Bible “ethics”

[Guest stooch]

QUOTE I may not know exactly how someone wishes to be treated. I can however ask them what they want if their need is unclear. Am I somehow not 'allowed' to ask someone how they want to be treated? Not everyone is the same, but no one is going to feel hurt by someone who is obviously trying to help.

 

You may be able to ask someone how they want to be treated, but most of us just assume, we don’t ask. It’s not realistic. We have to think broader than that, governments, businesses, educational institutions and other groups make ethical decisions everyday.

 

I did not mean for the abortion issue to be a rabbit trail. I am not talking about the United States of America’s laws. That is not relevant for this conversion. I’m talking about what is ethical, right and wrong. I think we both agreed some not all laws are unfair and unneeded. We just disagree on which ones.

 

 

 

QUOTE[so no, babies are no more or less special than we choose to make them. Something that could very much be said regarding people in general....true. This makes true morality, a very subjective thing. We won't all agree what it is......but there are areas of similarity. This is where we get our laws in the first place. Laws however, ar not indefinite. They can be changed. And when minds change about what is moral and what is not, the laws will eventually change too. Abortion used to be completely illegal after all (not that this stopped anyone determined from having one). Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder at one time too.

 

Here is the crux of it. So basically what you are saying is that societies decide what is moral and that morality is subjective? Let’s take that to its logical conclusion.

 

1.The men that slammed planes into the World Trade Center thought what they were doing was right. Killing capitalism and the West was right for them. Not just right for them, but possibly millions of muslims agree. So since they decided and “changed” their mind about killing somewhere along the line it is right for them.

 

2.The atheist Bertrand Russell said he differentiated between right and wrong on the basis of his feelings. This is similar to what you said. In some cultures, people love their neighbor; in others they literally eat them. Both on the basis of feelings.

 

3.Jean Paul Sartre used to say, “it is forbidden to forbid”, he became the academic grandfather of many terrorist groups in Africa. Some are still at war today.

 

4.Not to mention Hitler thought he could eventually create an evolutionary higher stage, so exterminate inferior races (To him, the Jews). Thanks to Nietzsche and Darwin morality is subjective.

 

You see, morality being subjective is so wobbly because you have no starting point. No norm in which to agree upon, and each culture decides. Ethical theorists have tried and can not answer this question. When you presuppose there is no God, then you get subjectivism. When you have subjectivism, you have no agreed upon moral compass because you have thrown it away.

 

In his autobiography in 1970, Bertrand Russell said he had three passions that controlled his life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and the unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions could not be truly pursued without a moral imperative.

[Guest stooch]

Thanks for your response. So your oughtness comes from “the pain” that someone might cause. You seem to have some judgment of morality, and there is an oughtness to it. If pain is the measure of these principles you speak of, then we are no more than Pavlov's dog. If this is the case, then you are a naturalist. Even the naturalist David Hume said, with the senses, we can tell what is, not what ought to be. It is too subjective. If you know something then you have to know the standard!

 

The issue of pain strikes me funny. I think both you and I have children, and for wife pregnancy and especially delivery was painful. Does this mean my children are immoral because they caused pain to my wife? I think you would say it is not senseless and has meaning. You love your kids and I love mine. Hence, not all pain is bad. That is my point! Where do we get meaning? What makes something senseless and another meaningful? Please don’t say society. It also did not evolve in us. I think it is a higher power, the God of the Bible.

 

Part of your argument is objective and part is subjective. “Senseless killing and stealing is immoral”. I think you are saying there is absolute truth. If this is senseless killing , are sure? You are presupposing your view and have no proof for it. Hitler did not think his killing was senseless; he was trying to create a superior race. If you kill a few million people, so what.

 

If there is no God I have no obligation to not steal, obligation means meaning, if we have meaning it came from something or someone. I’m not going to obey impersonal fate, but I will obey a personal God.

 

We become aware of obligations not from pain, but by personal context. If we have an obligation, it must be to an ultimate person, so I argue God exist and he is personal, thinking, speaking, and righteous. His absoluteness implies he is eternal, his knowledge is perfect. If there was a limitation, then it would be conceivable to think of a reality without God. Nothing is doable if God can not do it, for if something were, its doability would be measured by a standard other than God.

 

It also makes more sense to me that our minds correlate to reality because there is a God. Human knowledge is impossible with out him.

 

In his autobiography in 1970, Bertrand Russell said he had three passions that controlled his life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and the unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions could not be truly pursued without a moral imperative. I argue it is the God of the Bible. For you, it seems you have no reason, in your world I don’t know what pain or love is.

[Guest stooch]

In regards to Psalm 137, I’m sure we will disagree, but I hope this explanation is new to you. I think you are reading the surface of the text. Of course, if I looked out the window and saw people smashing babies I would be horrified. Look at where I live, look at the context . But take yourself out of your comfortable USA and put yourself in the place of an enslaved Israelite in Babylon during that time. You can’t begin to know what it was like to be a slave. They had seen their children killed. The psalmist prayed God’s blessing on those who would carry out this aspect of his vengeance against Babylon.

 

When 9/11 happened a significant amount of Americans wanted retribution, so don’t act like it’s out of the question. It’s unlikely, but if the Muslim agenda eventually wins out in the good ol USA you’d probably feel different especially if someone hurt your kids and took away your way of life

 

I think from God’s perspective, the deaths of the Babylonian children were retribution for the enormous tragedy the Babylonians inflicted on Israel (doubtless including the killing of Israelite children.) Since children could grow up to challenge the authority of their conquerors, intentional destruction of children was part of ancient warfare. This was in the context of Holy War and God had a plan to take his land.

 

Now, do I understand it, No! However, neither do you.

The other passage you refer to in Hosea 13:16 is metaphorical language for destruction.

 

 

 

I can't reply to this, this cooperation thing is so unrealistic.

[Mythra]

ACHAN'S LITTLE KIDS...

 

Don't ever forget about ACHAN'S LITTLE KIDS!

 

How come biblegod chilled out after the Israelites rocked their world ?????

[Eponymic]

Thanks for your response. So your oughtness comes from “the pain” that someone might cause. You seem to have some judgment of morality, and there is an oughtness to it. If pain is the measure of these principles you speak of, then we are no more than Pavlov's dog. If this is the case, then you are a naturalist. Even the naturalist David Hume said, with the senses, we can tell what is, not what ought to be. It is too subjective. If you know something then you have to know the standard!

 

You're jumping to a generality here. They're not saying that pain is the overall measure. It's about causing the least amount of harm, willful deliberate, or side effect (secondary/unintentional) harm. It's about doing the least amount of damage to others with your actions. So you're right, and so are they, it's not just about pain in general.

 

The issue of pain strikes me funny. I think both you and I have children, and for wife pregnancy and especially delivery was painful. Does this mean my children are immoral because they caused pain to my wife? I think you would say it is not senseless and has meaning. You love your kids and I love mine.

 

That kind of pain isn't an issue. That kind of pain does not have any kind of negative intent to it.

 

Hence, not all pain is bad. That is my point!

 

And you're jumping to the conclusion that we don't already get that, which we do. Watch out for blind assumptions, they won't win you any points, eh.

 

Where do we get meaning? What makes something senseless and another meaningful? Please don’t say society. It also did not evolve in us. I think it is a higher power, the God of the Bible.

 

That's your opinion. Who's to say that with objective reasoning & logic you can achieve a positive moral lifestyle. Which is what we're really looking at here; Trying to achieve the maximum amount of positive action & activity and minimizing the negative energy (causing pain, harm, or injury of any kind), as much as possible.

 

Part of your argument is objective and part is subjective. “Senseless killing and stealing is immoral”. I think you are saying there is absolute truth. If this is senseless killing , are sure?

 

Personally, I'm very sure. Because senseless killing is any murder that causes negative results with little to no positive results from it. Stealing is the same way, it's a matter of something that causes more negative than positive.

 

Basically, anything that detracts from the progress of an individual, society, or humanity is something that should be looked upon as an immoral, or impractical, activity.

 

If there is no God I have no obligation to not steal, obligation means meaning, if we have meaning it came from something or someone. I’m not going to obey impersonal fate, but I will obey a personal God.

 

This sounds to me like you're presuming that it's impossible to have meaning without believing in a God. It's not a matter of obeying impersonal fate, it's a matter of obeying the ruling forces of negative & positive energy/action.

 

I have found far more negative results and actions from the Bible than there are positive. Sure, many people can filter out the negative, but far more often than not, the negative wins out with religion.

 

We become aware of obligations not from pain, but by personal context. If we have an obligation, it must be to an ultimate person, so I argue God exist and he is personal, thinking, speaking, and righteous. His absoluteness implies he is eternal, his knowledge is perfect. If there was a limitation, then it would be conceivable to think of a reality without God. Nothing is doable if God can not do it, for if something were, its doability would be measured by a standard other than God.

 

By putting God in a book, you're automatically putting limitations on him. Because you are saying he is this & that, and claiming that you know exactly what he is. Personally, I think that we're far too primitive still to really know what God is. And to be so arrogant to think that when we were still barely able to live into our 40's (back around the 1st Century) we could actually name exactly what God is, is the epitome of human hubris, egoism, and ignorance.

 

It also makes more sense to me that our minds correlate to reality because there is a God. Human knowledge is impossible with out him.

 

That's pure opinion, and to me, it seems rather cold. Basically it sounds to me like you're saying that anyone who doesn't believe in a God is a complete idiot, has no idea how to form opinions or thoughts, and they are completely unable to function. Are you really saying that, because that's how a statement like, "Human knowledge is impossible with out (God)."

 

In his autobiography in 1970, Bertrand Russell said he had three passions that controlled his life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and the unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions could not be truly pursued without a moral imperative. I argue it is the God of the Bible. For you, it seems you have no reason, in your world I don’t know what pain or love is.

 

It's very harsh, inconsiderate, and brash to say that. "in your world"? You've never lived in our world, and you obviously don't understand it. Because I live my life by a code of principals that are all about minimizing pain & increasing love with myself & others. And really, it's all about reason & logic. You sound to me like you need to learn a lot more about our world before placing such mean and callous remarks towards us.

[SkepticOfBible]

In regards to Psalm 137, I’m sure we will disagree, but I hope this explanation is new to you. I think you are reading the surface of the text. Of course, if I looked out the window and saw people smashing babies I would be horrified. Look at where I live, look at the context . But take yourself out of your comfortable USA and put yourself in the place of an enslaved Israelite in Babylon during that time. You can’t begin to know what it was like to be a slave. They had seen their children killed. The psalmist prayed God’s blessing on those who would carry out this aspect of his vengeance against Babylon.

.........

I think from God’s perspective, the deaths of the Babylonian children were retribution for the enormous tragedy the Babylonians inflicted on Israel (doubtless including the killing of Israelite children.) Since children could grow up to challenge the authority of their conquerors, intentional destruction of children was part of ancient warfare. This was in the context of Holy War and God had a plan to take his land.

 

So in other words, if God says to kill babies, it is ok?How do you know the children would grow up to challenge the authority of their conquerors? Couldn't your God take care of the babies? It doesn't anything about Isrealites being slaves to babylonians?

 

In the midst of all revenge and all, I like to know where was Jesus. ? You know, the same Jesus who is also supposed to be God.

 

Why didn't Jesus step in and remind these enslaved Isrealites that they was supposed to love their enemies and not curse them?

Matt 5:44

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 

Where's the love here? Why isn't Jesus stepping in to set a good example for Isrealites?

Was Jesus out to lunch when this event occurred?

 

Since Jesus is God, he ordered the murder of the Babylonian babies. That makes Jesus an accomplice to this violence. I thought he was the Prince of Peace?

 

Luke 6:29

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

 

Why isn't Jesus stepping in here to remind the Isrealotes that he's supposed to turn the other cheek???

After all, Jesus is God and has always existed and that means his rules have always existed.

 

Apparently Jesus the God wasn't aware that by ordering Holy Way in revenge that he was violating his own position on violence.

 

Since you did mention about the Nazi. It is pretty known fact a lot of their killing had to do christian theology.(I don't think I need to goto to anti semitism in NT).

 

How was the Genocide/Holy War of the Isrealites any different than the holy war of the Crusadors and Nazi?

 

All three claimed that they were operating under orders of God, how do you these writings weren't any different?

 

 

Why do I feel like this is a trick question? Can you be more specific?

 

No it's not a trick question. Perhaps you call tell us when was it ok for God's representatives to participate in the heathen ritual of baptism(and various other pagan rituals). Please answer here(Did Jesus Sin)

 

And I would like to know how much of the your God's 613 laws(which represent "Gods" morality) are you and fellow christians following, since you keep disobeying the OT laws regularly?

 

For me, when is it OK for me to harm someone or cheat on my wife. Is it because I feel it is right or wrong.

 

According to your bible anyone who divorces and remarries is an adulterers

 

Luke 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

 

Also note the penalty for adultery according to God's word.

Deut 22:22

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

 

How many Christians have violated the clear instructions from Jesus regarding divorce, and still considered them part of god? Yet, churches are virtually mute about this common practice.

 

Perhaps next time you should start reminding your fellow christians not to keep on remarrying, since it is a clear violation of God's law.

[SkepticOfBible]

That is my point! Where do we get meaning? What makes something senseless and another meaningful? Please don’t say society. It also did not evolve in us. I think it is a higher power, the God of the Bible.

And your proof for this is?What is the evidence that the God of the bible is god of the universe, other than the bunch of writings you have?The bible never came from the sky, it was decided in a coucil of clerical men

 

How do you know that the bible is nothing more than a opinion of men, (just like you accuse the religious writings of other religion)?

You may not like the "morals" of today society but you have selectively adopted the morals of the Isrealite society, the only difference is that the Isrealites claim their moral came from their "God", just Aztecs claim their "morals" came from their gods

 

His absoluteness implies he is eternal, his knowledge is perfect. If there was a limitation, then it would be conceivable to think of a reality without God. Nothing is doable if God can not do it, for if something were, its doability would be measured by a standard other than God.

 

This is just simple circular reasoning.

 

In essense you are saying

 

God is Holy because that is what he is.

 

What you have tried to do is to try give your god a Morality Gene.

 

God Is Perfectly Good Because He Has A Morality Gene

 

Many Christians promote the theological position that any action God takes is always perfectly good and moral.

To support this speculation, which they often advertise to the world as a universal fact, Christians implant a type of "moral" genetic code inside their God.

This form of Christian reasoning rejects the idea that moral standards are an arbitrary function of God's power.

They also reject the idea that there is a Law higher or outside of God.

Instead, they maintain that there is an objective moral standard which exists, and it resides internally in God.

By inventing a "holy" gene for morality, Christians try to avoid the problem of God's moral code being a function of his "mind" or thought processes, and at the same time they try to avoid the problem of God being subject or bound to a supreme moral code that he didn't create.

In essence, this holy gene wasn't created by God nor does it represent a higher law than God.

Morality is based in the unchanging character of God, which is always perfectly good.

God doesn't create the objective moral standard with his thoughts or whims, he simply has it inside of him in the form of a holy genetic code.

The Christian God embodies all that is perfectly good because he has the holy morality gene.

God's actions and commands cannot be anything but perfectly holy and perfectly good at all times.

 

It's easy to see why theological concoctions like this are needed when one reads the Bible.

The moral behavior of the Bible "God" leaves such a long trail of blood, death, and punishment through the scriptures that the issue simply can't be avoided.

If God's questionable moral behavior can't be avoided, then it has to be sanitized and made "holy".

 

..............

 

If this morality gene floating around inside God is actually valid, God then becomes a programmed "holy" being, subject to the code of an imagined holy gene that supersedes God's ability to change his mind or deviate from the standard.

 

The Christian God cannot simply be assumed to possess an objective moral standard.

 

An objective moral standard has the following elements:

 

1. It is free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings..

 

2. It is based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions.

 

 

The holy morality gene that Christians place in their God is a function of their personal feelings and is based on the opinion that their version of God must be the one true God .

 

Any believer in any "God" can make exactly the same claims about their God, and the moral standard of one particular God may not agree with the moral standard of another.

 

One God may command his followers to pray only while sitting in a chair while another God may command that all prayer must be performed standing up.

 

Both commands are moral laws coming from an all powerful deity or "God".

 

Where is the "objective" moral standard here? There is none.

 

At best, the Christian God would possess a subjective moral standard.

 

A subjective moral standard would exhibit the following:

 

1. It is not impartial: based on somebody's opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence.

 

2. It exists by perception: existing only in the mind and not independently of it.

 

 

The Christian version of God cannot be said to encompass an objective moral standard because the existence of this standard is based on the "feelings"(i.e. speculations) of believers and cannot be confirmed outside of their mental projections and beliefs.

The Christian theological construct of an ultimate objective moral standard is an entirely subjective enterprise and results in a subjective product at the end.

 

The foundation of the Bible God's moral standard is also supposed to rooted in his "unchanging character".

This assertion is false if the Bible is to be taken seriously as the word of this God.

 

............

 

Although Christians advertise their God as having an unchanging character which contains an absolute standard for morality, God's moral law changed and the definition of sin was changed.

 

This type of system is moral relativism and represents ethics based on situation.

 

What was previously a sin and immoral, is now quite acceptable.

Under this system, sin is not based on an absolute standard, but is based on one that changes with the times and depends on the situation.

 

God's whim also enters into this morality equation as he displays favoritism with his people.

The application of punishment for violation of God's moral code is selective.

 

For example, God's moral law states that doing any kind of work on the Sabbath is a sin(Exo 31:14-15 ), and when a man violated the law by gathering sticks on the Sabbath, he was ordered to be put to death by God(Num 15:32-36 ).

 

Adultery is also a sin which calls for the death penalty(Deut 22:22 ).

However when King David, who was a personal favorite of God, violated the moral law on adultery he is given an exemption from the death penalty and the punishment is instead applied to his son, which is then struck by God with an illness and dies.(2 Sam 12:9-18 ).

This killing of the son by God for the sin of the father is a violation of another moral law which states that each man will die for his own sin:

 

Deut 24:16

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

The Christian God circumvents his own moral law when it suits him to do so.

 

The ultimate irony is then displayed when the Bible, the alleged word of this God, states that God does not practice favoritism(Rom 2:11).

 

Contrary to the Christian assertion that the morality gene which their God possesses is not arbitrary or subject to his whims, the evidence shows that the exact opposite is true and God's moral standard is not fixed on any absolute definition of sinful behavior.

 

The Christian claim about their God embodying some sort of supreme holy moral standard, which is reflected by the perfectly good character of God, is basically theological gibberish designed to render the actions of their deity immune from moral examination and evaluation.

[Lycorth]

I'm out of this conversation with you Stooch. Life is too short and precious to waste spending it trying to show you the utter hypocrisy in your literalist beliefs. When others kill in the name of their god and justify with their holy books, you are quick to judge and say how wrong it is...when the same is commanded in your book...you justify it. That is utterly and blatantly preposterous. Why did god punish David the rapist, genocidial maniac's baby instead of David himself? Why did god kill of Israelites when evil King David took a census and not David himself? Why does god have laws making women property instead of people? Why does god rescue his people from slavery only to turn around and make it okay to enslave others? I can tell you why...because the bible was written by men who wanted to control others. There are some good principles when you weed through the utter evil and crap but who needs it? There are no new humanitarian priniciples in the bible that people weren't aware of since they began to feel. Jesus taught nothing special or different, if he even existed.

 

I have a Oneness book that takes the beautiful philosophies from various religions and puts them in a single book. The Eastern philosophies are far less contradictory and I've never heard of Buddhists or those who practice Janaism going around slaughtering anyone and their religions don't have ANYTHING that can be twisted or misunderstood that would promote HARMING others.

 

Don't bother answering my questions about the evil king david, if he lived he is one of the most vile people to have been on this planet...no matter how many pathetic apologetics you bring up.

 

Oh, btw, humankind is smart enough to make their own laws although some need to go. However, men didn't need "god" to make laws regarding speed limits, they were smart enough to figure it out on their own. "Hey, damn, if we let people drive how they want; a lot of people will die or be injured. Hmmmm....I have an idea, how about we make the cars going one way on one side of the road and the cars going another way on the other?" "Sounds great Joe. And how about when there is an intersection, we have a stop sign so that drivers slow down and have to look before proceeding?" "Sounds great Fred! That will save lives!" Need I say more?

 

 

Way to go, Serene!

 

And Skeptic, ditto that - your posts are one of the reasons I enjoy coming here. A veritable ammo shed to feed the guns of truth.

 

Stooch, come on now, listen to Skeptic and Serene. You know they're right. You know that your god is described right in your own holy book as an evil, tryannical despot. The OT is rife with descriptions of the unjustness of this Yahweh/Jehovah character. He orders slavery, genocide, murder, rape, and theft in his name, yet turns around and condemns such things as evil. And even though he luuuvs Israel so much, and luuuvs every single human being so much, we will be tortured for all eternity if we don't believe that he took human form, was executed, and magically sprang back to life three days later. What kind of love is that? What kind of phoney-baloney "love" ordains such an unjust thing? And what kind of sacrifice is it when Jesus™ magically returned to life, whole and healthy? It's not a sacrifice if you give up something only for a little while only to take it back again, better than before.

 

The "sacrifice" of Jesus™ is fake, the "moral superiority" of your god is phony, and your holy book is precisely as Skeptic put it, gibberish. It is sheer and utter filth that is beneath contempt and absolutely unfit for human belief. Your Holah Babble would be best served as kindling, or recycled into something useful, like a water filter.

[NotBlinded]

I'm not calling athiest baby killers, no way! It was an example to explain my point and I was addressing a specific person's reply.

Okay...I apologize. Assumptions get me every time.

 

I just want to add a little something here. It probably won't benefit a lot of people, but I feel the need to say it anyway. There is a few verses of Jesus that now makes total sense to me. Not that I think Jesus was in any way more divine than anyone else, I think what he said, or was attributed to him saying, often times rings true. This is a relative new understanding for me.

 

In one verse he says something like, "Give and you shall receive."

 

In another he says something like, "To those that have, more shall be given and to those that have not, all will be taken away."

 

When I first heard that last one, I remember thinking how totally unfair that statement is. Now, I understand the essence of what was meant.

 

The first one is a natural law that is universal and is observable. If a person chooses to keep to themselves and never share any joy, love or happiness, that person is not going to receive those things. It's when they start to share this with others is when they start reaping the gifts from others. When I smile at someone for no reason, they will usually smile back. When I share laughter, they will usually laugh with me (or at me sometimes! )

 

Anyway...the next verse fits it completely with this understanding. How can I ever receive anything if I understand that I don't have anything to share? I have nothing, therefore, everything is taken from me. If I know that all these things (happiness, joy and love) are already within me then I know that more will be given to me by others.

 

I am not saying that one has to be a Christian in order for this to happen...not at all. This is applicable to everyone. Jesus (or whoever wrote the words) also understood this simple, yet illusive observation about life. Yes, this can be seen as an evolutionary advantage that promotes cooperation. One cannot expect to reap any sort of benefits by killing and hating others. It also shows that by doing 'good' things, things come back to you. Not in the sense of doing things just in order to reap some sort of benefit because we already have what we receive...we just get more of it. It's just a natural process.

 

Personally, I'm very sure. Because senseless killing is any murder that causes negative results with little to no positive results from it. Stealing is the same way, it's a matter of something that causes more negative than positive.

 

>snip<

 

This sounds to me like you're presuming that it's impossible to have meaning without believing in a God. It's not a matter of obeying impersonal fate, it's a matter of obeying the ruling forces of negative & positive energy/action.

Excellent post! I only snipped it because of the space.

[Antlerman]

4.Not to mention Hitler thought he could eventually create an evolutionary higher stage, so exterminate inferior races (To him, the Jews). Thanks to Nietzsche and Darwin morality is subjective.

You know, I was thinking for a short, brief while that you were someone with enough intelligence to possibly have a meaningful dialog with.... until I just read this.

 

You obviously willfully stack the deck by ignoring fact to support your preconceived notions of truth. This statement is hardly worthy of an intelligent response. Hitler did not base his views on Darwin. That is an Ultra-Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian propaganda lie in an attempt to demonize what they perceive is their greatest threat - science. That in itself should tell you where they're coming from. That statement is patently false. And even so, EVEN if Darwin himself actually had condoned the wholesale murder of races of humans that does not in any way shape or form negate the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

 

Leave it to the Christians to resort to the last ditch effort of argument - the ad hominem fallacy - once they have nothing respectable left to offer to prove their outlandish claims of talking donkeys, and what have you. That sort of rhetoric is an announcement of their own defeat, and their emotional unwillingness to accept it.

 

At this point you are simply a parrot and have not developed your own thoughts. Though there's already ton's of info out there debunking this propaganda, here's one link for you to dig a little deeper behind the false propaganda you have sucked up with such desire in order to feel good about your closed-minded system:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=138983

 

Call back when you've grown a little, and we'll have a real discussion.

[Eponymic]

I appreciate those who don't want to talk with Stooch anymore, but please people, remember where you are!

 

This is the colosseum and name calling & taunting should be kept to a minimum.

 

Thank you.

[white_raven23]

You may be able to ask someone how they want to be treated, but most of us just assume, we don’t ask. It’s not realistic. We have to think broader than that, governments, businesses, educational institutions and other groups make ethical decisions everyday.

From a personal standpoint, which is what you originally asked about, not broadview social treatment....it is realistic. Most people just don't thing of simply asking. Just becasue it's true that most people simply assume, does not mean other people cannot have better communication skills.

I did not mean for the abortion issue to be a rabbit trail. I am not talking about the United States of America’s laws. That is not relevant for this conversion. I’m talking about what is ethical, right and wrong. I think we both agreed some not all laws are unfair and unneeded. We just disagree on which ones.

 

 

How did the abortion issue become a "rabbit trail"? You asked. I answered. I don't know how or where rabbits come into this. If you don't want to discuss it, fine.

 

Here is the crux of it. So basically what you are saying is that societies decide what is moral and that morality is subjective? Let’s take that to its logical conclusion.

 

1.The men that slammed planes into the World Trade Center thought what they were doing was right. Killing capitalism and the West was right for them. Not just right for them, but possibly millions of muslims agree. So since they decided and “changed” their mind about killing somewhere along the line it is right for them.

 

2.The atheist Bertrand Russell said he differentiated between right and wrong on the basis of his feelings. This is similar to what you said. In some cultures, people love their neighbor; in others they literally eat them. Both on the basis of feelings.

 

3.Jean Paul Sartre used to say, “it is forbidden to forbid”, he became the academic grandfather of many terrorist groups in Africa. Some are still at war today.

 

4.Not to mention Hitler thought he could eventually create an evolutionary higher stage, so exterminate inferior races (To him, the Jews). Thanks to Nietzsche and Darwin morality is subjective.

 

You've got four points here that are unrelated to each other and do not "link". How do you come to a logical conclusion of any kind when your four points do not lead into each other?

You see, morality being subjective is so wobbly because you have no starting point. No norm in which to agree upon, and each culture decides. Ethical theorists have tried and can not answer this question. When you presuppose there is no God, then you get subjectivism. When you have subjectivism, you have no agreed upon moral compass because you have thrown it away.

 

And? What is your point? Morality IS subjective. What is moral for one society, may not be moral for another. You're notion that all morality must be the same......the idea our moral compass needles all need to point in the same direction.......I find this very creepy. To your way of thinking, there can be no common ground unless everyone thinks the same way. Sounds rather Borg-like to me.

 

 

edit: P.S. could you please figure out how to use the quote features properly? If it looks like hash, I won't read it. Copy and Paste is your friend.

[white_raven23]

*Ahem* On with Bible Ethics!!!

 

How "ethical" can it be to subjugate half a species into second class people? And where do christians get off when justifying laws on women as "not really applying to the woman, but to her father, as she belongs to him until married." How does receiving a cultural history lesson from the apologist excuse or justify those laws?

 

Yes we "understand" why those laws were made in a historical context......but how does that make de-humanizing a woman acceptable in light of the christian claim that the bible is the word of god?

 

If the bible is the word of god, it should contain ethical ideals above and beyond the culture of the time. heck, it should still be beyond our current patchwork morals and ethics. It should contain something to strive for.

 

Note the only truly future-gazing book in the entire bible depicts the bloody, disease-riddled, war-ravaged End of the World. Gee that's some nice positive energy there. Makes you feel all cozy and inspired for the future of humanity doesn't it? Just fills one with hope too.

[Guest stooch]

Your subjectivism makes you a type of god. So we are all gods in your estimation. As far as pain and hurt goes. What is painful to you may be pleasure to someone else.

[white_raven23]

Your subjectivism makes you a type of god. So we are all gods in your estimation. As far as pain and hurt goes. What is painful to you may be pleasure to someone else.

 

 

Okay......that's weird. Stooch, sweetie. I'm happy you hold me in such esteem......but I am not a god. I have flaws, I make mistakes. I do not know everything, and I've never pretended to. I don't have all the answers. But I do know religion is not "it". Religion gives circular explanations that masquerade as answers.

 

Also, while Sadomasochism is very real....I'm not sure exactly what bearing it has on our discussion. Except I can say that everyone is different. Some people like to be hurt, some people like to give pain. In that instance, there is balance.

 

Unbalance comes when someone who likes to hurt insists on applying themselves to someone who does NOT like to be hurt. In that case, the person being hurt has every right to do whatever is necessary to prevent pain to themselves, because their right to not be hurt is being abused by the one doing the hurting.

[Lycorth]

Your subjectivism makes you a type of god. So we are all gods in your estimation. As far as pain and hurt goes. What is painful to you may be pleasure to someone else.

 

How does subjectivism make someone a type of god? What in the blue hell does that mean?

 

Yes, what is painful to us is evidently very pleasureable to the god depicted in the Holah Babble and his devoted fan club. Doesn't it disturb you that your god enjoys suffering and that many of your fellow Xians are awfully ready to see all the dirty infidels suffer, too? That's a little sick, don't you think?

[Eponymic]

Your subjectivism makes you a type of god. So we are all gods in your estimation. As far as pain and hurt goes. What is painful to you may be pleasure to someone else.

 

Frankly Stooch, this response is very condescending & shallow in my opinion. We give you pages of responses and this 4 line bit is all you can say to all our indepth analysis? That's cheeky.

 

Take some more time to think about it and really debate what we're talking about rather than just flicking off all the time & effort we put in to our responses with a surface skirting blanket generalization of an answer.

[Guest stooch]

Are you a black women or white? Obviously white. You have no right to say it is pathetic unless you have been a slave. I'm part African-American, have you ever seen another race rape your daughter or beat your spouse? My family has horrid stories. The Israelites were slaves and you act like you are above anger and revenge.

 

I have six people replying to me, sorry for the short post.

[Guest stooch]

Hitler took the metaphysic of Darwinian theory and in Mein Kampf said, and I quote:

 

If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior race (Jewish). Why? Because, in such a case her efforts, throughout hundreds and thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

 

Haven't read your Hitler lately I see. No, you have not. You are frustrated so you call me a parrot, lighten up. Hitler's philosophy was a mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Don't give me articles full of propaganda and tell me to grow up. The proof is in Hitler's words

 

I'm done.

[Lycorth]

Are you a black women or white? Obviously white. You have no right to say it is pathetic unless you have been a slave. I'm part African-American, have you ever seen another race rape your daughter or beat your spouse? My family has horrid stories. The Israelites were slaves and you act like you are above anger and revenge.

 

I have six people replying to me, sorry for the short post.

 

The Israelites also took slaves, and were encouraged to do so by their god, according to the Old Testament. And they weren't usually encouraged to treat them well or any better than they were encouraged to treat unbelievers or disobedient children.

 

And being white doesn't make someone less sympathetic to racial issues. Blacks commit crimes against whites, too, and heinous ones like murder and rape. The statistics are staggering. So don't play the race card because blacks are no more the poor, innocent victims of the world anymore than Xians or Jews or anyone else. That's one piss-poor argument, but evidently nothing better can be expected

[white_raven23]

Hitler took the metaphysic of Darwinian theory and in Mein Kampf said, and I quote:

 

If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior race (Jewish). Why? Because, in such a case her efforts, throughout hundreds and thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

 

Haven't read your Hitler lately I see. No, you have not. You are frustrated so you call me a parrot, lighten up. Hitler's philosophy was a mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Don't give me articles full of propaganda and tell me to grow up. The proof is in Hitler's words

 

I'm done.

 

 

So.....Darwin and evolutionary theory are responsible for how some people (like Hitler) chose to misuse their scientific intent over a hundred years after the theory was put to paper?

 

That is really putting the cart before the horse.

 

With this logic, the first person on earth to notice that round objects could roll was responsible for every death that took place involving an automobile.

 

*looks at post* and I see no propaganda here......just normal common sense.

[Guest stooch]

I'm just quoting Hitler. He says it not me, so I do not understand the cart before the horse comment. I thought Adoph came after Darwin?

[Guest stooch]

Now that I quoted Hitler himslef esposing Darwinian metaphysics. I did not imply Darwin wanted to kill off any race. However, he did see the implications of natural selection.

 

Peace out.

[white_raven23]

I'm just quoting Hitler. He says it not me, so I do not understand the cart before the horse comment. I thought Adoph came after Darwin?

 

 

Are you kidding?

 

Do you actually need to be told that Darwin and his theory cannot be held responsible for the actions of people over a hundred years after the theory was initially explored?

 

Hitler obviously came long after Darwin, yet you seem to think you can "imprint" Hitler onto Darwin and his intention.

 

By tossing out Hitler, you attempted to taint and effect the viewpoint of Darwin and his theory. It is illogical to reverse the order of cause and effect for your own purposes.

 

And don't say that wasn't your intent.....people can read just fine, and they can see your words for themselves in this thread.

 

Now that I quoted Hitler himslef esposing Darwinian metaphysics. I did not imply Darwin wanted to kill off any race. However, he did see the implications of natural selection.

 

Peace out.

 

 

No...but you attempted to imply it. And trying to go back and "reverse" your own words is not possible thanks to the linear nature of threads.

 

The only thing you can justifyably say now that would redeem, would be that you were wrong to attempt to imprint a genocidal megalomaniac onto the intent of a man who created atheory that you don't agree with.

 

But I'm doubtful about the likelihood of that happening.

[SkepticOfBible]

Hitler took the metaphysic of Darwinian theory and in Mein Kampf said, and I quote:

 

You are frustrated so you call me a parrot, lighten up. Hitler's philosophy was a mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Don't give me articles full of propaganda and tell me to grow up. The proof is in Hitler's words

 

 

You ignored me didn't you

 

I have no idea what metaphysical theory of Darwin are you talking about.

 

No one denying the influence of Eugenics on the Nazi holocaust. Eugenics was theory which started in America(and was well promoted in the christians churches BTW). The Nazi took to the next level

 

I am suprised though that you forgot to mention the influence christianity had on the Mein Kampf .

 

Hitler thought that he was true christian, and by destroying the jews he was doing his "god" ordained duties. Here are some of Hitlers own words.

 

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

 

"This game is repeated again and again, and in it the role of the so-called 'German princes' is just as miserable as that of the Jews themselves. These lords were really God's punishment for their beloved peoples and find their parallels only in the various ministers of the present time."

 

"More than once I was tormented by the thought that ifProvidence had put me in the place of the incapable of criminal incompetents or scoundrels in our propaganda service, our battle with Destiny would have taken a different turn."

 

"Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established ."

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

 

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

(Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 )

 

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

 

Hitler was a great admirer of Martin Luther.

 

Yes he was the same Martin Luther who fathered the protestantism, and at the same time raised anti-semitism in Europe to the new level. The KrystalNachtwas held in honor of his birthday.

 

I am sure you must have read the book On the Jews and their lies

 

Just in case let's hear some lovely words of love shall we

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians , and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know."

 

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward ."

 

On the Jews and their lies

 

The Peaceful Message Of The New Testament?

 

The roots for Hitler's policies against the Jews were laid down by Jesus, Paul, and Martin Luther.

 

Hitler took their words about Jews seriously and applied their teachings to his social order.

 

Science nowadays have rejected the bad science of Eugenics(whether it came from Darwin or Nietzche), however Christianity has not rejected the bad theology of anti semitism. It is still published in the all the world bible, and you expect to believe that such filth comes from "God"

 

The 6 million Jews suffered a very painful and slow death in the concentration camp. However according to the justice ofyour world view, how does your god reward them, by sending them to hell to suffer for eternity. On the other hand if Hitler repented of his sins and accepted JC as his true "lord and saviour", right before he died, he would gain eternal life and will be in heaven singing praises of the lord

 

You never answered my question

 

The Genocide in bible happened for the same reasons as the holocaust.

 

Just like the Jews were considered a evil and inferior race, the caanite, midities were also considered evil and a inferior race(because they were the cursed children of Canaan). I have heard a lot of christian actually use this logic "God had to destroy these people, because he wanted to keep line pure"

 

What makes you think the rational of these killings in the bible were any different from the Nazi?Both claimed that they were doing these on the order of God.

 

Since according to you the writings of Darwin, Neitzche and Hitler should be rejected because they promote a "wrong" ideas, I suppose we should do the same with the bible, right.

 

Or do you have double standards when it comes to the bible?