Alternatley, some might suggest that unwanted children, i.e., those most likely to be terminated, are the ones most likely to grow into criminals, and therefore the two are linked.
Is the "more likely to become criminals" our fault or the child's fault? I'm not saying that they are not responsable for their actions, I'm saying that they did not create their situation. It is not a child's fault that his or her parents did not want him/her. Society is maybe not very understanding with these children. While many people stand in line to adopt babies, but once someone is over, say, one, more people don't want him/her than just their parents.
I just realized how dumb and rambly that looks, but I'm just typing what comes into my head at the moment.Maybe the morale position is that once a life enters the world, there is a responsibility to care for it.
I feel it is before that. Actually, no. Something has life before it is born. We have a responsabilty to anything that may have a contribution. It's not that I want to see more smelly, selfish humans on this planet--it's that I feel that there is a number of people born who are not smelly and selfish, and we have no idea who that is until they are much, much older.
The state's got no business telling people they need to have a child, parituclarly when the state isn't thereafter going to step up and assist in the raising of said unwanted child, or, better yet, providing health care/birth control so that women don't get pregnant in the first place. Resources should be available and should be marshaled for the woman so that she is aware of the options, she should be encouraged to bring the life into the world, but she should not be forced to do so.
This is very true. Any anti-abortion law should come with additional laws requiring something like you describe, only to the greatest extent possable.
What exactly does the death penalty provide? Is it deterrence? If so, is the deterrence worth the cost in terms of having an adequate process to determine innocence. If not deterrence, then what?
Some have postulated that there is perhaps a "ceiling" to how deterred a person can be. If life in prison does not deter some, then how is death supposed to do so (it's not exactly like you're having the time of your life in there)?
This is a great definition of ecconomic rationalism, which I think is one of the biggest evils in our society today. We should not be making decisions based on what is cost effective, we should be making decisions based on what is the right thing to do. That should be our basis for doing ANYTHING, because it is right, not becasue it is economically viable.
Not to say that money is the root of all evil--but we should get rid of the stuff. Attatching arbitrary value to peices of metal and paper just confuse issues like this, and create things like poverty. Once we figure out how to live our lives without always thinking about owning things, then we can re-implement it if we want.
Not that this little rant has anything to do with the current issue, just self-expressing.
What makes it alright to kill a child prior to fertilization.Prior to fertilization or birth? You might have a couple of cells prior to fertilization, but nothing more than that. Even I don't believe that you have a "child" prior to fertilization.
This does bring up a major hole in such arguments, but I agree with Moff. There IS no child prior to fertilization. Once it has started growing, it has life (though its life is entirely dependant on that of the mother). There is no life prior to fertilization--just statistics and probability theory.
What happens at birth that changes the child so it is now wong to kill it.Before birth it's a parasite.
There is a major difference between a tapeworm and the continuation of the species. This is SUPPOSED to be there. Just because its using your nutrients does not make it a horrable parasite (though by scientific definition, it is). This is a person we're talking about, not something icky that came with eating slightly undercooked food.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There is a major difference between a tapeworm and the continuation of the species.What happens at birth that changes the child so it is now wong to kill it.Before birth it's a parasite.
Yeah, given we're on the brink of extinction, continuation of the species should be on the forefront of everyone's mind.
|
Let me back up. I thought that I had said that I didn't know...
Let's see...
The short answer is "I don't know".
...but more than anything the real answer is that no one really knows ...
So, truly, I really don't know.
Yep, looks like that was what I had said. In case you missed it before -- I don't know.
I also think that the fact that we don't know is deliberate. People seem to like to try and "trap" God. In this case, if God exists, it seems like if all babies go to heaven, then why shouldn't we support abortion or other similar practices. If God exists and babies don't go to heaven, then we like to view God as some kind of "bastard" or something less nice. A third possibility might have been that it is a complicated process and then we would try and find other loopholes to try and justify our actions or other circumstances. As it stands right now, do you want to take a chance with an innocent life that I might be wrong?
There are places in the Bible that could be viewed as suggesting that the actions of the parents have a direct impact on the child. ("Who sinned -- his mother or father -- that he is like this" paraphrase by Moff). Personally, I don't like that "answer" because it doesn't feel "fair". As far as this question is concerned, what I like or don't like are irrelevant. What I believe and don't believe are irrelevant. I truly don't know. I have two children and my wife miscarried one child inbetween the two. I honestly don't know what the end result of that is. It brings up all kinds of unanswerable questions -- Did it have a soul? Is it going to heaven? Hell? Why? Because of my actions (either way)? and so on. We can further complicate the questions with the issue of abortion. Our child, for whatever reason (medically or otherwise) was not meant to be. Even if someone had an answer for that child, what about for a child that was meant to be?
There isn't, nor will there ever be 100% certainty on any of this until we die. If there was, it would drastically change the entire playing field. Which would also negate the need/desire for massive infant extermination.
It is hard to get grayer than this, but I really don't believe that the answer is as black and white as you (or I) are making it out to be.
Not to say that money is the root of all evil--but we should get rid of the stuff. Attatching arbitrary value to peices of metal and paper just confuse issues like this, and create things like poverty. Once we figure out how to live our lives without always thinking about owning things, then we can re-implement it if we want.
Unrelated to the topic at hand, just wanted to say I agree with this statement.
Hey moff, what happens to the soul of an aborted baby?
I'll try to give a bit of a fuller answer now, assuming that it is the same for young children (say upto a few (3?) years old) as for aborted children.
The way I see it, there are three options.
1. All children go to heaven
2. No children go to heaven
3. Some children go to heaven, and some don't
Of the three, there are problems with all of them, as the Bible isn't clear on this issue. But I think 1 and 2 have the biggest problems.
If 1 is the answer, (they all go to heaven), then there seem to be different "rules" for kids than for adults, as it doesn't matter what kids do, before a certain age they all get into heaven. If you take this postion to extremes, then as sexi (?) said, it seems to make sense to kill all kids, cause then we can be sure they all get to heaven.
If 2 is the answer, (none go to heaven), then that doesn't seem to be right either, that there is no chance for kids to get to heaven at all.
So 3 must be the answer. Then the question becomes "On what basis is it decided which child gets into heaven and which doesn't?" This is a much more complicated question. Your answer, realy depends on your stance on a whole range of other Christian doctrines (Sovereignty of God, Predestination, Our inability to save our selves, covenant theory among others). As I said earler, the Bible is virtually silent on this issue.
My personal view is tha tthe children of believers (chrisitian) are saved, while the children of unbelievers are not. The Bible seems to teach that hte children of believers are saved until theuy make a concious choice to leave, while the children of unbelievers are not, until they make a concious decision to believe. This is poisiton that I admit is more based in logic than any particular Bible verse, (though it seems to make the best sense of 1 Corinthians 7:12-14).
If this sounds unfair, i admit that it does. But we need to remember we in the west these days have a very individual view of things. The Bible, was written to people who had a much more family and corporate view of life. God also takes a much more corporate view of things, which is how so many people can be saved through the death and resurection of one man, Jesus Christ.
I'm pro-abortion, because I believe in quality of life over quantity.
6.5 billion and counting. The world could arguably do with a few less. I'm in favor of abortion for this reason, most especially because I've seen what happens to teenagers particularly who don't believe in it, but won't abstain or use contraception... and because I've seen where many of THEIR kids end up. A life devoid of diginity or hope is no kind of life to force on anyone.
Death penalty? In favor to some extent, but not for the same reasons as nearly anyone else. (1) There is no "deterrent value" that I can detect, statistically speaking. Nor do I believe it "creates justice" or any such nonsense; that view is somewhat hypocritical, in my optionion. But there is a 100% certainty that an executed murderer or rapist will never murder or rape again, ever. He (or she, for that matter) will never escape, never "reform," be released, and re-offend.
(2) maximum-security penitentiaries currently seem to be training facilities to make more hardened criminals; we remove the diginity from a life by jailing prisoners, and would in some cases be kinder to just end it.
Ethical arguments? Maybe. Convincing? Probably not. But I at least came by them myself, rather than following the "party line."
My personal view is tha tthe children of believers (chrisitian) are saved, while the children of unbelievers are not.
I honestly don't know what to say; "unfair" doesn't begin to cover it.
There is a major difference between a tapeworm and the continuation of the species. This is SUPPOSED to be there. Just because its using your nutrients does not make it a horrable parasite (though by scientific definition, it is). This is a person we're talking about, not something icky that came with eating slightly undercooked food.
Babies are pretty icky, in my opionion. And foetuses much more so. And in my opinion, anyway, it isn't "supposed to be there" for a 14-year-old who can't take care of herself, much less someone else.
If I'm overly stong in my arguments, it's because I've seen the results of "abstinance-based" sex ed, and was horrified.
I honestly don't know what to say; "unfair" doesn't begin to cover it.
I freely admit that on the face of it it looks exactly like the opposite of fair. But you need to realise that at the heart of Salvation in the Bible is the fact that NONE of us are capabale of saving ourselves.
ALL of us have rejected God and are in open rebellion against Him. And left to our own devices, we will ALL end up facing an eternity of wrath and punishment for rejecting him. He made the entire world (including of course us), and made us to worship and follow Him. But NONE of us do that. ALL of us seek to run our lives our own way, not following God, not listening to Him, and in rebellion against Him. This is what sin is. Sin is not so much the THINGS we do wrong, but our rejection of God and rebellion against Him.
The good news of the Bible is that even in spite of all that, God still loves us, and in fact loves us so much that he sent Jesus to die on the Cross, in our place, and taking the punishment we deserve, so that we don't have to.
But this still wasn't enough. Becasue in our rebellion, NONE of us are capable of actually making the choice to follow God. ALL of us, left to our own devices, seek to follow oursleves, to please ourselves, and do what WE want, instead of following God and doing what HE wants.
It is only through the gift of the Holy Spirit that any of us can turn back to God (repentance) and trust him, and follow Him.
So ALL salvation is from God. That anyone is saved is ALL up to God. That is the definition of Grace.
What is fair is that we all go to Hell. That is what we deserve. But God is Gracious and Merciful, and saves some. But it is God that does the saving, not people. He doesn't save "good" people. He doesn't save those who "deserve it," becasue no one is Good enough to deserve salvation. All we can say is that God saves those who he saves.
So the fact it seems unfair that he saves the children of believers and not of unbelievers, really just comes back to the fact that God will save who he saves. Those he doesn't save, aren't saved, we can't save ourselves. How he does it is up to Him, but salvation is completely from God, and not from us.
Sorry I'm so long-winded guys I really try not to be but it's a habit from writing uni essays. I need help!
Ahem...
Re the death penalty: I read a book once (Foucault's Discipline & Punish if anyone's familiar with it) which is pretty much a philosophical and social history of punishment in the west. The book opened with a graphic French account of a dude being hung drawn and quartered (wiki it if you don't know, it's pretty gruesome) and went on to say that before the enlightenment, ie in medieval days, people were of the general opinion that you killed and tortured criminals not as a deterrent and not out of justice, but just to punish them. It was assumed that everyone was responsible for their actions and that's the way the universe works: You break the rules, you reap the whirlwind. Probably came from the reward/punishment thing of Christianity at the time but who knows?
Only later did people start thinking that criminals have something wrong them, that they are sick or abnormal in some way and should be treated (rehabilitated) rather than punished. So prison became a place where people were meant to learn to be good citizens, not a place where people stayed while they waited for their flogging/branding/gruesome death.
Personally I am pro abortion AND death penalty, so at least I'm consistent, if a bit brutal ;)
But I think the death penalty should work the other way around from the way it does. If someone kills cold-bloodedly, say for money like a mafia hit man, he should be imprisoned for life. He's a sane person who is essentially knowlingly breaking the rules and can maybe be rehabilitated. But if someone kills (or rapes kids or something) because they are crazy and can't help themselves then they should be put down, not put in a hospital. So I guess I think the death penalty should not be a punishment or a deterrent, but a regrettable thing we do to protect society from mad dogs.
My 2c.
So ALL salvation is from God. That anyone is saved is ALL up to God. That is the definition of Grace.
So, god made us. God made hell. God made heaven. God will decide for us were we end up. Although he gave us free will, that free will is useless in gaining salvation since their are no choices. We either follow him or we burn. So the only thing free will can accomplish is to lead us to damnation.
Allow me to elaborate. Salvation is not a choice for me. I do not believe it exists. So if I die and end up in hell I am going to be there by accident not by choice. If I was made to understand I had a choice between bliss and damnation I would choose bliss.
It always seemed a little inconsistant to me that God would forgive murder, but not forgive not believeing in him.
This seems unfair because it is. If you worship an unfair god then fine, Zues was a hell of a god but he was fickle and petty. The God you describe sends good people to a very very bad place. That is not justice. In fact, sending souls to hell produces nothing for god (he could simply choose not to punish people) so he just chooses to do it for the sake of torturing a lot of people that never knew they were pissing someone off in the first place.
If a serial killing maniac murders my best friend then that man is wrong. I can tell he is wrong because the things he does are cruel and random. Your God is doing things that are cruel and random. And the only common defence I hear is that "he is god and you are not, therefore automatically he is good and his actions are good and you have misinterpereted his actions since you are of a lesser mind". If someone told me the serial killer was right because the said he lacked the capacity to be wrong I would ask them why they can't concieve the idea the killer is probably lying.
I thank you for being open and honest and sharing your beliefs. Not many people would have the guts to say things that strong.
In that same spirit of honesty I fell the need to share how mind numbingly actrocious and spiteful the christian concept of God appears to me.
Here's the big problem with the abortion discussion--neither side is wrong. Both sides agree, for the most part, about women's rights and the value of life etc. Neither side is much stronger than another logically (or weaker--honestly both sides are slightly logic-weak). The only differecne is the personal opinion of which points are stronger/more important.
So on that completely useless note:
Stem cell research?
Beautiful. This may seem to conflict with my anti-abortionism, but
a) Stem cell lines are created through the process of cloning, not naturally, and with every intention to use them as stem cell lines. This is their purpose. Andb) The cost of creating a few lines would save many lives. Stem Cell research could yield better ways to replace organs and treatments for nervous system damage. This is always nice.
So, god made us. God made hell. God made heaven. God will decide for us were we end up. Although he gave us free will, that free will is useless in gaining salvation since their are no choices. We either follow him or we burn. So the only thing free will can accomplish is to lead us to damnation. I thank you for being open and honest and sharing your beliefs. Not many people would have the guts to say things that strong.In that same spirit of honesty I fell the need to...
Well said indeed, Sexi. If you showed me incontrovertable proof that what Mevers said is perfectly correct--if God appeared before me, took me on a tour of heaven and hell, and then told me to bow down to Him for sending Jesus to save me from what supposedly my most distant ancestor did--I'd still choose Hell just to protest that kind of a system.
So, god made us. God made hell. God made heaven. God will decide for us were we end up. Although he gave us free will, that free will is useless in gaining salvation since their are no choices. We either follow him or we burn. So the only thing free will can accomplish is to lead us to damnation. I thank you for being open and honest and sharing your beliefs. Not many people would have the guts to say things that strong.In that same spirit of honesty I fell the need to...Well said indeed, Sexi. If you showed me incontrovertable proof that what Mevers said is perfectly correct--if God appeared before me, took me on a tour of heaven and hell, and then told me to bow down to Him for sending Jesus to save me from what supposedly my most distant ancestor did--I'd still choose Hell just to protest that kind of a system.
This is of my issue with the heaven/hell system.
1) No one's seen either, and so we have no proof outside hear-say of whether or not it exists,2)Why would a loving God create a place for souls of ANYONE, even the heratics and unrepentant murderers, to roast for all eternity; supposedly God loves us no matter what, and that's the reason I find that the Christian God mirrors my own perceptions; and
3)Why would a God create an eternal paradise? Telling us to live justly, chastely, and in moderation, then send these people to a place of permenant joy, and, in my opinion, blatant hedonism, just makes no sense. Eternal joy is boring anyways. Why would I want to be stupidly happy all the time--takes the spice and flavor out of existance. If I didn't get annoyed with the word evey once in a while, I would stop having any sort of motivation.
Please explore a wonderful book called Heaven by Randy Alcott. Mr. Alcott explains very succinctly many of the reasons why all should be "heaven-bound" and the excitement and reality it promises. Even though it is a Biblically based book, its representation appeals to non-believers as well and does a good job of opening eyes to the Word of God without coming across too heavy handed.
As a Christian it was an amazing read and great affirmation; I shared it with many non-believers and their response was “Wow”.
Doesn't everything make more sense if you start with the following axioms?
1) a soul is an abstract concept, it has no reality ... it is a metaphor ... cute in fantasy novels and poetry, but of absolutely no empirical value
2) thus, sperms, foetuses, babies, me, my dad and my dead grandpa do not "have" a soul ... moreover, where's the evidence anyway? ...
3) thus, there is no heaven or hell to go to ... again, metaphors (anyway, the concepts are fantastically absurd ... but that's another rant)
4) it is "bad" to kill people because they are sentient, feeling, emotive and have a very limited time on this planet anyway and our continued personal survival relies on cooperation and the excercise of our free will ...
5) thus, until a foetus gets a functioning brain (where it starts feeling and sensing), it is nothing more than tissue ... I do not know "when" clinically that happens but I'm all for erring in favor of the foetus by a few days/weeks ...
Try to "inject" souls and God's laws into the picture and then it all gets messy and confused and goes in circles ...
My little piece of ranting :) ... on another topic ...
The old testament contains rules for the proper conduct of slavery, when and how it is ok to kill a disobedient child, and which genocides were God-sponsored (good genocides) and which deserve retribution (bad genocides) ... If that is the inerrant word of the one and only true God, then we are in way more trouble than deciding on abortion or death penalty laws ... I'm now VERY scared of dying if that's the dude that I'll have to explain myself to ... good for me I do not believe in it one tiny bit ...
Religion is scary and schizophrenic ... if it once served some useful purpose when we were crawling out of the stone age, its benefits have long been overshadowed by its horrors ...
B.
So, god made us. God made hell. God made heaven. God will decide for us were we end up. Although he gave us free will, that free will is useless in gaining salvation since their are no choices. We either follow him or we burn. So the only thing free will can accomplish is to lead us to damnation.
Allow me to elaborate. Salvation is not a choice for me. I do not believe it exists. So if I die and end up in hell I am going to be there by accident not by choice. If I was made to understand I had a choice between bliss and damnation I would choose bliss.
It always seemed a little inconsistant to me that God would forgive murder, but not forgive not believeing in him.
This seems unfair because it is. If you worship an unfair god then fine, Zues was a hell of a god but he was fickle and petty. The God you describe sends good people to a very very bad place. That is not justice. In fact, sending souls to hell produces nothing for god (he could simply choose not to punish people) so he just chooses to do it for the sake of torturing a lot of people that never knew they were pissing someone off in the first place.
If a serial killing maniac murders my best friend then that man is wrong. I can tell he is wrong because the things he does are cruel and random. Your God is doing things that are cruel and random. And the only common defence I hear is that "he is god and you are not, therefore automatically he is good and his actions are good and you have misinterpereted his actions since you are of a lesser mind". If someone told me the serial killer was right because the said he lacked the capacity to be wrong I would ask them why they can't concieve the idea the killer is probably lying.
I thank you for being open and honest and sharing your beliefs. Not many people would have the guts to say things that strong.
In that same spirit of honesty I fell the need to...
Sorry I have taken a while to respond, but I had a response typed up and the internet ate it.
Forgive me if I get this wrong, but it seems as if you agree that there are some people that deserve punishment? (The mpression you give in your post is that the serial killing maniac is wrong, therefore deserves punishment). I think the issue is over the standards by which those deserving of punishment are determined?
I say that those standards should be set by God. You may not like His stnadards, you may not agree with them, but I think God is the only one with the authority to set those standards. And He has set those standards at PERFECTION. Anyhting else is a failure, deserving of His Wrath. That is the standard God sets.
Why? Well becasue He is holy. He is perfectly Good and Righteous and if any sin, any sin at all comes into his presence, it is detroyed. In the face of the awesome goodness, righteousness and holiness of God, sin can not stand. And so those that are seeking to stand on their own deeds, can not stand, becasue all of us ahve sinned. The only way you can have confidence to stand in the presence of God is if you have been redeemed by the death and resurection of Jesus. (Washed clean by the blood of the lamb).
Judged from God's standards, He is not sending good people to Hell. He is sending unrepentant rebels to hell. He is punishing those who are in rebellion against Him. He is punishing those who are shaking their fist at Him, even as the face His wrath. Looked at from another view, He is giving them exactly what they want. If people have lived their whole lives in opposition to God, then what make you think they even want to spend an eternity worshipping, and praising God?
Doesn't everything make more sense if you start with the following axioms?
1) a soul is an abstract concept, it has no reality ... it is a metaphor ... cute in fantasy novels and poetry, but of absolutely no empirical value
2) thus, sperms, foetuses, babies, me, my dad and my dead grandpa do not "have" a soul ... moreover, where's the evidence anyway? ...
3) thus, there is no heaven or hell to go to ... again, metaphors (anyway, the concepts are fantastically absurd ... but that's another rant)
4) it is "bad" to kill people because they are sentient, feeling, emotive and have a very limited time on this planet anyway and our continued personal survival relies on cooperation and the excercise of our free will ...
5) thus, until a foetus gets a functioning brain (where it starts feeling and sensing), it is nothing more than tissue ... I do not know "when" clinically that happens but I'm all for erring in favor of the foetus by a few days/weeks ...Try to "inject" souls and God's laws into the picture and then it all gets messy and confused and goes in circles ...
But this starts from the wrong place. This is starting with people, and our "rational" thoughts. I say start with God, and see what He says. And He says killing is wrong.
But follow your logic through to it's conclusion. If it is sentience or a functioning brain that determines worth, what about those who are severly handicapped. According to this logic it is OK to kill them. I am not saying you are advocating this, but some do. (Peter Singer I think).
The question is, should all human life be preserved? If so, why? That is the question that needs answering.
The Christian (and most religions) answer is YES. ALL human life should be preserved, becasue All humans are made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1)
What is the answer for those wishing to take God out of the picture?
The old testament contains rules for the proper conduct of slavery, when and how it is ok to kill a disobedient child, and which genocides were God-sponsored (good genocides) and which deserve retribution (bad genocides) ... If that is the inerrant word of the one and only true God, then we are in way more trouble than deciding on abortion or death penalty laws ... I'm now VERY scared of dying if that's the dude that I'll have to explain myself to ... good for me I do not believe in it one tiny bit ...
Religion is scary and schizophrenic ... if it once served some useful purpose when we were crawling out of the stone age, its benefits have long been overshadowed by its horrors ...
B.
I would like to say that everyone who doesn't follow Jesus, SHOULD be scared about explaining themselves to God.
If you have particular issues with stuff in the Old Testament, then I would be happy to discuss them. When most of that stuff in the OT is seen from God's perpective, it makes a lot more sense, and I can go into it more if you want to chat about specifics.
I will admit that religion has bought some terrible horrors in the name of "God" and it grieves my heart when I see whow poeple have twisted and misused the word of God for their own evil ends. But two points.
1. Religion has also bought remarkable good. (I am speaking about Christianity, becasue that is all I know), a lot of what we take from granted in the west has come directly out of Christianity. (Welfare, equality before the law, Hospitals, to name a few)
2. Look at the horrors of Atheism. The wars of the 20th century were the wars of Atheism. They weren't religious wars, but the wars of Atheism.
I've heard those words before.
Wars to spread godlessness? I suppose a few could have existed, but wars are conducted either for power and the control and/or seizure of resources, or they are conducted for defense, and the retaining of resources. Some wars are easily defined as such on the front page news, some are behind-the-scenes mass cruelties created by multi-national concessions and disastrous foreign policies.
I'm an atheist and I've never felt the desire to wallop/eat/molest a believer because they believe, not once in this lifetime. Atheism does not lead to a lack of law and ethical behavior. I guess one could say that many people need some level of fear of consequence in order to obey laws, and fear of an angry god or eternal banishment from heavenly reward serves that purpose, but F2K over there in his patrol car is enough to make me walk a straight line, believe you me.
Many serial killers came from a deeply religious upbringing but love of god certainly doesn't promote murder sprees. A further illustration of that logic: With the exception of liver dumplings, his favorite, Hitler was sort of a vegetarian, but his march on Poland wasn't a vegetarian incursion. Hitler was just fiendish d!ck who wanted to control the world.
I've heard those words before.
Wars to spread godlessness? I suppose a few could have existed, but wars are conducted either for power and the control and/or seizure of resources, or they are conducted for defense, and the retaining of resources. Some wars are easily defined as such on the front page news, some are behind-the-scenes mass cruelties created by multi-national concessions and disastrous foreign policies.
I'm an atheist and I've never felt the desire to wallop/eat/molest a believer because they believe, not once in this lifetime. Atheism does not lead to a lack of law and ethical behavior. I guess one could say that many people need some level of fear of consequence in order to obey laws, and fear of an angry god or eternal banishment from heavenly reward serves that purpose, but F2K over there in his patrol car is enough to make me walk a straight line, believe you me.
Many serial killers came from a deeply religious upbringing but love of god certainly doesn't promote murder sprees. A further illustration of that logic: With the exception of liver dumplings, his favorite, Hitler was sort of a vegetarian, but his march on Poland wasn't a vegetarian incursion. Hitler was just fiendish d!ck who wanted to control the world.
Sorry, i wasn't really that clear. I didn't mean that they were wars to spread Ateism (although you could mount the argument (weakly probabaly) that the spread of communism was). I meant wars started by Atheists.
And I wasn't meaning to say that Atheists are a bunch of immoral law breaking hooligans. Sorry if it sounded like I was.
And loking at your own list of reasons for wars i nthe 21st century, NONE of them sound like religious wars to me. They all sound like wars waged by men who are concerned with only the things of this world.
Atheists often claim that religion has started a lot of wars. Unfortunantly, this is all too true. But why is it a bad thing? I now, according to Christianity why it is abad thing, but for the Atheist, why are wars bad?
All good, Mevers. Thank you kindly for your clarification.
But why is it a bad thing? I now, according to Christianity why it is abad thing, but for the Atheist, why are wars bad?
War being bad has nothing to do with the existance or nonexistance of gods. From a humanist perspective, war is bad because people die unnecessarily. Let me turn this around: Why do you need an authority to tell you what is good and bad? Why can't you decide for yourself? (Did Adam and Eve eat that apple for nothing? ;-) )
God is the only one with the authority to set those standards. And He has set those standards at PERFECTION. Anyhting else is a failure, deserving of His Wrath. That is the standard God sets.
That's odd. I thought that God was the only perfect being in the universe. How can God demand perfection from us if we are fundamentally flawed and filled with sin from the moment of our birth? (That is the premise of "original sin", yes?) I know that God allegedly made this path to His good graces with Jesus, but the path is narrow and a small percentage of the world is exposed to it, much less culturally open to taking the path. I do not beleive that a loving God would send even those who had denied Him to eternal damnation. A loving parent doesn't disown their children if they call them jerks and storm out of the house, so why should God?
If people have lived their whole lives in opposition to God, then what make you think they even want to spend an eternity worshipping, and praising God?
This is true. But who says that all of us who do not praise God in the Christian way do not praise God at all? By making Jesus the ONLY way to eternal paradise, you exclude all others who worship God without worship of Jesus. This is the majority of the world. How could someone believe that an innately loving and good God could condemn so many?
Look at the horrors of Atheism. The wars of the 20th century were the wars of Atheism. They weren't religious wars, but the wars of Atheism.
I'm confused with what you're saying here. Are you saying that all the modern wars are instigated by atheists and are working to destroy belief in God? No, these wars have been about a myriad of other, non-related things (I believe Jade gives a list). "The horrors of atheism"? Look at the horrors of religion--read some of Girth's earlier posts about how he is harrassed by Christians, look at how politicians justify their self-interest with God, and then take a look at how you are basically saying everyone who doesn't think the way you do is evil and deserves hell. I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you WANT to think that way? Looking around you and identifying all the good and peaceful people who will burn for eternity? Who wants that for anyone?
And loking at your own list of reasons for wars i nthe 21st century, NONE of them sound like religious wars to me. They all sound like wars waged by men who are concerned with only the things of this world.
Are you saying that the previous wars were not like this? Come on, wars started by the most religious people have been about power. Atheists are not the only ones who can be greedy. By your definition, most previous wars were not religious either. So this is nothing new.
But why is it a bad thing? I now, according to Christianity why it is abad thing, but for the Atheist, why are wars bad?War being bad has nothing to do with the existance or nonexistance of gods. From a humanist perspective, war is bad because people die unnecessarily. Let me turn this around: Why do you need an authority to tell you what is good and bad? Why can't you decide for yourself? (Did Adam and Eve eat that apple for nothing? ;-) )
I think this is one of those "God is needed for the knowledge/existence of right and wrong" moral theories. Basically, what Divine Command Theory is is just that--God says what is right and wrong and that is what makes it good and bad. Many in this group claim that only God knows exactly what is right and wrong, so it is impossable for a human to know without the word of God.
The problem with this theory is that; a) What if God changes his mind? What would you do if God appeared to you tommorow and told you to kill all your neighbors because they like vanilla ice-cream (a nice, non-offensive example)? and b) The Euthyphro problem posed by Plato in his work by the same name:
- Socrates: Well, then, Euthyphro, what do we say about holiness? Is it not loved by all the gods, according to your definition?
- Euthyphro: Yes
- S: Because it is holy, or for some other reason?
- E: No, becuase it is holy.
- S: Then it is loved by the gods because it is holy: it is not holy because it is loved by them?
- E: It seems so.
- S: ...Then holiness is not what is pleasing to the gods, and what is pleasing to the gods is not holy as you say, Euthyphro. They are different things.
- E: And why, Socrates?
- S: Because we are agreed that the gods love holiness because it is holy: and that it is not holy because they love it.
Basically: Good is good for no other reason than it is good, not because God says so.
Stem cell research - my opinion, yes and no.
If a baby died (of "natural causes") and his/her parents donated stem cells or parents decided to harvest the umbilical blood or whatnot, and *these* served as a source for stem cells then fine. I believe God created these cells to have amazing capabilities and there doesn't seem a logical reason that the cells shouldn't be used accordingly. However, I don't agree with "breeding" embryos for their stem cells and other similar methods.
Stem cell capabilities have been wildly exaggerated by its supporters who often hide behind a guise of selfless desire to serve those with neurological disorders. They often make promises that are completely unrealistic and unfounded (even illogical). I've never heard a stem cell supporter admit that they don't know what stem cells can/can't do - right now they have *extremely* limited applications.
I read an article in a major newspaper once about a genetic engineer who had discovered some naturally occuring chemical-producing cells (in an average person's mucus membranes, IIRC) that she then introduced to a damaged pancreas and the pancreatic cells regenerated. Apparently, the pancreas test is sorta the acid test for stem cell research because damaged pancreatic function is fundamental to childhood diabetes (and possibly because pancreatic cells are easier to "regrow" than brain cells). When stem cells are introduced to an infected person's pancreas, the pancreas temporarily recovers (new pancreatic cells are "created") but is immediately damaged again by the body's other systems. With this woman's system, the regeneration was longer lasting (she experienced no reversal in lab animal trials) but she couldn't get funding to continue her research because her work didn't involve stem cells. To find a cure for this type of diabetes would be phenomenal and there's every reason to believe her work could be extended to neurological disorders as well. But she had to stop her work because she had no money or support to continue. Stem cell researchers were particularly harsh in their rejection of her new methods because they would inevitably distract from their cause (and could make stem cells a non-issue altogether). Finally, Lee Ioacocca (sp?) agreed to fund her research (his son is diabetic). Still, you don't see this woman in the mainstream media because she's not part of this controversial issue. Michael J Fox, President Reagan's son, and other high-profile supporters of stem cell research obviously have a very narrow-minded perspective on how they want their problem fixed. If they really cared about curing people and improving quality of life for afflicted individuals, then you'd think they'd be eager to support any possible process/discovery whether they involved stem cells or not. In fact, I should think such stem cell supporters would be thrilled to discover a process NOT involving stem cells (the harvesting of which is so controversial) but instead naturally occuring cells that any person of any age can donate and survive to tell the tale! Go figure.
... a) What if God changes his mind? What would you do if God appeared to you tommorow and told you to kill all your neighbors because they like vanilla ice-cream (a nice, non-offensive example)? and b) The Euthyphro problem posed by Plato in his work by the same name
Actually, according to the Bible, God never changes his mind. So no problem with proposition a.
Proposition b is just ridiculous. Why not argue about the tree falling in the forest? What difference does it make whether God's endorsement makes something holy or whether something *is* holy and therefore earns God's endorsement? What difference does it make? Just seems like an excuse to ponder circular thinking - which is exactly what Plato loved to do - fine for him, have at it! I consider such pointless debate ... well, pointless.
I read an article in a major newspaper once about a genetic engineer who had discovered some naturally occuring chemical-producing cells (in an average person's mucus membranes, IIRC) that she then introduced to a damaged pancreas and the pancreatic cells regenerated. Apparently, the pancreas test is sorta the acid test for stem cell research because damaged pancreatic function is fundamental to childhood diabetes (and possibly because pancreatic cells are easier to "regrow" than brain cells). When stem cells are introduced to an infected person's pancreas, the pancreas temporarily recovers (new pancreatic cells are "created") but is immediately damaged again by the body's other systems. With this woman's system, the regeneration was longer lasting (she experienced no reversal in lab animal trials) but she couldn't get funding to continue her research because her work didn't involve stem cells. To find a cure for this type of diabetes would be phenomenal and there's every reason to believe her work could be extended to neurological disorders as well. But she had to stop her work because she had no money or support to continue. Stem cell...
This method seems amazing. Stem cells are not exactly ready for application, which is why I felt that more research was welcome. But I can't beleive they shot down a treatment that looks like it was almost ready for human testing (actually I can, I just choose to be completely shocked). If this method could do everything proponents of stem cells promise, then I think it sould be embraced whole heartedly.
The problem with this theory is that; a) What if God changes his mind? What would you do if God appeared to you tommorow and told you to kill all your neighbors because they like vanilla ice-cream (a nice, non-offensive example)? and b) The Euthyphro problem posed by Plato in his work by the same name
I would also add c): How do you know what God thinks is good? To pick one tradition as the truth out of the probably millions that have existed throughout human history is an awfully big assumption to make.
Add to this the fact that religious people across all cultures have an extremely strong tendency to regard the religion they were brought up with as being representative of God's (or whatever they call Him's) truth. I don't think that's coincidence.
It all comes down to trust in other human beings. Do you believe what your shaman/minister/bible tells you God thinks is good? If you're Joseph Smith or Moses or Muhammad and you claim that God came down and told you, then fair enough. But if you aren't, then you aren't believing in God anyway; you're believing Joseph Smith or Moses or Muhammad. It's an old argument but it's one that I have never been able to get past since it first occurred to me. But maybe that's the mystery of religion. Maybe God wants us to learn to trust each other, not Him.
Actually, according to the Bible, God never changes his mind.
Churches change their minds about things all the time. But let's focus on God: What do you call call Jesus changing the rules midstream? That seems like God changing his mind to me.
But why is it a bad thing? I now, according to Christianity why it is abad thing, but for the Atheist, why are wars bad?War being bad has nothing to do with the existance or nonexistance of gods. From a humanist perspective, war is bad because people die unnecessarily. Let me turn this around: Why do you need an authority to tell you what is good and bad? Why can't you decide for yourself? (Did Adam and Eve eat that apple for nothing? ;-) )
OK, so from a humanist perspective, war is bad becasue people die. Now, why is it a bad thing that people die? What is it about people that make them so valuable that their deaths are a bad thing?
My point is, take God (or any "higher authority") out of the picture, and how are decisions about right and wrong made?
Dirk, you raise a lot of good points, and I cant possibly reply in detail to them all, but I'll try and make a few points.
I'll have to think about your questions about original sin a bit more. You seem to understand the doctrine, I need to think how to phrase a response that will be clear and helpful.
I am not defending the "wars of religion" (if we want to use that term). I am with you that a lot of the things done in the name of "religion" or even "God", are terrible, horrible and barbaric. Let me assure you, as a christian, I am appalled when i see God's name dragged through the mud like that.
But I would suggest that the atrocities attributted to Christianity, actually go against the tennants of Christianity, and I would ask you to seperate the things done in the name of religion, from what that religion actually teaches. Christianity itself, when understood rightly, should condemn a lot of the things done in it's name.
Yes, so called "religious" people, can be just as greedy, and power mad than those that aren't. That isn't a flaw with religion, but with people. I would ask that you judge Christianity on what the Bible teaches, and not what people (whether individuals, church leaders, other leaders, or from history), do and teach.
Basically: Good is good for no other reason than it is good, not because God says so.
But how do we know what is "Good"?
Actually, according to the Bible, God never changes his mind.Churches change their minds about things all the time. But let's focus on God: What do you call call Jesus changing the rules midstream? That seems like God changing his mind to me.
Yeah, let's focus on Jesus, as I'll admit the church has stuffed up an uncountable number of times in the past.
Jesus didn't "change the rules" as you put it. As he himself said
Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
He fulfilled the law. Now, instead of offering sacrifices day after day, that can't completely deal with sin, Jesus is our ONE true sacrifice for sin, offered ONCE, for all time, to take away the sin of the world.
Jesus fulfills the law in a complete way that we never could.
But I would suggest that the atrocities attributted to Christianity, actually go against the tennants of Christianity
But do the wars "instigated by atheists", as you claim, somehow go along with some underlying atheistic violence or something? I'm still trying to understand your "Horrors of atheism" statement.
Basically: Good is good for no other reason than it is good, not because God says so.But how do we know what is "Good"?
Moral theory, by definition, is based upon not just logic but also "moral intuition", as fluid and personal term as that is. My own view on this, my intuition if you will, is that pain and suffering is bad. Good is whatever avoids the bad. Therefore the rest of it is a bunch of logic ivnolving actions that avoid as much suffering per capita as possable. If your intuition is that good actions are best dictated by God, I'm not going to contest that any more than I already have. For this, technically, you have to prove the existance of God, but we both know that is not going to happen--faith means believing without the help of logic. I believe in God without, and maybe even contrary to, logic, relying on my own intuitions on this subject as well. However, there are some inconsistancies and a lot of vauge stuff in the word of God. It will take a lot of logic to puzzle out what it all means. The exact word of God is by no means absolute.
But how do we know what is "Good"?
My usual starting point on this question is similar to Dirk's. Most (if not all) people have an intuitive sense of what makes them happy/unhappy. They desire some things and fear other things. These feelings are simple, and are obviously value judgements not based on logic. they are pre-logic if you will. Can't argue much with that. So from there I would say:
The one thing that humans have in common in general is a desire for personal survival and a desire for their family/group survival. Of course there are exceptions to both of these rules but they are regarded as abberant in pretty much every society. It is never considered socially acceptable to kill your family and yourself unless there is some bizarre extenuating circumstance. So from there we can say that "good" in most people's intuition is whatever promotes their survival and minimises their chances of death. It is in the interests of everyone's personal survival to belong to a group, whether that group is a single family or the human race as a whole. So it is in everyone's indirect interest to protect everyone else. So being nice to other people is clearly a "good" thing. Even animals do it. You can argue with this, but you have to posit that living is not good and dyng is not bad, which is very counter-intuitive to most people. I know it is for me ;)
So assuming we agree that under most circumstances living is "good" and dying is "bad", from there we can apply various ethical theories, none of which need require a divine authority. For example we can be utilitarians like Peter Singer (I believed you mentioned him above). This means that we regard an ethical action as being one that promotes the greatest good for the greatest number, or which minimises harm for the greatest number of people.
Or we can be deontologists like Immanuel Kant and regard an ethical action as one which can be universalized. You think of some actions (eg killing, lying and getting a tattoo) and imagine the consequences if everyone did these. It's pretty obvious that murder and deceit, if universally practiced, will pretty quickly destroy a society, leading to everyone in it being placed in personal jeopardy (bad). Everyone getting a tattoo however will not. All three of these actions are forbidden in the OT, and because God says so they are all equally forbidden. But you see we can use an ethical theory to discern which of these actions are truly "bad" on a basic, pre-logical level (ie threaten survival) and which is just an arbitrary cultural more given divine mandate.
Now you can argue with my above reasoning, but the only way I can see to topple it is to suggest that obeying God is more important than personal survival and that our intuition is wrong. But even then you are still faced with a circularity: You believe the bible because you obey God, and you obey God because the bible tells you to.
You have to learn about God; not many people have to learn that pain hurts and should be avoided, therefore I think my survival=good criterion is stronger than God=good. But that's just me. I can easily understand why someone could regard God as the arbiter of good and evil. It is an internally consistent system after all. All I'm saying is that it is also possible to get a workable ethical system by taking your intuitions and applying logic. Saying "I know thriving is good and suffering is bad because I feel it" is no more unbelievable than saying "I feel God exists", and should be treated with the same respect I think.
OK, so from a humanist perspective, war is bad becasue people die. Now, why is it a bad thing that people die? What is it about people that make them so valuable that their deaths are a bad thing?
My point is, take God (or any "higher authority") out of the picture, and how are decisions about right and wrong made?
I joked earlier that I'm a humanist by birth. It's as simple as that: I'm a human, I'm a social animal, it isn't beneficial for me when people die for petty reasons, it isn't beneficial for humanity, and it certainly isn't beneficial for the guy who dies. What more do you need? To me, morality isn't something that comes from on high, it's something to be looked for and studied.
Jesus didn't "change the rules" as you put it. As he himself said
Matthew 5:17 wrote:Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
He fulfilled the law. Now, instead of offering sacrifices day after day, that can't completely deal with sin, Jesus is our ONE true sacrifice for sin, offered ONCE, for all time, to take away the sin of the world.
Jesus fulfills the law in a complete way that we never could.
So, uh, why didn't God do that in the first place?
So little time...
Judged from God's standards, He is not sending good people to Hell. He is sending unrepentant rebels to hell.
If god sat down and explained to the billions and billions of Taoists, Buddhists, pagans, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Hebrews, Wiccans, Hindus , and errant "Christians", how they had screwed up and explained why they should worship him, They would probably not be unrepentant or rebellious. If God could provide a clear case that they were wrong they would convert. It just doesn't seem they are given a chance.
Murder, rape, infanticide, genocide, cannibalism, pedophilia- all of these can be forgiven under Christian doctrine but choosing a peaceful existence following the eight fold path is going to get you sent to hell. Because Buddhist monks hate god and spurn him? Or maybe he was never given sufficient evidence he was doing any harm (although with all the locals thanking him for his efforts to improve the community without asking anything in return I agree the signs of his insolence and hell deserving spite were pretty obvious) and decided to live his life the way he wanted.
What you need to realize is that other religions have morals without god. Buddhism teaches both nonviolence and that you should use your time to help your fellow man and alleviate their suffering. In fact a Buddhist monk leads an ideal Christian existence aside from the fact he does not worship Christ or god.
Now even though I would disagree that sending such a nice and kind soul to hell to be tortured is wrong. You're argument seems to be that I am wrong because I am letting my flawed sense of human morality cloud my judgment. Such decisions should be left up to god, who has provided me with religious guides, prophets, and scriptures to help the lost lambs like me find the true path.
Now there are certain Muslim extremist groups that have been active for a while now that say God wants them to kill people that have strayed from gods true message.
I would disagree because killing innocents that don't realize they are doing anything wrong feels bad to me. They would tell me I am wrong because I am not listening to gods true message. I am letting my flawed sense of human morality cloud my judgment. Such decisions should be left up to god, who has provided me with religious guides, prophets, and scriptures to help the lost lambs like me find the true path.
Please inform me if you can how
A: they're argument is in any way different than yours
B: how you can prove their actions are wrong. Note: using the bible or Gods "Word" in any form is useless since they have their own set of divine scriptures and prophets that tell them they are right.
C: if you can answer B then you have also answered your question of "how do you know what is right without god". They are wrong because they kill innocents. They harm those that don't even know they have caused someone pain, most of these innocents slain would have tried to stop causing them pain if they could.
Christianity itself, when understood rightly, should condemn a lot of the things done in it's name.
I have some problems here
You claim that religion can be understood "rightly". But your understanding is drawn from you and your spiritual brethrens opinions on how the scriptures are interpreted and what gods message is.
With this in mind logic will tell you that a religion would have a very hard time denouncing any atrocities done in its name. The very act states that religious messages can be interpreted incorrectly due to human error. Now how can you condemn any religiously fueled action? Your argument is built on the platform that humans can foul up when interpreting gods word. But you condemn them with your interpretation of gods word.
Metaphorically it is the equivalent to a murder trial where the accused is subjected to a polygraph test that shows he told the truth when he said he did not commit the crime. Then a witness takes a polygraph test that shows he told the truth when he said that he saw the accused committing the crime. Applying your argument to this metaphor means that the defense would try to prove the accused innocence with the polygraphs results. While at the same time asking that the witnesses results be thrown out because polygraphs are not accurate.
Which is probably the reason you don't hear about many polygraphs in court.
1. Religion has also bought remarkable good. (I am speaking about Christianity, because that is all I know), a lot of what we take from granted in the west has come directly out of Christianity. (Welfare, equality before the law, Hospitals, to name a few)
Why do good acts in the name of God (building hospitals, equality, welfare) get attributed to the religion? When bad acts (terrorism, the crusades, the inquisition, etc.) get attributed to bad misguided people.
If you argue that bad religious people aren't really religious. And good religious people are religious then what you are saying is that religion has no effect on whether a person is good or bad. Since both good and bad people can do their respective works in the name of their religion.Plus you seem to be suggesting that without religion we would never have thought to build hospitals or develope a system to alleviate suffering. This means you are claiming that no morals can exist without a beliefs system.
Please take the time to peruse some ancient Greek philosophy on ethical theory. Socrates and Plato never included gods (indeed many philosophers were atheistic) in their arguments and yet were still clearly attempting to decide how best to alleviate the suffering of their fellow man.
I do not believe I've ever seen a dog worship Jesus but I have seen them put themselves in mortal danger to protect someone. I've seen fire dogs come out of a flaming building with painful burns turn around and reenter to lead a fireman to a trapped victim. I’ve seen a dog get surly and bite and wound a child that did it no harm. I feel plenty justified in saying one dog is good and the other is bad. Not because god taught me selfless behavior is good, but because I feel that what the fire dog has done is good. I have empathy that allows me to connect emotionally for what it must have been like for the family the dog helped to save. How much they must have appreciated the dogs sacrifice.
I've even performed selfless acts myself on occasion with no thought to whether or not this was something Jesus would do. I can't prove to you that people can do good without gods urging but I can bring a heap of evidence to the table on non christen altruism. Namely Jewish Hospital East in Louisville.
Note: Sebastian feel free to destroy my ignorant attempt at a judicial metaphor.
So little time...
I agree. But we do the best we can.
I would like to say that I have run into a problem I feared would happen. And that is that I have run into a bunch of people who are much more thought out on this issue than me, (and probabaly a lot smarter as well), so thankyou for your patience, and please bear with me. I'll try my best, but I feel my weakness in this discussion is that I have really only ever approached these issues from a presupposed Christian worldview, and I find it difficult to approach them from any other position. But I'll continue to soldier on and give you my (probabaly limited) thoughts.
Anyway.
On the topic of Good, the argument (and please correct me if I'm wrong), seems to be that each of us intuitively "knows" what is good and what is bad. If that is the case, what happens when we disagree over what is Good and what is Bad?
Most of these seem to be that pain and suffering, or unhapiness is wrong or bad, and we know this becasue we feel it. Well, what if we don't? If there is more to the argument then please tell me, but it seems to be that each of us know what is Good and Bad because we feel it. If so, what happens when we disagree.
Using this logic, can you say that murder is wrong? What if the murderer feels he is doing the right thing? On what basis can you say he is wrong?
You're argument seems to be that I am wrong because I am letting my flawed sense of human morality cloud my judgment. Such decisions should be left up to god, who has provided me with religious guides, prophets, and scriptures to help the lost lambs like me find the true path.
I think I am pretty happy with this definition of my position. Basically, I trust God more than people (and more than myself, yes), to tell me what is right and what is wrong. And I think history bears this out, as we seem to have a lot of difficulty working out right and wrong for ourselves.
Although I would want to refine it slightly, and add that the FINAL authority for matters of Faith and Conduct is the Bible. So God has provdided religious guides etc, but it comes down to what the Bible, as the word of God says.
Now there are certain Muslim extremist groups that have been active for a while now that say God wants them to kill people that have strayed from gods true message.
I would disagree because killing innocents that don't realize they are doing anything wrong feels bad to me. They would tell me I am wrong because I am not listening to gods true message. I am letting my flawed sense of human morality cloud my judgment. Such decisions should be left up to god, who has provided me with religious guides, prophets, and scriptures to help the lost lambs like me find the true path.
Please inform me if you can how
A: they're argument is in any way different than yours
B: how you can prove their actions are wrong. Note: using the bible or Gods "Word" in any form is useless since they have their own set of divine scriptures and prophets that tell them they are right.
C: if you can answer B then you have also answered your question of "how do you know what is right without god". They are wrong because they kill innocents. They harm those that don't even know they have caused someone pain, most of these innocents slain would have tried to stop causing them pain if they could.
Very good question, that I think gets to the heart of the matter. My answers
A: Their argument is basically the same as mine
B: I can't answer this without reference to God's word. Although I do have a few things to say. Not all claims to be "Words from God" are actually "Words from God." God is not the only supernatural being capable of speaking to humans (to say nothing of our own ability to defraud and exploit).
I would argue their actions are wrong becasue they are not listening to God. They would of course argue they are. Obviously, we can't both be right. We can both be wrong of course, but also, one of us could be right. The fact we disagree, does not discount the possibility that God can and does speak to us.
Your argument they are wrong seems to be that they are wrong, becasue you feel their actions are wrong. But they obviously feel their actions are right. What makes your opinion of their actions any more valid than theirs? In fact, what makes anyone opinion of right and wrong any more valid than any other persons?
On the topic of Good, the argument (and please correct me if I'm wrong), seems to be that each of us intuitively "knows" what is good and what is bad. If that is the case, what happens when we disagree over what is Good and what is Bad
I think Sexi's point (correct me if I'm way off base here) is that some of us intuitively feel that different things are "Good," implying that God has intentionally misled us--and those who are not Christian are not "in active rebellion against God" (as stated above), but are rather victims of His treachery in implanting false morals in us.
On the other hand, if the same Good IS obvious to everyone, then why is it obvious to extremist terrorists that they "must" kill for God? The only possible arguments there are (1) that they're right, and God is bloodthirsty and evil, or (2) that the terrorists know better, but choose to follow evil anyway... but, in that case, would they willingly commit suicide attacks? I'd argue that a person would have to have great conviction in his or her beliefs to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. If those beliefs are misguided (but "obviously correct" to the terrorist), then the terrorist is nothing more than a victim of God's trickery.
The thing is, this whole apparent contradiction disappears if there really is no revealed, infallible word of God, leaving it quirks of the individual psyche as to what's "obvious."
On the topic of Good, the argument (and please correct me if I'm wrong), seems to be that each of us intuitively "knows" what is good and what is bad. If that is the case, what happens when we disagree over what is Good and what is Bad?
I think the argument (from my end anyway; I can't speak for everyone else) is not that we intuitively know everything that is good and bad, but that we know what hurts and what doesn't and we have an instinct to work together. From there we can use reason to extrapolate. No-one ever said that identifying the right thing to do was easy!
Most of these seem to be that pain and suffering, or unhapiness is wrong or bad, and we know this becasue we feel it. Well, what if we don't? If there is more to the argument then please tell me, but it seems to be that each of us know what is Good and Bad because we feel it. If so, what happens when we disagree.
I say majority rules. Some people enjoy suffering, or enjoy making others suffer, that's true. But they are a minority in every culture and are usually seen as being evil. This is because the vast majority of people intuitively feel that wanting to harm others is not good.
Using this logic, can you say that murder is wrong? What if the murderer feels he is doing the right thing? On what basis can you say he is wrong?
On the basis that the majority has the power and the murderer is an aberrant individual. It is possible to disagree with the murderer's intuition that he is right, as every society throughout history has done. Whenever human beings get together to help each other survive, one of the first rules they invariably make is "it is not good to kill another person for no reason."
This is because clearly (to me anyway) there is a cross-cultural intuition that is held by the vast majority of human beings that murder is bad. That's good enough for me to say anyone who feels murder is good is wrong. Basically I don't think I need an inhuman authority to tell me not to shiv my neighbour, the voices of my fellow humans are loud enough, not to mention my own private feelings.
Oh and I don't want to sound patronizing (it's sometimes difficult to express subtleties on a message board) but I just want to say that in your posts you have consistently raised good classic arguments for your position, which is pretty good for someone who says they haven't thought about it much :) When it gets right down to it I think we all have our basic assumptions. We can learn the positions of others but we can't change someone's basic assumptions unless they want to change them. Reason can't do it.
One final thing I find interesting though: My view of morality creates an ethical system where the survival of everyone is paramount, and seems to me anyway to come naturally to the vast majority without them needing to be told. I mean really, do you need God to tell you not to kill your neighbour and take his house? I'd say the honest answer for most people is no. The religious view on the other hand is capable of making people die or kill without fear or guilt for a higher cause. As you and SexiGolem both pointed out, that higher cause may seem like no reason to someone who doesn't share it, so suicide bombers and martyrs and crusaders all seem a lot like murderers and suicides to members of other groups. A morality based on nothing but the basic intuitions we have for survival can't make people kill or die like that, because the ultimate good is survival not obedience to an authority. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing.
The old testament contains rules for the proper conduct of slavery, when and how it is ok to kill a disobedient child, and which genocides were God-sponsored (good genocides) and which deserve retribution (bad genocides) ... If that is the inerrant word of the one and only true God, then we are in way more trouble than deciding on abortion or death penalty laws ... I'm now VERY scared of dying if that's the dude that I'll have to explain myself to ... good for me I do not believe in it one tiny bit ...
Religion is scary and schizophrenic ... if it once served some useful purpose when we were crawling out of the stone age, its benefits have long been overshadowed by its horrors ...
B.
I would like to say that everyone who doesn't follow Jesus, SHOULD be scared about explaining themselves to God.
If you have particular issues with stuff in the Old Testament, then I would be happy to discuss them. When most of that stuff in the OT is seen from God's perpective, it makes a lot more sense, and I can go into it more if you want to chat about specifics.
I will admit that religion has bought some terrible horrors in the name of "God" and it grieves my heart when I see whow poeple have twisted and misused the word of God for their own evil ends. But two points.
1. Religion has also bought remarkable good. (I am speaking about Christianity, becasue that is all I know), a lot of what we take from granted in the west has come directly out of Christianity. (Welfare, equality before the law, Hospitals, to name a few)
2. Look at the horrors of Atheism. The wars of the 20th century were the wars of Atheism. They weren't religious wars, but the wars of Atheism.
OK, I was not going to reply to this, but I feel I must ...
All the stuff I was stating comes from Leviticus ...
You are saying that there is a way to look at genocide, child murder and slavery that can make sense as seen from God's eye/perspective?
OK, if so, now I'm VERY SUPER scared ...
I will assume I'm misunderstanding your argument ...
I did not bring the subject of war but since you do:
There 2 kinds of war: because of cultural identity, because of resources (sometimes both) and they often are enmeshed with religion as a supporting argument ... as far as I know, the last war was started by a president who claims to be deeply religious ... as a retaliation (in part, other issues contribute too) to an attack from deeply religious people who thought Allah was reserving them a condo in heaven with a large number of virgins at their disposal ... If you do not see religion involved in there ... whether they were good or bad muslims (both exist) or whether the retaliation comes from good or bad christians (both exist) is irrelevant, but they are involved ...
As an atheist, I never claimed that all religious people (or atheist nations) should be exterminated because they are an affront to ... atheism?
If a war has economical roots, it does not make it an atheist war ...
It just makes it wrong and greedy ... and very religious (and very atheist) people can participate in it ...
Atheist people can be bad people, religious people can be bad people, etc. religion brings nothing helpful to the situation and at best fosters "fuzzy thinking" where people can justify themselves through invisible agents and deresponsibilize themselves of their acts ... religion is the opposite of clear thought and personal responsibility.
God wants me/us to "do this" is an old argument and it rarely results in a good outcome ...
If the word of God is inerrant, why so many splinters in Christianity?
Shouldn't it be very clear? But the fact of the matter is things are not clear, totally self-contradictory and at times, simply antisocial (see above about genocide, child murder and slavery) ...
Therefore, Hell will freeze over before I give any credence to a human agent interpreting colorful stories we inherited from the Stone Ages ...
B.
Doesn't everything make more sense if you start with the following axioms?
1) a soul is an abstract concept, it has no reality ... it is a metaphor ... cute in fantasy novels and poetry, but of absolutely no empirical value
2) thus, sperms, foetuses, babies, me, my dad and my dead grandpa do not "have" a soul ... moreover, where's the evidence anyway? ...
3) thus, there is no heaven or hell to go to ... again, metaphors (anyway, the concepts are fantastically absurd ... but that's another rant)
4) it is "bad" to kill people because they are sentient, feeling, emotive and have a very limited time on this planet anyway and our continued personal survival relies on cooperation and the excercise of our free will ...
5) thus, until a foetus gets a functioning brain (where it starts feeling and sensing), it is nothing more than tissue ... I do not know "when" clinically that happens but I'm all for erring in favor of the foetus by a few days/weeks ...Try to "inject" souls and God's laws into the picture and then it all gets messy and confused and goes in circles ...
But this starts from the wrong place. This is starting with people, and our "rational" thoughts. I say start with God, and see what He says. And He says killing is wrong.
But follow your logic through to it's conclusion. If it is sentience or a functioning brain that determines worth, what about those who are severly handicapped. According to this logic it is OK to kill them. I am not saying you are advocating this, but some do. (Peter Singer I think).
The question is, should all human life be preserved? If so, why? That is the question that needs answering.
The Christian (and most religions) answer is YES. ALL human life should be preserved, becasue All humans are made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1)
What is the answer for those wishing to take God out of the picture?
Last time I checked, severely handicapped people still have feelings and brain activity. Even comatose people have brain activity ... therefore it is wrong to kill them ... I am not an eugenist nor was my argument going in that direction ...
If all life should be preserved, then religious people should scream murder whenever a war is started ... but for the most part, as a sub-segment of the population , they are the ones who most vocally support it (in all countries, not just here) ... I do not get it ...
All life should be preserved because we are social animals and we rely on each other for happiness, growth and survival ... religion is useless to that argument because God does not seem to "value" human life quite equally (or even at all if I'm the one interpreting the scriptures) ... but he definitely plays favorites ...
B.
not many people have to learn that pain hurts and should be avoided
Actually we do. Pavlov's dogs and all.
not many people have to learn that pain hurts and should be avoidedActually we do. Pavlov's dogs and all.
OK you got me!
Although what I was trying to say is that people don't need to learn to avoid pain from a book or from other people. Parents can certainly tell children not to touch a stove-top, but ultimately the first time a kid touches a stove-top is usually also the last. Pain is visceral and learning to avoid it comes from experience, at least at first. Religion is the opposite; not many people learn about God through experience, only mystics. Usually people learn about religion in an intellectual rather than an experiential way and then choose to believe.
What I mean is that avoiding your own and your loved one's suffering comes naturally to most people. Religion doesn't come any more naturally than learning to read or to do calculus. It is learnt intellectually and then enforced by habit and authority.
Usually the Natural Law argument is a version of theistic ethics, but I actually think it is the other way around. I think religious ethics directly conflict with our in-built sense of good and bad (which is based on our survival instinct and our love for others in our group) by positing an authority who's desires are more important than our lives and the lives of everyone we care about.
Also,
...deresponsibilize...
is now my new favourite word.
|
Although what I was trying to say is that people don't need to learn to avoid pain from a book or from other people. Parents can certainly tell children not to touch a stove-top, but ultimately the first time a kid touches a stove-top is usually also the last. Pain is visceral and learning to avoid it comes from experience, at least at first. Religion is the opposite; not many people learn about God through experience, only mystics. Usually people learn about religion in an intellectual rather than an experiential way and then choose to believe.
However, the first rule can apply to the second rule-
For example, the last time I ever went to church (2 years ago, because I was forced to), I had to leave during the service, because the Holy Incense was quickly creating the worst case of hives I have ever had. Ergo, I haven't been back, because in the primitive part of my mind, God = painful itchiness.