The source of morality for theists and atheists

[ewmon]

This should clear up several issues. Any Christian bashing here exclusively using the Old Testament is invalid. Christ preached love above all else. If you don't read the OT in light of the New Testament, then you can't use the OT to bash Christians.

 

And what other Christians do, whether they live elsewhere or lived at a previous time, can't be used to bash me. It's just a waste of the poster's time. That's one nice thing about Christianity ... I'm only responsible for what I do or don't do, everyone is likewise responsible for themselves, and I cannot be held responsible for what anyone else does. But that's the Christian perspective. So-called atheists are doing some bashing here about Christians who are not here, obviously, or who are long dead. That's like bashing modern Americans for the African slave trade. Sorry, we didn't do it, and you can't hold us accountable for supposedly having done it. You're about 150 years too late.

 

What's obvious here is a lot of anger from atheists who aren't as much "atheists" (ie, without theism) as they are "antitheists" (against theism). So the least they should do is admit to this reality.

 

Here's an example of the difference between the two.

 

Atheist —

I grew up in a theist family — Christian, actually — and I remember going to church every Sunday. My parents were big into the Bible and all that stuff. Maybe, with having a big family, they needed others to help teach us kids morality. They still are members of a church, maybe because they were all their lives or maybe they see the end of their live so close.

 

I feel that I've learned about morality from life itself. No one calls me evil or wicked, I'm kind to others, I'm open to accepting the progress of humanity, and I seem to be able to handle life's problems quite well. But I'm not religious, and I don't believe that any sort of "god" or other so-called "supernatural" being or force exists. I certainly don't agree with the violence in the Bible committed by "God" or committed under the direction of "God" or as a commandment from "God".

 

Some people feel they need religion, and some feel that they don't. I don't need religion.

 

Antitheist —

I grew up in a theist family — Christian, actually — and I remember going to church every Sunday. I remember reading about God's anger and violent behavior and "commandments" from the Bible. It's all evil and it must come to an end.

 

I get my morality from life itself. Most of what Christianity has done is create anger, violence and misery in the world. I can produce a long list of evils that Christians are responsible for down through the ages. As such, Christianity must be wiped out, and I fully support this effort. The sooner Christianity is irradiated, the sooner commonsense and true humanity can prevail, and the quicker the world can be healed from the ravages that Christianity has caused.

 

The other religions will also be wiped out, so Jews and Muslims and all you others watch out, get out of our way, because we're coming to destroy your religions too. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Moontanman]

This should clear up several issues. Any Christian bashing here exclusively using the Old Testament is invalid. Christ preached love above all else. If you don't read the OT in light of the New Testament, then you can't use the OT to bash Christians.

 

 

No problem, The New Testament will do nicely...

 

Let me get this straight, the old testament can be ignored then? Nothing the old testament says has to be followed?

 

Yes or no?

Edited February 18, 2013 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

This should clear up several issues. Any Christian bashing here exclusively using the Old Testament is invalid. Christ preached love above all else. If you don't read the OT in light of the New Testament, then you can't use the OT to bash Christians.

Christ said that the OT was valid.

Matthew 5:17-18

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

 

On what basis do you say he was wrong?

[ewmon]

Because we are very off topic, I may as well post this here instead of a new thread. Some people here are more interested in "invariant interpretation" (which is not a part of this thread) than "invariant source" (which is a part of this thread), and other people are ignorant of the New Testament, and other people simply want to bash Christians.

 

So, hey, let's bash some a[nti]theists.

 

Doing science

You are a Raw Materials QC Scientist, and you receive a shipment of a product. You open the package and read the CoA which states that the vendor tested the product and found it to be within the nominal range of 5.00±0.05. It doesn't matter what the product is; it could be a chemical standard of 5.0 concentration, it could be 5Ω resistors, 5.0 diopter lenses, etc. You place several samples of the product into the analyzer, and you observe that they all read 0.00 (that is, zero). So, you circle the "5.00±0.05" on the CoA and you write next to it ""Value confirmed by Raw Materials QC Lab" and then you sign and date it.

What's wrong with this little episode? Yes, the reality of the product did not support what the CoA claimed, and yet you stated that you confirmed the CoA's wrong values. Your lab manager reviews your work, checks the product you tested, and realizes that they are all labeled "0.00". He quickly realizes that the source lab enclosed the wrong CoA with the product, and that you had drawn the wrong conclusion through inattentiveness.

This is bad science on your part.

 

What do we repeatedly hear from a[nti]theists here?

* Christians want to stone children to death!

* Christians want to burn gays alive!

* Christians want to enslave people!

* Christians want to murder witches!

 

All, it seems, with much hand wringing and overblown theatrics, including large and/or bold fonts. At the same time, anyone would be hard pressed to have observed one instance of any of these horrific activities happening either in their lives or on the news, etc. But do these a[nti]theists bother to ask a Christian why none of them are perpetrating any of these horrific acts? No, they don't ... they go on blindly believing that Christians secretly want to do these things based on what could be jocularly called the A[nti]theist Version of the Da Vinci Code. Sad, very sad.

 

If these a[nti]theists honestly and sincerely believe that they have corrected interpreted the Bible in that Christians secretly intend to perpetrate these horrific acts, then they should be contacting all sorts of non-governmental organizations, from their local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, their local Wiccan, up to the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as governmental entities, from their local Police Departments, up through their state's Department of Children and Families, their Governor, the US Attorney General, the US President, and even the United Nations. Or at least they could be one of those Internet personas who create websites that expose conspiracy theories ("I have made a new and enlightening interpretation of the Bible and have found Biblical messages that command Christians to commit all sorts of unthinkable atrocities.").

 

But do a[nti]theists perform any of these honorable acts — if they care so much about their fellow humans as they claim they do? If they have the correct morality? I want to hear from you. Call in, the phone lines are open. This is Tom Ashbrook, and you're listening to On Point. (just kidding )

 

Seriously though, any of you, have you contacted any NGO or any government official or agency about your "correct" interpretation of the Bible about what it supposedly commands Christians to do (otherwise they burn in hell for eternity)? And, if you have, what has been the response?

[Prometheus]

Surely part the problem is the assumption that Christians and atheists are homogeneous groups. Christians range from the Westboro baptist church to the 'Church of England i suppose'. Atheists have a similar, perhaps slightly wider, spread. I don't have any demographics to back this up, but i think most people would find this uncontentious?

 

The difference is though that while atheists acknowledge they may have differences in their morality, and so have to sit down together and talk about their differences to reach resolution, Christians believe they have access to an 'invariant' source of morality. The problem comes when Christians start have differences in morality between themselves. It means the bible is not so obvious in its description of morality and requires interpretation. If it requires interpretation, regardless of whether god really is the source of morality, Christians are in the same boat as atheists - trying to figure it for themselves. It's not such a bad boat to be in.

[John Cuthber]

"What do we repeatedly hear from a[nti]theists here?

* Christians want to stone children to death!
* Christians want to burn gays alive!
* Christians want to enslave people!
* Christians want to murder witches!"

Nope, we don't hear that do we? It's a stawman and, as such a breach of the rules.

It's also an insult and so it's another breach of the rules.

.

What you hear from the atheists is that most Christians don't want to do those things.

So they don't.

But they do want to claim that they get their moral guidance from a book which says they should.

Which is absurd.

 

What we are saying is that Christians don't follow the teachings of the Bible, but they claim that they do.

 

In many cases, they have been misled. They think that the Old testament was "replaced" by the new one. They ignore the fact that such an interpretation means that God must have got it wrong for 2000 years or so, and they ignore the fact that the teachings of Christ (i.e. Christianity) include "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

i.e. that OT still stands.

All those silly things about stoning people to death are still part of Christianity- because Christ said so.

Most Christians ignore them (thankfully).

In doing so they do not follow the teachings of Christ.

So they are not really Christians.

 

It's not a matter of "they are closet wannabe child murderers" It's a matter of they are misguided, dishonest or hypocrites,

Edited February 21, 2013 by John Cuthber

[SamBridge]

 

Atheists caused plenty of wars, punished gays, etc. Shintoist Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. A Buddhist monk famously immolated himself. So they are as "bad".

The argument is not how bad atheists or any group seems, the statement that is being argued against is that you cannot have morals without religion. Regions can justify killing innocent people, yet do not think of themselves as immoral, so the fact that non-religious or atheists also do those things should not be a problem in determining if they have any morals.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[iNow]

Also, I'd like to know where do people who do not believe in unicorns get their morals? Another perplexing mystery to me is where do people who do not believe in Zeus get their morals?

[Moontanman]

 

you had drawn the wrong conclusion through inattentiveness.

This is bad science on your part.

 

Projection?

 

This is bad science on your part.

 

What do we repeatedly hear from a[nti]theists here?

* Christians want to stone children to death

* Christians want to burn gays alive!

* Christians want to enslave people!

* Christians want to murder witches!

 

you infallible book of moral values says you should...

 

All, it seems, with much hand wringing and overblown theatrics, including large and/or bold fonts. At the same time, anyone would be hard pressed to have observed one instance of any of these horrific activities happening either in their lives or on the news, etc. But do these a[nti]theists bother to ask a Christian why none of them are perpetrating any of these horrific acts? No, they don't ... they go on blindly believing that Christians secretly want to do these things based on what could be jocularly called the A[nti]theist Version of the Da Vinci Code. Sad, very sad.

 

It hasn't been that long since they stopped ewmon killing each other over religious differences, a witch was tortured and burned in New Genii (sp?) just a couple weeks ago, a few years ago a 4 yo was beaten to death by the pastor of his church to try and drive out a demon... I bet I could go on for quite a time if I wanted to keep searching but it would be pointless because they don't believe the way you believe... exactly... ewmon, what you experience as christianity is the gelded version, christianity unchained has led to some of the most

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/papua-new-guinea-witch-burning_n_2709968.html

 

i don't have a link to the death of the boy but it happened here in my town... i remember it well....

 

If these a[nti]theists honestly and sincerely believe that they have corrected interpreted the Bible in that Christians secretly intend to perpetrate these horrific acts, then they should be contacting all sorts of non-governmental organizations, from their local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, their local Wiccan, up to the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as governmental entities, from their local Police Departments, up through their state's Department of Children and Families, their Governor, the US Attorney General, the US President, and even the United Nations. Or at least they could be one of those Internet personas who create websites that expose conspiracy theories ("I have made a new and enlightening interpretation of the Bible and have found Biblical messages that command Christians to commit all sorts of unthinkable atrocities.").

 

But do a[nti]theists perform any of these honorable acts — if they care so much about their fellow humans as they claim they do? If they have the correct morality? I want to hear from you. Call in, the phone lines are open. This is Tom Ashbrook, and you're listening to On Point. (just kidding )

 

Seriously though, any of you, have you contacted any NGO or any government official or agency about your "correct" interpretation of the Bible about what it supposedly commands Christians to do (otherwise they burn in hell for eternity)? And, if you have, what has been the response?

 

our secular laws prevent Christians from enforcing those uncomfortable to justify rules and moral demands like they used to....so sad to see the pires go away, a good barbecued protestant/catholic/wiccan/native shaman ymmm.... give me a break

[menageriemanor]

I think the reference to an atheist doing something that feels 'good' has been assumed to be hedonistic, as in enjoyable. I'm pretty sure it refers to doing something we recognise as 'good', or kindly, recognising it, and feeling a certain pride and pleasure in recognising that RATHER than the amoral fixation on desire and pleasure, of immediate gain, pleasure is gained from the imagined pleasure of the person who lost something, (often presuming no hope of someone being kind, empathetic enough, to go to the trouble of handing it in or searching for the owner), gets when they get their precious something/cash back.

 

As an atheist, I rely a great deal on empathy. I get pleasure (help! I've done something to my text, have no idea what, am computer illiterate. What do I press to reverse?) from the unexpected pleasure I see on mostly old people's faces, when I do kindly, useful or generous things, but my main obsession is animal rescue, funded from my own money, no publicity or thanks. My pay off is seeing animal personalities blossoming, fear replaced by playful joy and the animal's ablity to relax, feel it can do as it likes, never have to look over it's shoulder, never feel hungry.

 

I must say, I am still in shock, over the complacent belief of someone on a science forum that homosexuality should be treated so. Quite apart from the vileness, the clearly established homosexuality in so many animal and bird species, makes the argument that it's a wilful rebellion for anyone to be gay a complete nonsense, (ie if animals don't have free will - or intelligence, I'm informed by Christions, to inwardly rebel over their sexual preference, then IF a God produced them so, and is infallible, then it has to have been deliberately done). So to disapprove of gays in species, is to criticise your god.

 

I don't think a day goes past, that I don't think of Alan Turing, even for a split second, on a busy day, and not wish I could change history. For every well known tragedy, there may well be a million unknown tragedies. When the relatively large numbers of homosexuals of such talent and intelligence are known to educated people, the idea of the religious wanting them to, or complacently accepting, that they die/eternally suffer, leaves me reflecting that I HAVE had religion briefly in my life, but luckily, I felt and smelt it on my boots, and managed to wipe it all off before I walked it inside.

[ewmon]

Moontanman, I said the OT must be read in light of the NT.

 

 

 

On bashing Christians by not doing science

 

The Christian bashers aren't "doing science" when they bash Christians. They interpret the Bible (the "CoA"), then they observe the Christians (the "product") and notice that the Christians do not exhibit the characteristics specified by the bashers' interpretation of the Bible. Do they interrogate the Christians to try to understand why, or do they continue to proclaim their interpretation of the Bible as true? The bashers ignore their own empirical data and they accept their interpretation of the CoA. Bad science.

 

The Christians are the ones who base their life (and their eternal afterlife) on the Bible. The bashers do not (plus, they don't believe in an afterlife). Who's more likely to read it correctly — who has more at stake? (This is not rocket science.)

 

Again, why aren't the bashers notifying NGO's, the legal authorities, Christian church leaders, the Pope, etc. They should tell people of the supposed dangers of having these books around — someone could read it correctly (allegedly) and start stoning their kids, burning witches, raining fire and brimstone down on homosexuals, etc.

 

 

 

On Slavery (because at least one person seemed to criticize me for not knowing about slavery)

 

Forms of slavery existed apart from the Atlantic slave trade, which remains such a focal point for many Americans.

 

In ancient Rome, if a slave pleased the pater familias enough, he could raise the slave to the status of a “son”, complete with inheritance. If an actual son displeased the pater familias enough, he could reduce the son to the status of a “slave”, including selling him. (source: Ancient Law, Maine, 1861)

 

In many nations, slavery involving debts was known as debt bondage, debt slavery, bonded labor and pawnship. Keep in mind that becoming insolvent was, a couple of centuries ago, considered almost a criminal act; that is, promising payments that the person knew he couldn't make. Bankruptcy was a quasi-criminal proceeding against the person. (source: Black's Law Dictionary)

 

In antiquity, soldiers went into battle knowing that they might be killed in battle or captured, and if captured, they might be executed or enslaved.

 

Now, to revisit the Atlantic slave trade. This chapter in the history of slavery began with Europeans and Americans buying prisoners of war as a result of the endemic fighting among African nations.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, I said the OT must be read in light of the NT.

 

yes, i understand that and yet Jesus said we had to follow the old testament rules, why do you keep ignoring that?

[ewmon]

yes, i understand that and yet Jesus said we had to follow the old testament rules, why do you keep ignoring that?

 

I really don’t want to evangelize here.

 

I think you said that you were raised in the faith. Were you ever threatened with, for example, being stoned for being a disobedient child? I highly doubt it, or at least, I hope not.

First of all, Jesus took away the sins of the world. Not just sins by Christians or former Christians, but all sin. So, how could a Christian parent, for example, stone a child to death for disobedience? It doesn’t fit the overall Christian faith.

 

Someone who sincerely believes in Christ, believes that God alone punishes the unrepentant sinner, maybe not in this life, but definitely by — or on — judgment day. The New Testament is chock full of talk about love, forgiveness and giving. Our job is to love; God will punish.

 

I think you’re referring to Matthew 5:17-18.

 

Christ says that he hasn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. The Law being the first five books (ie, the Torah) of the OT; the Prophets pretty much meaning the rest of the OT. Remember, at his time, the OT was all the scriptures there were.

 

By “fulfilling” the Law and the Prophets, Christ means that his purpose was to fulfill all the prophetic statements of the OT about the Messiah, and that all such prophecies in the OT point to him. Christ has already done so.

 

When all of Matthew 5 is read, we find Christ’s fulfillment statement sandwiched in between the “Blessed are the meek … Blessed are the merciful … Blessed are the peacemakers” types of extolments prior to verses 17 and 18, and the statements afterward of,

 

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire”

as well as

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”

 

and also

 

"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”

and

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

 

So, this alternate interpretation would be contradictory that — in the middle of encouraging us to be to be meek, to be merciful and to be peacemakers, to not be angry, to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek to go the extra mile, etc — Christ basically mentions that, oh by the way, if your kid disobeys you, stone the brat to death. (It's even sinful to think of a child as a "brat".)

 

This alternate interpretation would be a non-sequitor both within Matthew 5 and relative to Christ’s overall extolling of Christians to be loving, giving and forgiving.

[John Cuthber]

"First of all, Jesus took away the sins of the world. Not just sins by Christians or former Christians, but all sin. So, how could a Christian parent, for example, stone a child to death for disobedience? It doesn’t fit the overall Christian faith."

It fits perfectly: that's exactly what it says in the OT and is reinforced in the NT when Jesus says that all the laws of the OT still apply.

 

"Someone who sincerely believes in Christ, believes that God alone punishes the unrepentant sinner, maybe not in this life, but definitely by — or on — judgment day. The New Testament is chock full of talk about love, forgiveness and giving. Our job is to love; God will punish."

 

And yet, as has been pointed out, the old laws of the OT still apply; so the "an eye for an eye " still holds true.

 

 

And Christ also points out, in respect of

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire”

So, you are screwed, because anger is part of the human condition (God-given condition and consistent with being part of God's image since God is noted for getting his knickers in a twist and, for example, sending floods + plagues)

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”

So, once again God (who made you think like that) has screwed you over again.

 

"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”

So, once again, it's "don't do as I do: Do as I tell you" from God.

 

"So, this alternate interpretation would be contradictory that — in the middle of encouraging us to be to be meek, to be merciful and to be peacemakers, to not be angry, to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek to go the extra mile, etc — Christ basically mentions that, oh by the way, if your kid disobeys you, stone the brat to death."

So, God, through Christ, reminds us that He doesn't want us to behave in the way that He does (and, made in his image, the way we tend to behave) under threat of eternal damnation.

So, H's a total shit.

That's perfectly consistent with telling us- "By the way, I wasn't joking about stoning the kids to death".

 

 

The interpretation that when Christ said that the OT stands, he meant that the OT stands, is perfectly consistent.

What's inconsistent is that there's any love involved.

 

Why do you insist on pretending the Christ meant something other than what he said?

He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

 

Why do you not accept that he didn't change the old laws: the OT laws (stoning etc) were not abolished?

 

If he had meant to change the law (i.e. to say that God had previously got it wrong, which is "interesting") Why not say so?

Why, in particular, say the exact opposite?

[ewmon]

John Cuthber

 

Ewmon

 

It fits perfectly: that's exactly what it says in the OT and is reinforced in the NT when Jesus says that all the laws of the OT still apply.

 

Why do you insist on pretending the Christ meant something other than what he said? He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

 

The interpretation that when Christ said that the OT stands, he meant that the OT stands, is perfectly consistent. What's inconsistent is that there's any love involved.

 

Why do you not accept that he didn't change the old laws: the OT laws (stoning etc) were not abolished?

 

Jesus fulfilled the laws and the prophecies. He said to love God, love your neighbor and love your enemies.

And yet, as has been pointed out, the old laws of the OT still apply; so the "an eye for an eye " still holds true.

 

As an aside that has nothing to do with Christianity, it is understood among historical and legal scholars that, in ancient times, the legal principle of "an eye for an eye" actually limited the punishment for a crime to the damage caused by that crime instead of previous, more brutal punishments. For example, instead of hacking off a guy's hand who had hacked off someone's finger, the authorities would only hack off the guy's finger. As odd as it may seem at first, the legal principle of "an eye for an eye" is similar to the Golden Rule, but applied after the fact instead of before the fact.

Christians don't recognize" an eye for an eye " as "law", and they don't practice it. Empirical data should not be ignored.

 

So, you are screwed, because anger is part of the human condition

 

Not screwed because we (you too) can control our emotions and rise above our animal selves for the most part, but for Christians (and some others), there's forgiveness.

 

So, once again, it's "don't do as I do: Do as I tell you" from God.

 

Exactly, we are not God. Similarly, in America, we agree to submit ourselves to the government's authority, and the government can tax citizens, seize their property through imminent domain, try them for crimes, convict them, imprison them, execute them, wage wars, make laws, etc; whereas citizens such as you and I cannot legally do such things.

 

If he had meant to change the law (i.e. to say that God had previously got it wrong, which is "interesting") Why not say so? Why, in particular, say the exact opposite?

 

God didn't get it wrong, but he has helped his people to understand the reality of life, step by step. We must know the laws in order to allow us to tell right from wrong. And because we are imperfect (as you intimated above), laws can only show us our imperfections ... in Christianese, the law can only condemns us; it cannot save us.

However, if you know with a certainty that Biblical law is actually brutally inhumane, then I trust that you have already contacted the relevant authorities (USAG, US H&HS, etc) and NGO's (the United Nations, the American Red Cross, the many Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, etc) as to the Bible's brutally inhumane commandments to Christians who are perhaps on the verge of recognizing these supposed Biblical truths and triggering the insidiously evil self-destruction of America and the rest of Western Civilization.

[Iggy]

I think you said that you were raised in the faith. Were you ever threatened with, for example, being stoned for being a disobedient child? I highly doubt it, or at least, I hope not.

 

I was threatened with eternal torture in a lake of fire. Good times.

[lightburst]

I think we can all agree that christians don't really practice the horrible things written in the bible.

 

I think the gist of the argument is that if christians don't follow everything written in the bible and use different passages/teachings to overrule these horrible things, then having an 'invariant source of morality' doesn't mean anything because the choice of choosing to overrule horrible practices has to come from somewhere to resolve the dilemma because the opposite, that is, to practice these wrong things over the good ones is just as open a choice. It's not a matter of whether christians really do or don't do these bad things, it's a matter of 'why did you choose to pick those particular practices from the mix that is the bible'.

 

Since the choice to resolve the dilemma has to come from somewhere outside the bible, then really christians themselves have no invariant source of morality and just makes their way as they go.

 

Although it might be true that once you have resolved the choice of doing the bad things vs the good things written in the bible then you can really have an invariant source of morality and be all saintly like jesus, but that's as silly as calling yourself a communist because you think the idea of the oppressed fighting The Power is cool or because you think the economic roles need to flip but you don't like violence or a centralized economy, in which case you are a socialist not a communist.

 

At the very least, you can say that jesus is your invariant source of morality, but that has its own holes like OT being wrong(since you wouldn't follow it) and therefore god is wrong since OT is just as much god's will as NT.

[ewmon]

I was threatened with eternal torture in a lake of fire. Good times.

 

Human nature would rather do whatever it pleases with only positive, and no negative, consequences ... eg, delicious pizzas and hot fudge sundaes without the calories or the pain of overeating (or the lactose intolerance). Negative physical consequences are obvious — play Russian roulette and you might lose your mind. Moral consequences may not be so obvious or immediate, but we should be warned away from them.

 

I think we can all agree that christians don't really practice the horrible things written in the bible.

 

I think the gist of the argument is that if christians don't follow everything written in the bible and use different passages/teachings to overrule these horrible things, then having an 'invariant source of morality' doesn't mean anything because the choice of choosing to overrule horrible practices has to come from somewhere to resolve the dilemma because the opposite, that is, to practice these wrong things over the good ones is just as open a choice. It's not a matter of whether christians really do or don't do these bad things, it's a matter of 'why did you choose to pick those particular practices from the mix that is the bible'.

 

Since the choice to resolve the dilemma has to come from somewhere outside the bible, then really christians themselves have no invariant source of morality and just makes their way as they go.

 

Although it might be true that once you have resolved the choice of doing the bad things vs the good things written in the bible then you can really have an invariant source of morality and be all saintly like jesus, but that's as silly as calling yourself a communist because you think the idea of the oppressed fighting The Power is cool or because you think the economic roles need to flip but you don't like violence or a centralized economy, in which case you are a socialist not a communist.

 

At the very least, you can say that jesus is your invariant source of morality, but that has its own holes like OT being wrong(since you wouldn't follow it) and therefore god is wrong since OT is just as much god's will as NT.

 

Christ's new commandment to love your enemies pretty much overruled most, if not all, of the "bad things" in the OT. There's also dietary laws in the OT that Christ overruled, so Christians don't follow those laws either. There's no dilemma, there's no cherry picking, and there's no need to go outside the Bible.

 

It's not that the OT is wrong, but that some of it served its purpose for the circumstances at that time. For example, there's different rules for a tribe wandering around in the desert than there is for a settled community and, to give an instance, corporal punishment was needed apparently because "incarceration" was next to impossible for a wandering tribe.

 

The Bible is an invariant source, but how people interpret it is another matter. Even today, we have respected SCOTUS justices who differ widely on how to interpret the Constitution, statutes, etc.

 

One reason for this thread was to find out with what to bash atheists when they make a bad moral decision. The reality is, there isn't anything ... there's no Atheist Manifesto or Atheist Mission Statement, etc.

 

Without being facetious whatsoever, I could offer atheists a suggestion for a starting place. When state and federal judges consider an appeal of a lower court ruling, they sometimes consider opinions/rulings/arguments from other jurisdictions, federal districts, countries, and whatnot. In Griggs vs Duke Power Co before the SCOTUS, the justices' opinion included a casual reference to an Aesop's fable (without even crediting/mentioning Aesop), given below, as a fundamental source of morality as though everyone should/would know the fable. Aesop's fables seems to be a good starting place for an atheist moral code.

 

Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account. It has -- to resort again to the fable -- provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use.

[John Cuthber]

"Christ's new commandment to love your enemies pretty much overruled most, if not all, of the "bad things" in the OT. There's also dietary laws in the OT that Christ overruled"

He overruled them by saying

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

 

which isn't really overruling (or changing them at all) really is it?

 

So "There's no dilemma, there's no cherry picking,"?

I think it's very clear that there is.

[Iggy]

 

I was threatened with eternal torture in a lake of fire. Good times.

Human nature would rather do whatever it pleases with only positive, and no negative, consequences

 

Wishing negative consequences on others is perfectly consistent with human nature. It's just good old fashion hatred.

 

Threatening eternal pain for the smallest transgression, or difference of opinion, is the philosophical maximum expression of hatred.

 

Negative physical consequences are obvious — play Russian roulette and you might lose your mind. Moral consequences may not be so obvious or immediate, but we should be warned away from them.

 

I don't follow. Maybe there was a typo.

 

My point was that you are correct, no Christian ever threatened to stone me for sinning as a child. But, they did threaten to burn me in a lake of fire for eternity and I think that is worse.

[lightburst]

Christ's new commandment to love your enemies pretty much overruled most, if not all, of the "bad things" in the OT. There's also dietary laws in the OT that Christ overruled, so Christians don't follow those laws either. There's no dilemma, there's no cherry picking, and there's no need to go outside the Bible.

 

It's not that the OT is wrong, but that some of it served its purpose for the circumstances at that time. For example, there's different rules for a tribe wandering around in the desert than there is for a settled community and, to give an instance, corporal punishment was needed apparently because "incarceration" was next to impossible for a wandering tribe.

That can just as well be used to argue the opposite, and that OT, god himself and no other interpretation like jesus was god himself too, is the ultimate rule and law. Clearly choosing from between OT overrules NT and NT overrules OT has to come from somewhere.

 

If you're arguing for the sort of 'applicability by historical context', then wouldn't that make NT obsolete now? I'm not trying to disprove the validity of the bible, but I'm just saying this doesn't really mean anything. Then again, I guess now isn't holy enough.

The Bible is an invariant source, but how people interpret it is another matter. Even today, we have respected SCOTUS justices who differ widely on how to interpret the Constitution, statutes, etc.

What's the point of an invariant source if it can be freely interpreted any way you feel like it? If the problem is that people have nothing to blame atheists' misbehavior on, then the same is just as true for christians.

 

The only difference is that christians having a common biblical interpretation have become common enough that when someone commits a sin, some person can say 'Why did you do that? Clearly, the bible says you shouldn't' and the sinner can simply acknowledge given that they have the same biblical interpretation, or at least grew up having common values.

 

Islam, having the Quran, is having this problem where some can justify violence using their holy book while others believe in peace and good. I'd say Quran is an invariant source, but you can't really pin anything on someone if both of you read the same thing differently because it's effectively two persons reading two different books.

 

The atheist tag is so broad and liberal. You can pin blame on a person/atheist if you ask him what he believes in(his morals, or whatever) and use those beliefs to criticize his actions rather than solely based on a general nametag in the same way it's meaningless to criticize the westboro baptist church for being a hate group and un-christ-like because you consult the same book even though read it differently.

 

Christianity just so happen to carry with it the polarities 'Asshole-Bigot' and 'Saintly nice do-good'. Atheism has little to no content in terms of conduct so you're free to be a worldly satanist to a pacifist monk. Because of free interpretation, whats the difference? We better be reading the same words the same way for criticisms to be any way meaningful.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, because of free interpretation, are we really any different and are just both making our way as we go?

[ewmon]

@John Cuthber

This (Matthew 5:17-18) explains the Christian-bashing mantra that you quoted.

 

@Iggy

So, sending murderers and rapists to prison as a punishment are merely acts of hatred that should be abolished?

 

@lightburst

If the latter (NT) doesn't overrule the former (OT), then I have your permission to hold you to an former post in the forum when you try to amend, clarify or expand on it with a latter post? And you never go back to edit a post?

[ydoaPs]

@lightburst

If the latter (NT) doesn't overrule the former (OT), then I have your permission to hold you to an former post in the forum when you try to amend, clarify or expand on it with a latter post? And you never go back to edit a post?

I highly doubt that lightburst has ever said that they will never change their mind and that their previous posts will be word for word truth until the end of the world.

[John Cuthber]

@John Cuthber

This (Matthew 5:17-18) explains the Christian-bashing mantra that you quoted.

We have seen that before.

They say

"Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself"

 

 

 

It's an interesting word play to say that Christ meant that he was here to fulifil the prophecy that he would turn up and that's all.

But have a look at what he said as well as that he came to fulfil the law.

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

 

That's not a statement that he's turned up in accordance with the predictions.

It's a clear statement that the laws stood just as they had before and always would.

 

If the law predicts that JC turns up, and he does, then that's the law fulfilled- once and for all.

There's no sense in saying that the law will continue to be true forever and until the end of time..

The alternative would be silly: Christ would have to suddenly revert to a state of never having been here. Not just died or left: never having appeared.

 

So, that page is a bit of creative interpretation designed to draw attention from what Christ (reportedly) said, and which you described as "the Christian-bashing mantra" .

 

Once you are describing Christ's reported words as Christian-bashing, it's time to accept that you are wrong.

[Iggy]

@Iggy

So, sending murderers and rapists to prison as a punishment are merely acts of hatred that should be abolished?

 

What an odd statement. No, I don't think acts of hatred should be abolished... Yes, of course sending murderers and rapists to prison is itself an act of hate. Murderers and rapists are classes of people and like Aristotle said, "Anger is always concerned with individuals... whereas hatred is directed also against classes: we all hate any thief".

 

Perhaps I'm being too cerebral... LOOK... When your roommate brings another girl home and rapes her on your kitchen floor while you're trying to eat breakfast, the correct response is "I *hate* it when he does that". You say "I hate rapists. Somebody really aught to get a pair of handcuffs and deal with these people".

 

Christianity's reaction to rape and rapists is totally different. They see the child-raping priest and think "well, those children really aught to love their enemy". They say, "the parish aught to turn the other cheek", because "who can throw the first stone?" I don't think that is right. I do think, like you say, "sending murders and rapists to prison is an act of hatred", and I think the correct reaction to child-raping priests is hatred.

 

I'm not sure why you were asking that, but there you go.