"can You Live A Moral Life If You Don't Believe In God?"

[chaz]

in the light of Isa 45:7, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things, I'd say Lev 11:45 declare peace and evil to be Holy traits.

Thank you for your response.

 

 

First of all, you have taken the verse out of context to prove an invalid point. Contextually speaking, this verse is referring to natural disasters and human comfort matters. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures.

 

Secondly, the phrase “I make peace and create evil” does not mean that God creates moral evil, as evil is the opposite of God’s holy character. What many a person has done with this verse is attribute evil to God because He permits evil.

 

Third, when coming into a verse such as Isaiah 45:7 it helps to compare other parts of scripture, such as Habakkuk 1:13, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.” By doing so one will find that the bible does indeed agree with itself.

 

Fourth, and unfortunately, the translators of the 1611 KJV have translated the Hebrew word “rah” as “evil.” The rendering of “calamity” is much better in context and in sync with the rest of scripture that shows God is holy.

 

 

 

Besides all this, your response doesn’t answer my question because you claimed God cannot be a moral being, yet you have charged Him with creating peace and evil, moral traits.

 

Again, HanSolo, you claimed that if God created morality within humans then He Himself couldn’t be moral. How do you explain your statement in light of Leviticus 11:45 AND Isaiah 45:7 (both speak of God as a moral being)?

 

 

chaz

[Guest Mr. XC]

Humans can make moral judgments without God. Everyone makes mistakes, including making judgments that can be considered as immoral. Just because Christian's think that they have the forgiveness of Jesus does not make them any more moral than the rest of us. They just think that they escape the judgment from their immoral actions by believing in a person described in a book composed of many letters and writings which were written by humans.

 

Even Ancient Egypt had the concept of law, morality, and justice. Keep in mind, these came before the 10 commandments. It looks like "God" borrowed some ideas from the Egyptians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'at

 

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

-- Albert Einstein

 

Albert Einstein did not believe in a dualistic God.

[Ouroboros]

in the light of Isa 45:7, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things, I'd say Lev 11:45 declare peace and evil to be Holy traits.

Thank you for your response.

 

 

First of all, you have taken the verse out of context to prove an invalid point. Contextually speaking, this verse is referring to natural disasters and human comfort matters. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures.

 

Secondly, the phrase “I make peace and create evil” does not mean that God creates moral evil, as evil is the opposite of God’s holy character. What many a person has done with this verse is attribute evil to God because He permits evil.

 

Third, when coming into a verse such as Isaiah 45:7 it helps to compare other parts of scripture, such as Habakkuk 1:13, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.” By doing so one will find that the bible does indeed agree with itself.

 

Fourth, and unfortunately, the translators of the 1611 KJV have translated the Hebrew word “rah” as “evil.” The rendering of “calamity” is much better in context and in sync with the rest of scripture that shows God is holy.

 

 

 

Besides all this, your response doesn’t answer my question because you claimed God cannot be a moral being, yet you have charged Him with creating peace and evil, moral traits.

 

Again, HanSolo, you claimed that if God created morality within humans then He Himself couldn’t be moral. How do you explain your statement in light of Leviticus 11:45 AND Isaiah 45:7 (both speak of God as a moral being)?

 

 

chaz

First of all, the Bible is words by man. Humans wrote those words, and took the ungiven right to say what they assumed what God would say. When it say's "I am Holy", it's because some scribe wrote those words, not because a supposed God said so. So first of all, give an evidence that these words are the word of a supposed God.

 

Secondly, the word Ra' can and should be translated Evil. For instance it's the same word used for the fruit of the garden of Eden. "The tree of knowledge of good and evil."

 

I counted 34 occurences only in Genesis using that word for the meaning of wickedness and moral evil.

 

Now, can you give me one verse where Ra' is not translated to moral evil?

 

And here are the 19 times Ra' is used only in Isaiah:

Isa 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Isa 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isa 7:5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

Isa 31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.

Isa 32:7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

Isa 33:15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isa 47:10 For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

Isa 47:11 Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.

Isa 56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

Isa 57:1 The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

Isa 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

Isa 66:4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Evil and wickedness, all are the word Ra'.

 

There's no dispute, the word means moral evil.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Please give examples of animals exhibiting common sense decisions to choose right from wrong. And please don't include those animals that have been trained to obey.

 

The dog choosing to save their owners, of which I can cite hundreds of documented cases if you'd like, is an example. Just because you can't accept it doesn't mean it's inadmissable. That's your problem, not mine.

 

The two examples you cited, animals saving their owners and the love of an animal, are not examples of morality within the animal kingdom.

 

On the first example you couldn't be more wrong. With the second, love is the feeling that drives an animal to save it's owner. Silly Christian, you can't just define what is and isn't morality. The word already has a definition. Let's take a look, shall we?

 

mo·ral·i·ty n. pl.

 

The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

Virtuous conduct.

A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

 

If a homo sapien saved another homo sapien, that animal would be considered moral, courageous and very honorable. Why do you change the rules when it's not a human animal? Prejudice instilled by your mythology that attempts (and miserably fails) to elevate you out of your kingdom? Is not a dog saving their owner a "quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct?" Is the dog's conduct not virtuous? Why not? That makes absolutely no sense, but, of course, that's precisely what I'd expect from a fundy. Thanks for being predictable. It makes my job a whole lot easier. lol...

 

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/out_of_context.htm

 

Excerpted from

 

Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

 

by Dan Barker

 

On a Bob Larson radio show Dr. Norman Geisler (of Falwell's Liberty University) quoted Psalm 14:1 to me: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." I countered with Matthew 5:22 where Jesus said, "Whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." Geisler quickly responded, "You're taking that out of context!"

 

Context, the true savior of fundamentalists, is a handy, knee-jerk defense against troublesome bible verses. Whenever Foundation staff quotes some horrible scripture on the TV or radio, such as, "Samaria...hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up" (Hosea 13:16), believers say, "But that's not what it really means!"

 

Context is important, of course, but when fundamentalists invoke it, it is normally to discern the true historical meaning of a bible passage. "Context," to them, is a fuzzy way to make something not mean what it actually says.

 

I sometimes point out that Jesus encouraged castration: "There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12) Believers are quick to chide me for not grasping the distinction between prose and poetry. This is not about castration, they claim; it is about celibacy. Tell that to Origen, the third century church father who took this verse literally and "made himself a eunuch."

 

Believers sometimes show an uncanny ability to recognize metaphor, especially where a text runs contrary to their theology; but why can't they extend this literary critical talent to the rest of the book? They believe that Jesus' parable about the Prodigal Son is a metaphor. It doesn't matter if the Prodigal Son actually existed; the underlying message of the story, the the historical verification, is what is important. But the same could be said about Adam and Eve. It could be said about God for that matter. They are Hebrew metaphors which contain an underlying message that attempts to explain our origin. The whole thing is one huge figure of speech.

 

When Christians throw the "out of context" defense at you, here are some ways to check whether they know what they are talking about, or whether they are just throwing up a convenient smoke screen. Ask them some specific questions about the bible verse under consideration.

 

1. Who wrote it, and how do you know? The authorship of much of the bible is under serious debate. The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) Are all anonymous. No one knows who wrote them, and the names were attached much later. In spite of this, most Christians will quote the bible, saying, "Matthew says. . ." Or "John states. . ." as if it were written by eyewitness reporters.

 

2. Why was it written and to whom? If a first-century love letter said, "Helen, you are the most beautiful woman in the world," you might take this superlative with a grain of salt. Propaganda, rhetoric, and polemics are the same: They tend to exaggerate. The author of John (whoever he was) admits that he is writing propaganda: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31) This is hardly an objective agenda.

 

3. When was it written? A prophecy is not a prophecy if it was written after the fact. The supposed prediction of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was written no earlier than 90 AD. (John 2:19)

 

4. Is the translation accurate? In some cases, Christian scholars have tampered with the meaning. Isaiah 7:14, a putative prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, should read "young woman," not "virgin," as most Christians (including the writer of Matthew 1:22-23)insist. Some translations have corrected this fraud (The New Revised Standard Version, favored by scholars, has "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son.") We can't all be Greek and Hebrew scholars, but we can all use the simple technique of comparing different translations to ascertain the meaning. Anyone who refuses to do this is ignoring context.

 

5. Does the same author offer any clues to the meaning? When Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying, "I create evil [ra]" (Isaiah 45:7), does it really mean "evil," or is it simply "calamity" as some apologists assert? (Through that wouldn't seem to solve much.) Looking through the rest of the book of Isaiah we find that the Hebrew word ra indeed means "evil" in a moral sense: "For before the child [from the "young woman" in 7:14] shall know to refuse the evil [ra], and choose the good. . ."(7:16), and "I will punish the world for their evil [ra]." (13:11) These, and other verses show that ra is the opposite of good and deserves punishment. It can also be helpful to check with other biblical authors to confirm the general usage, such as when the writer of "Genesis mentioned the tree of knowledge of good and evil [ra]." To say that "God created evil" is not to take things out of context at all. (All you need to do this yourself is an inexpensive English concordance, such as Strong's or Young's that indicates the original Hebrew and Greek for each word.)

 

6. Are there any literary allusions or parallels involved? Jesus reportedly said, "Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," but this Golden Rule is not unique to him. Hillel, a Jewish scholar who died about 10 ad, said, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow-men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." The gospel writer simply borrowed the idea from Hillel, who may have got it from the Brahmans ("This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause pain if done to you." -300 BC), who may have taken it from Confucius ('Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you." -500 BC), or from the Zoroastrians (who go back to 1500BC: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.")

 

7. What is the text's relevance to the immediate and general topic? Christians claim that Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the birthplace of Jesus: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler of Israel..." Yet, the context is the struggle with the Assyrians in 700 BC, not the Romans; and Bethlehem is most likely a person here, not a city. (I Chronicles 4:4 mentions 'the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrataah, the father of Bethlehem.") Besides, in the context of history, when was Jesus ever the "ruler of Israel"? Is he now?

 

8. What was the social, political, religious, and philosophical climate? The first century was a time of intense myth-making, all over the world, and especially in the Mediterranean area. Superstitions were being born, modified, swapped, stolen, and discarded at the time the New Testament was written. The idea of a virgin-born savior was very big two thousand years ago, and the Jesus story is cut from the same fabric as other ancient mythologies. Why do so many Christians ignore this context?

 

Context involves many other considerations, of course, but rarely do the average pew-sitters go even this far. If they don't know the who, when, or why of a passage, how can they smugly claim that it is taken "out of context?"

 

When fundamentalists talk about "context," they don't usually mean the literary or historical context of the text; they really only mean the context of their own particular theology. A bible verse makes sense to them as it relates to what their pastor, church, denomination, or personal ideas dictate what the "whole ball of wax" is all about. Since the Jesus in their mind is kind and loving, he could not have meant that we should truly "hate" our parents:

 

"If any man come to me, and hate (miseo) not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

 

Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face of the meaning of the word "hate" to something like "love less than me," even though the Greek word miseo means "hate." (The prefixes on "misanthropy" and "misogyny" are from miseo.) You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say 'God is love,", they will claim *you* are taking things out of context!

 

When it comes to interpreting the bible, it is surprising how much certainty is professed by fundamentalists. These people speak the same language and share a common culture, yet they often misunderstand each other (not to mention that they often fail to understand us freethinkers). What makes them think they can so easily interpret Paul the Apostle, who wrote millennia ago in a different language from a foreign and extinct culture?

 

Even if they are right, even if liberal scholars are indeed blind to the "true" context, why would an intelligent God write a book that is so easily misunderstood?

 

Jesus said, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) Can the Christian slaveholders during the Civil War be faulted for thinking that this verse encourages the ownership of slaves?

 

Paul said, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife." Ephesians 5:22-23) Can Christian husbands be blamed for thinking that this verse allows them to lord over their wives?

 

Leviticus 24:16 says, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall stone him." Why shouldn't a fundamentalist Christian believe that the Ayatollah was orally right to sentence Salman Rushdie to death?

 

Proverbs says, "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." (Proverbs 23:13) and "The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil." (Proverbs 20:30) Can Christian parents be faulted for beating their kids?

 

An omniscient deity should have known what Origen had in mind when he was inspired by Matthew 19:12 to pick up that knife.

 

Freethought Today, November, 1990

[Ouroboros]

Thanks RAS to take up the argument of morality in animals.

 

I think it all comes down to, how do we measure or observe "morality"? The only way is to judge it or measure it by the actions. We know that "morality is based on actions but also our intent. But intent can't be measured. It can only be observed from what decisions someone makes.

 

If we look at animals, they do act according to moral code. A family of lions do not kill each other. Why is that? Only when the young male lion grows up he challenges the older lion, but not to kill him, but to take power, because of the advantages he'll get like lots of women. This kind of traits can be seen in politicians or people on the corporate ladder too. So is it immoral, or are we just as aggresive to reach power?

 

Or if we look at the apes, they live in organized families with a set structure of power. And they have rules they seem to obey. So do they act like this because they're robots, or because they have a moral code? Or what about the mother ape that feeds or protects their kids? Is it instinct when they do it, but when we talk about humans doing the same thing we think it requires a metaphysical soul?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Thanks RAS to take up the argument of morality in animals.

 

I think it all comes down to, how do we measure or observe "morality"? The only way is to judge it or measure it by the actions. We know that "morality is based on actions but also our intent. But intent can't be measured. It can only be observed from what decisions someone makes.

 

If we look at animals, they do act according to moral code. A family of lions do not kill each other. Why is that? Only when the young male lion grows up he challenges the older lion, but not to kill him, but to take power, because of the advantages he'll get like lots of women. This kind of traits can be seen in politicians or people on the corporate ladder too. So is it immoral, or are we just as aggresive to reach power?

 

Or if we look at the apes, they live in organized families with a set structure of power. And they have rules they seem to obey. So do they act like this because they're robots, or because they have a moral code? Or what about the mother ape that feeds or protects their kids? Is it instinct when they do it, but when we talk about humans doing the same thing we think it requires a metaphysical soul?

 

Thanks. I've always been rather passionate about sticking up for animals. My parents were wise to get me pets when I was younger. It taught me a lot. It taught me that an animal, especially something like a dog or a bird, can clearly feel love. They get mad, they get sad and you can easily tell when a dog feels bad about doing something bad by their body language. To say we're the only animal that has morality is pure ignorance. It's ignorance on a scale so large it's almost unebelievable! I mean, how can one animal be so stupid about the feelings of other animals?

 

Before discussing what is moral in animals, it must be stressed that morality is highly subjective. What one person sees as right could be another person's wrong. Is it wrong for a male lion to fight and kill the alpha male in his pride for his power? To us, possibly so. To them, it's a power struggle, that, yes, definitely has a parallel within human society. To the loser, it would seem wrong, to the winner, right. Adult male lions will kill the cubs of a lioness if they aren't his. This would seem immoral, but it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. On the other hand, though, the female will try to save them because she cares. It, also, has a human parallel. Adopted children have a far greater chance of being abused. Just about everything that we see in the animal world can be found in the human animal world. There is both good and bad.

 

Yeah, there is definitely a very disgusting double standard. Hell, if you remember, animals aren't even supposed to have souls! This is funny, though, because for once they're right! Of course they don't! But then again, human animals don't, either! Nothing does. That silly hypothesis was disproved long ago for me.

[Ouroboros]

I got three dogs, so I know exactly what you mean.

 

I can tell when my dogs are smiling... at least the two older ones. The pull their mouths back. They can't pull them up, but they clearly pull the ends backwards. And you can see it on the ears too.

 

Recently I had to take one of them to 10 day quarantine, and the poor dog was so scared. Poor fellow, it made me so sad to see it; I could feel the dogs fear.

 

And the dogs can feel when one of the other dogs isn’t feeling bad, or if one of us is not in our best mood. For instance, if one of the dogs gets hurt the other ones come and whimper and check. And one day I was sick and stayed in bed, and of course one of the dogs come and keeps me company. One of the other dogs loves to cuddle. She comes and begs me to go to the sofa. Nothing of these behaviors is trained by us. They are self induced by nature. So what are feelings really? If it is a chemical drug in our brain, and they get it too, then their feelings are just like ours. The exception is of course that their frontal lobe isn't as developed as ours, so yes; maybe their moral behavior isn't as complex as ours. But they have a rudimentary moral system, or else all animals would go extinct from self-destruction within a few days.

[chaz]

Evil and wickedness, all are the word Ra'.

 

There's no dispute, the word means moral evil.

HanSolo, I have asked you four times to reconcile your erroneous statement that God cannot be a moral being if the humans He created are moral. You have avoided my question each time, even chasing other subjects irrelevant to the subject.

 

It is apparent you cannot provide support for your allegation, in fact, all you have done by using the Isaiah 45:7 reference is provide more verification that God is indeed, a moral being.

 

 

thank you for the dialogue.

 

 

chaz

[Guest Mr. XC]

HanSolo, I have asked you four times to reconcile your erroneous statement that God cannot be a moral being if the humans He created are moral. You have avoided my question each time, even chasing other subjects irrelevant to the subject.

What "God" did to Job is not moral:

http://www.truechristian.com/kidzjob.html

or

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31; and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

[Reverend AtheiStar]

HanSolo, I have asked you four times to reconcile your erroneous statement that God cannot be a moral being if the humans He created are moral. You have avoided my question each time, even chasing other subjects irrelevant to the subject.

 

It is apparent you cannot provide support for your allegation, in fact, all you have done by using the Isaiah 45:7 reference is provide more verification that God is indeed, a moral being.

 

 

lol... Isaiah does no such thing. It's an admission of evil. Why can't you see this? Let's look at the verses again, shall we?

 

Isaiah 45

 

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

 

I create evil. Even if it's erroneously knocked down to just a "calamity," why is that any better? 9/11 was a calamity. The Java earthquake and the subsequent tsunami were calamities. Katrina was a calamity. The death, suffering and destruction in those places would be your god's handywork. Doesn't sound like the work of a loving god to me. Unless, of course, you mean love for death and suffering.

[chaz]

Let's look at the verses again, shall we?

No, let’s not. I am not interested in speaking with you again. But thank you anyway.

 

chaz

 

What "God" did to Job is not moral:

http://www.truechristian.com/kidzjob.html

or

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31; and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

You are using a mocking, juvenile website produced using minor skill in Microsoft Paint to prove that God is not moral?

 

Ha!

 

Boy, this must have taken years to produce such a revolutionary thesis!!

 

 

 

chaz

[Trancelation]

You are using a mocking, juvenile website produced using minor skill in Microsoft Paint to prove that God is not moral?

 

Ha!

 

Boy, this must have taken years to produce such a revolutionary thesis!!

 

 

 

chaz

He already illustrated the immorality of your god using its own supposed words. Websites, created by minor skill or not, are hardly necessary.

 

One of the reasons Christians are so adamant in establishing domination over all dissenters is the simple fact that they disagree with their own theology, their own god. They know better. When they read the Bible and see the horrendous atrocities their god commits, they are stricken with horror and disgust, as much as any moral and decent person. But they're not supposed to disagree, now, are they?

 

Chalk it up to Stockholm's Syndrome. Or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In the end, Christians justify and even glorify the murderous, psychotic rage of their god because of fear, fear for themselves. No one can condone that kind of immaturity without themselves being immature.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

No, let’s not. I am not interested in speaking with you again. But thank you anyway.

 

Well, of course not. You've been utterly annihilated! Faced with such a crushing embarassment I wouldn't want to talk to me, either. Have fun in your ignorance -- you know what they say about it! lol... Ciao!

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I got three dogs, so I know exactly what you mean.

 

I can tell when my dogs are smiling... at least the two older ones. The pull their mouths back. They can't pull them up, but they clearly pull the ends backwards. And you can see it on the ears too.

 

Recently I had to take one of them to 10 day quarantine, and the poor dog was so scared. Poor fellow, it made me so sad to see it; I could feel the dogs fear.

 

And the dogs can feel when one of the other dogs isn’t feeling bad, or if one of us is not in our best mood. For instance, if one of the dogs gets hurt the other ones come and whimper and check. And one day I was sick and stayed in bed, and of course one of the dogs come and keeps me company. One of the other dogs loves to cuddle. She comes and begs me to go to the sofa. Nothing of these behaviors is trained by us. They are self induced by nature. So what are feelings really? If it is a chemical drug in our brain, and they get it too, then their feelings are just like ours. The exception is of course that their frontal lobe isn't as developed as ours, so yes; maybe their moral behavior isn't as complex as ours. But they have a rudimentary moral system, or else all animals would go extinct from self-destruction within a few days.

 

I used to have three dogs. They're all dead now. But I have the memories and pictures to cherish their short existence on this planet. They had a profound imapct on me. They will be missed.

 

The chemical nature of emotions is the same across the board as far as I know. It is what we do with them, as you stated, that differentiates us from dogs. With higher thoughts come more questions and more problems to solve.

 

I miss having a dog. Where we live we can't have any. They're strictly forbidden. One day, though, we'll have a real house and at that point we'll have at least one big dog to love. They're such giving animals. I've read that through artificial selection we've even changed their personalities, the hardwiring in their brains, so they can better interact with us!

[chaz]

Well, of course not. You've been utterly annihilated! Faced with such a crushing embarassment I wouldn't want to talk to me, either. Have fun in your ignorance -- you know what they say about it! lol... Ciao!

 

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?

There is more hope for a fool than for him (Prov 26:12).

[Trancelation]

Well, of course not. You've been utterly annihilated! Faced with such a crushing embarassment I wouldn't want to talk to me, either. Have fun in your ignorance -- you know what they say about it! lol... Ciao!

 

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?

There is more hope for a fool than for him (Prov 26:12).

And now all you have is Bible quotes that have absolutely no relevance to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

[Abiyoyo]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtl...al/15108711.htm

 

Cornering the market on understanding God foolhardy

Topic of the week:

 

"Can you live a moral life if you don't believe in God?"

 

 

 

Yell. sure you can. We live in a country with a foundation of law and structure based around God.

 

[Trancelation]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtl...al/15108711.htm

 

Cornering the market on understanding God foolhardy

Topic of the week:

 

"Can you live a moral life if you don't believe in God?"

 

 

 

Yell. sure you can. We live in a country with a foundation of law and structure based around God.

 

DC Simpson said it best:

 

'The argument is always this: "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law." This never seems to be adequately questioned. I thought it'd be fun to look at what those commandments actually say, and see for ourselves.

 

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

 

Hm. It's a little hard to find the application this has to U.S. law. Moving on...

 

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

 

I'm not entirely sure what a graven image is, but given what I do for a semi-living, I'm pretty sure I've made one at some point, and no cop has ever challenged me on it.

 

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

 

Hrm. I don't have solid statistics on this, but I'd say at least half the country does this on a daily basis...and I'm still not seeing the foundations of U.S. law...

 

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

Well, okay, the post office is closed on Sunday, but not a lot of us get all patriotically weepy about it. And again, I've never gone out on a Sunday and been arrested or even ticketed.

 

5. Honor your father and your mother.

 

I'm all in favor of this, but it's not exactly federally mandated, and, um, we're halfway through now. There had better be some deeply constitutional stuff in the second half.

 

6. You shall not kill.

 

Yes!!! Yes, finally, something richly and thoroughly illegal! ...well, except we do still have, um, the federal death penalty...and the Iraq war...and, um, it's hard to imagine a government founded on Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism would have left murder legal...

 

7. You shall not commit adultery.

 

I want to point out that, wrong as it may be to commit it, it's not illegal, and most people who are not Kenneth Starr don't feel it should be.

 

8. You shall not steal.

 

All right! A second crime. Two more to go. We could still hit 40 percent!

 

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

 

You could certainly argue that the whole idea of swearing people in in a courtroom is based on this. So...okay, maybe. Although it would be a lot more compelling if the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were currently on trial for their lives.

 

And now for the big finish! This one should be good.

 

10. You shall not covet.

 

Aw, just one little covet? Please?

 

I'm pretty sure we don't have any federal laws against coveting. So basically, three commandments of ten actually resemble important federal laws, and I have enough faith in humankind to think we might have worked out on our own that killing, stealing and bearing false witness were bad ideas.

 

Incidentally, I refreshed my memory of what the commandments actually say by looking at the page on the topic put together by the "Positive Atheism" site. They also are kind enough to provide a Biblical list of the punishments for these offenses (hint: it's almost always that you have to die a horrible death. Hear that, blasphemers?).'

 

Here are the punishments for breaking the Ten Commandments, none of which are relected in their absolutist state in American law:

 

Ten Punishments

(Let's post these in the schoolroom!)

 

 

1. Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

 

 

2. Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

 

 

3. Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

 

 

4. Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

 

 

5. Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

 

 

6. Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

 

 

7. Leviticus 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

 

 

8. Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

 

 

9. Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.

 

 

10. Malachi 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, ... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

 

 

So . . . what was that about living in a country wherein the laws are based around God?

[Guest Mr. XC]

What "God" did to Job is not moral:

http://www.truechristian.com/kidzjob.html

or

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31; and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

You are using a mocking, juvenile website produced using minor skill in Microsoft Paint to prove that God is not moral?

 

Ha!

 

Boy, this must have taken years to produce such a revolutionary thesis!!

Notice the "or" between the truechristian.com and biblegateway.com links. I posted the truechristian.com link because it highlights some of the absurdity found in the books of Job (and that people who frequent this site would enjoy it). If you want the serious links (the ones that link to biblegateway.com), you are welcome to follow those instead. So what is your conclusion about God doing immoral stuff in the two books of Job?

[Kuroikaze]

HanSolo, I have asked you four times to reconcile your erroneous statement that God cannot be a moral being if the humans He created are moral. You have avoided my question each time, even chasing other subjects irrelevant to the subject.

 

It is apparent you cannot provide support for your allegation, in fact, all you have done by using the Isaiah 45:7 reference is provide more verification that God is indeed, a moral being.

 

 

thank you for the dialogue.

 

 

chaz

 

I'm wondering how you cannot understand such a rudimentary philosophical concept as this.

 

its simple, if God creates morality, then He, himself, cannot be moral in the traditional sense. He would be considered a Super moral being (in other words, a being that stands out side morality.

 

The bible, for instance, says god is good. But if the standard by which good is judged is god himselef then this statement is logical meaningless. No different than saying God is god, or A = A. both are true, but ultimately useless proofs. Saying God is God, does not help answer any questions, Like "Does god really exist" or "How did god decide what was moral and immoral"

 

Again, to say god created morality and then to say God himself is Moral is the logical equivalent of saying A=A Its a logically useless axiom that offers no real proof of anything in regards to the origin off morality

[Ouroboros]

 

HanSolo, I have asked you four times to reconcile your erroneous statement that God cannot be a moral being if the humans He created are moral. You have avoided my question each time, even chasing other subjects irrelevant to the subject.

 

It is apparent you cannot provide support for your allegation, in fact, all you have done by using the Isaiah 45:7 reference is provide more verification that God is indeed, a moral being.

 

There's nothing to reconcile, because the Bible is the works of man and contradictory. And it says in the other verse I gave you that God is morally evil. You reconcile those two verses. And show me one verse where ra' means anything else.

 

You're asking me to reconcile the words of your book, for what purpose? You can't, so why ask me?

 

I'm not going to reconcile it of the simple reason that I can't. And it's because I can't, and that you can't that my statement, or allegation as you say, does hold up!

 

I'm accusing your fantasy God of being immoral, and your asking me to defend that he's not! If I could then I wouldn't accuse your non existing fantasy deity! It's because of that I can't and you can't that I can't say what I say. And you can't show the opposite. You can't reconcile it. You can't give me one proof that your so called God is morally good!

 

And my argument is either God was moral, always, eternally, or he created morality. It's either or.

 

If he was eternal moral, then moral is a law that is beyond his power, that he has to obey too. It has then existed always, like logic. If it exists without the requirement of God, then God is an unnecessary componenet and can be removed from the equation. He doesn't have to exist for moral to exist.

 

If he created moral, then he wasn't moral before he created it. This leads to that he isn't a moral deity.

 

Now YOU reconcile that conundrum.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Well, of course not. You've been utterly annihilated! Faced with such a crushing embarassment I wouldn't want to talk to me, either. Have fun in your ignorance -- you know what they say about it! lol... Ciao!

 

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?

There is more hope for a fool than for him (Prov 26:12).

 

Silly Christian, do you not understand what your Book of Brainwashing is doing here? Do you not understand the programming behind the verses? Do you not grasp simple psychology? Your book is written in praise of ignorance and stupidity, and against pride. Gee, why could these two former traits be valuable, while the third not? Quite simply, they want you dumb and they want you with low self esteem. A person like this will lack the intellectual power and confidence to challenge them. In short, it makes a mentally healthy person into a sheep.

 

So I'm to believe you don't find yourself wise? From what you've written, I beg to differ. You seem to have pride (gasp!) in your understanding of what the Bible "really" means. This would indicate you believe you have wisdom. I guess there's just no hope for you. I'd start hitting myself in the head with a blunt instrument. Or perhaps you could pluck your eyes out, chop your hands off or castrate yourself? That might do it. Hey, I'm just repeating what the Jesus character said.

 

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtl...al/15108711.htm

 

Cornering the market on understanding God foolhardy

Topic of the week:

 

"Can you live a moral life if you don't believe in God?"

 

 

 

Yell. sure you can. We live in a country with a foundation of law and structure based around God.

 

 

lol... Sure we do. Evidence for this ludicrous claim? Oh, that's right, we're supposed to believe by faith, like you.

 

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/Is_Americ...tian_Nation.htm

 

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

 

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

 

The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

 

What about the Declaration of Independence?

 

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

 

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

 

What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?

 

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

 

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

 

Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

 

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

 

What does "separation of church and state" mean?

 

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

 

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

 

1) A law must have a secular purpose.

2) It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.

3) It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

 

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

What about majority rule?

 

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

 

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.

 

Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?

 

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

 

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

 

The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.

 

What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"

 

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

 

Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?

 

Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

 

Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.

 

Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?

 

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

 

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."

 

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

 

Nontract No. 6. Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., PO Box 750, Madison WI 53701. This nontract may also be purchased here.

 

You may email this page, but please do not distribute printed copies of this document in this form.

[Skankboy]

Morals derive from social necessities, not some "internal compass". If this were true, the value systems of cultures throughout time wouldn't vary to such a huge degree. If there were truly and "absolute morality" of somekind, than there would be an action or idea that has been considered taboo in every culture, in every time, throughout history. No such taboo exists, believe me, I've looked. If you've got one I haven't seen, I'd love to hear it...

 

I assume you got distracted by the other questions we've asked on this thread, but I would still very much like to hear what you have to say to the above statements. If morals are "written on the hearts of men" where's the evidence?

 

[Variable]

Yell. sure you can. We live in a country with a foundation of law and structure based around God

.

 

No we don't. We live in a democracy. Which has it's roots in Ancient Greece and flourished during the enlightenment.

 

As for morality.

 

Why does a Christian do anything moral?

Answer: Fear of hell

 

Why does a non-religious person do anything moral?

Answer: Good feeling

 

Any questions?

[chaz]

As for morality.

 

Why does a Christian do anything moral?

Answer: Fear of hell

 

Why does a non-religious person do anything moral?

Answer: Good feeling

 

Any questions?

This is absolutely absurd.

 

You apparently don’t understand the concept of eternal security for the believer. After receiving Christ as personal Savior, the believer is freed from the fear of hell and any consequence of going there. This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

 

 

He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor 1:21-22).

 

 

 

Christians do moral things first, because morality is written on the heart as it is in non-Christians, and secondly, to please the Lord.

 

 

Christians do not fear hell, so please cease to speak on behalf of all Christians.

 

 

 

chaz