ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

Archived Articles

1/10/2007                                                                                       View Comments

Morality and ethics without absolutes, part II

By Dave, the WM

This is a continuation of the article posted here: Morality and ethics without absolutes.

Regardless of all the rhetoric, examples and arguments, the majority of Christians do not believe in absolute morality. Or do they?

The argument from Christians is that without the Bible, or God, or the Ten Commandments, there is nothing to tell us that murder is wrong. There is no way to make a decision about rape, or theft. Without the absolute morality as defined in the Bible, all society would crash into a subjective chaos of relativistic anarchy where everyone does what is right in their own eyes and everyone is a victim of everyone else's violent, unrestrained lusts.

All ideas have consequences, and the idea that absolute morality exists between the covers of the Bible has terrifying consequences to our freedoms.

Oh yes. If there are absolute morals and they are explained by the Bible, we are in trouble.

Commandment 1: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists… anyone who does not submit his life entirely to the worship of Yahweh and his Son are breaking the first commandment. This commandment is repeated in the New Testament: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy mind and thy soul. There is no compromise here. Anyone who is breaking this commandment is patently immoral. Everyone who breaks this commandment is depraved. Everyone who breaks this commandment is guilty, guilty, guilty.

We all agree that murder, rape, theft, or lying on the stand are punishable offenses. People found guilty of these immoral acts are imprisoned. The secularist says that humans generally have agreed in every culture throughout recorded history that such behaviors are wrong and have enacted laws forbidding such behaviors. However, they are imprisoned, says the Christian, because they broke the absolute moral laws of God. Without the Ten Commandments, we would have no laws forbidding these behaviors because no one would know right from wrong.

Yet, in those commandments we have one very BIG commandment — NO OTHER GODS. This absolute moral law we all ignore. No one is condemned, criticized, imprisoned, whipped, put in the stocks, or spit on for reverencing another god. Such tolerance of other gods is not Christian absolutism. Such tolerance of other gods is secular relativism. It is secular values that teach us to tolerate and allow freedoms to our fellow human beings to worship a variety of gods, or no god at all. It is relativistic thinking that passes over idolatry as if it were nothing.

What about the second commandment about no graven images?

Oriental and Hindu peoples have little god statues all over the place. Why is there no law against such blatant disregard for absolute morality?

Commandment III: Taking the name of the Lord in vain.

No matter how you define this "moral absolute," there is no law on the secular books against any form of screwing around with the name of God. There is not one law on the books in the US against profaning God’s name, blaspheming God’s name, or any other 'ing of God’s name. This is an ABSOLUTE moral law that Christians are ignoring without giving it a second thought.

Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.

Does anyone do this? All the stores, parks, movies — everything is open for business Saturdays and Sundays the same as on any other day of the week. It wasn’t always this way in the U.S. There used to be laws (called Blue Laws) that forced all commerce to shut down on the Sabbath! Christians have joined the secularists in abandoning the uncompromising moral absolute of honoring the Sabbath. Oh sure, you can pick a few kernels of corn on the Sabbath (new Jesus rules) but I wonder what He’d think of all the cussing and beer guzzling at all those football games.

Nope, the Ten Commandments are absolutes and there is no compromise or change with God. Right and wrong is not relative to the times and circumstances. It is not within the domain or the ability of human beings to decide right from wrong apart from the Bible. We cannot be trusted to determine morals and set just laws on our own. Without the Bible our societies are depraved, perverse and demonic. We all must be restrained by the absolute morality of the Bible.

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. I doubt there is one in ten Christians who would agree with outlawing all religions but Christianity, destroying idols wherever they are found, throwing people behind bars for cussing, or arresting people for opening shop on Sunday. No, we've grown past such arcane rules.

Or have we?

The reason this topic is important, is that at its root, Christianity is a theocratic system that demands absolute obeisance to the absolute authority of a god.

In this theocratic system, slavery is approved. Slaves are to obey their masters and masters are not to mistreat their slaves, and there is not one word of criticism against owning other human beings as property. In fact, there are considerable laws and instructions in the Bible regarding treatment of slaves, punishments for owners if the slave dies while being beaten, and even a nice once-every-50-years rule about freeing slaves, but only if they happen to be Hebrew slaves. Regardless, the practice of slavery is not condemned even once.

In a truly absolute theocratic Christian country, slavery will be re-instituted. Those who criticize slavery will be arguing against the absolute morality as clearly revealed by God Almighty.

Genocide will be approved in theocratic Christian America, so long as those being wiped out are idol worshippers, or have promiscuous sex practices that violate the absolute morality of God Almighty. War and genocide are never condemned in the Bible. In fact, war and genocide are commanded again, and again, and again. The victors in the battle take the property and goods of the dead. The virgin women who survive, they become property too. Captured virgins can be married (read raped), and of course all men can have more than one wife. Ture, it's not the best arrangement, the multiple wives thing, but it is permitted in God's absolute version of morality. Oh, and divorce is absolutely forbidden, except in the case of immorality.

Sabbath breaking will be stopped immediately. No more breaking of God's absolute morality regarding the Sabbath. Don't ask why &mash; asking is not our position. It is for Christians in a Christian nation to obey.

Now, I don't honestly think the Bible has anything authoritative to say on morality, and I've stated my views in the previous article linked here: Morality and ethics without absolutes. However, if Christians want to box themselves into an archaic and strange morality as defined in a Bronze Age holy book, well, I wouldn't forbid them their rights. If they want to make rules about haircuts, or dress lengths, or masturbation, or anything else, that's entirely up to them. I don't believe in forcing my version of how life should be lived down the throat of anyone. Personally, I don't like hard liquor, but I wouldn't try to make it illegal for someone else. I'm not a homosexual, but I don't really care what a couple of guys do in their own home. It's really none of my business.

But Christians are not so generous. Christians believe their absolute morality should be enforced throughout society. Christians believe laws should be created that as closely as possible conform and adhere to the absolute laws of God.

That's why this topic is important. That's why Christian morality is a threat to freedom.

The West had a Christian theocratic rule for over 1,000 years and it plunged the world into darkness. Christians want to say things are getting worse and worse? Christians who say that are ignorant of history. Things have been amazingly worse than they are today, and that worse was during Christianity's golden years of absolute moral authority.

Thankfully, the Christian view of absolute morality is false, and our moral sense is continuing to evolve right along with every other aspect of human knowledge. However, if fundamentalists do finally gain the governmental power they seek, the light may go out again.

So, to reiterate, real morality is not absolute, is relative to the times, circumstances, history, culture, environment, and other pressures, and above all, is strictly a human affair. Gods have nothing to do with it.

What do you think?

50 comments:

twincats said...

I think that's just about right. Christians who want to live according to the bible and its laws can either go live among the Amish or Mennonites or start their own communities.

Anonymous said...

The True Believing Christian of Today is not under the so-called Law or the TEN Commandments, This law was a Law of slavery, "(Rules inslaves)". "Christ came intop the world to set men free, free from what? "Why of course the Law given Moses to the Hebrew Nation Israel. They said all that Yahweh elohim says we will do, so they had an agreementy with God to keep His Ten and they said they would, but, did they ? No they never did, wnhy? because it is not in a human to do so or a sound basis, humans do not haver a sound mind.

"Christ brought Freedom from Law, He did to it for us, or all reallity all humanity, He keep all the Law and Completed it for us all humanity, and set hunmanityn free. "That is what Freedom in Christ really means. He gave a new copmmandment "LOVE" Love overwhelms the law. If you love one another what need is their for law. "Rules are for Children, Not Mature adults", and we are mature in Christ becaue He was, and that is imputed to us as if were ours, It is called a free ride given by God Himself thru His "Christ Messiah" __"(God does it all for us)"

"God" does love His creation"
and will give part of it to no-one!


Eik Bocere

.:webmaster:. said...

Oh, OK then.

In that case there are no absolute morals then.

Thanks for confirming that.

You can't have it both ways. Either there are absolute morals, or there are not.

So which is it, fundie-nonymous?

Anonymous said...

i love the post, but i'm still feeling like something is missing from the post. i think it may be the fact that i can conjure a whole bunch of bullshit that a practicing christian would say. someone save me from that horrible christian voice.

Nvrgoingbk said...

The problem, as you well know Dave, is that even Christians can't agree which moral absolutes they should have. Some of the denominations agree with divorce under strict circumstances, some do not permit it or remarriage at all. Some of the denominations agree to capital murder, some do not. They can't agree as to which day is the correct Sabbath. Some celebrate the pagan holidays, some do not. Some believe in the rapture, some do not. Some believe His name is God, some believe it is Jehovah, and some believe it is Yahweh, so which name is being taken in vain? And graven images? The image of "Christ" as a white man with a nicely trimmed beard has been perpetuated since Rome decided Chrisitanity offered them the opportunity to maintain their control over the masses. You mentioned slavery as well, which is a prime example of how morality is subject to popular opinion.
"You shall have no other God's before me?" Well, isn't Christ exactly that? Oh, well, of course not, because you see, Christians found a way around that. They just call Jesus, "God" and that clears up that little discrepancy. "Do not commit murder" unless He tells you to for the sake of purifying the land.

If Christians ruled, there would be no uniformity, because Christians can not even agree amongst themselves. THey claim that Jesus sets them free from the law, but send out petitions to have the Ten Commandments left up in front of a government building. They point their fingers at Catholics, but perpetuate the paganism, that Constantine incorporated into their religion everytime they file into church doors on Sunday or string their Christmas trees with lights. Thou shall honor thy mother and father? Didn't Jesus tell us that we had to hate them in order to follow him and wasn't he continually insulting to his mother?

I think it's obvious that there is no such thing as "absolute morality" among Christians.
The absolute morality of Christians is just as fickle as they claim "the world's" to be.

Zen said...

Dear Dave the WM,

Commandment I: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Commandment II: No graven images
Commandment III: Taking the name of the Lord in vain.

In my opinion, those 3 commandments above was related to ATEN (=ADONAI=LORD) cult around 1300 years BC.

Please read www.greatdreams.com/moses.htm “WAS MOSES AKHENATEN (AMENHOTEP IV)?”
And here some excerpts from Wikipedia about ATEN:
Pharaoh Akhenaten and his family adoring the Aten
Aten is the name given to represent the solar disc.
The real change is the apparent abandonment of all other gods following the advent of Akhenaten, i.e., the introduction, apparently by Akhenaten, of monotheism. This is readily apparent in the Great Hymn to the Aten.
The timing of AKHENATEN's existence, together with his apparent, and significant, break from henotheism, has lead some to think he has some connection to the biblical character of MOSES, although what that connection is, is a matter of some considerable dispute.
Egyptologists have also vocalized the name as Aton, Atonu, Itni, Itn, and Adon (possibly from the Hebrew shortening of one of the many names for their God, Adonai).

Below is my argument:

Before Akhenaten/Moses ruled the Egypt, the state religion was AMUN-RA, combination of Air God (AMUN) and Sun God (RA). It was clearly polytheism. Then Akhenaten/Moses replaced polytheistic AMUN-RA with monotheistic ATEN.

Note: AIR GOD = AMUN = AMEN (Christians use this word in their prayer) = AMIN (Moslems use this word in their prayer too). Judaism, Christianity, & Islam were the children of ATEN-ISM or MONOTHEISM.

Egyptian gods have images of human and beast or half human half beast except ATEN. Look at the Wikipedia, the ATEN doesn’t have image of human or beast and symbolized with the SUN and its RAYS. Aten was different with Ra (Sun God) who had an image. We can say that Aten was Sun God without image of human/beast and Ra was Sun God with image of human/beast. Moses/Akhenaten prohibited graven images (of living beings). Look at Judaism, Christianity, & Islam. They prohibited graven images of living beings.

TEN COMMANDMENTS were from AKHENATEN (lived around 1300 BC) or MOSES (also lived around 1300 BC) who hated polytheism and graven images. Closed AMUN-RA temple and built ATEN temple but then Egyptian people rebelled and the LORD (=Akhenaten=Moses) was banished from Egypt to SANAI/SINAI desert.

It is too absurd to talk about MORALITY and ETHICS based on the teaching of ABSOLUTE BARBARIC CULT of ATEN / ADONAI.

Unfortunately, many fundies always try to make this "backward" commandments as AMERICAN LAW OR MORALITY. LOL.

Happy New Year 2007, Dave.
Best wishes.

Zen

ryan said...

Good Morning Webmaster,

Most of the screwballs on the so-called religious right are perfectly serious about imposing the law of moses upon this country, and that includes slavery. There is something called "christian reconstruction"......I am not too clear on this but they have given up trying to prove that this was intended to be a xian country--a theocracy--and so they are going to make it one. Here in Indiana, these fuckers are as thick as lice on a goat's ass. I understand that you are from Ohio. I do not suppose it is any better there.

And anonymous, or eik bocere, or whoever the hell you are, go tell your xian brothers about your freedom from the law. They are the ones who should hear it, not us.

Have you read the Torah? No, I am not trying to be funny. Few xians have read the bible--most xians simply parrot what they hear over the pulpit, or what they read in their paperbacks. Read the Torah; the law of moses, and you will see that it was put together by barbarians. Savages. It is without meaning to any civilized man,and why you want to believe that it was from your god is quite beyond me. And you say jesus kept this law? Really? Do you mean that he paid a fine for raping a slave-girl? Do you mean that he helped himself to the right to murder his slaves? These things are in the law. Read it. The jew law is for a herd of ignorant, unwashed towel-heads, killing their innocent animals, shitting in terror, jabbering and chanting.

You are quite right: law is not for mature adults. That is the only smart thing you have said so far. Where you went back to dumb was that shit about xrist making us free from the law.We become free from the laws imposed by jew religion when we grow the fucking hell up and start to think for ourselves. You ought to thank whatever gods you believe in that you live in this country, where jew religion, and its bastard daughter xianity, have no power over us. When you are finished thanking your god, you can thank the likes of Tom Jefferson, Jim Madison, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, et al.

Read your old testament, and then read Tom Paine's books "The Age of Reason" and "The Rights of Man". It is time you grew up.

Spirula said...

Webmaster

In addition to your challenges regarding "absolute morality" and the need for such things as the ten commandments, I have other questions that no Xtian seems to ever address.

If giving the "law" (including the 10 commandments)was necessary for humans to know "morality", why did god wait so long to give it? How could individuals such as Job, Abraham, Issac etc. possibly be "righteous" in the eyes of god? How could they possibly been moral if the law is necessary for us to know what is moral or immoral? And why did god kill off all humans (except Noah and family) and every other living thing outside the ark because of man's wickedness if there was no way for humans at that time to know what was moral or immoral? On top of that, why didn't god give the law to Noah et. al. while they were on the ark, as this would be the perfect time seeing that all surviving humans were in the same place at the same time?

Just some thoughts.

ryan said...

spirula, what I would like to know is why "righteousness" was such a capricious idea. We have the dark character of king david, fit to rival the most evil bastards in history or fiction, and he was said to be after god's own heart. Then we have onan, who was struck dead because he wouldn't do his sister-in-law. anonymous, you are such a theologian, can you explain all this?

The funny part is where paul says that the law "has become our schoolmaster to lead us to xrist". No shit, really, I have to laugh.

.:webmaster:. said...

Good points, spirula.

Christian Reconstructionism

I was actually a member of a Christian Reconstruction church for 3 years prior to my final apostacy. They definitely want to establish theocratic law in the U.S. And there are many people running for State and Federal office who receive significant support from this movement.

ryan said...

So does "godly" government include a monarch? The history of israel, as presented in the ot, provides a list of good kings and bad kings (I forget the wording--"he did that which was evil in god's sight"). So even with divine principles, there is still going to be a flawed government. Does that mean that CR calls for a government by prophets?

THAT is a chilling thought.

Spirula said...

Oh, and how could I possibly have overlooked Enoch. Not only was he righteous, he was so righteous he escaped the ultimate penalty for "sin"...death (which, of course, raises a host of other contradictions/issues). All this before "the law".

(Re: Resconstructionism. I was raised in the same denomination as R.J. Rushdoony, but no one I knew followed his theology/politics. However, his beliefs seem to have spread into other denominations now. It is some scary shit. For example, all homosexuals would be put to death. Hmmmm...I've heard some group has been doing just that somewhere. I wonder who that could be?)

ryan said...

There is a certain honesty to CR. All churches that I have been to pay a feeble lip-service to "faith" and "grace" while imposing a list of rules that stretches from here to the fucking moon.

Audie said...

Zen, Thank you for that. I've been doing some research into the origins of the Old Testiment. And I've been looking toward Babylon and Persia, since those are the periods in which the texts appear in history. But I never made the connection to Egypt (I assumed that the whole "moses" story was made up around 500-400 bc).

I love this site!!! I'm always learning new stuff. And thanks Dave for the post.

.:webmaster:. said...

Thanks Audie,

Be all you can be!

eel_shepherd said...

WM said:

"...What about the second commandment about no graven images?...
Oriental and Hindu peoples have little god statues all over the place..."

Actually, I don't think we have to look quite that far afield ;-] But I b'lieve somebody already beat me to that point.

"...or arresting people for opening shop on Sunday..."

A question swims to mind: Who'd arrest them? A police officer? A Christian police officer? Wouldn't that be working on the sabbath?

Dano said...

I think the best argument for not taking the Bible seriously as a book of morals for us today, is the fact that it is so poorly written, full if so much ambiguity, contradiction, and obvious ethnocentricity. It may have been ok for the bronze age people who wrote it, but it certainly is not entirely relevant today.

Today we can clearly see how it was written and why. We now know that there are no, really new moral concepts in the bible, and most of us today, are morally superior to God as he is portrayed there.

Being products of evolved society, we now believe that a lot of the stuff in the bible, that God did and told his chosen people to do were just plain wrong. I mean, if you are the creator of the universe and created this world, and filled it with a bunch of intelligent pain feeling people and other creatures, wouldn't it be kinda wrong to drown all of them except a few, just because you didn't like the way your creation turned out, and then blame the poor folks that you drowned for your mistakes. That is just plain wrong. Why didn't he just snap his finger and correct the flaws in his creations?

We now know that the randomness of natural selection is not so random. We know that as soon as the first self replicating molecule appeared in the primordial slime that we were pretty much inevitable. For every bunch of mutations, life has selected the ones that increase our chances for survival, and left the others in the dust of history. (Except for tonsils, the appendix, wisdom teeth and about a hundred others)

We also know that everything in the universe has always been in a state of flux. Our morals are not the morals of the people, who the Emperor Constantine had the bible written for. What we are perplexed about, as being right or wrong, probably wouldn't even be understood by intelligent life from another planrt

Huge exponential advances in knowledge of our natural world have made some of the prohibitions of the bible silly and irrelevant, and new ones that weren't even thought of 2000 years ago are now screaming for our immediate concern. Things like population control and the problems of species extermination, including us, from air, water, and earth pollution, are no longer just conjecture, but, observable reality here and now. The controversy over whether using a tiny clump of cells for medical research is murder, begs for our elected lawmakers to have some balls and stand up to the religious nuts.

Whether or not there is a supreme being who is playing a cosmic game of pling pling with us, because he likes to watch life flail around and experiment with billions and billions of possibilities before advancing each tiny step up the evolutionary ladder, is irrelevant.

We are here now with our own particular set of moral priorities that we need to be concerned with, if we want to survive, and if we do survive as a species, there will be other moral imperatives facing our descendants.

What ever the answers are to the big questions about what is moral and what is not moral behavior today, the only thing certain is, those big questions will be different, for our great grand children and their great grand children.
Dan (Who never killed anyone, but will eat a hamburger on any Friday, or for that matter, even a pork chop)

Zen said...

Dear Audie,

Check this out too: www.domainofman.com. You will find a lot of great articles of Egyptologist Charles N. Pope (United States Library of Congress). He connected Egyptian Kings with Babylonian Kings too…

Chapter 25 "No Better than My Ancestors" (Smenkhare, Beloved of Akhenaten) will explain that Amenhotep IV = Akhenaten = Moses, Smenkhare = Elijah Tutankhamun = Joshua
Chapter 12 "At the Side of My Father" The Birth and Succession of Pharaoh Thutmose III (Covenant of Isaac) will explain that Thutmose III = Isaac,
Chapter 13 "The Day of Reckoning" Djehuty: Early 18th Dynasty Priest, King, General, Viceroy, Scribe and Treasurer (The Egyptian name and titles of Abraham) will explain that Thot = Djehuty = Abraham
Tutorial:Lesson 1,"His Eye Was Not Diminshed"(The Sons of Jacob and Leah in Egyptian Myth) will explain that Ra = Jacob, Horus = Leah, Geb = Ruben, Osiris = Isakhar, Set = Levi, Thot = Simeon, Isis = Zebulon.
And a lot more… It will need several days to read and understand all of his great writings.

Zen

Audie said...

That's awesome stuff, Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Dave,

Do you not know that God's moral law (the ten commandments) has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.

So, those who are in Christ, they also died to the law through the body of Christ, that they might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. When they were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in their bodies, so that they bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound them (the law), they have been released from the law so that they serve in a the way of the Spirit, and not the old way of the written code.

Paul T.

tigg13 said...

Paul T, what are the ways of the "spirit"? How can you discern what you think is right from what the "spirit" thinks is right? How do you explain all of the people who are supposedly saved (and as such should be expected to live a more ethical life) and yet are still just as sinful and immoral as any unwashed heathen?

Anonymous said...

Christians believe their absolute morality should be enforced throughout society.

It is true that the Church has been doing this. However, you are right to say it is wrong. In fact, it goes against Christ and the bible. Christ did not come to take anyone by force.

There are Christians who preach the truth, who stand up against these others who try to force the bible upon people through politics. They are trying to get the Church to repent of this sin. This new reformation, however, will not take place over night. The protestant reformation took many years.

Christianity is a theocratic system that demands absolute obeisance to the absolute authority of a god.

True Christianity demands absolute obedience to Jesus Christ as the authority. However, a false lie has entered the Church that says we are to have absolute obedience to the authority of the bible.

Paul made it clear that anyone that lives by the law is a slave to it. In other words, whatever you obey, you are a slave to. If you obey only yourself, then you are a slave to yourself.

Christians are supposed to be slaves to Jesus Christ, however, many have sold themselves into the bondage of the bible (which contains the law). And worse yet, those Christians who have done this are trying to impose their false god unto others.

You may have been wronged by these false Christians. I apologize for that. However, it is not true Christianity.

I hope you understand that.

Blake

Anonymous said...

If giving the "law" (including the 10 commandments)was necessary for humans to know "morality", why did god wait so long to give it?

No one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we became conscious of sin.

How could individuals such as Job, Abraham, Issac etc. possibly be "righteous" in the eyes of god?

If Abraham was justified by works (obeying the law), he had something to boast about - but not before God. What does the Scripture says? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Therefore, we have been justified by faith.

Paul T.

.:webmaster:. said...

OK, Paul.

So if I'm reading you right, the 10 Commandments only have application to the unsaved. Only unsaved people cannot murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, profane the Sabbath, bow down to idols, etc. Christians, on the other hand, have no such moral commands and are free to do anything they want, whenever they want.

Hmmm.

So, for Christians, there is no absolute morality, but for non-Christians there is an absolute morality.

I love Christian theology. It always means something different, depending on which Christian is defending it.

.:webmaster:. said...

Attention everyone!

Blake's version of Christianity is the "TRUE CHRISTIANITY™." All other versions of Christianity (33,000 at last count) are FAKES!

Phew! It's a good thing Blake is trolling this site. Imagine all the souls that would roast in horrific, unending horror without his salient posts!

Thank you, Blake. I owe my eternity to you. When we all get to heaven, do I still have to talk to you? God, I hope not.

Vixentrox said...

So...Blake is a TRUE Christian. Please tell us all what a TRUE Christian is compared to all these other "false" ones.

.:webmaster:. said...

I'm just trying to understand, if what our latest, resident True Christian™ says is true, then what's with all the Christian hullabaloo to install the Ten Commandments in governmnet offices, with demanding Creationism be taught in schools, with disallowing gay people from marrying, with protesting abortion, and with all the political haranging about moral absolutes?

Christianity: a good example of cognative dissonance.

R. Hoeppner said...

As far as the law is concerned, Dave, you have it wrong. Christians do believe in 'moral absolutes' as outlined in the New Testament. In point of fact, every one of the ten commandments was re-stated in the New Testament except the Sabbath, which Jesus said was created for man. Paul elaborated on it further when he said, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Romans 14:5-6.

Regarding the commandments, I offer this glimpse of the Bible from Matthew 22:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Anonymous said...

All the comments of Paul T. are quotes taken directly from the bible from the book of Romans.

Dano said...

I think I have figured it out!

Paul and Blake are crying out for help. They fear being taken away and they want our help.

I am inclined to just write them off as hopeless, but as the old adage states "A mind is a terrible thing to waste!"

So maybe we should be gentle with these poor souls. There just may be a chance that they could become functioning members of society, after they are released.

Dan (Anonymous scary quotes)
Anonymous Blake:
" Christians are supposed to be slaves to Jesus Christ"
Anonymous Paul T: "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! "

.:webmaster:. said...

Oh, so there ARE moral absolutes, but they don't really count.

Hmm.

I guess I don't get it.

They do count, but they don't count.

R, ole' buddy. If you want to live your life in the absolute box of your version of your religion, then by all means, do so.

What I object to is the felt need of Christians such as you to argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and force and push and argue some more and blather and preach and quote the Bible and quote the Bible and quote the Bible and quote the Bible and quote the Bible and by contiunally parroting lots of words somehow force and jam their version of reality down the throats of everyone they meet.

Your religion is just as valid as any other religion -- pure drivel.

The moral absolutes in the Bible demand a Theocratic rule by nutcases like you. And that, my dear fundie friend, is a horror I never want to see.

Anonymous said...

"The moral absolutes in the Bible demand a Theocratic rule by nutcases like you."

People are trying to use the bible to leverage control, but this very thing contradicts the message in the bible.

The bible says that Jesus Christ is Lord (in other words, Jesus Christ is absolute morality). And Jesus is not forcing Himself on anyone. He only comes when invited. He wants to rule everyone with love. The only way to rule with love, is to invite someone willing.

Blake

Anonymous said...

So if I'm reading you right, the 10 Commandments only have application to the unsaved. Only unsaved people cannot murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, profane the Sabbath, bow down to idols, etc.

Yes, yes, this exactly what Paul was saying.

Christians, on the other hand, have no such moral commands and are free to do anything they want, whenever they want.

No, they are not free to whatever they want. Their moral command is Jesus Christ. They must obey Jesus Christ. That is why they are called "Christian." That is why Jesus said, "Follow me."

Instead of trying to obey laws that are external and absolute, a Christian obeys Jesus who is internal and relative. For a Christian, all morality is relative based upon Jesus who lives inside them in the form of a Spirit.

When a person gives their body to Jesus as a living sacrifice (as Paul said), then the Spirit of Jesus is free to enter into them. When this happens, the person is born again.

Do you understand yet?

Dano said...

Give it up Dave!
IT is starting to look like a powerful synergy is at work here. As long as there was just an occasional air head religious nut showing up here with his disconnected thought processes, and poor spelling, telling us about his relationship with Jesus, it was just entertaining, but now I'm afraid that something a lot more sinister is in play.

They are all starting to look alike, as if they are attending the same apologetic class, or worse, living together. They don't even make any pretenses of having understood any logic or rationale that is deleterious to their spiel. They simply ignore the fact that we don't believe in the supernatural, and just keep on preachin to us about their supernatural beliefs.
Dan (Going to a Christian site to look for the devil that is sending them here)

Spirula said...

You know WM, you might want to add a regulation that any commentor that comes hear and just quotes the babble gets deleted. That is not contributing to discussion.

And no Paul, that did not answer the question of WHY god waited so long to give the law IF the law is necessary to understand what sin is vs. righteousness (actions). Nor does it explain how Enoch escaped death, the penaltly for all of us that have "sinned in Adam". And if you don't know what actions/inactions/beliefs are wrong, you can't possibly know what to do to be considered righteous.

Again, we are being plagued by Christobots that just don't get the whole EX-Christian thing. I know 4 year olds that could grab a clue faster.

Dano said...

If ever there were a story about a supernatural being that was truly beneficial to man, and was innately believable, because of the fact that it brought automatic power and wisdom to us, it would spread around the world at the speed of light. If it was sponsored by a true creator, and the message brought us predictable relief from pain and suffering, there would be no need for proselytizing. We would all immediately want it, and take advantage of it.

All of you out there, who may be tempted to think that these junior "robots for Christ," know something you don't, think again. The greatest intellects down through history have failed to learn any more about God, than YOU knew the day you were born. Every minute of every day, another phony preacher is forced to admit this truth.

Death is the only thing that always brings an end to suffering, so you may as well live as well as you can for as long as you can, and use your brain to think, unshackled, by religious dogmatism, because when you die you're gonna be dead for a long time. Maybe!
Dan

Anonymous said...

ALthough your argument is vallid and respectful, I think it might be alittle too respectful towards Evangelical Christans. My view is that Evangelicas if they have the chance or ability, they will throw away any morals or ethics to obey their false god. So due to that, we need a society that is completly atheist (or agnostic) in order to have a peaceful society. As long as there are people who will throw away their lives for a reactionary killing ideal.

.:webmaster:. said...

Am I the only one who finds it interesting to watch the anony-Chrit-o-bots contradicting each other?

We are now being given absolute statements that a theocratic mindset is wrong, and that Jebus only wants willing worshippers.

What about hell?

Then we are absoultey assured that Christian morality is relatavistically determined.

This is interesting. And hilarious.

Anyway, if and when pure copy&paste jobs are discovered, 9 out of 10 times they will be deleted.

Anonymous said...

What about hell?

The problem is that you think God is sending the person to Hell. God is the judge. It's the persons own choice that sends them to Hell.

Imagine a murder standing before a judge saying, "Yeah, but you are the one sending me to prison. You could just let me go." Do you think the judge should let that person go? What about the family of those who suffered loss?

At this point, you might say, "Yeah, but Hell is eternal." Yes, but it is eternal because the person did not repent. For instance, if a person is punished for a crime and then stops committing the crime, is it because they have repented or because they are restraining themselves? If they are merely restraining themselves (according to the essay you linked), then they are still a criminal, they are merely living in fear of being caught. True repentance means the person realizes they have committed a crime, have sought to make amends, and have turned away from it.

Hell is eternal because the person never repents. They are forever a criminal. If God were to let them out of Hell, they would keep on committing the same crime.

At this point, you might say, "Yeah, but Hell is torture." Yes, but that is partly because God is not there. He is not there to protect us from the Devil. Instead, the Devil, is immensely stronger than us, forever tortures us because of hate. His hate for us is the same as God's love for us.

But then you might say, "Yeah, but God could easily make us non- existent." True, true. But here's the problem: A person is sent to Hell because of justice. Bad things happen in the world. Evil exists. God has given us our freedom, and so because of this, evil is allowed. However, God will bring justice. When we see that child shot and killed in a school house, the murderer will pay. If God merely made a person non-exist, then justice would never be served. The mother and father that lost the child would never see justice.

Think of all the evils in the world. None of these would ever be righted. None would ever see justice.

Now, when you realize the significance of sin and hell, and also realize that Jesus died for our sins, you begin to realize the depth of what Jesus suffered on the cross. He didn't just suffer physical pain, but emotional and spiritual pain. On the cross, He paid the due. However, this can only be true for you personally, if you believe in Him. If you choose willingly to make Him your Lord and Savior.

The question is: Did Jesus die for your sins? Are you willing to make Jesus your Lord?

boomSLANG said...

fundonymous: At this point, you might say, "Yeah, but Hell is torture." Yes, but that is partly because God is not there.

If "God" is "not there"(in hell)..then "God" is certainly not "omnipresent", as claimed by theists. Moreover, if it's only "partly" because "God" is not in "hell" that eternal torture is "okay", then what's the other part?

Fundonymous: He is not there to protect us from the Devil. Instead, the Devil, is immensely stronger than us, forever tortures us because of hate. His hate for us is the same as God's love for us.[bold added]

Hmmmm...the Devil must also be "immensely stronger" than "God", because "God" seems to be powerless when it comes to the Devil's "immense" power over "God's children". So, "God" is either powerless against the "Devil", or he likes "sin". One of the two must be true.

Fundonymous: When we see that child shot and killed in a school house, the murderer will pay. If God merely made a person non-exist, then justice would never be served. The mother and father that lost the child would never see justice.

The "murderer" need only "pay", provided he/she is caught and punished by our justice system. If the "murderer" isn't caught, and the premise is that those who repent, escape "hell", then no... "justice" isn't served if the "murderer" repents. The analogy fails miserably.

Fundonymous: The question is: Did Jesus die for your sins?

The question is: What's a "sin"?..and ***where the hell is "Jesus"? lol

Fundonymous: Are you willing to make Jesus your Lord?

No, see here***.

ymlogj said...

God creates a pit of hell, but it is us that sends us to hell. How nice?

Most of us have to work almost every day, then we all get old and have diseases and cancer, strokes, diabetes, heart attacks and our teeth rot out, we smell soon if we take no bath, everyone's poop stinks, our bones decay, our hair falls out, we see our family get sick and die and our pets and animals get killed, then we ourselves finally fall down a die.

Then we're supposed to go to church every Sunday, and give money to the drunken child molestor preacher to tell us what a good christian we are.

And God created a Hell for all the nonbelievers, how frikken nice, this God. Thank You Jesus!!

With a God like that, Satan appears to be nice.

tigg13 said...

Anonymous wrote:

"The problem is that you think God is sending the person to Hell. God is the judge. It's the persons own choice that sends them to Hell."

Absolute authority implies absolute responsibility. Your god created hell, he thought up the idea of damnation and he gave us the power to make choices - he is ultimately responsibile for consequences of those choices.

"Imagine a murder standing before a judge saying, "Yeah, but you are the one sending me to prison. You could just let me go." Do you think the judge should let that person go? What about the family of those who suffered loss?"

Interesting. But your god is not only the judge but he is also the jury, the prosecutor, the defence attourney, the sheriff, the mayor and the warden. And not only is he all that, but he was actually in the room when the crime was committed and had the power to prevent it from happenning but chose not to.

"At this point, you might say, "Yeah, but Hell is eternal." Yes, but it is eternal because the person did not repent. For instance, if a person is punished for a crime and then stops committing the crime, is it because they have repented or because they are restraining themselves? If they are merely restraining themselves (according to the essay you linked), then they are still a criminal, they are merely living in fear of being caught. True repentance means the person realizes they have committed a crime, have sought to make amends, and have turned away from it."

When was the last time you committed a sin? Are you perfect?
Why can't somebody repent after they have gone to hell? Seems to me that would be a great time for repentance. And what is the difference between turning away from sin and restraining one's self? Sounds like the same thing to me.

"Hell is eternal because the person never repents. They are forever a criminal. If God were to let them out of Hell, they would keep on committing the same crime."

Who says so. There have been plenty of criminals who have come out of prison reformed and rehabilitated and ready to rejoin society.

"At this point, you might say, "Yeah, but Hell is torture." Yes, but that is partly because God is not there. He is not there to protect us from the Devil. Instead, the Devil, is immensely stronger than us, forever tortures us because of hate. His hate for us is the same as God's love for us."

You've missed the point completely. If your god knows that we will be tortured forever and yet still allows us to suffer this fate then you can hardly say that he loves us.

"But then you might say, "Yeah, but God could easily make us non- existent." True, true. But here's the problem: A person is sent to Hell because of justice. Bad things happen in the world. Evil exists. God has given us our freedom, and so because of this, evil is allowed. However, God will bring justice. When we see that child shot and killed in a school house, the murderer will pay. If God merely made a person non-exist, then justice would never be served. The mother and father that lost the child would never see justice."

This is not justice - this is vengeance. Executing a murderer does not bring back the victim. Additionally, your god doesn't just send murders to hell, he convicts everyone to this horrible fate no matter what their offense. Liars, theives, folks who work on sundays, people who eat cheeseburgers: all get the same harsh sentence. This is not justice.

"Think of all the evils in the world. None of these would ever be righted. None would ever see justice."

Justice is not just about punishment. It is about finding balance. Yes victims should be compensated for their losses and criminals should be taught a lesson. But, what's the point of giving a lesson if the student is never allowed to learn from it? All your version of justice boils down to is a vindictive and inhumane game of rationalized sadism.

"Now, when you realize the significance of sin and hell, and also realize that Jesus died for our sins, you begin to realize the depth of what Jesus suffered on the cross. He didn't just suffer physical pain, but emotional and spiritual pain. On the cross, He paid the due. However, this can only be true for you personally, if you believe in Him. If you choose willingly to make Him your Lord and Savior."

Jesus was a wimp. A really painful crucifixion would have lasted at least a couple of days. Jesus was up there for, what, an hour and a half - maybe two? Then there was jesus' healing powers - if he could heal the lame and raise the dead then he could have easily healed himself of all of his wounds and ailments. Heck, he could have hung up on those planks, gushing blood by the gallon, for at least a couple of months and not given it a second thought. If he suffered on the cross it was because he wanted to suffer.

"The question is: Did Jesus die for your sins? Are you willing to make Jesus your Lord?"

First of all, that's two questions.

Did jesus die for my sins?

Well, as I wasn't there at the time, its kinda hard for me to say. I haven't ever seen my name mentioned in the bible or other scriptures of that time, so I'm inclined to say no.

Am I willing to make jesus my lord?

Sure, as long as he's willing to come to me, look me in the eye and ask me in person - but he better bring a shit-load of ID.

Dano said...

tigg13 wrote:
"Am I willing to make jesus my lord?
Sure, as long as he's willing to come to me, look me in the eye and ask me in person - but he better bring a shit-load of ID."

Dan here: You can just see the latest Anonymous (above), diving into his bag of Christian cliches with every attempt to make a point. You gotta feel sorry for these cult victims sometimes!


BUT TO THE POINT! tigg13, YOU ARE FUNNY!, genuinely funny. You have the ability to make me laugh, to the point of not feeling sorry for these lightweight Christo-Bots.

Dan (These Anonymous'es that come her to preach, make me wonder. Just who is it, that the Devil has by the hair of the head. He's their devil, so it must be them)

tigg13 said...

Why thank you, Dano. There is no finer thing you can do, I think, then to bring a little laughter into someone's life.

SpaceMonk said...

Sticky-lolly-wrapper-that-just-won't-shake-off-your-finger wrote:
“What about hell?

The problem is that you think God is sending the person to Hell. God is the judge. It's the persons own choice that sends them to Hell.

Imagine a murder standing before a judge saying, "Yeah, but you are the one sending me to prison. You could just let me go." Do you think the judge should let that person go? What about the family of those who suffered loss?”


How about you imagine someone who has never committed murder, never been arrested, has been generous and compassionate with people all their lives, donated to charities, etc, etc. (Hey, they do exist outside of christianity you know.)
Yet you think they’ve chosen eternal hell themself.

Or how about you imagine a 3rd world kid who has never heard the ‘good news’, but has been starved all their life, gets beaten and raped by local militia, then dies, having only ever known suffering and pain, and defaults to eternal hell.
You think they’ve chosen it for themselves too, and that they are so reprobate they will never ‘repent’ (of what?), and if your God let them out of hell they’d continue on with their ‘evil’...


“...the Devil, is immensely stronger than us, forever tortures us because of hate. His hate for us is the same as God's love for us.”

How do you know?
Maybe he only hates God because God wouldn’t allow him the freedom to not be under his authority, so he fought against him. The same as your Founding Fathers fought against the British.

“But then you might say, "Yeah, but God could easily make us non- existent." ”

Or I could say, “Yeah but God could easily allow us to reincarnate for as many lifetimes as it takes until we finally accept Jesus, so that eventually all men will eventually be saved and none have to go to hell”, and you wouldn’t want to talk about it.

”Think of all the evils in the world. None of these would ever be righted. None would ever see justice.”

Oh No!
Think of all the baby birdies whose mummies got eaten by the local cat. They’ll never see justice done.

What about me suffering the barking of my neighbours dogs every single day?.
Every single day I battle the frustration and the rage to stop myself from trespassing into their yard to ring their scrawny necks.
At least I know that when we all die they’ll be in hell suffering what they rightly deserve...?
No, maybe I could get the dogs taken away to the local pound?
No, maybe I could get the owners taken away to the local jail?
No, God will send the owners to hell when we’re all dead for their uncompassionate behaviour?
No? hmm...

Justice is an invented concept. There is no justice in nature.
It’s just a nice word for vengeance. A hammer for social engineers.
It’s something that we can only bring by force or fear.

Didn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

”The question is: Did Jesus die for your sins? Are you willing to make Jesus your Lord?”

Never!
“For independence I will fight. With liberty I will defy!”

Anonymous said...

To Spacemonk:

"How about you imagine someone who has never committed murder, never been arrested, has been generous and compassionate with people all their lives, donated to charities, etc, etc. (Hey, they do exist outside of christianity you know.)
Yet you think they’ve chosen eternal hell themself."


Firstly, Jesus is the judge. Not anyone else. Don't you think that this upstanding man who has never sinned will judge fairly? If a person has not sinned, the Christ will judge them accordingly.

Secondly, are you this person. Are you without sin?

Lastly, if you don't believe in God, and you don't believe in the final judgment, then who are you fighting against?

Sticky-lolly-wrapper-that-just-won't-shake-off-your-finger

.:webmaster:. said...

Anony-fundie-bot: What is sin?

Thanks.

SpaceMonk said...

"If a person has not sinned, the Christ will judge them accordingly."

But of course "there are none who do good, not one. Only Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and there is no other name under heaven by which a man may be saved...", etc.

So, you know that, according to the bible (not just your own intuited version of how Jesus must be) it doesn't matter if someone tries to be good, or if a 3rd world kid has never heard of Jesus. They will default to eternal hell.

So I say your/the bible's standards are false, not based on reality, or common human decency, or any sane persons idea of balanced justice.

"Secondly, are you this person. Are you without sin?"

Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me.

"A good person is one who is improving, a bad person is one who is getting worse. Direction is all." - Wm. James

"Lastly, if you don't believe in God, and you don't believe in the final judgment, then who are you fighting against?""

Christians, and people like you, who won't shut up about it and want to bring their own version of their god's judgement to reality, and whose teachings about morality and guilt play abusive mindgames with innocent ordinary people.

Zen said...

Anonymous: Firstly, Jesus is the judge. Not anyone else. Don't you think that this upstanding man who has never sinned will judge fairly? If a person has not sinned, the Christ will judge them accordingly.
Secondly, are you this person. Are you without sin?

Zen: What is sin, Anonymous?
Well, the definition of sin itself is very confusing and very subjective. I think “sin” is similar with mistakes, wrongs, errors, etc. But I am sure you have your own definition about sin, and so do the Confucianists.
Confucianists, for example, maybe define sin as the breaking down of the Golden Rule: ”Do not do to others what you don’t want to be done by others to you”, for example: “Do not kill others if you don’t want to be killed by others.”
Okay, maybe “killing” is too extreme to be an example of sin, but how about “harsh words”? Just take this Golden Rule of Confucianism as a standard, “Don’t speak with harsh words to others if you don’t want to receive harsh words from others.”
Theravada followers said Buddha only used harsh words once: when he was injured by Devadatta (his cousin, his ex-disciple, his enemy).
But Jesus often used his harsh words, for example when he:
1) Insulted the Pharisees. Then people insulted him back when he was crucified.
2) Humiliated his own mother and brothers in front of his followers, so when he was crucified, his brothers did not take a damn care of him (only his mother did, maybe because of motherhood instinct).
3) Condemned a (fig) tree and then it died (some said the fig tree is the representation of Jewish people). It was really ironic that he was crucified in the of woods of cross (made from trees, of course) and then he died (some said that Jewish people was responsible for the death of Jesus).
So with this Golden Rule as a standard, Jesus did sins and was punished by his sins! And because he had sins, he doesn’t have the right to judge us.

eel_shepherd said...

spacemonk wrote (to one of the anonymice):
"...Or how about you imagine a 3rd world kid who has never heard the ‘good news’, but has been starved all their life, gets beaten and raped by local militia, then dies, having only ever known suffering and pain, and defaults to eternal hell. You think they’ve chosen it for themselves too...[?]"

Well, er, yes; that's one of the "mysterious ways", doncha' know, the way the lard works, his miracles to perform. Whips out his slide rule, ciphers out which are the no-goodnik souls, & plops them into the uteruses of other infidels and watches the show. Now you know.

This is one of the holes in supply-side damnation. Shoeless Joe Yahweh builds an asbestos-free hell in the belief/knowledge that "the people will come" to it. The issue of the basic unfairness of making a person pay an eternal penalty for a finite action is predicated on the idea that s/he has sinned against an eternal entity (that would be yer basic Yahweh). The idea never dawns on the somewhat slow-learning Duhweh that if the sinner is the finite one, the penalty should _also_ be finite.

This is a risky ol' world for barren fig trees, local cats and Brett Keane's coffee table, as I'm beginning to find out. No wonder Xtians are described as god-fearing; under the current regime, a little phobia is a fairly sound principle of the faith...