Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (prayer, Quran, Israelites)

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

What's really pathetic is the cognitive dissonance resulting from s'plainin' biblical "inerrancy" that leads them to intellectual and semantic contortions that stretch every boundary of credulity beyond its breaking point.

And then they pat themselves on the back for it.

Easy, since they're contortionists.

You mean they lie through their teeth but pretend they aren't lying?

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Ceist

You mean they lie through their teeth but pretend they aren't lying?

You mean kind of like the "scientists" that proclaim life can't come from non-life but then claim abiogenesis is a fact?

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Oh vey! What don't you get about the above being YOUR opinion about morality? You saying ownership or anything else for that matter is your opinion. Now since you said that no man's opinion is any more valid than anyone else's how is YOUR opinion about 'ownership morality' any more valid?

Think really hard Vizio - you trapped yourself. Deal with it!

God declared it. I believe it. Without God's morality, we have nothing, since all man-made morality is subjective.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

God declared it. I believe it. Without God's morality, we have nothing, since all man-made morality is subjective.

*cough* Pedophilia *cough*

[old_cold]

What he means, Shirina, is that god's morality is only objective (supposedly) when it comes to humans. It's totally subjective when applied to itself.
Sort of a "do as I say, not as I do". Unacceptable as a human parent 'creator' but not for Vizio's.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

The point is that the Bible doesn't tell you NOT to do that. And because the Bible is utterly silent on issues like pedophilia, torture, rape ... and slavery is well detailed in the Bible, and not once, neither in the Old or New Testament does either God or Jesus come right out and say owning another person is a sin.

You really need to understand the concept of context. Slavery was a fact of life--and it was much different than American slavery was. God did not command slavery or endorse it...but he did regulate it and require better treatment of slaves than other nations did.

But to answer your claims regarding pedophilia, torture, rape....would those be loving actions? Is that treating your neighbor as yourself? Of course not. The Christian is commanded not just to not kill...but to treat others better than himself.

So ... the only way we can decide if pedophilia is wrong is to go by our own personal opinions.
Fortunately, enough people think it's wrong that we made it illegal. But according to your own logic, we really don't have any right or standing to make pedophilia illegal because the law is based merely on opinion. Ergo, we should call up Congress right now and explain to them why we just can't criminalize pedophilia since it isn't included in some ancient God's list of absolute rights and wrongs.

And...as I said. It's not very loving to mistreat a child.

And why was there a war, Vizio? It was nothing but a big landgrab by the Israelites. Oh, I'm sure that "God" justified the slaughter by claiming everyone in the city - even the animals - were all evil, wicked, sinners, blah blah, but were they? There's a pretty good chance that the only thing those other cities were guilty of was not being Jewish and worshiping a god other than Yahweh.

God promised the land to the Israelites at the time of Abraham. And yes--child sacrifice is a bad thing.

That is why ISIS is over there doing what they're doing - murdering anyone who refuses to convert to Islam. Sound familiar? Kinda like the ancient Israelites? And yet I'm sure you'll oppose ISIS but break out the pom-poms for the ancient Israelities and cheer for their massacres.

Really? God promised ISIS some land? Do you have a book from thousands of years ago detailing that?

More to the point, however, is that the things God did and ordered the Israelites to do were beyond the pale. I don't care if it was a time of war, it was still barbarism at its worst. And this barbarism took place at the behest of a loving, moral, infinitely good God. Uh huh ... there's enough balogna (balony) with your justification to supply every deli in New York for a year.

On what grounds do you say that? Your opinion? Yay. We know what's that worth. It's worth no more than anyone else's opinion.

And let's not forget the fact that Yahweh is supposed to be omnipotent - which means God had choices. In fact, he had infinite choices. Yet the one choice he picked was to set the Israelites on a course of absolute depravity and bloodletting ... and again, this supposed "God" is described as loving, good, moral, and just.

He commanded them to wipe out evil. But again...without an objective sense of morality, all you've got is your opinion.

Your little rants are entertaining to read, but honestly...I'm not going to point by point address it when essentially it's the same thing over and over again.

Tell me when you have a new point, and a new, objective morality to judge God by.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Vizio

He commanded them to wipe out evil. But again...without an objective sense of morality, all you've got is your opinion.

Your little rants are entertaining to read, but honestly...I'm not going to point by point address it when essentially it's the same thing over and over again.

Tell me when you have a new point, and a new, objective morality to judge God by.

But, why would God, in his omnipotence and omniscience, not simply give all of the evil people a deadly disease and avoid the trauma which must have ensued with the Israelites killing the innocent babies and children? Why not simply a natural disaster or a stampede of cattle? The answer, of course, assuming that these events occurred, is that there was no divine guidance or rationality, only murderous genocide for a land grab.

Originally Posted by Vizio

God declared it. I believe it. Without God's morality, we have nothing, since all man-made morality is subjective.

Yep, including the one were Vizio projects his subjective morality onto a meta being that other men invented and you happen to agree with.

Thanks for playing!

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

You really need to understand the concept of context. Slavery was a fact of life--and it was much different than American slavery was. God did not command slavery or endorse it...but he did regulate it and require better treatment of slaves than other nations did.

God could have simply ended slavery instead of regulating it. After all, it's not like God did much regulating. When he wanted something, he wanted it right then and there. I don't ever recall hearing something like, "Okay, folks, we're all going to be eventually worshiping me, but since I know many of you are pagans, I'll ease you into my religion by giving you 24 months to convert - meanwhile, I'll slowly start removing the reasons for wanting to be pagan."

Even in the New Testament, there is no outright ban of slavery. Why not?

Originally Posted by Vizio

But to answer your claims regarding pedophilia, torture, rape....would those be loving actions? Is that treating your neighbor as yourself? Of course not. The Christian is commanded not just to not kill...but to treat others better than himself.

Is genocide a loving action? How about commanding people to go bash the heads of babies against rocks? I'm pretty sure even an infant wouldn't want to be treated like that. So much for the Golden Rule.

BUT ... why can't I use that very same criteria without involving some ancient deity? If pedophilia is illegal because it isn't a loving action (although you might get a heated debate about that from a pedophile), why then can't I condemn Hitler because the Holocaust wasn't a loving action? You said we can't condemn Hitler, but I could using your criterion - without having to reference someone else's desert tribal god.

The Golden Rule has been around a lot longer than Christianity, after all.

Originally Posted by Vizio

It's not very loving to mistreat a child.

Then you have to admit that God is not loving - ergo, he cannot be the embodiment of love.

Originally Posted by Vizio

And yes--child sacrifice is a bad thing.

God sacrificed his child.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Really? God promised ISIS some land? Do you have a book from thousands of years ago detailing that?

There wasn't a book from thousands of years ago for the Israelites to point to when they were butchering half the Sinai and Palestine. Why does there have to be one for ISIS?

In fact, the whole promise of the Milk and Honey land (which already belonged to other peoples) was an exchange between God and Moses - no one else was there to see it. Essentially it was just some guy coming down from a mountain and saying, "Okay, folks, we have to go murder a bunch of people. Because God said so. Yeah, you'll just have to take my word for it ...."

Originally Posted by Vizio

On what grounds do you say that? Your opinion? Yay. We know what's that worth. It's worth no more than anyone else's opinion.

So, in your opinion, the mass slaughter committed by the Israelites was NOT beyond the pale? Is that the sentiment you're going to stick with? Are you sure? Final answer?

Originally Posted by Vizio

He commanded them to wipe out evil. But again...without an objective sense of morality, all you've got is your opinion.

In regard to the Canaanites, God commanded, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God”

Bull. God did not command the Israelites to wipe out those people because they were evil. He told the Israelites to wipe them out because they weren't Jews.

PERIOD.

And that is EXACTLY what ISIS is over there doing. Wiping out people who aren't Muslim. It's the same damn thing done for the same damn reason - idiotic squabbling over whose primitive god concepts are better. The only thing that makes ISIS different than the ancient Israelites that you so proudly champion is that they're batting for the wrong team. That is IT. Otherwise, the two groups of murderous butchers are utterly the same. Utterly. If those were Christians over there ... even Jews ... just how much REAL outrage would you feel towards them if they were butchering Muslims. Some? A lot? None?

Or would you watch the cruelty on CNN and say, "Well, God did promise the Hebrews that land, so ...."

Originally Posted by Vizio

Your little rants are entertaining to read, but honestly...I'm not going to point by point address it when essentially it's the same thing over and over again.

LOL! Cutting and running, are we, Vizio? Can't stand the heat? Am I tearing apart your arguments a little too harshly? You, of all people, the master of dodging questions, have no business telling me how "it's the same thing over and over again." You have a nasty habit of stonewalling the conversation by refusing to adequately address questions and points - meaning the conversation can't advance. Instead, YOU repeat the same thing over and over even when the questions change.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Tell me when you have a new point, and a new, objective morality to judge God by.

Run along then. Flee the battlefield. Bye-bye.

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by Vizio

You mean kind of like the "scientists" that proclaim life can't come from non-life but then claim abiogenesis is a fact?

You are absolutely, flat out, completely wrong here. Biologists do not claim that life from non-life is impossible. It obviously happened, so it is certainly possible given the correct conditions. Making things up to reinforce your point only makes you appear desperate and uninformed.

Originally Posted by Vizio

You really need to understand the concept of context. Slavery was a fact of life--and it was much different than American slavery was. God did not command slavery or endorse it...but he did regulate it and require better treatment of slaves than other nations did.

No, it really wasn't any different from American slavery. Another made up fact. Enslaving a fellow Jew may have been, but enslaving anybody from a different country really wasn't. Even if it was a fact of life, your statement simply shows how powerless god is. After all, theft and murder were also a fact of life, and they were forbidden in the OT. Slavery was merely 'regulated', by your own admission. That means that in your gods viewpoint, it is not inherently evil.

On what grounds do you say that? Your opinion? Yay. We know what's that worth. It's worth no more than anyone else's opinion.

You keep coming back to this theme where you claim that secular morality is simply an opinion, and of no greater value than anyone else's. This is simply not true.

I know you will not accept this, but for the benefit of others....

Secular morality has in this thread has been referred to by variations of the concept do 'do no harm'. That is simply a conceptual starting point. From there we test that concept to see if it works in reality, if the short phrase can be expanded into something larger, a framework of ethics and laws that address specifics.

We find that it does work, and we find that the basic concepts seem to be universal. As an example, the vast majority of people believe that murder and slavery are wrong. When we confront a murderer or slaver, they go through mental contortions to justify their behavior. We see things like: it's not murder, it's execution/war/capital punishment/destruction of evil, or it's not slavery, it's debt-bondage, I treated them well, they are not really human, I inherited this position-what can I do?

A dispassionate observer recognizes that these weaselly excuses are simply that, excuses. The person is still a murderer or slaver.

So now we have a moral system that does work, and people almost universally agree with. These facts alone raise this system above mere opinion. It is now an inherent driven our species, necessary to build society. Which we do.

You keep coming back to Hitler. The guy was a sociopath. His opinions are not shared by most of humanity, and WW2 is a good example of how they do not work. It is agreed by humanity, because it violates 'do not harm' that he was wrong. Ask anybody on the street. When you have a consensus like this, backed up with evidence, I would propose you now have a moral principle. That is what makes secular morality correct and just.

Enforcement of morality is a different thing. Yes, it took armies to stop the madman. That doesn't mean it was merely a collection of opinions on the battlefield, it was people fighting for moral principles. Subjective principles which they agreed on because they work, and because evidence shows that they are necessary for society to work.