“The age of the Earth, and belief in evolution, is irrelevant to the subject of moral law. You merely demonstrate how mentally deficient you are.”

Friends, this is a civil blog which approaches things the best we can with gentleness and respect. Comments like are neither gentle or respectful.

With this (barring any comments from Doug), I will close this thread. Thank you all for your participation.

To Nick,

“And either way, you have simply committed the genetic fallacy. If you want to deny a natural law and just have moral relativism, that’s fine. It just means you can’t complain about fascism any more.”

Thanks for above comment. I don’t totally understand it, but would like to! From a philosophical point of view, how is fascism related to moral relativism?

Thanks!

“The use of crosses on graveyards is part of western culture and is no more significant than Goths wearing crosses around their necks.” Nuts!

When you go to a WWII cemetery, the soldiers who were Christians have crosses. The Jewish soldiers have stars of David. It is clear that the cross identifies the religious persuasion of the fallen soldier.

The point being, that the SS gravestones (not just crosses around the cemetery in general) have crosses on them.

Why do you equate communism with atheism? Are you saying that all atheists are communists? Are you saying that all atheists will behave as communists? Are you saying that all atheists are communist murderers?

20% of people in the European Union today are atheists. Are they going to break out in WWIII soon?

80% of Swedes are atheists. Maybe Sweden is a danger to world peace!

“The age of the Earth, and belief in evolution, is irrelevant to the subject of moral law. You merely demonstrate how mentally deficient you are.”

Tsk… Tsk… mentally deficient… I would think that not recognizing basic facts about our world (like birds and bees and things like why does sex exist or the age of the earth) makes one mentally deficient.

Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with moral law. The formation of society itself (which needs the moral law to function) is due to evolution. See below religious history paragraphs.

Speaking of moral law… Do you think that homosexuality is immoral? But of course! God says its immoral! Well, as it turns out, animals can be homosexual also… and even better, scientists have identified a gene which can change an animal from heterosexual to bisexual and also to homosexual. So that means that some people who have the appropriate allele of this gene (and thus are homosexual) would be born immoral! I guess that’s what you guys call “original sin”.

As far as “atheist caught out of his depth”. You are absolutely right! I have very little knowledge of the strange religious philosophies that you espouse! As far as history goes… You might want to broaden your sources, because it sounds like you need to read some Howard Zinn.

I am all for the study of history, especially religious history. Religious history is a great source of information on how people in the past used to think. People on this web site are a treasure trove of expertise on western religious history! You definitely know far more about it then I do.

Obviously you want to justify your beliefs in moral law using your knowledge of religious history. This makes perfect sense. Our current thoughts on morality came from past thoughts on morality which were created by people who believed in god. What is really interesting though, is that had history been a little different, maybe Paul gets sick and dies young, then we would have different thoughts on morality today. So how can the morality from religious tradition be universal? It depends on the evolution of the concepts over time. As such, you cannot predict its outcome and it is impossible for it to be universal.

The usual answer of an atheist caught out of his depth. Change the subject and hurl elephants to hide the fact he’s completely ignorant.

Alright jinteh, you pusillanimous pustule.

Gott mit uns was the motto the German soldiers inherited from the Prussian empire. It was Otto Von Bismarck from 1870 who gave it to them and was engraved on the buckles of soldiers from World War One. The motto of the SS, Hitler’s elite, was Meine Ehre heißt Treue or “My honour is named loyalty”. The use of crosses on graveyards is part of western culture and is no more significant than Goths wearing crosses around their necks.

In their three volume Encyclopedia of Wars Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod detail 1763 wars from history. 123 or less than 7% they attribute to religion. Don’t like the facts, take it up with them.

The Spanish Inquisition, an organisation reviled by atheists, is now believed to have been responsible for the deaths of about 3200 people over 350 years.

Religious people have killed others in war, what makes the atheists of the Communist countries unique is that their 150-200 million victims were murdered during peacetime. Indeed their murderous inclinations caused about three times as many casualties as all the twentieth century wars put together.

If government pass immoral law then the obligation of Christians is to act as the constitution permits and assemble together to obtain redress. Especially if their tax monies are being taken and used to support immoral practises like infanticide.

The age of the Earth, and belief in evolution, is irrelevant to the subject of moral law. You merely demonstrate how mentally deficient you are.

Questions for Nick:
1) How old do you think the Earth is?
2) What do you think about teaching children about Evolution? (as in Darwin style evolution)
3) What happened to the souls of all the humans who died thousands of years before 0 BC (i.e. way before the jews or jesus)
4) Do you think the United States should be a theocracy?
5) If laws passed by the US Government are against universal morality, what would you do about it? For example, many think that Abortion (which is explicitly legalized by US Gov, via Roe vs Wade) is against the will of God.
6) Where on the internet is the list of “Essential Christian Doctrine” that I have to make sure not to deny so I don’t go to hell.

Thanks!
Jinteh

Jin: Hmm… Supernatural morality… Well, the Aztecs believed human sacrifice was what God wanted. I guess their god has different morals then yours.

Reply: First off, the Aztecs were polytheists.

Second, do you think that this was wrong? The only way is with absolute morality. Absolute morality does not mean everyone obeys absolute morality or that everything is black and white. There are many things the Aztecs would agree with us on, for instance, courage in battle.

Jin: God = universal morals… no way. that’s nuts too. Aztec god morals seem pretty different then Christian god morals. Now in the grand scheme of things, judeo christian morals are not that bad. What’s nuts is to assert that they come from a supernatural source.

Reply: To say they are not that bad implies that there is some standard of good and evil again. This standard would have to be eternal and immutable. If it is created, it can be uncreated. If it is mutable, then tomorrow rape could be fully justified. Also, to say God means universal morals is nuts does not count as an argument. It counts as an assertion only.

Jin: Every culture has its own set of morals, some things overlap, some things don’t. If you assert that your god has the only “true” morals, you are effectively asserting the superiority of your culture over another culture. That is the essence of fascism. The insistence that one group is superior to another.

Reply: And you are asserting that your “tolerance” is superior to such fascism, making you a fascist as well. And yes, I do believe some moral systems are superior to others. I think the system of Jesus Christ is superior to that of Hitler. Also, I will assert that true morality is only found in God and if that statement is true, well it’s true and it’s not false just because you think it’s fascist.

Jin: The truth of the matter is that each group has its pro’s and con’s and sharing the “pro” gets everybody ahead. Any kind of “morality comes from god discussion” is basically veiled chauvinism, because you are saying morality comes from YOUR GOD.

Me: Yeah. I am saying that. That somehow makes it false? You’re saying your morality comes from man. I think that’s pretty chauvinistic on people throughout the ages who have believed in a divine law as we will see later.

Jin: Wars from religion… Well George Bush used his machiavellian tool of fundementalist religion to get into power and then happily invaded Iraq. BTW, one of the things that pissed off Iraqi’s about the invasion was that aid afterwords came from Christian groups (who were there to get converts). No wonder Sadr was so pissed off. Nothing worse for a fundie then other fundies trying to take over.

Me: Wow. You really think the war in Iraq is about Christianity vs. Islam? Not at all. It just happens to be that the terrorists we meet are Muslims. It isn’t the war against Islam but the war against terror. We’re not attacking Indonesia for instance.

You: How about Afghanistan? That’s a current one! The nutto fundie Taliban supports Islamic fundies to go attack USA and whabam! We got a war!

Reply: Are we over there for religious differences or because they attacked us?

Jin: Gee that wasn’t too hard. The last two wars have a pretty strong religious component already.

Reply: A religious war is where both sides are fighting based on religion. The truth is that people who make assertions like that about wars are just ignorant of history. Now religion has been used often times as an excuse for war, but it is rarely the reason for war if ever.

Jin: War on terror? Islamo-fascism? Hmmmm, do you really think that Al Queda is not a religious organization?

Reply: Sure it is. We’re not fighting it because it’s a Muslim organization though but because it’s a terrorist organization.

Jin: The kind of natural law you are talking about comes from Aquinas 800 years ago. Ideas from a guy who thought the earth was the center of the universe and who probably put leeches on himself when he felt bad. I bet he didn’t bathe either! and he definitely had messed up teeth.

Reply: You wanna make any more ridiculous statements like this? Go read Antigone back centuries before Christ and how she spoke of a law higher than the law of Creon. Go read Paul who spoke about the Natural Law. (Wanna know who was most quoted by John Locke?) Aquinas refined the idea of Natural Law, but he didn’t develop it.

Also, back then, to believe the sun was the center of the solar system was quite rational. Galileo’s main battles were not fought with the church but with the Aristotleans, the empiricists of the day, and his best argument for the Earth revolving around the sun was the rising of the tides, which was a pathetic argument. Obler’s paradox, the greatest objection to heliocentrism, was not answered until the 19th century. Hindsight is 20/20, but the empiricists screaming today would have been screaming against Galileo back then.

And either way, you have simply committed the genetic fallacy. If you want to deny a natural law and just have moral relativism, that’s fine. It just means you can’t complain about fascism any more.

Jin: oh wait… the bible was written even before that! back when slaves were a-okay and

Reply: Apparently, you do want to make more ignorant statements. Slavery in the ANE was not what it was in Civil War America. Slavery in Civil War America was done to benefit the rich and take advantage of the blacks. In the ANE, slavery was an institution for the benefit of the poor where they could make a living. It was closer to the indentured servant model and it was not done against a particular race. Furthermore, in the Israelite system, the slaves had excellent rights. You really should try learning something about the lifestyle in the ANE.

Jin: Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

Reply: And your problem is? I mean, you’re not going to be fascist and chauvinistic towards another culture are you? Or, are you going to posit a moral law, oh wait. You have no basis for a Natural Law. That’s right.

Furthermore, this was also in Israel that was meant to be a pure nation in the eyes of the world so they could show the world YHWH. God treats sin seriously. You want to tell me why he shouldn’t? Remember, saying “I don’t like this passage” does not count as an argument.

Jin: Mark 10:11 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

so then… logically…. 50% of people in the USA need to be put to death right?

Reply: Only if you live in a theocracy, which we don’t.

Jin: Yikes! That’s some harsh universal morality.

Reply: Here’s the truth also. Those actions are still immoral! How they’re punished has changed, but the actions are still immoral.

jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 4:07 pm #
If you want to talk about something sane… you should talk about how many judeo-christian values make sense from a social point of view. Asserting “divine wisdom” just marks you as a bigot. A bigot who thinks that only your viewpoint is just. A bigot who thinks everybody who differs from you is going to burn in hell.

Reply: First off, I don’t believe anyone is going to burn in Hell because I believe Hell is not a fiery furnace but more an eternal quarantine. The flames are a figure of speech and Hell fits in perfectly in an honor/shame paradigm.

Second, How does saying divine wisdom make someone a bigot? If it’s true, it’s true. Is it bigotry to hold to something that’s true?

Third, the Judeo-Christian values do make sense from a social point of view. So a lot of 21st century people disagree. So what? It’s simply chronological snobbery that denies the Democracy of the Dead.

Jin: Shoot, most of the people who cite the bible think that everybody else who cites the bible is going to burn in hell! Let alone, those who don’t even read the bible.

Reply: You’ve taken a survey I suppose? I’d like to know how many people you interviewed and your statistics. I know several Christians and that statement wouldn’t apply to anyone I know.

Jin: You are not Mormon are you? Joseph Smith? Hell, Purgatory or Heavan? What do you think?

Reply: Hell. He denies essential Christian doctrine. It’s really quite simple.

Jin: Ghandi: Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

Reply: I don’t expect to see him actually. Ghandi did have a lot of immorality going on in his life and he did know the gospel and he rejected it. Yes. Some Christians didn’t treat him right, but he still bears responsibility for himself.

Jin: Jim Jones (of Peoples temple fame): Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

Reply: Hell. He denied essential Christian doctrine and sought his own glory.

Jin: All those unbaptized Chinese people: Hell, Purg, or Heavan?

Reply: For those who never heard, the judge of all the Earth will do right.

Now please, give an argument instead of emotion.

Well, as many have said, moral absolutism is pivotal forlief in God, so this synthesis of “human moral evolution” is the next best alternative for many, like using margarine with “real milk” in it for that authentic flavor.
Let’s look at what the Bible says about personal accountability before God:
1) Those who choose to be their own god, following right or wrong according to their own taste, will reject and literally hide from the light of spiritual truth and moral absolutes.
2) Those who choose to follow God will turn toward spiritual light (knowledge, wisdom, experience, etc.) and their response towards evil will be repentance, or turning away from evil.
Do you see the major difference? Walk in darkness: anything goes. Walk in light: take responsibility for sin and turn from it to a higher standard.
Repentance doesn’t mean we become perfect, it means we want perfection – I’ll never bat 1,000 in a season (baseball for you Brits), but I won’t give up the standard of a perfect season just because I fail. But in darkness, you can’t even measure your progress.

Alright, I won’t flame anymore. At least you are willing to take the time to discuss with me. I appreciate it! Seriously. I do. To be public with your viewpoint is actually admirable. It opens the issue up to critical discussion. The truly scary thought, is that lots of people who feel like you do and have power, keep their true feelings secret and say nice diplomatic things on the surface.

If you want to talk about something sane… you should talk about how many judeo-christian values make sense from a social point of view. Asserting “divine wisdom” just marks you as a bigot. A bigot who thinks that only your viewpoint is just. A bigot who thinks everybody who differs from you is going to burn in hell.

Shoot, most of the people who cite the bible think that everybody else who cites the bible is going to burn in hell! Let alone, those who don’t even read the bible.

You are not Mormon are you? Joseph Smith? Hell, Purgatory or Heavan? What do you think?

Ghandi: Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

Hey this would be a fun game…

Jim Jones (of Peoples temple fame): Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

All those unbaptized Chinese people: Hell, Purg, or Heavan?

Wars from religion… Well George Bush used his machiavellian tool of fundementalist religion to get into power and then happily invaded Iraq. BTW, one of the things that pissed off Iraqi’s about the invasion was that aid afterwords came from Christian groups (who were there to get converts). No wonder Sadr was so pissed off. Nothing worse for a fundie then other fundies trying to take over.

How about Afghanistan? That’s a current one! The nutto fundie Taliban supports Islamic fundies to go attack USA and whabam! We got a war!

Gee that wasn’t too hard. The last two wars have a pretty strong religious component already.

War on terror? Islamo-fascism? Hmmmm, do you really think that Al Queda is not a religious organization?

“I believe the Bible says it is moral because it is moral. Morality exists outside the special revelation of Scripture as any believer in Natural Law knows”

The kind of natural law you are talking about comes from Aquinas 800 years ago. Ideas from a guy who thought the earth was the center of the universe and who probably put leeches on himself when he felt bad. I bet he didn’t bathe either! and he definitely had messed up teeth.

oh wait… the bible was written even before that! back when slaves were a-okay and

Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

Mark 10:11 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

so then… logically…. 50% of people in the USA need to be put to death right?

Yikes! That’s some harsh universal morality.