Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Grandpa Harley]

No more than your assertion that Christianity is the only moral compass on the planet.... In the 10 commandments murder only ranks 6th...

[Mankey]

Hitler and Martin Luther

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

 

Luther's Racism

 

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

 

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

 

This is a man held to be a moral authority? Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph.

 

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

 

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

 

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

 

Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.

 

Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death. Yet one more hypocricy for the master of hypocrisy.

 

While my argument does not rely solely on demonstrating that the writings of Luther inspired the holocaust (Instead, it implicates Hitler's use of christianity's long history of christian persecution of jews), the following passages come from:

On the Jews and their Lies help demonstrate Luther's role in the holocaust.

 

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust." (Johnson, A History of the Jews, p. 242.)

 

While some Lutherans deny the charge, the Nazis did cite Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution (Egil Grislis, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.).

 

The line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw," according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her "The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945", she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the 'real Luther'.

 

Professor Robert Michael, Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, has argued that Luther scholars who try to tone down Luther's views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism. Michael argues that there is a "strong parallel" between Luther's ideas and the anti-Semitism of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust. Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as evil, he writes. They could be saved only if they converted to Christianity, but their hostility to the idea made it inconceivable (Robert Michael, "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," Encounter 46:4 (Autumn 1985), pp. 339-56.).

 

Luther's sentiments were widely echoed in the Germany of the 1930s, particularly within the Nazi party. Hitler's Education Minister, Bernhard Rust, was quoted by the Völkischer Beobachter as saying that: "Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance ... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [schrot und Korn]" (Volkischer Beobachter, August 25, 1933 cited in Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1991-1945. Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 136-7.).

 

Hans Hinkel, leader of the Luther League's magazine Deutsche Kultur-Wacht, and of the Berlin chapter of the Kampfbund, paid tribute to Luther in his acceptance speech as head of both the Jewish section and the film department of Goebbel's Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry. "Through his acts and his spiritual attitude, he began the fight which we will wage today; with Luther, the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. To continue and complete his Protestantism, nationalism must make the picture of Luther, of a German fighter, live as an example above the barriers of confession for all German blood comrades."

(Steigmann-Gall 2003, p. 137.).

 

According to Daniel Goldhagen, Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, published a compendium Luther's writings shortly after Kristallnacht in which Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, "On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews." (Bernd Nellessen, "Die schweigende Kirche: Katholiken und Judenverfolgung," in Büttner (ed), Die Deutchschen und die Jugendverfolg im Dritten Reich, p. 265, cited in Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners (Vintage, 1997)).

 

William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, "At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther's proposals read like a program for the Nazis." (William Nichols, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), p. 271).

 

In the course of the Luthertag (Luther Day) festivities, the Nazis emphasized their connection to Luther as being both nationalist revolutionaries and the heirs of the German traditionalist past. An article in the Chemnitzer Tageblatt stated that "[t]he German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther [Lutherglauben]; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany." Richard Steigmann-Gall wrote in his 2003 book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945:

 

The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther "the first German spiritual Führer" who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his "Old Fighters" were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther's birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: "Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany." Precisely because of Luther's political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both "to church and Volk." (Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.138.)

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

Man....a lot of stuff to sort through....

 

Hitler played on already existing prejudices of some Christians. Christianity is useful.....just like any other prejudice of the people can be useful...to....governments and rulers. Fuck church! We have had enough! Wanna be Christian? Can't stop you. But no more Church...or dogmatic ideologies ( certain ways that communism has been practiced) mixed in with government. Enough is enough!

 

I stand by what I said:

 

Baptist ministers, and other protestant ministers had ugly opinions about native Americans when America was expanding west....if I remember correctly....

Which ten commands? Even scripture advocates slaughtering heathens.

Buddy can cry about Christianity being misused , and misrepresented......but my point is that God is not available for interviews when scripture is being interpreted. So much for absolute objective moral standards from God. God is a moral relativist anyways..( from what we see in scripture of him )...The Christian religion is faulty equipment.

 

Communism in and of itself has nothing to do with atheism, or Humanism based on Free Thought. You see old man Humanists can be dynamic as they have no fictional Infallible Tyrant with omnipowers. There is no ancient comic book tied around our necks....unlike the Christian religion is. The bible is the cornerstone of Christianity.

 

Totally unnecessary problems will flare up from Christianity from time to time....because it is not rational. Faith is irrational. Belief in the bibles God is irrational. The bible is a mixed bag. Encouraging rational thought. Encouraging anti-intellectualism. Encouraging kindness. Encouraging prejudice.....

 

Come on...no more of this bullshit.

[BuddyFerris]

This exchange illustrates the difficulty we (you and I) face when we blame the problems of the world on either Christianity or atheism or communism or whatever. It's easy to broadly brush across history and blame all the ills on an ideology which seems to be a common denominator. It's not as helpful as a more honest position might be. Your complaints against Christianity and its' bloody history suggest a uniform corruption and violent practice across the church still today. That's about equal to my using the emphatic statements of a respected historian to slam atheism and secular humanism. A broad brush across history where the atheists are the common denominator among the tyrannical governments of the 20th century. True, if ever so slightly, but not grounds for the ensuing conclusion.

 

Make sense so far?

Buddy

The fact that at the time the Nazis had the tacit support of both the Protestant and Roman church IS of interest, not some secret plan that the churches who were supporting Der Fuhrer were entirely unaware of. There are numerous sites (many in German) that make reference to sermons supporting the Reich as a Christian Crusade. But then, neither the Lutheran church, nor the Roman Church have any high ground in the treatment of non-Christians.

 

Basically, you're making assertions that you seen unwilling to support. In effect, you're spouting gibberish.

Grandpa,

You'll enjoy the article here on the most famous 20th century Christian, Adolf Hitler. Note the last lines of comment. The author discusses Hitler's claim and the arguments of some that he was a Christian. One Baptist seminary president at the world convention of Baptists in Berlin in the 30's cautioned against hasty judgment of a leader (Hitler) who had stopped German women from smoking cigarettes and wearing red lipstick in public.

Is it surprising that some churches with opportunistic leaders fell in line with the emerging government? Not all did; many suffered loss from having made that choice, but I notice you didn't mention them.

 

It's worth remembering that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian; 3 million Catholics died in the holocaust. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine, Einstein said: Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

 

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

 

This is an extraordinary testimony by an agnostic German scientist of Jewish heritage. There were traitors in her ranks, but the church opposed the Nazi movement.

 

Without intending any personal affront, it seems your argument is a bit unbalanced. In conversations here, 'church' is used as though you could point at them all by calling them 'the church', and you choose as representatives of that whole from among the buffoons and rabble and even wicked. Yet you protest when someone does the same in return. True?

Buddy

No more than your assertion that Christianity is the only moral compass on the planet.... In the 10 commandments murder only ranks 6th...

I pretty sure I wouldn't say that. The question's still on the table. Not the question of moral high ground, but the balance to the discussion in general. The preceding posts on who might be responsible for history's bloodshed illustrate the differences between claimed ideology and actual behavior. Is it profitable to malign millions for the actions of a small percentage?

Buddy

[Vigile]

While I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question.

Buddy

 

Buddy, I can see why you would jump to this conclusion, but it's utterly ridiculous. I keep saying you're a smart guy, but sometimes it seems you are unable to capture nuance the same as your average binary-thinking Christian.

 

First, there are no moral absolutes, even in your own religion. For every rule there is an exception.

 

But that's not the half of it. I'll show in a minute why adherance to absolute morality is in itself immoral and highly stupid.

 

First though, are you serious in your assertation that morality without an absolute standard is not grounded in standards? Are you truly that ignorant? I don't mean to insult you, just shake you out of your dream world for a minute. Of course morality is grounded in standards, there is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to the explanation of such; not to mention psychology. Only sociopaths are not guided by these standards.

 

Now then, the stupidity of the absolute assertation. It's long, but it will go a long way toward dispelling unfounded notions you hold:

 

QUOTE(TexasFreethinker @ Sep 11 2005, 11:57 AM)

I think there are moral absolutes,

 

 

 

Name a single one.

 

After you have spent the greater part of a day and/or week trying to conditionalize a statement in order for it to become "absolute" in all given circumstances of that act, then you will realize that there are no absolutes and all acts are relative and are judge relatively.

 

For this very reason, law is inherently injust [it can not take account for all circumstances surrounding any given act] and must be guided by thinkers who look above it to gain a sense of what the spirit of it [law] meant to bring about.

 

 

QUOTE

however they are applied to each situation based on its circumstances.

 

 

 

An absolute is not applied relatively. Then you fall back into a philosophical oxymoronic statement.

 

Circumstances are judged relatively, we even conceptualize our world in a relative way due to the language systems we use. When we see a given act we do not see it outside of time and space and without reflecting upon other acts, that a given action was inherently evil. We say that a supposed act was more or less evil/good than another act. For such reasons our laws are extremely broadly written and are then brought into specific focus by the courts. You should not kill, becomes you should not murder, becomes conditionalized by more circumstances than I care to count (self defense, protecting an innocent third party, fleeing felon using deadly force to escape, and so on and so forth). For every single supposed "absolute idea" given to mankind it is nothing more than a relative viewpoint based idea which has been conditionalized so that the majority of humans agree with it. Whether in fact it is an absolute is not the case (it isn't)...unless you mean to base you idea of morality upon social majority rule, scarey.

 

Most people think that the moral systems can be very easily described and yet forget the complexity of situations that present themselves in our reality. Think for instance that we would normally choose to save the "most life" in any given natural disaster. Now you are given the case inwhich you can save a 1000 of one people or 100 of another. Instantly we decide to save the 1000, because that is 900 more lives to be saved. But what of the quality of life that you save? What if the 100 are people who benefit mankind while the 900 are serial killers? Who then decides which is the correct group to save? You? Me? The government? Is 900 serial killers death worth it to save 100 productive citizens? What if the 100 is all male and the 900 is half and half. Reverse that, the 100 is half and half and the 900 is all male? Is survival of the species to rule morality also? How many conditionalizations would it take to gain a viewpoint which we can agree upon?

 

How do you relate such ideas together in order to gain a moral stance?

Philosophical Moral Relativity because there are no moral absolutes to pull from.

 

Many Christians (and other faithful for that matter) attempt to place absolutes upon our reality. I have yet to read a single one that held especially in light that their own guidelines are not absolutes. None follow the entire levitical law through some way of saying that an absolute law can be over-ruled later on by their man-god. By definition an absolute law would stand forever. Many even do not realize the relative nature of the ten commandments. Remember that the ten commandments found in the KJV version are mistranslated.

 

 

It is the cirumstances, not a personal point of view, in my opinion, that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

 

I want you to realize how silly a statement that is, and just so you will "get" it I will type it as a proof:

 

-It is the circumstances

-not personal view

-in my opinion (AKA: from my point of view)

-that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

Your statement destroyed itself.

Very funny.

 

 

In other words, it's too broad a statement to say that "stealing is immoral". Instead you must take a look at the circumstances around a specific act of stealing to determine whether or not it was moral.

 

 

Once you take into account the "circumstances around a specific act of stealing" in order to "determine whether or not it was moral" I would like to know exactly what absolute rule you used in order to judge these circumstances and/or if you simply would relate the surrounding circumstances to other events and/or ideas you hold and then apply your biased personal viewpoint to it in order to make a judgement call...which in the end is not absolute by any degree but merely a personal opinion, like all morality is.

 

 

And, point of view (assuming that means an individual's personal opinion that could be based on any number of factors) should not come into play.

 

 

Please explain to me very clearly how you remove personal opinion from an opinion based relative system?

 

 

Instead, there are moral principles that must be applied that will determine the morality or immorality of the specific act.

 

 

No there are not.

 

There are personal opinions which are applied egotistically as moral absolute statements without actually being moral absolutes by people who can not either conceptualize and/or will not address the relative reality they exist under. This does not make their moral systems absolute, does not mean that moral principles exist any more than another person's biased ideas, nor does it mean that their principle is any more or less moral than another person. In order to make a value judgement upon a moral standard you must pick a world view and judge it from within that world view, and by doing so you have taken a side and by doing so are inherently biased (as all world views are due to social enculturation).

 

That you see a given act as immoral is not because of some moral principle being applied, it is because you made a personal value judgement from within your relative world view, nothing more.

 

An absolutist might say that anyone who burns children alive should be killed.

 

As a US citizen you have been responsible (by your tax dollars) of burning hundreds of thousands of children to death in war.

 

By such reasoning under an absolutist code, you should be killed.

 

Under a relative system, "screw you...we are the strongest, shut up or die.

Might may not make right, but might wins and writes the history books and thus defines the "relative right."

 

If you want to get down to the simplest of terms, nature, there is no rule other than might wins ("might" could be strength, an adaptation, and/or ability to out-think or out-plan, and more).

 

Our moral systems are nothing more than evolved supersitions which attempt to instill in us a sense of social mind (pack mind) so that we get along in groups. It is a move of this very mind from "self identity" to "pack identity" which allows for self sacrifice in order to protect the group. That these have been written down in our language systems just goes to show the failures of these systems to actually describe our reality. They are nothing more than assumed axioms without basis, but then again what isn't?

 

I challenge anyone to attempt to create a moral system without assumed axioms, I do not think anyone here could beat Kant...and even he had to have them.

 

But I do not wish to destroy all moral systems, merely to demonstrate the utter relative nature of any which you decide to use.

 

 

You can get into trouble by saying that point of view is what determines morality, because everyone has a different point of view.

 

 

And every single person on the Earth (and any sentient self aware social life elsewhere) has different ideas about morality due to their different points of view. That we agree upon some moral standards does not make them absolute in nature, in humanity, or even over social ideas. In fact, most laws of the US would not work in other places while Islamic law would fail horribly in the US. If moral absolutes exist then why such differing ideas of justice which are based upon nothing more than enculturation? Such a fundamental thing, "justice," you would think that mankind could come to an over-reaching idea about it, and we can't.

 

The Christian claims I have to believe in a murdered son who vicariously died for me in order to have salvation.

 

From my point of view, this is an attrocity commited by mankind and allowed by their god, that of the killing of an innocent man. My sense of justice does not allow another to take my place nor would I ask him to do such, nor would I allow such. Nor would I allow the idea that temporal actions be held against me eternally...their entire system is based upon injustice.

 

Morality is nothing but relative viewpoint based, my viewpoint of this topic is not absolute nor is theirs. Mine is based upon reason and logic more-so than accepting blind-faith demands of a supposed god, but that is for another discussion entirely.

 

 

However, there are principles to which most people can agree, such as "it's wrong for someone who has plenty to take something they don't need",

 

 

Conditionalized statements just go to prove my point more-so than disprove them. You are attempting to draw up an absolute idea based upon a relative language system by conditionalizing us all into a single viewpoint. Thus under such actions you have demonstrated my point...which is that only when there is "one viewpoint" could an absolute exist. Saddly mankind does not agree with you. The rich have plenty of money, and they continue to take more and more. And it is not only seen as moral in America, it is the standard by which everyone is judge (success).

 

 

or "it's ok for someone who needs something to survive to take it as long as they're not taking it from someone else who needs the same thing to survive."

 

 

I disagree entirely with your statement here.

If it is between my family and your family guess which one I would be taking from and giving to?

 

If it is between me and you, who would I be taking from and giving to?

 

Thus, from my point of view, survival dictates that it is entirely moral that I take from someone who needs something to survive in order to protect my own survival. Otherwise I would simply have to make the decision to roll over and die (which I'm certain some may as self sacrifice does take place).

 

 

These principles are at a much more granular level than "thou shalt not steal".

 

 

Your principles only hold so long as you aren't the one starving, needing air, and/or fleeing a burning building. At such a point I doubt you would be thinking about taking a place in line from another person and/or eating the last fruit cup buddy.

 

 

When these principles conflict in a situation, fair and impartial judges can make determinations about the morality of an act.

 

 

Show me a fair and impartial judge, and I'll eat him.

We are inherently biased by our society, our laws, our lives, our religions, our world views, our cultures.....impartial my ass.

 

 

Using principles such as these, each specific action taken by an individual can then be judged to be moral or immoral.

 

 

UNDER A BIASED POINT OF VIEW WHICH LEADS US TO NOTHING MORE THAN PHILOSOPHICALLY RELATIVE MORALITY SYSTEMS BASED UPON THE CONTINUUM BASED REALITY WE EXIST WITHIN.

 

Your morality system is like a ladder without sides. Perfectly fine until you try to see what is holding up the ends, then you realize the arbitrary nature of it all as it crashes around you.

 

Here is the morality system that most live by:

 

For me and mine I will attempt to do what I believe is a relative good in my intentions, despite what that means for others of other peoples/species.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

Still not convinced, do parse this thread and read the replies by member Joseph and Clergicide. Both brilliantly dispell a number of myths about morality: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...=3632&st=60

[Vigile]

This is brilliant and addressed to Buddy with a smile and a jeer

 

Fyrefly wrote:

So you're calling me a moron all because I was raised with some decent morals?

 

 

 

You do not have decent morals. Far from it you are no better than the absolutist nazi views of past peoples who would not question their world views strict morality systems simply because they were taught not to. You are akin to the very moron who runs this country who on the news could not understand the difference between a looter and someone taking food for survival.

 

You do not have decent morals, nor do you operate under a functioning morality system. Your world view is binary, and thus is flawed because of the relative continuum based reality you live within. Things are not absolutely good nor absolutely evil, things are good based upon point of view and bad/evil based upon point of view. Circumstances and justifications exist for almost any action you can think of including some of the most horrific. Because your world view does not allow for such an understanding you are as a child looking into a black and white picture who lives in a world of color. You can not make sense of thousands of things because you can not fit them into your world system.

 

I would suggest you look beyond your enculturated biased and utterly moronic moral system and unto perhaps a more relativistic system of morality. One that works on levels beyond "black and white" or perhaps "good and evil." Because you can not classify all actions as one or the other, neither does reality fit into such a shoe-horned ideological stance.

 

You do not practice decent morals standards. You practice a moral system that is doomed to fail you repeatedly, one inwhich you would label the innocent as guilty of a crime, and one inwhich egotism runs rampant upon your mind. It would do you greatly to look beyond such injustice ideas and toward a moral system that rightly describes the world you exist within.

 

 

QUOTE

That's rich. That's really fucking rich. Are you going to call the other person who voted the same as me a moron as well?

 

Asshole.

 

 

 

If they voted for Bush then yes I would.

As for me being an asshole I suppose that I came off as one, but at least I'm not the moron with the binary moral system in a relativistic continuum based reality.

 

You Poor Idiot.

 

Just to clarify my point, I will use a simple example.

 

Temperature is discussed by a child as "hot and "cold." The adult knows that "hot" and "cold" do not in reality exist. Temperature runs along a continuum. While 98F is hot to many humans, it may not be to another species. In fact if a human was getting out of a hot steam, 98F might actually feel cold relative to the temperature he came from. This relative continuum based reality is the existence we are under. It works for almost anything you can think of. Light and the degree of it is along a continuum. What is "bright" for one person may simply be due to their exposure level at any given time. That we have "bright" and "dark" is not actually what exists. Light exists along a relative continuum, in varying degrees. "Bright" doesn't even really exist but is a term used by us as a concept of "this amount of light is uncomfortable." But "bright" for a concept is not set in stone, it is a relativistic term also based upon the continuum. Take for example if you just came out of a dark movie theatre. What is bright to you is not bright to someone who has been outside all the while.

 

Morality follows such a relativistic continuum system as well. In order to have an absolute statement about a given act we would need to describe every single point of view and bring them down to a single viewpoint and then have that viewpoint be the soul viewpoint. Such is not possible in a world of biased viewpoints, enculturated viewpoints, and imperfect knowledge viewpoints. Moral systems which attempt to place binary values upon reality fail completely in their description of what exists.

 

For example: A mother is with child. She has cancer. She can take the cancer treatment and save her life (killing the child) or she can not take the cancer treatment and have the child (killing herself as the cancer will then be too far along). Under a binary moral system you have a shutdown. A gray area which should not (and thus can not) exist. Under such a moral system, they ignore such instances outright because it can not be classified. Under a moral relativistic continuum based moral system it is simply put that the mother's life comes before any fetus life and it is the mother's choice to determine which life she wants to continue. Under such a system the relative evil of each act, and the relative good of each act is taken into concideration before any act is judged...and the decision of the woman is held to be a relative correct action, no matter which she chooses due to it being her body.

 

There are various points inwhich a binary moral system fails. The above is just one example. The Ten Commandments were not written on a binary scale nor were they meant to be placed in such a moral world view. The law reads, "thou shalt not murder" under original translation. The "absolutist" idea of "not kill" was a mistranslation of the King Jame's version. Due to this example, the absolutist (binary moralist) has a problem even claiming that the Biblical record calls for a binary moral system....because it does not.

 

Morality is a relativistic continuum based system in order to work in our relative reality as presented to our minds by our language systems (which many times attempt to instill a binary thought system due to language's biases: hot/cold, up/down, left/right). What if I told you that "up" does not even exist? Don't believe me? Point "up." Now, think of a person on the exact opposite side of the Earth at this moment. Which way is up? Do you have the egotism within you to claim that only your "up" is the correct "up?" If not I have just demonstrated that concepts are built upon relative viewpoint...and you just moved beyond a binary system into a world view which will fit much more easily into reality as it is presented to us.http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...=3632&st=40

[Vigile]

Buddy, when I read your views on morality the film Godfather comes to mind. When Kay implied to Michael that the government did not break the law and kill to get what it wants in the same way as the mafia, Michael turned to her and said "Now who's being naive here Kay?"

 

This isn't intended as an insult, just a slack-jawed unbelief at how child-like some of your assumptions are.

[BuddyFerris]

Hitler and Martin Luther

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

 

Luther's Racism

 

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

 

.... [history book length response] ...

 

Totally unnecessary problems will flare up from Christianity from time to time....because it is not rational. Faith is irrational. Belief in the bibles God is irrational. The bible is a mixed bag. Encouraging rational thought. Encouraging anti-intellectualism. Encouraging kindness. Encouraging prejudice.....

 

Come on...no more of this bullshit.

Mankey,

Nicely answered. Pressed for time; used up what I had this morning reading your interesting response. Back late afternoon to pick up the thread. As usual, work intrudes.

Buddy

[Mankey]

Hitler and Martin Luther

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

 

Luther's Racism

 

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

 

.... [history book length response] ...

 

Totally unnecessary problems will flare up from Christianity from time to time....because it is not rational. Faith is irrational. Belief in the bibles God is irrational. The bible is a mixed bag. Encouraging rational thought. Encouraging anti-intellectualism. Encouraging kindness. Encouraging prejudice.....

 

Come on...no more of this bullshit.

Mankey,

Nicely answered. Pressed for time; used up what I had this morning reading your interesting response. Back late afternoon to pick up the thread. As usual, work intrudes.

Buddy

I did not write this.........another atheist did. What I wrote was divided in my post from the article by another atheist.

[dano]

Hitler and Martin Luther

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

 

Luther's Racism

 

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

 

.... [history book length response] ...

 

Totally unnecessary problems will flare up from Christianity from time to time....because it is not rational. Faith is irrational. Belief in the bibles God is irrational. The bible is a mixed bag. Encouraging rational thought. Encouraging anti-intellectualism. Encouraging kindness. Encouraging prejudice.....

 

Come on...no more of this bullshit.

Mankey,

Nicely answered. Pressed for time; used up what I had this morning reading your interesting response. Back late afternoon to pick up the thread. As usual, work intrudes.

Buddy

I did not write this.........another atheist did. What I wrote was divided in my post from the article by another atheist.

 

While the communists, and the Christians, and the Nazis, and the popes, have been competing as to which one could sponsor the most horrendous torture and death, look what God has been doing at the bottom of the sea.

 

All the while he has been "dissing" us he has been intelligently creating animals with such diversity and adaptability via "Natural Selection" that it staggers the mind.

 

Not sure which one looks the most like buddy?

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/bluep...hoto/photo.html

 

Mankey! Does this mean that I will be going into listings for famous quotes along with Gramps?

(Isn't rescuing Christianity from all of the folks who have misused it, and misrepresented it, a little like dressing up a pig? -dano)

[Mankey]

While the communists, and the Christians, and the Nazis, and the popes, have been competing as to which one could sponsor the most horrendous torture and death, look what God has been doing at the bottom of the sea.

 

All the while he has been "dissing" us he has been intelligently creating animals with such diversity and adaptability via "Natural Selection" that it staggers the mind.

 

Not sure which one looks the most like buddy?

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/bluep...hoto/photo.html

 

Mankey! Does this mean that I will be going into listings for famous quotes along with Gramps?

(Isn't rescuing Christianity from all of the folks who have misused it, and misrepresented it, a little like dressing up a pig? -dano)

As far as the listings of famous quotes I do not know of any such listings here at Ex-C.

 

What you said sums up my feelings about some of the N.T. and a lot of the O.T.

 

The bibles God is a tyrant just like stalin or hitler. The bible is not like a "How to book" or a repair manual, nothing cut and dried seems to come from that book...just churches splitting from churches.....some denominations thinking they got authority from God...through scripture to grab power and coerce Gods laws on others. Theology is bunk.

 

Given all of this I think Christianity is faulty equipment and should not be practiced at all. Faith is narrow minded and irrational. I judge Christianity by what I read in scripture as well as its history. Its an irrational mixed bag.

 

The thread did start out about evolution. Cool link dano.

[dano]

The thread did start out about evolution. Cool link dano.

 

Yea, the program on TV was awesome. I may buy the whole series.

 

Just to think that God didn't have anything better to do, than design these creatures, makes me wonder about his priorities!

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/bluep...hoto/photo.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/

[Grandpa Harley]

Dano,

 

The Disco link is dead... it returns a 404 page not found...

 

I liked J.B.S Haldane's (attrib) comment "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles."

[dano]

Dano,

 

The Disco link is dead... it returns a 404 page not found...

 

I liked J.B.S Haldane's (attrib) comment "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles."

 

Discovery Channel;

 

"Blue Planet"

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/

[Robbobrob]

Dano,

 

The Disco link is dead... it returns a 404 page not found...

 

I liked J.B.S Haldane's (attrib) comment "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles."

That and he likes a LOT of space to work in.

[BuddyFerris]

... Without intending any personal affront, it seems your argument is a bit unbalanced. In conversations here, 'church' is used as though you could point at them all by calling them 'the church', and you choose as representatives of that whole from among the buffoons and rabble and even wicked. Yet you protest when someone does the same in return. True?

Buddy

No more than your assertion that Christianity is the only moral compass on the planet.... In the 10 commandments murder only ranks 6th...

I pretty sure I wouldn't say that. The question's still on the table. Not the question of moral high ground, but the balance to the discussion in general. The preceding posts on who might be responsible for history's bloodshed illustrate the differences between claimed ideology and actual behavior. Is it profitable to malign millions for the actions of a small percentage?

Buddy

Grandpa,

There are a number of interesting points for discussion emerging in the last days, but before I press on getting beat up, I'm curious if you have an opinion on the issue of balance (or perhaps fairness) in the discussion.

 

We haven't yet begun an exchange on what the Bible teaches, which I'm sure will be a free-for-all, nor have we explored the issue of moral standards. We've just ever so slightly opened the door on freedom, responsibility, and accountability at the personal level. As much as I'm interested in it all, I'm curious if there might not be an equitable understanding on fairness.

 

Buddy

Others are free to comment as well, but to help my understanding, please address the issue directly. Thanks.

[Grandpa Harley]

Actually, no...

 

To quote Han solo on another thread.

 

To add something here, it is true that most Christians that come here get a very harsh and hostile treatment, and as moderators on this website we let this happen, and we don't do any attempts to stop it. The reason being is that the website has one main purpose: to help Ex-Christians. If the website was setup to be a meeting place for Christians and Ex-Christians to meet and discuss, then a lot of these things would not allowed. Basically, this website wasn't made with a purpose to build the bridge between the different groups, but the only purpose to help one of the groups (Ex-C's) to figure out, and let out, their frustration, confusion, anger, sadness or whatever it might be, so they can break lose from the grips of the religion and finally move on. We have members that come here, work through things, leave, and then just show up occasionally to say "hi". And I think it's important to know this. So we have no intentions to de-convert any Christians, and we have no intentions to build some mutual platform or understanding, this place is the oasis where the wounded go and find solice, water and can find answers to the questions religion didn't provide. That's just my 5 cents.

 

I don't think I can improve on that...

[Ouroboros]

I don't think I can improve on that...

And I can add a tad bit, and that is that we do allow (very slightly encourage) Christians to come and debate, and we somewhat welcome it when it happens, but we don't take any responsibility for the Christian getting hurt in the process. The religious (or anyone that enters the dens here) signed the waiver when they entered the large wooden doors, and they shouldn't and can't demand us to change because they feel offended. We DO NOT dance to their flute anymore. We got our own band playing, and anyone is welcome to join the party, but we decide what songs we play.

 

It's like Nivek (SkipNChurch) tell to the Oversensitives we encounter now-so-often: grow a thick skin.

 

And I think that's very important... for everyone... before they can learn truth about reality.

[Grandpa Harley]

What the Star Pilot said!

 

So no, I don't think fairness is a problem that bothers the average Christian in debate, so I don't see that even handedness is something to be aspired to. When fighting the devil, the only way is to get down in the hole and grab him by the tail... It's a Mad Freddie deal, daemon fighting, but we've already become daemons any way

[Grandpa Harley]

I think the Book of Job illustrates that 'life ain't fair' in fact...

[dano]

Grandpa,

There are a number of interesting points for discussion emerging in the last days, but before I press on getting beat up, I'm curious if you have an opinion on the issue of balance (or perhaps fairness) in the discussion.

 

We haven't yet begun an exchange on what the Bible teaches, which I'm sure will be a free-for-all, nor have we explored the issue of moral standards. We've just ever so slightly opened the door on freedom, responsibility, and accountability at the personal level. As much as I'm interested in it all, I'm curious if there might not be an equitable understanding on fairness.

 

Buddy

Others are free to comment as well, but to help my understanding, please address the issue directly. Thanks.

 

Buddy thinks we haven't seen anyone with His apologetic talents before, and if we promise to be nice, then he will bless us with his wisdom, on the myriad of things we have never thought of! Before, God sent him to us.

 

If you address him "indirectly" with something he isn't interested in he will ignore you indirectly.

 

If you address him "directly" with something that he considers not worthy of his intelligence, he will ignore you directly with a one or two word retort.

 

HE GIVES AS GOOD AS HE GETS. HE IS HOLDING HIS OWN BETTER THAN I COULD!

 

So as far as I can see, everything is right with the world.

 

We love you Buddy!

[BuddyFerris]

Grandpa,

There are a number of interesting points for discussion emerging in the last days, but before I press on getting beat up, I'm curious if you have an opinion on the issue of balance (or perhaps fairness) in the discussion.

 

We haven't yet begun an exchange on what the Bible teaches, which I'm sure will be a free-for-all, nor have we explored the issue of moral standards. We've just ever so slightly opened the door on freedom, responsibility, and accountability at the personal level. As much as I'm interested in it all, I'm curious if there might not be an equitable understanding on fairness.

 

Buddy

Others are free to comment as well, but to help my understanding, please address the issue directly. Thanks.

 

Buddy thinks we haven't seen anyone with His apologetic talents before, and if we promise to be nice, then he will bless us with his wisdom, on the myriad of things we have never thought of! Before, God sent him to us.

 

If you address him "indirectly" with something he isn't interested in he will ignore you indirectly.

 

If you address him "directly" with something that he considers not worthy of his intelligence, he will ignore you directly with a one or two word retort.

 

HE GIVES AS GOOD AS HE GETS. HE IS HOLDING HIS OWN BETTER THAN I COULD!

 

So as far as I can see, everything is right with the world.

 

We love you Buddy!

I'm fond of the lot here, Dano, pigheaded though they be. If you ignore this directly or indirectly, I'll understand.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

What the Star Pilot said!

 

So no, I don't think fairness is a problem that bothers the average Christian in debate, so I don't see that even handedness is something to be aspired to. When fighting the devil, the only way is to get down in the hole and grab him by the tail... It's a Mad Freddie deal, daemon fighting, but we've already become daemons any way

Grandpa,

Shall we consider this to be your agreement that your logic failed on a reasonable question. Didn't expect nice, 'fair' and 'balance' are softer words to use when saying your argument doesn't work. Haven't had my feelings hurt yet; have been challenged, though.

Gotta go; they're getting ready to board my plane.

Have a great day.

Buddy

[dano]

"So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us."

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy thinks we haven't seen anyone with His apologetic talents before, and if we promise to be nice, then he will bless us with his wisdom, on the myriad of things we have never thought of! Before, God sent him to us.

...

We love you Buddy!

Yeah, yeah. I have no intent to persuade anyone here; I figure anyone who is here is pretty well determined on their course. I am interested in how you've arrived at your beliefs. What I'm more interested in at the moment is a night's sleep; travel stinks.

Beat me up tomorrow; pick a subject.

Buddy

[pandora]

Why is it that Christians are the only ones who come on here and inform us of every little reason why they can't post? "Work calls..." "Time to eat dinner." "While you wait in anticipation of every word I say..." The arrogance is not surprising, I guess.

 

Some of these trolls are a real piece of work!