim that yes I, like the theist, determine what is right and wrong based on "I don't like it" or "I like it". However, the non-theists position tends to be far better thought out.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:10 am | #

"there are some folks out there who feel it is in their and everyone else's best interests to, say, stone gays to death."

Really? Care to back this up? This is new to me.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:11 am | #

The fact is, the non-theist thinks far more deeply about issues of right and wrong than the theist does.

Oh, please, what a load of garbage. You have amply demonstrated here that your "thinking" about moral issues doesn't extend beyond wanting to stick your dick where it doesn't belong and being mad at God because He says you shouldn't.

Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston college, will sometimes divide his classes into two parts, on one side are the atheists/agnostics on the other are the theists, mainly Christians; he then asks each group to make the best argument they can for the other side's position. The theists generally don't have a problem with coming up with an argument for non-belief. The atheists, on the other hand, can almost never come up with a good argument; they simply have never thought about it. Now granted these are young college students, so are not a representative sample, but it matches my experience, and I suspect it matches most other people's experience as well. Most atheists' moral thought consists of deeply thinking "if it feel good, do it".
Larry | 02.12.07 - 10:12 am | #

"Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?
-- Jefferson

Because whether or not you like it, there IS a Creator.
Mark Call "

EVen if there is, that would only be the creator's view of what is right and wrong. Clearly I can come up with a set of values that would be seem more righteous then his.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:12 am | #

"I don't like it" is the actualy the christian response to why they should not do something.

Actually, it's scriptural authority. That is the point of the post that headlines this little shindig. So your conflation doesn't fly. Do you have an alternate answer, or will you sick with "I don't like it"
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:12 am | #

abe says- relationship...that of a father and a child, or that of a husband and a wife.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Please do not follow your gods example and toss your wife or child into a pit of fire if they let you down.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:13 am | #

"Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

Are you serious? If there is no universally accepted standard, why would it be wrong for me to kill you for "looking at me funny"?
Winston Webb"

I could come up with many reasons, and so could you...all of which others might disagree with. The point is that we all have our own set of morals that we choose.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:13 am | #

"I don't like it" is the actualy the christian response to why they should not do something.

From the guy who just a few minutes ago said

In considering what to do in a situatiion the christian thinks A) what does god say.

So which is jefferson dear, do Christians do things because "they like/ don't like it" or because God tells them to do so.
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 10:13 am | #

Oi.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:14 am | #

>And then, if I am incorrect and my god does not exist, then we must ask why Jefferson, an atheist, should object to one set of meaningless atomic arrangements being randomly sorted into different arrangements.

Probably because he happens to be one of those, as you say, "meaningless atomic arrangements". Meaning doesn't flow from the supernatural, it flows from sentient beings. Wrong is whatever we say it is, and yes, that does mean that it is not a constant.

>A reason, that is, besides the one that he has previously provided, which is that he would not like it.

And that is somehow less 'moral' than pushing the responsibility off of yourself and onto some abstract alpha male? An alpha male who's orders you are apparently prepared to blindly follow, regardless the mental health implications.

>As adults do not accept that as sufficient justification for a course of action from toddlers, there is no reason why we should accept it from him either.

Except for the fact that he is not a toddler, as your god would have him. His opinion on the matter is at least equal to yours.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 10:14 am | #

I can come up with a set of values that would be seem more righteous then his.

FALSE, by your own words:
Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

If there is no definitive, objective standard, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to come up with anything more righteous.

Congratulations, you've just created your own logical fallacy.
Winston Webb | 02.12.07 - 10:14 am | #

Dear readers, bow in the presence of Jefferson, for he is God.
J Hull | 02.12.07 - 10:16 am | #

The fact is, the non-theist thinks far more deeply about issues of right and wrong than the theist does. They are obligated too.

What was I saying about jefferson and unintentional humour?

Anyway, I had no idea that there was a hand book (Bible if you will) for Atheists. Why else would they be "obligated" to do anything.
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 10:17 am | #

Good morning, Spacebunny. Thanks, I missed that.

Wendy: A bad position to take. A single example disproves your argument. There certainly are some to be found. More importantly, they're rare.

Jefferson: If there is a creator, only that creator can define right and wrong. That's the whole conception of it. So no, in which case it would only be arrogance to think your scheme was better.

By the way, since you're getting fair hammered by all-comers, if you need more time and less noise I'll pipe down for a bit.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:17 am | #

"With that out of the way: Why then, as an Atheist, do you claim you have definitive and objective morality that's opposed to Christianity? And further, if there are no universal morals, then all morals are equally valid. How does this explain your continued distaste for Christian morals?
John Quincy Public "

All morals are not JUDGED to be equal by all, but they are all equally existing.

My morality is objectively mine. That can't be argued with. It is different than christian morality to one degree or another.

In the end, I really don't care where a person gets there morals or how they come to them. What I'm concerned with is what it leads them to do.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:18 am | #

"The fact is, the non-theist thinks far more deeply about issues of right and wrong than the theist does.

Oh, please, what a load of garbage. You have amply demonstrated here that your "thinking" about moral issues doesn't extend beyond wanting to stick your dick where it doesn't belong and being mad at God because He says you shouldn't."

You need to rephrase before you deserve any thoughtful response.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:19 am | #

Not haloscan this time; I just thought this was sooo precious that it ought to be posted again:

"Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?
-- Jefferson

Because whether or not you like it, there IS a Creator.
Mark Call "

EVen if there is, that would only be the creator's view of what is right and wrong. Clearly I can come up with a set of values that would be seem more righteous then his.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:12 am

No additional commentary seem necessary. I'd still like a laugh track, though.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:19 am | #

""I don't like it" is the actualy the christian response to why they should not do something.

Actually, it's scriptural authority. That is the point of the post that headlines this little shindig. So your conflation doesn't fly. Do you have an alternate answer, or will you sick with "I don't like it"
John Quincy Public"

Actually it flys with great speed and grace. Theists must have decided at some point in following the world of God. That decision must have come with some deliberation. Furthermore they are free to alter the world of god to their own disposition, which goes a long way to explaining the various sects of christianity.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:21 am | #

All morals are not JUDGED to be equal by all, but they are all equally existing.

You'd be best served by keeping that clarification in mind when making similar statements in the future to avoid an obvious misunderstanding.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:21 am | #

So, Jefferson, what do you see as the function of morality?
CJ | 02.12.07 - 10:22 am | #

Jefferson,

Sören Kierkegaard wrote a book dealing with this subject. He invented the school of thought of existentialism that you seem to belong to, at least a little. Kierkegaard is a Christian. Read up and cease your ignorance.

http://www.religion-online.org/s....asp? title=2068
Earth and All Stars | 02.12.07 - 10:23 am | #

"So which is jefferson dear, do Christians do things because "they like/ don't like it" or because God tells them to do so.
Spacebunny"

Thankfully, they tend to cherry pick the bible...which is really the only way to follow it and not pain the conscience and not to feel silly in explain the world aroudn them.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:23 am | #

"Wendy: A bad position to take. A single example disproves your argument. There certainly are some to be found. More importantly, they're rare."

True, but I just wanted him to provide an example. I forget univeral perameters of an arguement (forgive me). I was thinking of specifically Christians and rock throwing. Either way, his comment has no merit or meaning.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:23 am | #

Actually it flys with great speed and grace.

So... No, you have no better answer than "I don't like it"? You might take a cue from Ellis
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:23 am | #

>Now, I admit that if I was wrong and my god did not exist but another one did, one of his worshippers could likely provide a rational reason for why I it would be immoral to embark upon a toddler-slaying rampage.

Speaking of things a toddler might say, "Because my dad said so!" is hardly a rational argument, either.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 10:23 am | #

Time to get the kids up and make some breakfast.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:24 am | #

The larger point, in my mind, is that the worship of the chrisitan god by many is simply a mindless act.

A lot of "thinking" is a mindless act. What your post indicates is simply an elitist attitude, no different from a Christian who believes a non-Christian or atheist is incapable of moral behavior, i.e. a bigoted opinion short on facts and long on assumptions.

Men are fallible and commit evil. Unthinking atheists believe that saying "my God told me to do it", instead of the historical imperative or my dog, is somehow more evil. Following that logic, a serial killer who was instructed by his dog to murder would require us to destroy all dogs, because clearly they are a threat with so many unthinking people among us.
roundtine | 02.12.07 - 10:24 am | #

True, but I just wanted him to provide an example.

No worries. I just wanted to deny anyone a meaningless "gotcha" moment.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:25 am | #

Speaking of things a toddler might say, "Because my dad said so!" is hardly a rational argument, either.

I assume you've never been spanked.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:26 am | #

If only God would step in here and clear thing up.

Oh well.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:26 am | #

Personally I'm very interested in how Jefferson's morals are "more righteous". More specifically, which ones, and how that judgement was made.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 10:27 am | #

Thankfully, they tend to cherry pick the bible...which is really the only way to follow it and not pain the conscience and not to feel silly in explain the world aroudn them.

Not an answer jefferson. Do Christians, as you claim, listen to God or do they do what they like. One or the other. I know it is terribly hard for you to answer a direct question but do try to do it once in a while.
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 10:28 am | #

"Theists must have decided at some point in following the world of God. That decision must have come with some deliberation."

There was God before there was man. Adam and Eve didn't have to think about whether God existed or not. He spoke to them. They didn't deliberate.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:29 am | #

Good Morning to you too JQP.
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 10:30 am | #

Wendy says- They didn't deliberate.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- They must have, other wise what justification would God have for throwing them out of the garden?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:31 am | #

They didn't deliberate about the existance of god, just whether or not to follow his instructions.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 10:32 am | #

If only God would step in here and clear thing up.

Oh well.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:26 am | #

I've thought about this one. My conclusion is that He doesn't step in to clear things up because all that needs to be said has been said. It's up to us to accept or reject it.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:32 am | #

Thank you Chris S. That is what I meant, pardon my lack of clarity, Dr. H.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:33 am | #

Oops, run on sentance...
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:33 am | #

Wendy says- It's up to us to accept it or reject it.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Then what purpose does Satan serve?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:33 am | #

EVen if there is, that would only be the creator's view of what is right and wrong. Clearly I can come up with a set of values that would be seem more righteous then his.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:12 am | #

If Jefferson knew God exists, he'd argue with Him. Reminds me of another who argues with God.

That may not be a wise course to follow.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ new...RTICLE_ID=54131
Salt | 02.12.07 - 10:35 am | #

Chris S. says - just whether or not to follow his instructions.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- He must have made quite the impression on them then, huh.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:35 am | #

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Then what purpose does Satan serve?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:33 am | #

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
I'm not sure I understand the question in regards to each person's choice.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:37 am | #

I also find the discussion of morality moot without discussion of the effect of following or not following these moral codes.

So Jefferson has a moral code that he came across with great deliberation. Is there a reward for following it? Is there a punishment for not following it?
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 10:37 am | #

"Thankfully, they tend to cherry pick the bible...which is really the only way to follow it and not pain the conscience and not to feel silly in explain the world aroudn them."

Don't confuse a religion with its adherents.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:38 am | #

"If only God would step in here and clear thing up."

Careful, Dr. H. -
you're assuming He didn't already!
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:41 am | #

"If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?"

Turn about is fair play. If an atheist wanted to do this, who are you to say they shouldn't?
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:41 am | #

>I assume you've never been spanked.

Lol. Yeah, once or twice when I was little. I especially remember an incident after shooting my little sister with a bb gun...but I digress.

So we're sticking with the "might makes right" argument after all? Just one level abstracted away?
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 10:42 am | #

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- He must have made quite the impression on them then, huh.

I dunno, I know humans though. Stick a shiny red button in front of them and tell them not to push it... I think we all know what will happen.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 10:42 am | #

Mark Call says- you're assuming he didn't already.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- God, is that you?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:43 am | #

"Then what purpose does Satan serve?" -- Dr. Hodgemunberg

HaSatan is called both 'the adversary', and 'the accuser'. He seems to do them both, sequentially and simultaneously in some cases.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:45 am | #

Speaking of things a toddler might say, "Because my dad said so!" is hardly a rational argument, either.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 10:23 am | #

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
What if the Dad is right?
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 10:45 am | #

"Theists must have decided at some point in following the world of God. That decision must have come with some deliberation" Jefferson

Actually that's now how it works. What makes Christian morality unique from what gets invented in someone's head is that Christians EXPERIENCE God. He's a person that interacts with you when you knock on His door. You have a relationship - He reveals Himself so you can trust His moral code. Having personally experienced the Living God, one would have to deliberate to NOT accept His morality - and if one did they would be a liar.
whitebuffalo | 02.12.07 - 10:45 am | #

Chris S. says- I think we all know what will happen.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Exactly. So why the set up in the garden, because as we also know, two are more likely to get into mischief than one.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:45 am | #

So we're sticking with the "might makes right" argument after all?

I was aiming for a bit of levity actually. But empirically might does make right. Losers will disagree. But Losers don't get to write the rules. And the victor never considers himself the antagonist of the story.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 10:47 am | #

Mark Call says- you're assuming he didn't already.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- God, is that you?

Nah, Dr. H, I don't even play Him on TV. But I do read His lines as often as possible...
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 10:48 am | #

Chris S. says- I think we all know what will happen.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Exactly. So why the set up in the garden? Because as we also know, two are more likely to get into mischeif than one.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 10:49 am | #

"So we're sticking with the 'might makes right' argument after all? Just one level abstracted away?"

Ultimately everyone has to be accountable to someone. And that someone is accountable to someone else. At some point there has to be an end to that chain, or there is no accountability at all.

At the end of that chain is god, and as the ultimate "might" in the universe, then yes, what he says is "right". Might = Right

If there is no ultimate "right" there can be no lesser "right". In fact there is no right or wrong without it.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 10:53 am | #

This kind of mindlessness is also evident in their view of atheists and particularly when they claim that non believers' understanding of morals and ethics is based simply on "I don't like it". This is another exmaple of the mindlessness that theists often display.

Jefferson, you are ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.

You have previously defined good and bad as "what you feel". In this, you are in good atheist company, Bertrand Russell defined it precisely the same way.

Not only haven't you thought logically about it, you are contradicting yourself left and right.

Now you are attempting to simultaneously accuse Christians of:
a) blindly following God, and
b) doing what they like

You're not only embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing your fellow atheists.

And to think Dennett and Dawkins want to call you dimwitted nonsense-spewers "brights".....
VD | 02.12.07 - 10:58 am | #

to Chris S.,

My computer is on the fritz, so I don't know if this will get through.

Your point on the chain of accountability was very good, from that angle.

Hats Off!
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:00 am | #

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Exactly. So why the set up in the garden? Because as we also know, two are more likely to get into mischeif than one.

Chris S - Why not create man? If you're going to create something, give it choice or be satisfied with an automaton. If you're going to give it a choice, there needs to be consequences to that choice, or it isn't a meaningful choice.

We're still given the same choice as was at the beginning. And the consequences are the same.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 11:04 am | #

>If there is no ultimate "right" there can be no lesser "right". In fact there is no right or wrong without it.

I'm sorry, but I read this phrase as saying the equivalent of:

'If there is no ultimate "interesting" there can be no lesser "interesting". In fact there can be no interesting or boring without it."

Our brains are full of concepts that have no independent existence outside of them. This doesn't mean that they don't exist at all, just that they are human attributes. If we didn't exist, neither would they.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 11:04 am | #

as long as we don't drink the Kool-Aid...everyone will be ok!
PJ | 02.12.07 - 11:06 am | #

Turn about is fair play. If an atheist wanted to do this, who are you to say they shouldn't?

Who am I? I am a son of the Most High God, redeemed with the Blood of the Lamb and empowered to speak truth by the Spirit of the Almighty.

And therefore I have not only the right, but the duty, to say, my Heavenly Father has said "thou shalt not murder". Offend Him at your peril.
VD | 02.12.07 - 11:06 am | #

Ellis says- If we didn't exist, neither would they.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- A tree? A Hand clap?

Who can say.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:06 am | #

"If we didn't exist, neither would they. -- Ellis

You're on the right track, Ellis; keep following the thread...
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 11:07 am | #

What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:08 am | #

So we're sticking with the "might makes right" argument after all? Just one level abstracted away?

I think "sufficient might is right" would be a more accurate way of putting it.

Precisely at what point might becomes right is a matter for debate, of course, but if you have an alternate definition of "right", and I hope you do, I'm always open to hearing new suggestions.
VD | 02.12.07 - 11:08 am | #

Our brains are full of concepts that have no independent existence outside of them.

By the same token photons would exist without us. It depends on what you frame morality as. A human condition or a piece of the universe.

Granted you could get into Adolfian Tesseracts and decry photons as only being human creation... but that would be silly.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:08 am | #

Chris S. says- or be satisfied with an automaton.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- What then will you be in heaven?

Can you still choose to sin there?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:09 am | #

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

::slaps Salt for offending me::
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:09 am | #

Dr. H, you may choose to sin and your destination shall be elsewhere.
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:10 am | #

"Thankfully, they tend to cherry pick the bible...which is really the only way to follow it and not pain the conscience and not to feel silly in explain the world aroudn them.

Not an answer jefferson. Do Christians, as you claim, listen to God or do they do what they like. One or the other. "

It all depends on how absurd one of your "god's" commandments or ideas is.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:13 am | #

Salt says- and your destruction shall be elsewhere.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- So I'll be destroyed?

That I can take.

It's the forever stuff that gets me down.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:14 am | #

More evasions from jefferson I see. It doesn't depend. Do they do what they like or do they do what God says?
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 11:15 am | #

""If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?"

Turn about is fair play. If an atheist wanted to do this, who are you to say they shouldn't?
Wendy"

Everyone has a right to judge others and their actions, regardless of their faith or lack there of.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:17 am | #

Really? By what right do you claim to be able to judge me? Who gave you this right?
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 11:20 am | #

Do Christians listen to God or do they do what they like?

Both. For our righteousness is a filthy rags.

The question presumes Christians do not sin.

The difference is Christians know we violate His commands. The atheist violates nothing.
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:20 am | #

Everyone has a right to judge others and their actions, regardless of their faith or lack there of.

Absolutely.

"Don't do that you bad man!"

"yeh... whatever." ::continues being a bad man::
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:20 am | #

"More evasions from jefferson I see. It doesn't depend. Do they do what they like or do they do what God says?
Spacebunny"

See the above response.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:20 am | #

Everyone has a right to judge others and their actions, regardless of their faith or lack there of.
***
Right? Don't you mean proclivity?
Gene | 02.12.07 - 11:21 am | #

>if you have an alternate definition of "right", and I hope you do, I'm always open to hearing new suggestions.

Hmm. I don't know if I can come up with any system that doesn't boil down to the same thing eventually. As with any other animal, the carrot and stick are always going to be eminently useful in reinforcing the desired outcomes.

Maybe when we get a real handle on controlling our dna we'll be able to fundamentally alter our tendencies towards the beastly, but until then we're stuck with 'after the fact' behavior modification in whatever way we deem "right".
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 11:22 am | #

"Really? By what right do you claim to be able to judge me? Who gave you this right?
Spacebunny"

I don't need this right to be granted to me. I have it by virtue of being able to reason, think and feel compassion and empathy. I have this right be virtue of being alive.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:22 am | #

And it's good to see you back, Dr. H. !
***
Ditto!
Gene | 02.12.07 - 11:22 am | #

I notice you still haven't answered the direct question jefferson dear. Now, which is it?
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 11:23 am | #

"Can you still choose to sin there?"

I don't know. There are many ways to look at that question. If I cannot sin, one might say that you have surrendered your free will. To that one might ask is the choice to sin the ONLY true choice, or have we chosen (by choosing heaven) to surrender a sub-set of our choices? Or does sin become an un-choosable choice (like choosing to spontainiously combust).

The opposite, is that one CAN sin in heaven. Which would either result in your immedate distruction (Sin cannot exist in the presence of God), or banishment. However, as I see it defined, there is no sin in heaven.

So by choosing heaven, have I condemned myself to being an atomaton? Can't say, I'll have to see. A similar question could be posed: will there be any choice at all in Hell?
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 11:24 am | #

"
The difference is Christians know we violate His commands. The atheist violates nothing.
Salt "

Both the atheist and the theist CHOOSE themselves the standard they will seek to live up to. When the christian violates those standards they have violated the commitment they have made to those standards, just as the atheists does when they don't live up to the standards they set for themselves.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:24 am | #

but I get a bunch of crap for saying something like that.

That's because you have to breathe from you diaphragm.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:24 am | #

Gene says- It's good to see you back, Dr. H!

Dr, Hodgemunberg says- Thanks!

Pneumonia is rough, ecspecially when you have it.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:25 am | #

I don't need this right to be granted to me. I have it by virtue of being able to reason, think and feel compassion and empathy. I have this right be virtue of being alive.

And I judge that you do not have that right.
Larry | 02.12.07 - 11:25 am | #

>By the same token photons would exist without us. It depends on what you frame morality as. A human condition or a piece of the universe.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Photons *do* exist without us, as a piece of the universe...

Morality not so much.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 11:26 am | #

"Everyone has a right to judge others and their actions, regardless of their faith or lack there of.

Absolutely.

"Don't do that you bad man!"

"yeh... whatever." ::continues being a bad man::
John Quincy Public"

Perhaps you need to be more convincing in your admonissions aimed at the bad man.

Thankfully, there appear to be certain moral and ethical standards that transcend unique religions and are common across cultures and time, which itself speaks to the uniqueness of the human species, a uniqueness that it most likely placed in their abilty to communicate complex thoughts and to reason.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:26 am | #

"Everyone has a right to judge others and their actions, regardless of their faith or lack there of.
***
Right? Don't you mean proclivity?
Gene"

NO...I mean "right". However, there certainly seems to be a built in proclivity also.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:27 am | #

Morality not so much.

You don't understand the Christian viewpoint then. Morality is as much a part of the universe as photons for them. For more see: God
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:27 am | #

When the christian violates those standards they have violated the commitment they have made to those standards, just as the atheists does when they don't live up to the standards they set for themselves.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:24 am | #

And who's is more mutable? The Christians or yours?

Your standards are capable of change, to fit your desires.
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:28 am | #

Is the atomic pile evil or unrighteous because YOU die when you get too close to it? It is merely being what it is.

It is the Nature of the Righteous Creator that obliterates the not-righteous in His presence. Darkness vanishes before the light.
The Aardvark | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 11:28 am | #

to Chris S.,

I was recently thinking, did Christ cry in the garden and ask that the cup be taken from him, because he felt that his sacrifice would actually condemn most of mankind?

And if so, what would that imply?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:29 am | #

Perhaps you need to be more convincing in your admonissions aimed at the bad man.

ok.

"Don't make me tell your mother!"

Thankfully, there appear to be certain moral and ethical standards that transcend unique religions and are common across cultures and time,

Your statements are that everyone picks them out of thin air. Funny that.

which itself speaks to the uniqueness of the human species,

Said uniqueness being seen as a proof of God or other deities.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:30 am | #

"I don't need this right to be granted to me. I have it by virtue of being able to reason, think and feel compassion and empathy. I have this right be virtue of being alive.

And I judge that you do not have that right.
Larry"

And I'll leave you with that judgement as it is of no matter to me. Neither is it of any matter to me that some people judge unicorns to be the deliverers of all that is righteous.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:30 am | #

>Is the atomic pile evil or unrighteous because YOU die when you get too close to it? It is merely being what it is.

As with man.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 11:30 am | #

Let's clear up all of the confusion here, jefferson. Please, in your own objective, reasoned, logical words, please define the following terms:

RIGHT -

WRONG -

There will be follow-up quesitons.

Thank you!
Winston Webb | 02.12.07 - 11:31 am | #

"When the christian violates those standards they have violated the commitment they have made to those standards, just as the atheists does when they don't live up to the standards they set for themselves.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:24 am | #

And who's is more mutable? The Christians or yours?

Your standards are capable of change, to fit your desires.
Salt "

You mean theists or atheists? I think it's an question best directed at individuals than groups. However, given that atheists are more inclined to understand this life as immensely precious because it is the only one, I'd bet that christians are more mutable.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:32 am | #

"we'll be able to fundamentally alter our tendencies towards the beastly" - Ellis

Again, fodder for proving Vox's point:

Beastly? what is that? says who? What is non-beastly? why is it desired over beastly?

Just another example of someone who admits to a "beastly" nature - yet seeks to excuse it through "modern science".
bw | 02.12.07 - 11:33 am | #

As with man.

You agree with the Christians. eg. Fallibility. But that's not all there is to it in that view.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:33 am | #

I have it by virtue of being able to reason, - Jefferson

Is there an universal 'reason'? Is there one 'reason' you can point to as the 'buck stops here'?
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:33 am | #

to Jefferson,

You are a smart person, and I am sympathetic to your cause.

However, you may want to pause for a while, as I fear you are digging a very deep hole.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:34 am | #

atheists are more inclined to understand this life as immensely precious because it is the only one

Atheists are off the hook when they die. Christians have eternity. By your logic Atheists are more mutable; they have less to lose.

Buddhists on the other hand...
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:34 am | #

"Perhaps you need to be more convincing in your admonissions aimed at the bad man."

ok.

"Don't make me tell your mother!""

MUCH BETTER
-----------------------

"Thankfully, there appear to be certain moral and ethical standards that transcend unique religions and are common across cultures and time,

Your statements are that everyone picks them out of thin air. Funny that."

"Thin air" suggests they are unreasonably derived. That's not the case.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:35 am | #

"I was recently thinking, did Christ cry in the garden and ask that the cup be taken from him, because he felt that his sacrifice would actually condemn most of mankind?

And if so, what would that imply?"

Hmm, I can't say that that was a possible thought in Christ's mind. The the condemnation of man already existed, that was the current state of everything. His death and ressurection did not damn man, but just the opposite, now there was at least the possibility of redemption.

My thought on Christ's cry was that what he was about to go through, was the single most horrible thing to have happen to anyone. (and I'm not talking about death via crucifiction)
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 11:35 am | #

"to Jefferson,

You are a smart person, and I am sympathetic to your cause.

However, you may want to pause for a while, as I fear you are digging a very deep hole.
Dr. Hodgemunberg"

Well, luckily I have the good Dr. to pull me out if I go to deep. I think I'll forge ahead and rely on your kindness.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:36 am | #

"I have it by virtue of being able to reason, - Jefferson

Is there an universal 'reason'? Is there one 'reason' you can point to as the 'buck stops here'?
Salt"

Can you be more specific in your question?
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:36 am | #

"Thin air" suggests they are unreasonably derived. That's not the case.

You're the one suggesting picks their morals strictly on the basis of personal taste. "I don't like it" I fail to see how you consider that "reasonable".

Further, even perfect logic -- for what is knowable -- fails when bad assumptions enter the mix.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:37 am | #

to Chris S.,

Christ, as God or son of God, would have a good perspective on his future, so I can't see him lamenting what he was about to go through, as he knew he would rise and be God.

If I understand christian theology right, my thinking was that, once Christ died for the sins of man, it left man with out excuse for sin. Thus, Christ condemned man through his sacrifice.

Just a thought.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:39 am | #

"atheists are more inclined to understand this life as immensely precious because it is the only one

Atheists are off the hook when they die. Christians have eternity. By your logic Atheists are more mutable; they have less to lose.

Buddhists on the other hand...
John Quincy Public"

Value is most often determined by supply. The atheist believes that life is in short supply...this makes it far more valuable to the atheist than to the theist who believes there is an infinite supply.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:39 am | #

Ok Jefferson, give one universal truth by way of reason alone and upon what authority you declare such to be?
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:39 am | #

Value is most often determined by supply

Wrong argument. We're talking pain avoidance here. Ya know. Kid, hot stove, social workers. That sorta thing.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:42 am | #

>Beastly? what is that? says who? What is non-beastly? why is it desired over beastly?
>
>Just another example of someone who admits to a "beastly" nature - yet seeks to excuse it through "modern science".

Who's excusing it? Recognizing what we are doesn't excuse us from trying to be "better" - where my personal version of better = allowing the most happiness while causing the least unwanted suffering. Whether or not you subscribe to my definition doesn't matter to me at all, as I know that there are many who do.

There are only 2 logical outcomes anyway. Either we will destroy ourselves, or we will find a way to change ourselves so that we won't.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 11:42 am | #

""Thin air" suggests they are unreasonably derived. That's not the case.

You're the one suggesting picks their morals strictly on the basis of personal taste. "I don't like it" I fail to see how you consider that "reasonable"."

The idea that anyone uses the "I like" or "I don't like" formula for determining how to act, while accurate in the most simple terms, does not take into consideration the complexity of life, thought and circumstance. Theists, some theists, like to parse atheists values like that for the sake of trying to arrive at a "Neener neener" moment. This of course goes back to the mindlessness christian thought process that I spoke of earlier.

Further, even perfect logic -- for what is knowable -- fails when bad assumptions enter the mix.
John Quincy Public
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:43 am | #

Thus, Christ condemned man through his sacrifice.

Jail House Christianity.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:43 am | #

Is the atomic pile evil or unrighteous because YOU die when you get too close to it? It is merely being what it is.

As with man.
***
The atomic pile does not have free will... as with man.

to Jefferson,

You are a smart person, and I am sympathetic to your cause.

However, you may want to pause for a while, as I fear you are digging a very deep hole.
Dr. Hodgemunberg
***
In the initial thread I participated with you, I mentioned you thoughts were standard and you might check the dialog several weeks prior with Dr. H.

This is the Dr. H I was speaking of.
Gene | 02.12.07 - 11:43 am | #

"Ok Jefferson, give one universal truth by way of reason alone and upon what authority you declare such to be?
Salt"

It appears, by all methods of observation, study and experiment, that at one point the universe was expanding.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:44 am | #

If I understand christian theology right, my thinking was that, once Christ died for the sins of man, it left man with out excuse for sin. Thus, Christ condemned man through his sacrifice.

There is never an excuse for sin, as Paul points out in the beginning of Romans, everybody is equal in this regard, not having the law is no excuse. Those that sin under the law are judged by the law, those who sin without the law are judged by the law that God has engraved in their conscious. Jew, Gentile are both alike, both stand condemned before a righteous God. It is from this trap, that there is no excuse for sin yet all have sinned, that Jesus delivers us.
Larry | 02.12.07 - 11:45 am | #

This of course goes back to the mindlessness christian thought process that I spoke of earlier.

And of your claim that Christians do the same? I note you neglected it.

I also note I neglected to address your economic sense correctly. You are correct that an Atheist has more value for his life. Which would explain why they are less likely to put themselves in mortal peril to help a fellow man. Too expensive.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:46 am | #

"Value is most often determined by supply

Wrong argument. We're talking pain avoidance here. Ya know. Kid, hot stove, social workers. That sorta thing.
John Quincy Public"

No, we were talking about this statement:

"Value is most often determined by supply. The atheist believes that life is in short supply...this makes it far more valuable to the atheist than to the theist who believes there is an infinite supply."
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:48 am | #

Wow. Posts are flying like snowballs.
Wendy | 02.12.07 - 11:48 am | #

Jeff, you forget that, for them, the pain is also eternal if it goes wrong. Thusly, their morals are going to be less mutable. Eternal pain "costs" more than 80 years thereof.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:50 am | #

>The idea that anyone uses the "I like" or "I don't like" formula for determining how to act, while accurate in the most simple terms, does not take into consideration the complexity of life, thought and circumstance.

"I like" and "I don't like" have also been bred into us over millions of years. Most of them are consistent across all people, everywhere. The set of differences is much smaller than the set of similarities.
Ellis | 02.12.07 - 11:50 am | #

And I'll leave you with that judgement as it is of no matter to me. Neither is it of any matter to me that some people judge unicorns to be the deliverers of all that is righteous.

So I further judge that you should be smacked upside the head with a bat until you stop judging. What moral basis do you have for making me stop?
Larry | 02.12.07 - 11:50 am | #

Larry says- There is never an excuse for sin.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- Then what did Paul mean by, those things which in times past God winked at, but no more?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:50 am | #

Time to go make seal a deal!

It has been fun. More later hopefully.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:51 am | #

The set of differences is much smaller than the set of similarities.

Realistically they are very plastic and varied. If you disagree and think I should be punished... spank me; I like it. (Just to make the point. Please don't)
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:51 am | #

"If I understand christian theology right, my thinking was that, once Christ died for the sins of man, it left man with out excuse for sin. Thus, Christ condemned man through his sacrifice."

The issue with that thought is that we NEVER had an excuse for sin. We all have sinned and fallen short. Now I can't fully claim that I KNOW exactly what will happen on Judgement day, but my understanding is: 1 sin = Hell. That goes for all people for all time. With Jesus's sacrifice we went from 100% failure rate to say 90% failure (but the possibility of 100% success now exists).

Where you got Christ's death as being the start of the damnation of man, I'm not sure. It's pretty far from everything I've ever learned/heard.
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 11:52 am | #

jefferson dear, there are consequences on this blog for not answering direct questions - a judgement if you will. Now, which is it, do Christians do whatever they like or do they do what God tells them to do.
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 11:52 am | #

Oh, gracious, JQP was the only one who twigged to the interesting implication of Vox's post, to wit: How does one tell the difference between hearing the Voice of God, and the onset of paranoid schizophrenia?

Myself, I find this a consuming question. I observe that a large number of the paranoid schizophrenics I have known have above-average intelligence and a great deal of creativity; I wonder if perhaps these people are using an abnormal degree of ego-power to project an alternate-alternate reality, inside of the one that is already projected by mob consensus.

But this is, of course, unsupported speculation.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 11:54 am | #

oh carp... Thou shalt not anger the Spacebunny or thy shall be smote heavily with pointy things. ph34r th3 bunny.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 11:55 am | #

Chris S. says- Where you got Christ's death as being the start of damnation.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- I did not mean to imply a start, but rather an end.

As in, the finality of choice.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 11:56 am | #

"Value is most often determined by supply. The atheist believes that life is in short supply...this makes it far more valuable to the atheist than to the theist who believes there is an infinite supply."

Which is why atheists are cowards....

""Thin air" suggests they are unreasonably derived. That's not the case.

It most certainly is. There is no reason involved at all, as both you and Bertrand Russell have previously stated that there is no thought behind your standards, only feelings.

Take a logic class, guy. You are badly flunking it.
VD | 02.12.07 - 11:56 am | #

It appears, by all methods of observation, study and experiment, that at one point the universe was expanding.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:44 am | #

Neither a universal truth nor stated upon what authority you make it.

But I was not real clear.

give one universal moral truth by way of reason alone and upon what authority you declare such to be?
Salt | 02.12.07 - 11:57 am | #

Oh, gracious, JQP was the only one who is now going to be beaten gratuitously. Thanks, PL.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 12:02 pm | #

Of course, the hallmarks of a schizophrenic break are all too familiar--the voices, the hallucinations, the celebrity obsessions. If a person is convinced that they are married to John Mayer, and the John Mayer website makes no mention of this fact, then the diagnosis is obvious.

But if the celebrity obsession happens to manifest as the Voice of God, then what? How do we distinguish? I'd hate to dismiss a true prophet out of hand.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:03 pm | #

Salt says- give one universal moral truth by way of reason alone and upon what authority you declare such to be.

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- careful, that's a two edged sword you are waving.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 12:06 pm | #

As Vox so rightly points out, if a paranoid schizophrenic of his acquaintance were to tell him that God said to wipe out all the children in California under two, the Christians around him might object to the notion. Well, why? There's got to be some sort of litmus test for True Revelation.

And of course, there is. Grounding in the spirit of the law, not just the letter of it.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:07 pm | #

My goodness! I have inadvertantly made a case for Jefferson!
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:09 pm | #

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- careful, that's a two edged sword you are waving.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 12:06 pm |

Yes.
Salt | 02.12.07 - 12:10 pm | #

Christ, as God or son of God, would have a good perspective on his future, so I can't see him lamenting what he was about to go through, as he knew he would rise and be God.

Interesting, Dr. H, but it misses what to me is the most compelling scene of the whole story:

"Yeshua ...cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

By virture of having "become sin", and taken it upon Himself - it was the first time in His life that He was truly separated from God.

If I understand christian theology right, my thinking was that, once Christ died for the sins of man, it left man with out excuse for sin. Thus, Christ condemned man through his sacrifice.

Correct here, Dr. H, but in the most important way, it is no different than most of the message of the Bible (to whom much is given, much is expected; my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; they are without excuse...etc.)

The principle is simply that once you have been given "lawful notice", informed (over and over again) and had every chance to repent, "turn from" the course of destruction...and still reject Him...
there is no longer any excuse.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 12:10 pm | #

Beaten gratuitously? It's just supposed to tickle. ;-)
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:11 pm | #

My goodness! I have inadvertantly made a case for Jefferson!

Don't worry, the likelyhood of his noticing is slim.
Spacebunny | 02.12.07 - 12:13 pm | #

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- I did not mean to imply a start, but rather an end.
As in, the finality of choice.

Ah, so that pre-Christ, man had some wiggle room with the law and by doing good? And then Christ came and changed it so that now only by following him would you excape hell?

To be honest, I can't say I know how the judgment seat will work for those pre-Christ. I mean, there are a few scenarios I can think of. 1) All pre-Christ are saved (don't think this one is valid) 2) everyone pre-Christ is doomed (not valid I think) 3) All who worshiped God pre-Christ are saved (I think this one is more likely. The current choice is to belive in Christ, at the time believing in Christ wasn't an option, but belief in God was, and perhaps that was sufficient).

What are your thoughts on the fate of man pre-Christ?
Chris S. | 02.12.07 - 12:13 pm | #

"There's got to be some sort of litmus test for True Revelation.

And of course, there is. Grounding in the spirit of the law, not just the letter of it.

Which is, of course, exactly what it says in there, PL! The Word IS consistent.

"My goodness! I have inadvertantly made a case for Jefferson!

And far from it, Pretty Lady - for the key to your first observation is that God is utterly consistent.

jeffy is anything but.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 12:14 pm | #

Oh the other hand, it is well established that frequently, God's true directions make no sense. "Go saw off the branch of that tree at a 45 degree angle," for example.

I submit that if these directions seem innocuous, and do not directly contradict any of the Ten Commandments, we follow them on spec.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:14 pm | #

What are your thoughts on the fate of man pre-Christ?

I think they've all been recycled.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:16 pm | #

As in, the finality of choice.
***
When one "dies to self", the choice of sin becomes repugnant. There is no sense of loss; but instead a sense of freedom from the wages of sin.
Gene | 02.12.07 - 12:19 pm | #

Gene says- When one "dies to self"

Dr. Hodgemunberg says- But, is it not the "self" who is judged?

It always comes down to the "self" does it not?
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.12.07 - 12:24 pm | #

There is no sense of loss; but instead a sense of freedom from the wages of sin.

To make sure I understand you correctly: As in positive liberty?
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 12:27 pm | #

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Is 'them' referring to 'at the moment' or is 'them' man generally?

The bible also states that all shall bend the knee.

I'm not sure that any man shall be lost, but only how full one's cup shall be.

The lake of fire may be reserved for those who refuse to bend the knee; those having been in His presence and rejected Him, i.e Satan and his minnions.
Salt | 02.12.07 - 12:27 pm | #

"Yeshua ...cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? ....
- Psalm 22:1

.
Bone Head | 02.12.07 - 12:38 pm | #

But, is it not the "self" who is judged?
***
The born again "self" is the self that devotes the mind and hands totally to God.

As in positive liberty?
***
I have never heard this term before so I don't know.

Ravi Zacharias says that all pleasure has a price. Ligitimate pleasure you pay for in advance. Illigitimate pleasure, you find out the price and pay after.

If your hands and mind are devoted to God, you have no interest in stupid investments. I heard someone say, "When you walk in love, you can't sin". I haven't been able to think of a contadiction to this yet.
Gene | 02.12.07 - 12:42 pm | #

Not only did He "know the end from the Beginning", BH, but He is consistent. ;)
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 12:42 pm | #

As in positive liberty?

JQP, quite seriously for the moment (although I am ALWAYS quite serious)--it's not something that can be qualified in an intellectual, verbal postulate at all. It's freedom that has no relationship to anything you thought you were. You look back at what you thought was your 'self'--your body, your concerns, your personality--and it all just looks like a crusty lump, or a discarded cicada shell. It's joy, it's bliss, it's union, except that these terms are far too banal and non-evocative to give you any inkling.

You are not who you think you are. You are the Son of God, and nothing can destroy that, not even you.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 12:43 pm | #

"When you walk in love, you can't sin".

Except in ignorance, Gene.

...I haven't been able to think of a contadiction to this yet.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 12:45 pm | #

Can one still be ignorant of sin when the law is written on their heart?
Gene | 02.12.07 - 12:49 pm | #

Gene: Negative Liberty is the classical sense of Liberty. Freedom of Choice.

Positive Liberty is the other way 'round. Freedom from Choice.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 12:55 pm | #

Can one still be ignorant of sin when the law is written on their heart?

You ask a good question, Gene, and not necessarily in the same vein from my original caveat. (Bear in mind that the Bible is careful to distinguish between 'unintentional sin' and deliberate sin, or rebellion - for which there is no sacrifice prescribed in the Torah. One may "err" by not having sufficient information in any given situation.)

I'll answer your 'related but different' question on behalf of myself, since I can't speak for "all":

His promise to write His law on my heart, and to take away a heart of stone and replace it with one of flesh, is a work in progress, and I'm thankful for that. (Much like being able to tread on serpents and scorpions, heal the sick, and do the things He did and more, I'm still trying to walk that path -- in love ;)
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 12:57 pm | #

Negative Liberty is the classical sense of Liberty. Freedom of Choice.

Positive Liberty is the other way 'round. Freedom from Choice.
***
I don't know. Let's say you go to a dinner and have the choice of chicken, steak, or mountain oysters. Let's say you like chicken and steak, but you don't like mountain oysters, not because they taste all that bad but because they make you feel sick later. Is going with the chicken and passing on the steak and the mountain oysters freedom from choice?
Gene | 02.12.07 - 1:22 pm | #

Gene: That would still be Negative Liberty. Thanks for the time spent on the reply.
John Quincy Public | 02.12.07 - 1:25 pm | #

I am still waiting to hear if Jefferson would cut off his dick so that the Islamists wouldn't cut off his head.
.
Bone Head | 02.12.07 - 1:27 pm | #

JQ: Do you think negative liberty is a good or bad thing? Why?
Gene | 02.12.07 - 1:29 pm | #

...freedom from the "wages of sin" [i.e., death]...as in 'positive liberty'

Positive Liberty is the other way 'round. Freedom from Choice.

Not that I like your definition, JQP, but the answer to your question would still be "no".

Just like Amerikans (in ignorance) may choose to be slaves of Big Bro, others of us can choose, in the most perfect ("free indeed") kind of Liberty, to be bondservants to the Most High.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 1:30 pm | #

Who am I? I am a son of the Most High God, redeemed with the Blood of the Lamb and empowered to speak truth by the Spirit of the Almighty.

And therefore I have not only the right, but the duty, to say, my Heavenly Father has said "thou shalt not murder". Offend Him at your peril.
VD | 02.12.07 - 11:06 am | #

Great statement, Vox. Absolutely DEFINATE statement of indentity. It reminded me of the scene in Gladiator when Russel Crowe turns and says to the Imperator,

"I am Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North. Proud General of the Felix Legions. Loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurellius. Husband to a murdered wife, Father to a murdered son, I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next."

Statements like these are so powerful spiritually because they are the spoken affirmation of one's realization of one's true identity.
Josh | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 1:41 pm | #

Bear in mind that the Bible is careful to distinguish between 'unintentional sin' and deliberate sin, or rebellion - for which there is no sacrifice prescribed in the Torah
***
What does the Torah say about rebellion?
Gene | 02.12.07 - 1:46 pm | #

...don't do it! ;)
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 2:12 pm | #

And while that's as good of a 'one post' summary as I can do, Gene - a more complete answer is that your question deserves a long study.

(Take a good look at the animal sacrifices specified in the Torah, and simply note that those for sin are all of the unintentioal variety.)

The best single Scripture (although not from the Torah) that summarizes a repeated injunction is 1 Sam 15:23, spoken by Samuel to Saul for his rebellion:
"For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from [being] king."

Witchcraft and idolatry are at the top of the "don't do" parade.

It is prudent thing for those of us who might aspire to walk with Him as kings and priests of the order of Melcheitzedik to remember...
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 2:21 pm | #

Pretty good article, Vox (though you might have mentioned that God wouldn't specifically order the killing of children...but then, everyone here knows that). I just want to say that I don't think that Revelation tells us that God's angels will wipe out many nations in the future. As an orthodox preterist, I believe a significant part of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple. The 'nations' who marched up to Jerusalem were all the tribes of the 'oikoumene' or the Roman Empire.
Turgonian | 02.12.07 - 2:32 pm | #

Has anyone mentioned that God didn't order the killing of "children". He ordered the killing of the whole people, including all of their livestock, or specific people in specific circumstances?

God doesn't order killing for whimsical reasons. The Christian God is not whimsical or arbitrary.

It's a straw man question because it posits something that is not reasonable unless you can explain why God would judge all 2 year olds the world over simultaneously. He will judge all people, including 2 year olds at some point.
superninja | 02.12.07 - 3:06 pm | #

It is prudent thing for those of us who might aspire to walk with Him as kings and priests of the order of Melcheitzedik to remember...
***
What if it is someone close to us who is rebelling? I keep hearing prayer suggested; but after many years of serving on the wrong side; is there any hope for them to come back?
Gene | 02.12.07 - 3:19 pm | #

Earth and All Stars,

Superstar Soren is the secret knowledge, the uninitiated shouldn't have their little heads toubled by these things...
abe | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 4:08 pm | #

What is the point of the question?

If God exists and is all powerfull your decision to believe or not believe in Him or to worship or not changes nothing.

You can hate Him or refuse to worship Him but he would still exist and be in charge of everything.

It certainly isn't an argument in support of aheism as it proves nothing other than that you disaprove of God.
P.T. | 02.12.07 - 4:21 pm | #

What if it is someone close to us who is rebelling? I keep hearing prayer suggested; but after many years of serving on the wrong side; is there any hope for them to come back?

Re: hope...
Of course, Gene. "I can do all things through Christ Yeshua Who strengthens me," and many similar.

As to the 'someone close' - there are a number of issues. Please see Numbers 30 (I know you and I have referenced this before). The question has many aspects - including covering and authority, which is key. There are also Scripture references to "putting a hedge" around someone, praying for deliverance (and cautions about casting things out without understanding - see Yeshua's warning that about spirits "wandering through dry places" and eventually returning, among others), the sharp double-edged sword which is the Word, His armor, and so on.

May you be blessed,
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 4:24 pm | #

Jefferson Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

There doesn't.

If God is, there may be an objective morality
If God doesn't exist, there is no objective morality
Therefore if there is objective morality, God exists.

That is why consistent atheists deny that morality is objective.

Please ponder this because it has been stated to you several times but you have yet to grasp it.

But most people have a sense of morality. They agree that morality is real ( I am not saying they agree on what is and is not moral).

The universality of morality as a real concept implies that there exists an objective morality, even if I don't know the correct moral choices within that morality. This is evidence that God exists.

In the end, I really don't care where a person gets there morals or how they come to them. What I'm concerned with is what it leads them to do.

Why? Can't you see the second question is tied up in the first. You are saying I don't care where you get your morality from, so long your actions conform to my sense of morality.
bethyada | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 6:18 pm | #

Dr. Hodgemunberg: If I understand christian theology right, my thinking was that, once Christ died for the sins of man, it left man with out excuse for sin. Thus, Christ condemned man through his sacrifice.

Mark Call answered yes, I am not so certain. I may have to read more, but I think prior to Christ man was without excuse and the cross is about redemption.

Chris S. What are your thoughts on the fate of man pre-Christ?

Salt I'm not sure that any man shall be lost, but only how full one's cup shall be.

The lake of fire may be reserved for those who refuse to bend the knee; those having been in His presence and rejected Him, i.e Satan and his minnions.

Salt, you are way off here. All will bow before Christ and acknowledge his lordship, but only those who have acknowledged this will get to heaven. Yes hell was made for Satan, but Jesus is clear that men will end up there also, see the gospels and revelation.

Chris, that is an interesting question. Having thought about this somewhat my thoughts are currently (but they may be wrong and I am willing to change them) what I would call extended exclusivism. Inclusivists say those outside of acknowledging Christ get to heaven, if all mankind does they are universalists as Salt is implying.

I think all man is fallen and can't get to heaven. Christ enables us to. Those who acknowledge Christ are those who repent, ie. turn to him and start following him. Those who don't repent but say a prayer (and continue to do there own thing) are not saved. Those pre-Christ who acknowledged God see Christ and accept his sacrifice and get into heaven. So we are post-Christ and they are pre-Christ, but the condition is the same, it is just they were (predominantly) unaware of what Jesus would do.

I wonder if some outside of Christianity also get into heaven. BC and AD.

BC. People like the Queen of the South and the Ninevites who Jesus spoke positively of. So they turn to God on earth and at the judgment see Jesus and he is a friend. Sure they don't understand the cross pre-death, but they have responded to what they had and reckonise Jesus as their savior.

AD. I wonder if there are some people like this who haven't heard the gospel. People like Cornelius prior to hearing the gospel, and others around the world who are honestly looking for God (Romans 1). Their life is one of trying to walk towards God (same as a Christian) but not seeing him clearly. And when they die and see Christ their response is something along the lines of, "You are who I have been looking for all my life." So it is not their works that save them, it is Christ's death, but maybe Jesus is willing to apply his death to people like this. My pastor applies the parable of the sheep and the goats to the nations who don't know Jesus, a bit like this example.

So why evangelise. Because men as a whole are heading away from God. (All are unrighteous, but some in their unrighteousness may be trying to find God.) Telling people about Jesus gives them the choice to turn and many do turn. And for the few who were heading in the right direction, it answers their search and the Holy Spirit gives them power to live right.
bethyada | Homepage | 02.12.07 - 6:39 pm | #

...When your God speaks to you, and tells you to do something you know to be unjust, that is when you refuse. Thou shalt not kill. Basic commandment. Vox stated he would kill if his one true God commanded it to be so. He would rather hide behind the moral hypocrisy of his God than stand up for his own beliefs. And that is why I would rather spend my eternity in Hell than in a Heaven of murderers.
aurora | 02.12.07 - 8:30 pm | #

As to your emotional comment, Vox is not hiding behind anything, he is following the logic to its correct conclusion, but I'm sure that escapes you.

Regardless of the fact that the question was absurd to begin with.
superninja | 02.12.07 - 8:37 pm | #

Insulting my intelligence, a very witty retort. He can call it a toothless trap all he wants, nonetheless he impaled himself on its fangs to avoid its greater digestive impact. If he is right, it is for all the wrong reasons, and I will stay wrong for the right ones.
aurora | 02.12.07 - 9:14 pm | #

Such noble asininity. May be the biggest load of crap ever witnessed here, O Noble Hellbound.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 9:21 pm | #

"jefferson dear, there are consequences on this blog for not answering direct questions - a judgement if you will. Now, which is it, do Christians do whatever they like or do they do what God tells them to do.
Spacebunny "

Space Bunny....As I mentioned before...In my view they do both, depending on what is at stake.

For example, in coming to the conclusioin that god's "rules" are right for them they are CHOOSING THEIR ethical and moral structure to live by. I think they also do what they like when they they follow some of the "rules" in the bible, but not others. Now, when they see an admonission to "honor thy parents" they seem to claim they are doing this, or following this rule, merely because God tells them too.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 9:40 pm | #

""Value is most often determined by supply. The atheist believes that life is in short supply...this makes it far more valuable to the atheist than to the theist who believes there is an infinite supply."

Which is why atheists are cowards...."

I think this claim only demonstrates that you've not spent much time in the company of atheists.

-----------------------------

""Thin air" suggests they are unreasonably derived. That's not the case.

It most certainly is. There is no reason involved at all, as both you and Bertrand Russell have previously stated that there is no thought behind your standards, only feelings."

Yes, I've heard this claim before. It's quaint.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 9:43 pm | #

"Jefferson Why must there be a definitive, objective, universal standard for right and wrong?

There doesn't.

If God is, there may be an objective morality
If God doesn't exist, there is no objective morality
Therefore if there is objective morality, God exists.

That is why consistent atheists deny that morality is objective."

So tell me then...Is an act that god commands moral because God says so, or does God command an act because it is moral?
-----------------------------
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 9:59 pm | #

"Please ponder this because it has been stated to you several times but you have yet to grasp it.

But most people have a sense of morality. They agree that morality is real ( I am not saying they agree on what is and is not moral).

The universality of morality as a real concept implies that there exists an objective morality, even if I don't know the correct moral choices within that morality. This is evidence that God exists.""

Im sorry...the Ontological argument has been slayed many times over. I'll only point you to my favorite distruction of this argument in which Douglas Gasking demonstrates, using the Ontological argument, that God does not exist.
---------------------------
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:01 pm | #

"In the end, I really don't care where a person gets there morals or how they come to them. What I'm concerned with is what it leads them to do.

Why? Can't you see the second question is tied up in the first. You are saying I don't care where you get your morality from, so long your actions conform to my sense of morality.
bethyada""

That would be one way of stating it, yes. Another would be, I dont' care where you get your morals from as long as your actions don't harm my children. There are many ways to say, I'll judge you on your acts, not on how you determine how to act.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:03 pm | #

"As to your emotional comment, Vox is not hiding behind anything, he is following the logic to its correct conclusion, but I'm sure that escapes you.

Regardless of the fact that the question was absurd to begin with.
superninja"

Actually, what this points out is that believers such as vox will do the most repugnant thing, put their friends and family in harms way and disregard the value of life for one simple selfish reason: To go to heaven. It's a very immoral way to conduct one's life...if you ask me.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 10:12 pm | #

Get over yourself, jeffy.

As if even the most idiotic atheist would ask YOU rather than God.

He's consistent, you're merely stiff-necked.

But - I've got to note this:

If there are any "atheists" who note your level of blind faith in your own godhood, perhaps they'll take a look at their own hubris.
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 11:14 pm | #

"But - I've got to note this:

If there are any "atheists" who note your level of blind faith in your own godhood, perhaps they'll take a look at their own hubris.
Mark Call "

You seem angry, Mark. And in your anger you mistakenly believe that I claim to set myself up as a god. Yet, I claim to have created nothing.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 11:17 pm | #

Au contraire, jeffy.

You have created a whole scheme of morality, obviously far superior, in said mindset, to the ken of the Creator of the Universe.

You have the hubris to set yourself up as His judge, according to your own Superior Testimony.

Or have you changed your capricious Mind yet again?
Mark Call | 02.12.07 - 11:36 pm | #

If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?

The question is silly. First off, if the "set of communications" is flawless, then there's no reason not to follow it.

Second, God does not command mindless, purposeless murder, which is what this illustrates.
Wes | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 1:03 am | #

Okay, I have a question for jefferson and his own moral system that he has set himself as god of:

Circumstances in your life lead you to the following choice: you must either kill all children under age 5 or your own children will perish (effective the moment you decide not to kill others' kids), or you can kill your own kids. What does your own made-up morality say?
Tallen | 02.13.07 - 1:32 am | #

I'm going to pick on another question, actually. You say:
"If I am correct that my God is the Creator God, that we are all his creations, then killing every child under two on the planet is no more inherently significant than a programmer unilaterally wiping out his AI-bots in a game universe."
I would argue that if I were to create AI-bots with a human level of sentience, there would be as much moral significance to my wiping them out as there would be to God's wiping us out in your example. Why do you disagree?
octopod | 02.13.07 - 1:45 am | #

Space Bunny....As I mentioned before...In my view they do both, depending on what is at stake.

So you're going to stick with the self contradicting stance(like so many other completely moronic things you've said here). Well, I'm not surprised, you have yet to actually answer a direct question with anything other than ducking and dodging, why should this be any different.
Spacebunny | 02.13.07 - 1:58 am | #

Jefferson, when I said to ponder, I was referring to what I had just written, not what I was about to write. To reiterate:

If God is, there may be an objective morality
If God doesn't exist, there is no objective morality
Therefore if there is objective morality, God exists.

That is why consistent atheists deny that morality is objective."

Your response to what I had written was: So tell me then...Is an act that god commands moral because God says so, or does God command an act because it is moral?

Bertrand Russell posed this question, but he also was consistent enough to acknowledge the logic I posed above. That is why he said his morality is just opinion.

As posted previously:

Bertrand Russell: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don’t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

Frederick Copleston: Yes, but what’s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

Bertrand Russell: I don’t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

Frederick Copleston: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

Bertrand Russell: By my feelings.

I could address your question but that is only a diversion. Show that there exists an objective atheist morality or acknowledge that atheist moralities are subjective and therefore just fancy/ feeling/ opinion.

Note your question was actually answered in the link on the earlier post by Earth and All Stars | 02.12.07 - 9:41 am |
bethyada | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 2:30 am | #

Yes, I've heard this claim before. It's quaint.

You've heard it before because it's exactly what you wrote. Just two days ago.
VD | 02.13.07 - 3:10 am | #

...and people wonder where terrorists come from.

It is unbelievably disturbing that religious people feel this way and do not see the inherent evil in their viewpoint. They do not comprehend the irrationality of believing in a Gawd Fairy who would ask you to do things such as kill babies and engage in ethnic cleansing...it boggles my mind that religious people cannot see the truth. These things, these atrocities, are exactly why I walked away from Christianity. My ethical self could not accept the obvious evil displayed by the Abrahamic Gawd...it was not logical that a Gawd would give us the ability to understand proper behavior and yet not follow it himself.

The Abrahamic Gawd Fairy was created by evil men to justify evil actions...and it is still used to do so.
Rayven Alandria | 02.13.07 - 3:42 am | #

to Mark Call,

I thought the reason Jesus cried out, My God, My God why have you forseaken me!, was that he was referencing Psalms 22, which begins, MY God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The entire chapter of Psalm 22 seems to be telling the story of what the New Testament purports to have happened to Jesus.

As I recall, Some where in the Bible it describes people in Hell as being tortured forever in the presence of God, not out of it.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.13.07 - 7:57 am | #

"Space Bunny....As I mentioned before...In my view they do both, depending on what is at stake.

So you're going to stick with the self contradicting stance(like so many other completely moronic things you've said here). Well, I'm not surprised, you have yet to actually answer a direct question with anything other than ducking and dodging, why should this be any different.
Spacebunny"

Spacebunny,

I have a question for you.

ARe you grouchy or are you sweet? Don't give me this, "it depends on how my day goes". Which is it?

LOL...
Jefferson | 02.13.07 - 8:53 am | #

"I could address your question but that is only a diversion. Show that there exists an objective atheist morality or acknowledge that atheist moralities are subjective and therefore just fancy/ feeling/ opinion."

As I've stated before, the atheist's and theists morality are equally subjective. We each, on our own accord, choose the morality that will guide us. Christians choose the bible and add to it this or that or take a way this or that from the bible.

Atheists do the very same thing, perhaps using the bible or other sources to to guide them. The only differnce is one believes in a god, and the other does not
Jefferson | 02.13.07 - 8:57 am | #

"give one universal moral truth by way of reason alone and upon what authority you declare such to be?
Salt "

Lying is wrong.

And I'll lean on Kant and his Categorical Imperative for justification of this particular universal truth.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 9:45 pm | #

You have stated your universal truth based upon reason alone (Kant; arguable) but have yet to state upon what authority you declare such is true.

You may attempt to justify (argue) your position with authority, but authority, by definition, has the final word and is not arguable.
Salt | 02.13.07 - 9:04 am | #

"Okay, I have a question for jefferson and his own moral system that he has set himself as god of:

Circumstances in your life lead you to the following choice: you must either kill all children under age 5 or your own children will perish (effective the moment you decide not to kill others' kids), or you can kill your own kids. What does your own made-up morality say?
Tallen "

This is a question about the value of life. While I disagree with Ford Motor Company that a life is worth about $200,000 in 1971 dollars, I don't believe as others do that a life is of infinite value. That's illogical.

That said, I think you must kill the 2 in order to save the millions (billions?) of children. What this says about my own made up morality is that knowing nothing else about a life other than it is five years old, two of them have more valule than one of them. A billion of them have a billions time more value than 1 of them. You really have no other choice than to apply a utilitarian perspective to the problem.

Now, here's the REALLY interesting thing about VOX and others saying, in my scenario, that they would Kill all children under 2 because God says so: They will do this killing using another utilitarian calculation. Except, in their calculation, it's only themselves that are being saved saved by their actions. That's nasty, immoral business.
Jefferson | 02.13.07 - 9:04 am | #

"Lying is wrong.

And I'll lean on Kant and his Categorical Imperative for justification of this particular universal truth.
Jefferson | 02.12.07 - 9:45 pm | #

You have stated your universal truth based upon reason alone (Kant; arguable) but have yet to state upon what authority you declare such is true.

You may attempt to justify (argue) your position with authority, but authority, by definition, has the final word and is not arguable.
Salt "

It's true that Kant's Categorical Imperative does not always work. Howver, it does prove quite nicely that things like lying and promise keeping are universal truths.

That said, what authority do I point to? None. I need none. One need not have an authority to make a declaration. The power of a declaratiion doesn't rest on who makes it, but the degree to which it is compelling. In this case, the logic behind my declaration is near fullproof as far as I can tell.
Jefferson | 02.13.07 - 9:09 am | #

One need not have an authority to make a declaration. The power of a declaratiion doesn't rest on who makes it, but the degree to which it is compelling. In this case, the logic behind my declaration is near fullproof as far as I can tell.
Jefferson | 02.13.07 - 9:09 am | #

A declaration by you, compelling or not, that something (i.e a moral) is universal, i.e applying also to me as to you, requires authority for its application.

The logic of your declaration is but argument, correct or not, but is not authority.

Try again.
Salt | 02.13.07 - 9:21 am | #

You, sir, exemplify the fact that Atheists as a group are actually more moral than christians as a group, a fact born out by crime statistics and other demographics.

I was brought up in a very devout christian family, attending church several times a week, reading the entire bible -- memorizing some entire books as a member of a quiz team. It is the lack of basic human morality of you and your ilk, and the codification of it in the bible -- the Midianite massacre, David exulting in a psalm about bashing infants heads against a rock -- that caused me to abandon the christianity in which I was raised as being fundamentally irreconcilable with my own sense of morality.

You disgust me.
MJohnston | 02.13.07 - 9:26 am | #

Jefferson, the fact that you recognize that there are universal truths puts your atheism to the lie.

For you to be capable of uttering a universal truth, you must first, at the minimum, be a Deist for truth is not arguable as it is applicable with authority.
Salt | 02.13.07 - 9:41 am | #

"[MJ], are we not friends anymore? For if we were not friends, I don't know that I could bear it." - apologies to Tombstone.
Salt | 02.13.07 - 9:49 am | #

"MC...I thought the reason Jesus cried out, My God, My God why have you forseaken me!, was that he was referencing Psalms 22, which begins, MY God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The entire chapter of Psalm 22 seems to be telling the story..."

No argument, Dr. H. The Bible is in fact very consistent in that regard. (I have heard an excellent teaching that makes the point that one could essentially pick any section at random, and it will essentially tell that story of redemption.)

I find that particular section most telling because of the issue of separation from God. This would be a long story - but, very briefly - the Hebrew word 'qadosh', usually translated as "holy", more specifically means "separated". Sin, in particular rebellion to God, means separation from Him.

When Yeshua 'took the sin of the world' and 'became sin', He endured that separation, so that we might be redeemed.
Mark Call | 02.13.07 - 9:50 am | #

to Mark Call,

One could argue that the bible was put together, End to Beginning, for the most part, making it's history and predictions falsely consistent.
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.13.07 - 10:04 am | #

One could argue ...
Dr. Hodgemunberg | 02.13.07 - 10:04 am | #

Yes, and the ability to argue proves nothing.
Salt | 02.13.07 - 10:13 am | #

Jefferson, I should have said theist, but deist will do.
Salt | 02.13.07 - 10:26 am | #

One could argue that the bible was put together, End to Beginning, for the most part, making it's history and predictions falsely consistent.
Dr. Hodgemunberg

Believe me, Dr. H - I tried. So, perhaps, have you.

Like the rest of His Creation, however, the more I studied, the more that I recognized that the Hand of the Master, in His World and in His Word, was impossible to deny.

May you be blessed with eyes to see,
Mark Call | 02.13.07 - 10:27 am | #

This is a question about the value of life. While I disagree with Ford Motor Company that a life is worth about $200,000 in 1971 dollars, I don't believe as others do that a life is of infinite value. That's illogical.

Not relevant, but raises an interesting point. Pseudo-quoting Johnny Depp in PotC2, "so we've agreed that the concept is sound in principle; now we're just haggling over price." How arbitrary of you. What's to say that your idea of the price of life is the correct one? Will you finally outright admit to declaring yourself a god? Another conclusion that can be drawn from your claim is that since human lives are definable in monetary terms, they really are just random collections of atoms... and again who are you to decide whether it is "right" or "wrong" when they are rearranged in some different fashion.

That said, I think you must kill the 2 in order to save the millions (billions?) of children. What this says about my own made up morality is that knowing nothing else about a life other than it is five years old, two of them have more valule than one of them. A billion of them have a billions time more value than 1 of them. You really have no other choice than to apply a utilitarian perspective to the problem.

Ah so there are limits to your compassion for your family. Interesting. Unfortunately you also use the "one hundred potatoes is one hundred times more valuable than one potato" fallacy, the counterpoint being that humans are not potatoes. Nevermind, I guess you did address this earlier. So what if an individual decided homosexuals were equivalent to rotten potatoes and put them all in a giant blender for disposal; what authority do you have to say they are wrong?

Now, here's the REALLY interesting thing about VOX and others saying, in my scenario, that they would Kill all children under 2 because God says so: They will do this killing using another utilitarian calculation. Except, in their calculation, it's only themselves that are being saved saved by their actions. That's nasty, immoral business.

You demonstrate poor analytical skills here (and poor reading comprehension; I'm pretty sure you didn't fully understand the implications of my question). A Christian would let his children die because killing all the other children in the world would be murder and God said murder is bad. Would that be doing it for ourselves? Or rather doing it for God? Perhaps all the children are saved regardless. What physically happens to you (as a result of others' actions) is, frankly, irrelevant towards your fate in the next life.
Tallen | 02.13.07 - 10:34 am | #

PS - In another thread today, Dr. H, you referenced Jhn 3:16 and Yeshua's sacrifice...

I trust a response here might be less likely to be missed:

Take a look, if you wish, at the sacrificial system outlined in the Torah -- there are many incredible aspects which will only become obvious to you after some sincere study, but which will address your very valid concerns (most that bothered me for a long time, and at least one I still consider only partially resolved).

Start with the lamb of Pesach (which, in hindsight, is obvious). Note that the family was required to take the young lamb in, nuture it for a week, probably become attached to the innocent thing, and then sacrifice it.

Yeshua died (this timeline differs from the 'Church', I know) at 3 PM on a Wednesday, at PRECISELY the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed at the Temple; how could anyone have missed the symbolism? Especially after having practiced the ritual for many generations?

And yet some did, most of us still do.

(How to teach a stubborn dog not to mess the rug? Rub his nose in it.)

When you are able to understand why it was necessary for us "stiff-necked" but free-willed folks to be taught in such a difficult way, the Truth of the Bible will begin to fall into place.
Mark Call | 02.13.07 - 10:36 am | #

ARe you grouchy or are you sweet? Don't give me this, "it depends on how my day goes". Which is it?

I am sweet. All of the time. See how easy it is to actually answer a question. I'm sure you do it if you just try hard enough.
Spacebunny | 02.13.07 - 10:37 am | #

Now, you try it.
Spacebunny | 02.13.07 - 10:38 am | #

The power of a declaratiion doesn't rest on who makes it, but the degree to which it is compelling.

Oh really? So anyone who is not compelled by your moral system is therefore exempt from judgement from you? Yet why are you judging Christians if they do not follow your moral system if your authority does not play a role? And this "compelling" bit, is that merely an extension of doing something because of an emotional reaction? Seems so.
Tallen | 02.13.07 - 10:39 am | #

God would be proud of you. In fact, this is just the sort of thing God writes about on His blog. Someone should contact Him about this.
Quetzalcoatl | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 10:52 am | #

>As to your emotional comment, Vox is not hiding behind anything, he is following the logic to its correct conclusion, but I'm sure that escapes you.

The logic is only correct if the assumptions are correct. Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
Ellis | 02.13.07 - 12:30 pm | #

>Okay, I have a question for jefferson and his own moral system that he has set himself as god of:

Premise: All morals flow from a god.

Conclusion: If someone invents their own morals, they are acting as a god.

Logical, but still based on a flawed premise.
Ellis | 02.13.07 - 12:35 pm | #

Wrong flawed premise, Ellis.

There are many others, most of them better than your proposition.
Mark Call | 02.13.07 - 1:32 pm | #

Well, we can stop arguing about this now. God himself has responded on His blog:

God: Would You Massacre Children For Me?

It pleases Him to find such willing soldiers of His will in the Christian community. With all the suicide attacks of late, I think He was getting a little jealous of Allah, and this post really cheered Him up.
Quetzalcoatl | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 1:47 pm | #

How do you know it's God, and not an imposter?

Would you be absolutely confident that the correct response wouldn't be to refuse?

If it's OK for you to kill my toddler "because God commanded me to", is it OK for me to kill yours because MY God commanded me to?

If you'd kill because you "just followed orders", can you call yourself a genuine moral agent, or merely a dog on a leash?
Ackroyd | 02.13.07 - 3:02 pm | #

Also, if you'd kill in order to guarantee an eternity of happiness for yourself, doesn't your morality boil down to "what benefits me in the long run"?
Ackroyd | 02.13.07 - 3:09 pm | #

Let's ask a harder question: What if God commanded you to rape little girls in front of their parents, while whistling, would you obey?

And if you did, what are the odds you'd spend eternity feeling ashamed of yourself?
Ackroyd | 02.13.07 - 3:38 pm | #

Either you guys can't read or you're liars. Which one is it?
superninja | 02.13.07 - 4:19 pm | #

>Either you guys can't read or you're liars. Which one is it?

When did you stop beating your wife?
Ellis | 02.15.07 - 11:08 am | #

It is claimed that the moral judgements of non-theists are without foundation. What makes them less well-founded than the judgement of the theist that his/her choice of Holy Book is a/the source of certainty? Saying that it is that very book is pretty obviously circular.

What compels the conclusion that there is *any* such certainty as to the fundamental nature of reality? I say we will never arrive at certainty via logic, because logic only tells you whether p->q, not whether p is true. Eventually, tracing back, you get to an unproven axiom (or more than one) or to a circularity.

We can arrive at a subjective state of certainty, sure, by allowing ourselves to be confused by tricky verbiage. Not the same thing.

The Bible/Koran/FSM says what it says. An individual, a living, conscious being, decides whether or not to believe it. He/she can try to convince others. But believing it doesn't *make* it true.

Now, here's my own unproven assertion: the conventional improbability of what you believe doesn't equate to any kind of moral "heavy lifting." It doesn't make you better, or indicate that you *are* better, to believe things that are contrary to experience.

To get back to the original question, if God told me to murder a bunch of children, I'd have to conclude either that I'd gone nuts or that there'd been a coup in Heaven and that it was incumbent on me to join the Resistance. That situation would make anyone with a moral sense wish *desperately* for certainty, but I'm telling you there is no such thing, not objectively.

-F.
Fingal | 02.15.07 - 7:35 pm | #

Amazing. You're fairly rational for a person who is farking insane.

God is a human invention due to emotional insecurity. We all want answers. and we've all been put in a sandbox to play. But the difference between "pro science" types and religious types is that the "pro science" types dig through the sandbox to find their answers while the religious types just day dream up the answers that make them feel the best.

I disagree with your final statement. Science types are MUCH more stable than folks based in emotional "facts".
Jesus | 02.17.07 - 3:38 pm | #

First 'jefferson', now 'jesus'. Neither one of 'em seems to have the slightest clue about why most of the knee-jerk "ideas" they espouse would be anathema to their 'namesakes'.

As for the ridiculous "pro-science" vs. "religious" dichotomy -- it is almost as laughable as the misnomers.

It probably never occured to neo-jesus that there exist a great number of us preliminarily "pro-science" types who have come to know Truth. Oh, and it didn't require religiousity, only a mind able to recognize and accept new (to us) data.

Stabilize on that.
Mark Call | 02.17.07 - 6:43 pm | #

Vox, you are fucking insane. Screw your God! Christianity is fucking lunacy.
Mark | 02.21.07 - 2:08 am | #

This entire post proves that most Christians can't seem to form a coherent idea of what is "moral" either. Abraham was going to slit his son's stomach open without a second thought. Polygamy in the Old Testament was winked at, and given the fact that talking back to one's parents earned one a public stoning, I fail to see how God cared either way about it. Elisha cursed children so that bears tore them up. Why? Making fun of his receding hairline! "Righteous" man Lot knocked up his daughters while drunk after trying to pimp them off to a mob as cheap booty. "Wise" Solomon had several thousand concubines. King David was a murderer. Human slavery was condoned (and there are still batty Christians today who think it's A-OK!).

All these things are defended. Then, a new day comes and *poof*! ... what is "good" is entirely different! Heavens knows what tomorrow will bring! God may change His mind! Perhaps He'll recommend that we will eat each other's brains! Why, then THAT will be good too!

I'll stick with secular humanism. At least it's consistent.
Todd | 02.22.07 - 12:30 am | #

You can be like God.

You will not die.

Also consistent, just like the SH religion; coincidentally, from the same source.
Mark Call | 02.23.07 - 10:57 am | #

Mark, the God of the Bible endorses the following:

a) Slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46)
b) Rape (Judges 21:10-24)
c) Human sacrifice (Genesis 22:1-18)
d) Murder of women who are not virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
e) Infanticide (Isaiah 13:15-18)
f) Implicit endorsement of polygamy (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
g) Killing children who tease a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24) (so much for Christian "longsuffering" and "patience", right?)

Now, are you sure you want to take the moral high ground here? Are you suggesting that there's a coherent moral code to be arrived at using Scripture?

If so, I'd be THRILLED if you could provide us with one, because after excising the brutal, nasty parts of the Bible, you'd be left with something that could fit on a cocktail napkin.
Todd | 02.23.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Since I don't think many of you really have the imagination to understand the implications of your beliefs, here's a video of a public stoning in Iran: http://www.apostatesofislam.com/ ...oning.htm#video

I don't think it's quite clear or graphic enough, but perhaps you'll get the point.

This is the same thing carried out in the Old Testament for the following "sins":
a) For entering the temple as a "stranger" (Numbers 1:51)
b) for following another "religion" (Exodus 22:20)
c) working on a Saturday (Exodus 35:2)
d) manufacturing anointing oil (Exodus 30:33)
e) Gluttony (Deuteronomy 21:20)

This is the Judeo-Christian tradition we should all be proud of, indeed.
Todd | 02.24.07 - 6:50 pm | #

Mark, the God of the Bible endorses the following...

No. Your inability to read with comprehension doesn't mean that any of those bogus conclusions follow.

Nothing here merits any more response, Todd. I just didn't want you to think the inanity hadn't been READ; merely ignored.
Mark Call | 02.26.07 - 12:24 am | #

And good grief, Todd. "implicit endorsement of polygamy" is pretty lame, as well as obtuse.

God does not have to 'implicity endorse' that which He expressly provides rules for!

But the point has been made. You can't -- or WON'T -- read it for understanding.

AND - the 'coherent moral code' can in fact be summarized on a cocktail napkin (and every honest reader of this post knows exactly what I mean), but you evidently didn't get it, even with the extra thousand pages or so.
Mark Call | 02.26.07 - 12:34 am | #

Mark,
You seem to be saying that there is this consensus about morality, as if Scripture were unambiguous about God's desires. Yet, the whole premise of this original post is that morality is dependent entirely on the will (and the whims) of God and that He may (and frequently does) ask for us to do things that run contrary to even what Scripture states are the ideals of morality. He commands something in one passage only to throw those commands out the window in the next.

We are told not to murder, yet God asks Abraham to slice open the stomach of his son, and Abraham seems only too willing to oblige. Instead of being rebuked for his readiness to commit an atrocity against an innocent boy, Abraham is lauded for his faith! We take it for granted that slavery is a moral evil, that taking a man against his will and forcing him to work without pay and without dignity is an affront to someone made in the image and likeness of God. Yet, slavery is nowhere condemned, and there are even specifications regarding its use (Exodus 21:7).
We are told that God expects nothing but fidelity between one man and one woman for life, yet in a time when the death penalty was exacted for the smallest infraction, where is the explicit condemnation of polygamy in Scripture? Instead, we have those like Solomon labeled as "wise" while simultaneously keeping over several thousand wives and concubines! We also have passages like 2 Samuel 12:8 ("And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.") Here, the Lord would have been happy to provide David with even MORE women, had he asked.

So what you seem to be saying is that "Today, it's immoral for me to beat my wife. Ask me again tomorrow, for He may request that I do as such."

Sure, there are some noble thoughts and lovely concepts in Scripture, but they're far outnumbered by the atrocious ones, so I'm sorry if I cannot derive a consistent body of ethics from this book.
Todd | 02.26.07 - 10:39 pm | #

[MC] You seem to be saying that there is this consensus about morality, as if Scripture were unambiguous about God's desires.

Not really, Todd. There doesn't have to be a 'consensus' at all. And it's not God's desires that are unambiguous (or even always within our ken) - it's His commands to us.

He commands something in one passage only to throw those commands out the window in the next.

Again, not at all. He is making a point, about "discernment". Let's take your example for (an excellent) illustration:

We are told not to murder, yet God asks Abraham to slice open the stomach of his son, and Abraham seems only too willing to oblige.

And THIS is what is so awesome about Scripture, and, yes, Abraham's faith - because that is the point! Study the story in detail sometime - note that Sarah is NOT aware of his plans (why?)

Abraham KNOWS that what he has been asked is not only a violation of the Law (which he WAS taught, before Moses), but an apparent violation of God's SPECIFIC promise to him, through that son. He knows God; he knows how to resolve the apparent conflict, at least in concept. He KNOWS that God will honor His promise!

The more I study that story, and others like it, the more I can imagine what Abraham felt that day; not fear, or anxiety, but excitement. How would God do it? Would he bring Isaac back to life, or miraculously stay Abraham's hand? THAT is faith; actions based on a knowing of His character.

As for your last two examples, I'll refer you past threads where I have commented on both at length:

We take it for granted that slavery is a moral evil...

-- an error --

...that taking a man against his will and forcing him to work without pay and without dignity is an affront to someone made in the image and likeness of God. Yet, slavery is nowhere condemned, and there are even specifications...

Correct. "Those who will not serve God, will serve tyrants," was a good synopsis of the lesson there. I argue frequently that modern State slavery is the real abomination, and that being a bondservant to Him is not merely better, but how to be free indeed. Study the rules for Hebrew slavery - the essence of the concept is that an indentured servant needs teaching, and the master is required to teach him how to be free, in a limited (max 7 year) time period.

The apparent contradiction? In order to be free, we must learn obedience - to Him.

Finally, polygyny:
We are told that God expects nothing but fidelity between one man and one woman for life...

-- NOWHERE are we told this!

...where is the explicit condemnation of polygamy in Scripture?

I have written at length on this "Big Lie", Todd, and posted multiple links.

The Bible consistently allows a man to have more than one covenant marriage. There are multiple specific rules in Torah that make this clear; twice (via the prophets) God refers to Himself as a polygynist.

The worship of "monogamy" is the problem, Todd. It is inconsistent with His rules for marriage in many ways, and a violation of the commandment not to "add to" His Word. So many things (apparent redundancy in the incest prohibitions, for example) simply don't make sense - unless you read it correctly AS A CONSISTENT WHOLE.

What God actually WROTE about polygyny, Todd, as opposed to what I had been TOLD it said, was one of the three main things which finally convinced me to read and study the Bible for MYSELF. If you read Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount, you'll see the same theme:
You have HEARD it said...but I tell you...

He was reaffirming what He Himself Wrote, and tearing down the "burdens" added by men "because of [their] traditions."

The Bible is VERY consistent, and it really IS God's Word. The way to see that, I contend, is to be, like Moses, humble enough to be teachable.

He will show you, if you ask.
Mark Call | 02.27.07 - 10:09 pm | #

Well, I appreciate your honesty, Mark, and I'm sure that most of the heterosexual male population will be thrilled to know that God approves of "serial monogamy" and polygamy.

You're sort of underlining my point, though. Much of modern, orthodox (little "o") Christianity finds polygamy immoral, whether they be Calvinist or Catholic. I know they're reading the same Bible you are, so either the Spirit is whispering contrary things in everyone's ear, or what is "moral" is not as easily agreed upon as people think (which was my initial premise).

I'm not sure what you were saying about slavery. Most Christians will at least publicly reject it as immoral, although some literalists seem to say that because it's "not in the Bible" it's all okay (as I think you were). Well, the Bible says a lot of things. It says that it's okay to throw stones at a woman who was raped until she'd dead. God's logic? The slut should have cried out louder so she probably wanted it anyway (Deut. 22:23-24). The Lord has obviously never had His purse snatched in Manhattan where bellowing through a bullhorn will elicit little more than annoyance from passers-by.

I don't know. I don't consider such ideas all that enlightened. Do you?
Todd | 02.28.07 - 10:07 pm | #

Too many errors in the above, Todd:

...God approves of "serial monogamy" and polygamy.

Absolutely not. "Serial monogamy" is a violation of His Word; the evil tradition which is NOT approved. Don't confuse them -- He doesn't.

Likewise, "I know they're reading the same Bible you are". No, the key word is reading. They're not; I challenge YOU to.

The same thing applies to slavery, Todd. What I'm "saying about slavery" is that modern Amerikans are essentially slaves, whether they know it or not. Do they own their land, their children, or themselves? Space here does not permit the extensive list of tribute and indignities demanded by the prince of this world, of the New Big Brother. "Let those who falsely believe they are free, rattle their chains."

I love my Master, and I know Who I serve.

I don't consider what post-Bill of Rights Amerika calls "freedom" to be even remotely 'enlightened', much less truly free.

All I've been trying to say ultimately boils down to "don't believe what you've heard", or what your slave master tells you.

You can easily check out for yourself what I tell you the Bible says about polygyny. You will find there many examples, including God Himself, NOWHERE that it is prohibited, and no less (with some study) than two places where it is potentially REQUIRED.

If so many 'churches' and bureaucrats have been lying to you for so long, it's worth your while to check out what the Truth really is.
Mark Call | 02.28.07 - 11:12 pm | #

How come God never tells people to have an ice cream, or indulge in some gay sex? It's always, smiting, smiting, smiting with this guy...

GOD: Rush out and kill some people!
MAN: Yes, SIR!

One gets the impression somehow that humans are trying to avoid responsibility for their own actions here...

PS What WOULD you do if God told you to try gay sex?
badnewswade | Homepage | 03.03.07 - 6:33 am | #

Know it was the Other Guy.
Mark Call | 03.05.07 - 9:41 pm | #

Only a made up god would ask something really stupid of you like that. :)
troyboy | 07.17.07 - 12:29 am | #

Abraham's obedience to God was disobedience to the Law, defined as Sin, or "missing the Mark".
Even Abraham screwed up once in a while. If you get a clear message from God asking you to kill someone, then the wrong god is talking to you.
Soulgazer | 09.13.07 - 4:59 pm | #

luxury watches
replica chanel
replice omega
luxury watches | Homepage | 11.02.09 - 11:30 pm | #

Replica watches
louis vuitton handbags
IWC watch
luxury watches | Homepage | 11.02.09 - 11:31 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan