Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[Mriana]

I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying about morality. IMHO, it is all internal and cannot be external. What good is morality based on something external? It is meaningless IMO. When you allow others to do you're thinking for you, then you follow along like a Borg drone. That is not morality, IMO, but allowing others to think for you, so you don't have to do it yourself.

 

These words are wise, but I must disagree with one part.

 

Choices of behavior are entirely internal. Plus, we can individually decide what is moral. That much I agree with.

 

But to some extent morality is simply what "we" decide is acceptable behavior. To use the extreme example, if one person decides on his own that child rape is moral, it does not make it moral. There has to be some consensus. That is our guide.

 

Admittedly, this way of determining morality, while it is the basis for law and society, may be flawed. Burning witches was once "moral" by agreement. I'm sure the witches thought otherwise. It also suggests, however, that somethings "we" consider moral now may not stand the test of time. The death penalty for example.

 

So it is a mixture of personal opinion (conscience) and external judgement.

 

Of course you know I don't believe child rape is moral. There are some things that society has to impose on us, but these things aren't from any deity. That was my point to LNC. When I said external, I wasn't referring to society. I was referring to LNC's god concept and religious views.

[J.W.]

After careful deliberation, I have decided that I don't care about religion anymore

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I think morality is a lot like language in humans. We are born with the ability to speak and learn languages but we still have to be taught. If a child is never spoken to they will lose the ability to learn. Some are born handicapped and so have limited or no ability to learn. Language and morality developed together in our ancestors because both are required for social species, especially as society grew and became more complex.

 

Although languages can be very different certain things exist in all of them like nouns and verbs and tense and names for numbers, colors etc. I think morals develop similarly with major concepts developing independently because they are inevitable conclusions in a long term functioning society. Specific details are disputed among differing moral systems and over time they shift as society adapts.

 

Right now there is disagreement about homosexuality for instance. In times past men and women were paired up often without feelings of love between them. Desire for a homogeneous society was strong. When the ideas of independence, individuality, romantic love, choice, freedom etc are embraced as virtues I think acceptance of homosexuality is inevitable. Values are certainly not the same for everyone, but given a set of values there are logical conclusions that can be made about what is moral or immoral.

 

Antlerman described it well as intersubjective. Morality isn't a whim of an individual but it isn't something that exists outside of humanity either. We are born with the desire to survive, and through empathy the desire for others to survive and with the desire for society to function since that in turn improves the quality of our lives. When arguing over social issues much of the time it comes down to a difference of values: faith or reason/ evidence; safety of conformity or freedom of choice. Individuals put pressure on society to change what is acceptable, society puts pressure on individuals to follow between the lines of moral conduct. We do not (and could not) develop morals in a vacuum without other humans to interact with.

[Mr. Neil]

The author commits a number of logical fallacies in his reasoning. First, he commits the fallacy of ambiguity by saying that "religions" are dangerous. Does he mean all religions? If so, does he consider the good that has been done in the name of religion?

Let's change that up a little...

 

The author commits a number of logical fallacies in his reasoning. First, he commits the fallacy of ambiguity by saying that "cults" are dangerous. Does he mean all cults? If so, does he consider the good that has been done in the name of cults?

See the problem?

 

It isn't the point that people who practice religion can't be moral. In fact, most Christians are moral in spite of their religion. Not because of it.

 

No one is going to argue against the proposition that Christianity in today's society is largely benign, but that's not the issue anyway. It's the mentality of turning your moral compass over to an invisible arbitrator, then you can basically justify anything, regardless of how cruel or unjust. We are fortunate that most of you don't actually do this, but some do, and that's why it's dangerous.

 

Here are some interesting questions. How many children are born into poverty in Africa because religious leaders oppose the use of condoms? How many Christian Science believers and people of similar faiths die each year because they don't believe in modern medicine? How many asshole creationists are sabotaging the education system because they don't accept evolution? For that matter, who is ALWAYS on the front line in opposing scientific progress?

 

As he points out in his article, "there are lots of things in the world that people use to justify cruel acts and attitudes," however, what he fails to demonstrate is that these people have justified reasoning from what the religion teaches to their actions. In other words, can someone justify committing evil from a proper understanding of the religious text?

And this is where you lose your bearings. In your attempt to respond to the article, you go into damage control mode. The moment you had to offer an apologetic response, you lost. You're basically arguing that as long as the apparent atrocities in the Bible can be explained away, then it's not dangerous. All you're doing is employing your own moral compass and trying to adjust the actions of your God to match.

 

The proper understanding of the word is conviction or assurance and flows from the evidence that gives that conviction or assurance. It is no different than anything else for which we would have a conviction, belief, or assurance. I have assurance that the pilot of my plane has done his proper inspection before take-off.

That's a really disingenuous comparison. It's not faith just because you don't inspect the airline pilot prior to takeoff. We see airplanes all the time. We have statistics to show that air travel is safer than traveling in your own car, where YOU are the pilot. We know that there are screening processes for being a pilot, and they have to pass extensive training to even be in there.

 

And even if we don't normally see these things for ourselves, we could, in theory, inspect them for ourselves. Any of us could take flight school and see for ourselves the process one needs to go through to even be a pilot. Most of us do take the option of not inspecting such things to such minute detail, largely because it's a lot of work to do so, but we could if we wanted to. It COULD be done.

 

On the other hand, you have no such data for belief in God. You literally base your belief in an invisible being on NOTHING with absolutely not method of validation available to you, and THAT is the definition of faith. Unlike the person would inspect the training and selective process of an airline pilot, you couldn't verify your belief if you wanted to.

 

All you've done is made a very bad excuse for believing in things that you can't prove, and it's about time that people of faith man up and stop trying to pretend like their faith is just as reasonable as any of the naturalistic presumptions we make on a regular basis, because it's not.

[agnosticator]

The fact that humans react to stimuli does not equate to objective morality.

 

Let me clarify. I understand what you mean by objective morality, and I understand what moral absolutes are. The problem is, placing morality apart from humanity-both absolutes and grounding itself-is an unrealistic and irrelevant thing to do. Objective morality in this sense, is impossible. It is an excercise in logic which cannot pan out in the real world. A God is not human. Besides, what exactly comprises objective morality? What are the moral absolutes? Identify both, please.

 

 

...how do we adjudicate between them without an outside standard that indicates that one reaction is "right" and the other "wrong"?

 

The same way it is done right here in the USA. There are no standards for humanity outside of the world.

 

Now you have inserted an outside standard, "unnecessary suffering and death" which you have not grounded in your previous standard. You have not defined "unnecessary" nor explained why suffering and death, or which suffering and death is wrong. IOW, is all suffering wrong? What about the suffering a person goes through for schooling or at the doctor or dentist? Is all death wrong?...

 

These are questions with obvious answers. If you had a fractured metacarpal, you would go to the hospital. If not, you would suffer needlessly unless it didn't cause you much pain. If I smashed your metacarpal with a hammer just because I felt like it, I would cause you unnecessary suffering and I'd probably go to jail. Anyway, your point is the usual dichotomy of objective otherworldly morality vs. opinion. Morality today comes from human consensus, reason, logic, experience, empathy/compassion, etc. Which arrives at the judicial systems and standards of conduct you and I partake in. It's a lot more than opinion.

 

You have also brought in empathy as a standard which you again have not grounded. Who says that empathy is a natural thing? It seems that animals in the wild often exhibit no empathy, which is why it is said that nature is "red in tooth and claw." Empathy is also not even necessarily a norm in human society as we look at the statistics of violent crime. Still, you have not explained on what basis we should prefer empathy over selfishness.

 

So empathy is supernatural? The human animal and other animals have the capacity for both empathy and murder. Cooperation/competition obviously are present in all species. There is more empathy than hatred in humanity, otherwise the murder rates would be near 100%. You seem to be a cynic: "human nature is only evil" in your view.

 

Fairness, empathy, tit-for-tat, honesty, and reciprocity brings about survival and prosperity moreso than competition alone does.

 

Plato said that we cannot move from particulars to universal. IOW, we can look at what is to determine what ought to be.

 

Your typo is right. We do and have determined what ought to be from what is. That's the only option in real life. But philosophy just ignores the world with their mind experiments of pure logic. The is/ought gap is useless in real life.

 

...post snipped...Existence is a different category from fairness and equity...I don't treat the paper cup on my desk the same way that I treat another human being. I will toss the cup in the garbage when I am done, I wouldn't consider doing that with another human. We must ground morality in more than simply looking at how we behave toward one another and making norms into universals. That is a dangerous proposition when you think about the fact that slavery, subjugation, and even murder of humans of certain "classes" and races was once a norm.

 

We do ground morality upon more than how people behave. Hence ideals expressing equality. The Bible does not express equality, because the biblegod allowed slavery, murder, subjugation, and divisiveness (saved/unsaved and condemning all other religions). Your objective basis of morality is flawed. You think your God is the basis, but you don't agree with his morality. If you agree with his morals, then that is acceptance of baby-bashing and a host of other atrocities.

[Guest Valk0010]

Isn't finding the theist idea of objective morality almost like a eternal regress. For example, I would say moral ethics are based in what is called, harm or avoiding harm. A theist would say, what says what's harm and what's not harm. I would say, harm causes damage to a person or group, and then the theist would say, what is your definition of damage. Its a infinite regress of is, what is. I would say for the naturalist, to the theists disdain, the answer, is culture and evolution and survival. The theist is left peet in hand, because, they can't explain how all the different moral codes of this world vary, yet the naturalist can, with the idea of cultural norms on what is survival, and also the evolutionary need towards altruism. To search for a objective standard, theist, you will find it, and its one which a naturalist agrees one. And that is, do no harm to another. All morality is, is commentary in many ways, on that precept. So yes, how that term "do no harm" is determined is subjective, but the nature of morality, it its avoidance of harm is very much subjective. Since the idea of morality can and is be shown biologically, that is where change is allowed and modifications can occur. If this is a theist world, no modification or change could or would occur, and we would still be the world of the bible.

[agnosticator]

Isn't finding the theist idea of objective morality almost like a eternal regress. For example, I would say moral ethics are based in what is called, harm or avoiding harm. A theist would say, what says what's harm and what's not harm.

 

Right. And the theist won't admit they define them exactly the same as the naturalist. They only change the origin by saying God made them.

 

If this is a theist world, no modification or change could or would occur, and we would still be the world of the bible.

 

I think what we see in the Middle East is a good example. But theists do change their moral standards (like slavery being taboo), without admitting to it. They find all sorts of ways to explain the change away. They might say "God allowed ---- because the people weren't as civilized as us", or whatever. What is never explained is, what the objective/absolute morality specifically IS, and how it's different from the morality we agree on. How is it "the same yesterday, today, and forever?"

[Guest Valk0010]

I should check for typos better

 

So yes, how that term "do no harm" is determined is subjective, but the nature of morality, it its avoidance of harm is very much objective.

[LNC]

Well, if you're not going to want to step out of your safety zone, then I'll come to where you are. How do you consider his criticisms of those of his church to be judgmentalism?? For all your laborious training in tightening the belt of your arguments against the skeptic and the atheist, you don't understand the difference here?

 

The members of the church who point at others "not them", and talk about how righteous they are while all those lost sinners out there are so blind, not knowing the Lord like them... that my friend is judgmentalism. Whereas this person, who is sick and tired of that sort of self-righteous, judgmental, hypocritical attitude chaffs against it and rightly criticizes their bad and harmful behaviors, you consider this judgmental?

 

As smart as you are, if you can't or are unwilling to recognize the difference, that will knock you down several notches on my respect scale.

 

 

So, in your view is it that the church people consider themselves to be righteous (right) that makes them judgmental? If so, to criticize them one must know them to be wrong, which implies that the person making that accusation considers him/herself to be right. I guess I don't see the distinction. BTW, a Christian who understands the teaching of the Bible would never consider him/herself to be "self-righteous", that is to commit the sin pride, the same one that started this sin problem in the beginning. I'm not saying that people who call themselves Christian can't be self-righteous, but I am saying that people who act in such a way are in sin. However, I don't know any person who doesn't have a pride problem, at least sometimes. The mere fact that you and others here point out "others" who have a problem with judgmentalism and self-righteousness is an indication that while one finger points at them, three more point back at you. IOW, we all have a problem with self-righteousness which is why Jesus had to come to die on the cross for us.

 

Oh, I don't think the criticism is because any of them claim to be perfect. None of us are that naive LNC. What is the problem, is that they claim to be superior in righteousness, in morality, in values, in beliefs, etc to those poor lost, blind, unsaved sinners who are in darkness because they don't have their light. That is the issue. Not that they claim to be perfect. Whereas the real truth of the matter LNC, is that most every single one of us are in fact now better people for not being part of that garbage of religious social pressures and hypocrisies.

 

I've said many times in irony, "I'm a better Christian now that I'm not one, than I ever was when I was one." I'm not a Christian, but yet now that I'm freed from that world of 'fitting in', or 'conforming' (which this persons post was all about that you missed, BTW), it all comes naturally, "flowing", not from the evidence as you falsely imagine, but from the heart. But you wouldn't understand that.

 

Again, a Christian does not produce their own righteousness and should be the last to claim superiority. The Apostle Paul had more right than most to claim superiority as he was raised a Jew, was a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel and lived according to the Law, yet, he called himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). Christians should follow his lead and when that is not the case and Christians claim some moral righteousness of our own, we are in sin. As I said, the major problem of the human heart is pride and pride often prevents a person from admitting his/her fallenness. You seem to claim to be superior to the Christians whom you refer to as hypocrites who belong to a movement that you equate to garbage. Sorry, but you cannot be something that you are not, that is illogical. One cannot be a Christian and deny the tenants of Christianity. What is it that you find comes naturally to you?

 

Yeah... right. You know there's lots of different takes on the Judas character in the narrative tales. The best ones I know don't see him as phony. That's an imaginative one on your part. But I don't care to explore your theological constructs. They're really utterly beneath the point.

 

Sorry, but I take the clear reading of the Gospels. To what are you referring and on what do they base their take on Judas? IOW, do they have extra-biblical historical information to which they refer, or are they simply reading their view back into the biblical accounts? BTW, my view of Judas isn't based upon theological constructs, but on the historical record.

 

Yes, but what's the really interesting question is are they trying to fit some ideal model (which "Jesus" as a symbol can be some cultural ideal, some social ideal of that club or church, etc), or looking for an example to follow on their own in becoming their own light, entirely irrespective of any act of conformity?

 

You see, when I hear you say this, I can see some few who sincerely do want to become better. But the problem is that Jesus as the symbol of that is tied much too much with their religion and all its ideals that they ascribe to God as part of that system. But again, how much do you really understand any of this beyond the structure of your tower of theologies?

 

Are you saying that we are stuck within some socio-cultural framework from which we cannot escape and that our view of Jesus is tied to that framework? Let me have you clear up that point before I comment further.

 

Paul, did you just hear what you just said? Read that again. The fact that you just said you can't judge whether he has a "proper understanding" of these things, says that you in fact CAN judge if he does or doesn't. You believe you have a proper understanding, but you just don't have enough information about his beliefs to judge by yours. Don't you see that? You conclude the superior understanding. You can and will judge other by how you believe.

 

If you can't see that in there, I'll try further to help you see it. It is key to the criticism he is making, BTW. It's that subtle arrogance that you or any Christian presumes that their understanding is the proper one, the correct one, the right one, the God-Approved one! Get it?

 

No, that is not what that indicates. I could say of a person who claims expertise in a field of which I am completely unschooled that I don't know whether he/she has a proper understanding of his/her field, and that in no way indicates that I do. It is a position of agnosticism (without knowledge) which was my claim. Sorry Keith, but you are reading way too much into my responses. It seems that you may be too intent on making your point rather than reading my posts as I intended them. On top of that, you accuse me of arrogance when you simply misunderstood my post. Wouldn't that be an arrogant thing to do, to presume that you knew my intentions when you misrepresented them? I think that we could both stand to be a little more humble here. Still, are you saying that we cannot understand the NT or that I simply have misunderstood it? Either way, there is a claim of knowledge being made on your part as well.

 

Oh, but in reality, in the church body, in the social interactions, it is not just about what you say. That's just so much theoretical talk. Unless you're talking something like a monastery where people are in a community for the sole purpose of the individual pursuit of spiritual depth, then you are not at all doing justice to the reality of what a church of common 'believers' are.

 

You'd like it to be this ideal, but that's not reality. Very few people truly go to any level of real depth in the spiritual lives within the church body. They are the exception, not the rule.

 

 

I don't claim that there is an ideal church on this Earth. Any church that claims people as members is, by definition, not ideal since it has confessed sinners as members and attenders. Monasteries are no exception as they have sinners as members as well. I would actually agree with you for the most part in that people in churches don't go to the spiritual depth that we ought. Again, that is part of the sin problem of man. We won't have that level of depth or community until we are in the Kingdom.

 

Then I would suspect you will be able to hear my voice as well, even though I don't identify as a Christian. But I mostly suspect your theology won't allow for your ears to hear. I know the mindset (deliberate choice of words there). I understand fully the marriage of beliefs to a system that can't allow itself to see beyond it.

 

 

I hear you and agree with much of what you have said. The church is full of sinners that still act like sinners in many ways. Jesus didn't promise that the change in us would be quick or complete on this Earth, but it is happening whether you believe it or not. I have seen it, as I have said, and continue to see people changed by grace through Jesus. The challenge is that people come from all different backgrounds and from all depths of sin. I agree that if people in church start to act self-righteously, that is sin. However, I think that people in the church are often falsely accused of this due to ignorance on the part of the accuser. I am not necessarily saying that about you, but many look at the fact that Christians stand up for certain moral issues, based upon what the Bible calls us to, and that is often seen as self-righteousness. IOW, people will see that Christians are still sinners and yet stand up for moral issues as some sort of hypocrisy. I don't see it that way. Just because we haven't overcome sin, doesn't mean that we can't call ourselves and our society to live to higher standards. Whenever Christians call for these standards, we are not exempting ourselves from that call.

 

And the same holds true for you Paul. Why do you presume we need to convert to Christianity? Why do you presume that others aren't on a better path now? With what faculties are you judging? With your doctrines, or your heart setting aside any ideas of some ultimate truth you try to build up for yourself to convince others? You do understand there is real truth beyond your trite philosophical definition, right?

 

 

I don't presume it for myself, I simply go by what Jesus called people to and what he calls us to as Christians. Nicodemus came to Jesus as night and said that he knew Jesus came from God because he was doing miracles (John 3). Jesus didn't go down that path of discussion, but instead called for Nicodemus to be born again. Jesus called his followers to make disciples (Matt. 28) and to go be his witnesses (Acts 1). These were his final words before ascending. I also don't call people to convert to Christianity, but to follow Jesus. What is the difference? One is a call to religion and the other is a call to trust and follow Jesus. Jesus made exclusive claims that, if true, mean that those who don't follow him are on a path to destruction (Matt. 7:13). If I believe Jesus and care about people, I should be telling them this news. I use my mind to assess the evidence of Jesus' claims and the evidence for other religious claims. Again, you are judging my motives without being able to read my mind (which, unless I tell you my motives, would be the only way to truly know them), and that is being unfairly judgmental of me. BTW, you are wrong about my motives as I have indicated earlier in this post.

 

I don't claim that there is not truth beyond my claims, there is. But if Jesus' claims are correct, which I believe they are, then they have eternal significance and consequences.

 

That is of course unless you think you've got a lock on an understanding of God, and can come in and tell people they're lost......................

 

Let's see where you're willing to step beyond your doctrines to....

 

 

I don't judge people's eternal states, that is up to the Lord (as I understand it from the Bible). However, if the Bible is correct, and I have already said that I believe it is, then it informs me that this is exactly what Jesus did and calls me to do. So, I am not judging people's eternal states, I am simply believing and applying the Bible and its truths.

 

Now, you insinuate that I have, or may have difficulty stepping outside of my doctrine, but what about you? Are you willing to consider that Jesus was telling the truth? I will be willing to step beyond the doctrines that I hold if shown that they are improperly limiting me or are false in some way. If you want to know what doctrines I hold, then you can simply read what the Bible has to say in context and generally know what doctrines I hold. I hold them because I believe them to be true; however, if you know otherwise, please tell me and explain how you came to those conclusions and I will consider what you have to say. I appreciate our ongoing conversation.

 

LNC

[bdp]

Are you willing to consider that Jesus was telling the truth?

 

Oh, holy hell...

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I'm willing to consider that the Jesus was right, but he first needs to be proven right. It's going to be an uphill battle though, as what Jesus do we start with? There are so many of them, and they're still coming.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

God did reveal the moral code verbally to Moses on Mt. Sinai

But I thought a similar code was given to King Hammurabi of Babylon by the Lord Marduk (Bel Marduk)? Why am I to believe that Moses really got his from God, and not Hammurabi? And why am I to believe that Moses existed? Where has his existence ever been proven? The same books where the polytheistic pagan influences are at their most obvious? And I'm supposed to believe that this was written by a monotheistic God? O wait, that's right, Christianity is as polytheist as hinduism, I almost forgot.

 

and through Jesus (who claimed to be God

Where did he claim this?

 

and died and rose to confirm that claim

That was a later invention, as the messiah wasn't supposed to die. However, how do we know he even existed?

 

These were both perceptible and recorded events and, in fact, the Law was recorded on stone tablets not once (Ex. 20), but twice (Deut. 10).

Why are we supposed to believe God actually did that? And that Moses even existed? or didn't just invent them himself?

 

How do I know that the compilers of the Bible, in the hellenistic era, when the Old Testament was compiled, that they didn't invent those books?

 

Why do Moses' alleged laws from God sound alot like Hammurabi's laws from his god?

 

There are plenty of reasons not to believe that those are from God, but from a early iron age late bronze age kingdom. They were then championed as sacred.

 

I'll post more later.

[Mriana]

Are you willing to consider that Jesus was telling the truth?

 

Oh, holy hell...

 

How could a story character be telling the truth when he is a work of fiction. The author might have been throwing in some words of wisdom, mostly from other sources, but the character, no.

[bdp]

 

the Law was recorded on stone tablets not once (Ex. 20), but twice (Deut. 10).

 

show me the stone tablets.

[Shyone]

These were both perceptible and recorded events and, in fact, the Law was recorded on stone tablets not once (Ex. 20), but twice (Deut. 10).

Why are we supposed to believe God actually did that? And that Moses even existed? or didn't just invent them himself?

 

How do I know that the compilers of the Bible, in the hellenistic era, when the Old Testament was compiled, that they didn't invent those books?

 

Why do Moses' alleged laws from God sound alot like Hammurabi's laws from his god?

 

There are plenty of reasons not to believe that those are from God, but from a early iron age late bronze age kingdom. They were then championed as sacred.

 

I'll post more later.

I hate to tell you, but I think the stone tablets were probably baked clay, and the burning bush was probably a kiln, and the writing on the tablets was probably cuneiform.

 

Even if it happens that Moses (whatever his name was) had engraved a few sentences on obsidian or some other form of stone, it's still nothing that other ancients did to memorialize what they thought was important.

 

[agnosticator]

I'm assuming LNC was quoted here:

These were both perceptible and recorded events and, in fact, the Law was recorded on stone tablets not once (Ex. 20), but twice (Deut. 10).

 

Sorry, but the final stone tablets were given to Moses in Exodus 34:

 

1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

 

14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

 

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

 

17 "Do not make cast idols.

 

18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

 

19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

 

21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

 

22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

 

25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.

 

26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.

"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

 

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

 

Are these 10 Commands absolute morals? A hell of a lot of christians ignore them. If you christians ignore these, then you have no grounds for following any other Commandments.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I hate to tell you, but I think the stone tablets were probably baked clay, and the burning bush was probably a kiln, and the writing on the tablets was probably cuneiform.

It does sound like it is so.

 

From the Code of Hammurabi:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel (Enlil), the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land,

Moreless, Hammurabi was given by the gods, later God (in Chaldean theology, Anu, Enlil, Ea and Marduk, sometimes just Anu, Enlil and Ea, form a triad as one God), the law, the rule of righteousness. Sound familiar?

 

Hammurabi was also on a mountain, as you didnt speak to gods outside of temples, and temples were supposed to be artificial mountains. I'm not saying he was completely taken off Hammurabi, as Moses seems to be an amalgamation of fused characters. Some may have been initially hebrew. The original character most likely Egyptian. The rest from places like Mesopotamia.

 

But Hammurabi was clearly an influence on the text.

[notazombie]

Evil people do evil acts and use whatever excuse that suits them. The Bible god is definitely evil. People that worship an evil entity are pretty much by default, evil themselves or they would't worship such a horrid entity. Then to make it worse, they claim such evil is good.

 

 

So true. Chistians view the Aztecs as crazy and barbaric and fail to recognize their entire religion is based on the same things: animal and human sacrifice.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The writers of the Torah taking influence from hammurabi is interesting, as Hammurabi's code stating that he got the law from the gods was pure rhetoric. It was meant to show his faith, and to show that he was just doing the will of the gods, to maintain order, which was a given by the gods, which was the duty of the king. So it pretty much debunks any view that the Torah was god's word, as it is clearly a document written by people.

[Shyone]

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

 

Are these 10 Commands absolute morals? A hell of a lot of christians ignore them. If you christians ignore these, then you have no grounds for following any other Commandments.

I hadn't really thought about it much, but it says that God told Moses to "write down these commandments." I think, more now than ever, that the tablets of "stone" were baked clay tablets that were in widespread use in the middle east.

 

Just as with all of the other things that "God" told Moses to do, it was Moses that did it, said it, commanded it. No one ever thought he might just be making shit up.

 

Man, and I thought today's Christians were gullible.

[agnosticator]

I hadn't really thought about it much, but it says that God told Moses to "write down these commandments." I think, more now than ever, that the tablets of "stone" were baked clay tablets that were in widespread use in the middle east.

 

It makes sense to me...carving stone is one hellofa task!

 

Just as with all of the other things that "God" told Moses to do, it was Moses that did it, said it, commanded it. No one ever thought he might just be making shit up.

 

Man, and I thought today's Christians were gullible.

 

They follow a great tradition of gullibility. There's nothing better to control the masses than specified commands from a god. Teach them from the cradle and you've got followers for life. Until there's outside influence.

 

What gripes me most is the blatant hypocrisy of the christian establishments who pick the commands they prefer while ignoring what the story says. This really shows how gullible the flock is in believing what their church says regardless of what the texts say.

[Phanta]

So, even though we bring in terms like pain and suffering, we cannot say that all pain and suffering are wrong (I feel pain and suffer when I go to the dentist). We cannot say that it is based upon our reactions since everyone reacts differently and there has to be a standard to adjudicate between those people. IOW, we need a transcendent standard that is not based or grounded in subjective feelings or situations.

 

Why do we need it, LNC? What if the struggle is what it's all about?

 

Phanta

[Guest Valk0010]

Wouldn't you say societies form subjectively, if that is the case, why not there ethics and morality develop subjectively to.

 

All views of moral ethics as well as all society form to need and understandings(both subjective and based off of other factors). What is objective is that things say for example cause harm. What subjective about the objective is it is interpreted different to need like society.