Here’s a little something that Jagannath sent to me and I thought I’d share it with all of you :)
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
3. Do not murder
4. Do not commit adultery
5. Do not steal
6. Do not give false testimony
7. Honor your father and mother
Today, a Christian, specifically a follower of Christ, confronted me as he quite often used that particular expression. He had heard me talk of the commandments on earlier time and this time he took his time to disagree with me in a shrill voice and flaring nostrils.
He kept disagreeing with me until the he was interrupted by the security who promptly escorted him out due his disruptive behavior. Apparently other clients of the establishment had made several complaints of his screaming and yelling, it scared the children. Truth to be told, I was not all that calm myself either as the word firebrand is quite apt in his case.
But his point could be easily condensed to two things, there are Ten Commandments in the bible and only those following them are followers of Christ. Now, my counter points were drowned by his antics but I decided to write about the commandments.
Now to me a follower of Christ is one who follows the New Testament. The Old Testament is mainly concerned of Judaism and of those that god decided to kill for one reason or another. That is the main point in my view of Christianity. You cannot follow both testaments but you have to choose or be merely religious groupie. You either follow the teachings of the Christ to be a so-called true Christian. You might disagree with the distinction, but as always it is your right.
Then to the actual commandments, the Old Testament versions are well known but those in need of a refreshment course can break open the book on Exodus 20:3-17. But are those Christian commandments or the commandments Jesus acknowledged?
I use the gospel by Matthew for references as it is most often used and frankly, the other gospels are quite alike, in a more terse form. So what is the first commandment by Jesus?
“‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’”
-Matthew 22:36-40
So number one is total devotional love of God followed by love your fellow man. And those are to be the basis for all else. Jesus actually mentions the love your fellow man in more than one occasion so one can say he like that one more.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
-Matthew 5:43-45
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.”
-Matthew 7:12
“Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
-Matthew 19:19
Now the last one is other part of my reasoning for the number of commandments for Christians. It seems that Jesus followed only half of the commandments given by god, but such is the way with life, sons tend to want to improve upon the works of their fathers. Jesus told a man to keep the commandments to which the man promptly replied with a query, which? And the answer can be read above.
Clearly Jesus believed that they’re to be only five commandments worthy of following from the old set of ten. And I tend to agree, as those are good rules for all to follow, not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing, not lying and honoring parents are good rules. The one rule Jesus seemed to be quite insistent on, love your neighbor, is always a good one to follow. He was actually so insistent on that command that he even wanted Christians to love their enemies and pray for them.
So there is only seven commandments by Jesus and of those, two are by Jesus while the rest are by god but the laws of Jesus are, at least according to the man himself, the two most important laws of all. Noticeable difference being between the two sets of commandments that all the strict laws of god reverence are gone and replaced with voluntary desire to love god.
Maybe if those would be the commandments Christians would follow, I might not have so much trouble with them as I do love my seafood and rounded beard.
–Jagannath
Related posts:
- Ten Commandments Super-Sized With A Side Of Crazy
- Christians Cash In On Jesus
- Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, Christ Or Antichrist?
- Jesus Christ Supercop 6
- Jesus Christ Supercop 4
September 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Alas, if but more Christians read the Bible, they might pick up on these things.
I seriously do wonder at times how many Christians read the Bible, as a whole, and take time to consider the things that are in it, again as a whole, and then choose to, as followers of Christ, follow it as a whole. The misinterpretations always seem to happen when one verse is picked out at random and used in whatever sense somebody chooses. Do the people that do that not realize what they are doing, or do they not care? The priest who rails against random groups and calls them anti-Christs, what does he really think Jesus would do? And of course, since no one likes to be wrong, the argument never ends. Even the infallible, it appears, is not immune to human stubborness.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I read this post twice but I don’t get it. Is this a criticism of religion?
September 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
It’s about the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you’re a Christian, then technically you should be taking the New Testament as your guide and following specifically what Jesus said. There are two problems here. 1) That Christians seem to have more fun using the Old Testament, and 2) That they often don’t seem to care about what Jesus said anyway. Jesus was a peaceful man, and yet too many Christians refuse to follow his message. They then use the Old Testament to justify themselves, saying that this is what the Bible told them to do. Well, if they were Jewish, then perhaps (I don’t know much about how they typically interpret the Old Testament). But it’s what Jesus said (which is highlighted in the above post) that counts for Christians. What Jesus said had different connotations than what was said before him, yet Christians often ignore that and thus, are they really Christians at all?
September 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
@Snurp
I understand what you mean. I generally see Christianity
as a love promoting religion as opposed to Islam which I think is inherently violent. And also I think Christianity is reformed enough to be perfectly suitable for the modern world. After all, all we need in this world is a message of love wherever that comes from.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“” And also I think Christianity is reformed enough to be perfectly suitable for the modern world.”"
Disagreed.
There may be forms of christianity that are more suited to real life, but they don’t follow the bible to the letter.
And if you don’t follow the bible to the letter, you might as well toss it straight out the window, because you are using your “mortal mind to distinguish the words of God”. And are thus not christian, but some other random faith with arbitrary values that you made up yourself.
whereas true christians are of a faith with arbitrary values made up by someone else long ago.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”
I feel that focusing on the non-entity that is god is detrimental to one’s life on many levels, and should ultimately be a personal choice, though in a great many cases, perhaps the vast majority, it is not. I have no problem with this one, as long as those following it keep ‘God’ to themselves. And by THAT, I mean not preaching, spreading the word, or trying to convert others or raise their children to be Christians.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
- This is always a good idea. Your neighbor may be a complete ass, but that doesn’t give you justification to be so.
3. Do not murder.
- Since this is the only life we have, this is a good one. Though I note it does not say “Do not KILL.” I have no problem with that distinction, as well. Sometimes it is necessary to kill to save yourself or another, or to relieve the suffering of the terminally ill who exist in a state defined by pain. In such cases, killing is ultimately justified, and thus not murder.
4. Do not commit adultery.
Remember that in biblical times, adultery refers to the wife getting busy with another man, not the husband screwing around outside the relationship. This is solely due to the desire to maintain confidence that the family heirs will be of the fathers blood and not another man’s, thus ensuring that and inheritance will be lawful. So, in religious terms this one is out. Of course, it’s a good idea to maintain fidelity, unless a couple likes to bring others outside the marriage into their sex life. So in that respect, this one is out. Let who screws who be determined by the couple.
5. Do not steal.
Obviously necessary for a healthy society.
6. Do not give false testimony.
Also necessary for a healthy society.
7. Honor your father and mother.
Completely optional. I’ve known many mothers and fathers who are absolutely not worthy of any respect whatsoever. If the parents want their children to honor them, they must earn it.
“And also I think Christianity is reformed enough to be perfectly suitable for the modern world.”
Obviously you don’t life in the United States, which I feel should be renamed ‘Jesusland’, since that would be more fitting. This country is rife with Fundamental Christian fervor, which has seeped into every aspect of public life. Christians are the only ones who stand a chance of being elected to national office unless they have a phenomenal record and support the same causes that Christians often do. I have yet to meet a single Christian who is willing to vote an Atheist into office, purely on the mistaken, unshakable belief that one who is not Religious is fundamentally immoral, unethical, and unsuitable for public office. Christians routinely, for purely religious purposes, block legislation which would without question provide incredible medical advances (stem cell research), protest a woman’s right to do what she wills with her own body (abortion), try to remove rights from homosexuals, and regularly murder those who support any of the above.
Would they follow the true message of their supposed savior, perhaps they would not do any of the above. But the base truth of the matter is that those who are drawn to Christianity do so solely for the desire for an afterlife that isn’t full of fire and burning, and thus are open to persuasions which, should they seemingly follow those of Christianity, they will follow, regardless of their legitimacy and ethical status.
Christianity is anything BUT compatible with the modern world, as is all religion.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Well I agree with Blasphemaster, except:
5. Do not Steal.
We live in a WORLD where property and wealth are controlled by a very very small percentage of our people. The rest of us “borrow”, “trade” and cheat our way into getting as much of the aforementioned prosperities as possible. I know that our whole economy runs on this system, but as Carlin put it “Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy going. Your neighbor gets a fuzzy pink vibrator, you have to get one too. Coveting creates jobs, leave it the fuck alone”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9CitfTtMIx8
6. Do not give false testimony.
There seems to be many valid reasons to lie, usually to protect or spare someone from harm. (ie. you’re not going to die or I thought your acting was wonderful, etc) Although this usually comes back to bite you in the ass, man of these do cross the Western line of being “polite”.
Nice take on Murder and I LOVE your parents/respect comment, again, another Carlin great. And I was going to add that for Adultery, there are many “just” and “honorable” reasons to cheat on your partner. Such as keeping a family together for children, and releiving psycotic stress, for men. (should your partner not be in the mood)
Anyways, I would like to think that any normal, sane person would be able to filter real morals from the ones with an agenda.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:10 am
As far as not committing adultry, don’t the christian marriage vows actually forbid divorce? “Until death do we part”? So, if your wife wont put out, and you can’t rid yourself of her, what are you to do, just live with it?
Like a lot of folks have mentioned, there are a LOT of parents that don’t deserve respect. They are human refuse and treat their kids like trash. Yet, the bible says the kids should respect and love them? Obviously self serving bile written buy some parent. You want your kids to respect and love you? Earn it.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:25 am
“Coveting you neighbor’s goods” is not the same as stealing them.
Stealing is just simply Bad for the welfare levels and social stability of a society. Coveting is fine, stealing is not.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:05 am
I disagree with the false separation of Old and New. It just doesn’t make any sense to do so in the context. Jesus, after all, didn’t come to abolish.
But he did so Israel what it meant to truly follow the law the way God always intended, so they could be the light of the world.
Christians are the new Israel, inheritors of the promises of Abraham. So the Old Testament is extremely important in that it shows us the character of God, and recognizing the place in God’s grand story that he is writing.
Jesus was the climax of the story, and the most important part. But the climax isn’t a climax without
what came before it.
We also forget that when Paul used the word “scripture”, he meant the Old Testament.
I’m not defending using the Old Testament for ridiculous agendas, but part of our problems today with interpretation are because we take everything completely out of context.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Context is just a matter of perception, it cannot be the source of “our problems”.
Listen to you, claiming to be part of some “special story”; if any of those other religions yours came from, heard you, they’d laugh.
You mention that your God is “still” writing his masterpiece, as if your believe he could influence the hand of man. Well, if that’s the case, why bother praying at all? I hope another religion forms off Christianity, becomes way more popular and totally ignores any connection to its origins. Better yet, I hope Scientology continues to push the boundaries of Religion in Society. To the point where every country realizes that every religion is a cult, and ban people from openly recruiting or wasting millions of tax dollars! Take all that money from the church’s and give it directly to the poor/homeless.
What part do the non-believers have in Gods grand storybook of life? Where do the skeptics and big thinkers fit? Fucking self righteous assholes.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Ignoring history is usually the source of many problems, including problems of interpretation. Unless you claim all history is completely subjective, then yes, the lack of knowledge of it can be a source of problems.
I’m just saying that Paul and the early Christians, and the Jews before them, certainly thought they were in a story. It’s basic creational and covenantal monotheism. We shouldn’t take things out of that context with reading a documents that are 2,000 years old.
“What part do the non-believers have in Gods grand storybook of life? Where do the skeptics and big thinkers fit? Fucking self righteous assholes.”
Wow. You sound very angry. Apparently attempting to think historically offends you in some way? Maybe you should refrain from talking to other people who think differently than you do.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“Maybe you should refrain from talking to other people who think differently than you do.”
Mostly I do; cause if I had to listen to the pushy, arrogant and ignorant opinions of others, regarding what they interprit to be “history”, I’d be locked up for violence.
So for now, I think I’ll use my agression and spare time to contradict and upset religious people on the internet.
But I do agree that ignorance is the source of many problems; take religion for example, it has been exploiting the ignorance of millions for centuries, and still is.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“Apparently attempting to think historically offends you in some way?”
Like I imagine many Christian “scholars” do, my perception of history feeds my own self-interest. I see mankinds historical evolution, intellectually, to have secretly moved away from the evils of religion; rather than some unified truth.
/ sorry for the double post
September 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I love how Christians like to taut the Bible as an accurate historical account. Of course, this can all be swept away as nonsense with a series of simple, non-rhetorical questions.
Which version of Christianity to you practice? Are you a Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Episcopalian, Jehova’s Witness, Anglican, Protestant, or do you proscribe to one of the seemingly countless other sub-cults? Also, which version of the Bible do you read?
I love when in response to the last question, I often get the response “The King James version.” Apparently these people fail to notice that they include VERSION in their own response, which blatantly admits that they devote themselves to a volume which was entirely composed by and later HEAVILY edited by man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England
Also recall that the Bible, originating nearly TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, was written in a manner according with contemporary social and political attitudes. Thus, anyone attempt to read it in modern times is bound to misinterpret it. This is probably a good thing, since a “god” who in the same volume demonizes the Egyptians for their so-called enslavement of the Jews and later preaches “Slaves be good to your master.”, and claims to be a loving and caring god while having a record of infanticide, is clearly fallible. Since much of the basis of Christianity and Judais rests on the infallibility of their deity, we can see that their coveted Holy Book contradicts the very basis of this faith.
Christians read the Bible bit by bit, ignoring the inherent contradictory nature of the text. They take what suits their needs and ignore the rest, save when they need rhetoric to convince themselves of the legitimacy of their faith.
A very sad bunch indeed.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:09 am
The idea that the New Testament is somehow a peaceful book filled with kindness and wisdom is false. Only when we get gentle Jesus meek and mild do we get eternal damnation, no thought for tomorrow, and instuctions to leave your family. Sounds like a cult leader to me. What a prick.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Before you get too philosophical about the ten commandments you might want to check out where they originate from:
The possible origin of the Ten Commandments
Like all religions before and after christianity and judaism are all just collections of delusional ramblings from people who had no clue whats going on in the world.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Actually, the Ten Commandments and these rules from the Book of the Dead are simple guidelines for preserving an orderly, lawful society and maintaining the status quo.
Keep honoring the god(s), and in doing so, obeying his priestly class, since they’re in charge of telling you what he thinks and thus, how you should live your life. Otherwise it’s simply providing and additional incentive for the majority of the populace to maintain economic honesty, marital fidelity, etc. For the Egyptians, if you followed the list of rules your soul isn’t devoured because your heart is too heavy. For the Christians, you don’t spend eternity in a pit of fiery nothingness and suffering.
There’s nothing special about either list, they’re just general sets of good rules necessary for maintaining a healthy society, thus giving the list a bit of legitimacy. Then they throw in the god bullshit to make sure you’re obedient and keep the religious hierarchy in power. Simple as they are devious.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Well, can’t argue with blasphemaster. Of course, the lists being usefull two-thousand years ago, doesn’t make the applicable in today’s society.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, they’re all fairy tales and con jobs, toxic mixes of truth and fabrication. All it changes is the flavor of the insanity.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
We need to build a “Wake up Gasmonso” button on the site.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Wait till they wrap their heads around this shit. ;)
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
613 commandments actually
September 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
What the hell is up with all that G-d bullshit. I recall having a classmate who wrote like that, saying that if you write GOD on a piece of paper and throw it away, you’re throwing GOD away….WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!
I just can’t get over how silly some of these are:
Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest
Not to commit incest with one’s father’s wife’s daughter
is the same as
Not to commit incest with one’s sister
Not to eat a worm found in fruit
Not to eat of things that creep upon the earth
so meat is out of the question
Not to eat things that swarm in the water
can’t eat fish
Not to eat the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned
so if an ox accidentally drags a plow on sunday and you beat it to death with rocks, you can’t eat it? what a waste
Not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him
HELLO! ****JEWS****!
To redeem the firstborn human male
Guess this one wasn’t in effect during Passover, eh?
That those engaged in warfare shall not fear their enemies nor be panic-stricken by them during battle
HOLY SHIT! We’re completely outnumbered and I just shit my pants, guess I’m damned to hell!
To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel
HA! Then I would not be wrong in stating that the Holocaust was comuppance for the Canaan genocide, would I?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I have always thought, and been persecuted for it no matter delicately or reproachfully I state it. “The Jews got what was coming to them”
Not the most popular opinion, considering the atrocities committed against them by the Germans. But all the historical accounts I’ve read focus on the aftermath of the occupation, rather than the events that led to the holocaust. Not that they all deserved it; but I have read that their leaders at the time definitely did nothing short of encourage and enrage the Germans. (And a lot of other governments/nationalities at the time)
My point as always, is that the relativity of human nature is NOT as one sided as historical “opinion” paints it.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:14 am
quit hurting people because they are different you peice of shit; you are just lucky you were born. heavan is right in front of you. open your eyes
September 21st, 2007 at 3:36 am
@shaze
you believe “jews got what was coming to them”? mein gott, you can’t be serious about that statement.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:26 am
I don’t think we need to get so furious about Shaze’s comment. I think he just wants to say that history has always shown one side of picture. I think he wants to say that Jews suffered as a cumulative effect of their atrocities for thousands of years. This seems to be very valid point. I am not very much aware of all the things which Jews did. Even if we take god’s part out in old testament and just assume all the incidents were real, then we know that their deeds were simply brutal if we put it in a polite way.
This link seems to throw some light on few incidents.
http://www.overthrow.com/creator/ner/ner-1-08.asp
September 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
The problem with looking for evidence either way in a case like this is that this is one of those which is simply not allowed to be handled objectively. How much can we really trust a Neo-Nazi site? But by the same token, if those higher up in the Jewish religion are really not trustworthy about the information, how will you know? Each side calls the other flat out wrong, and so trying to look at what each says as is for clues probably won’t get you far.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am
The average individual jew didn’t deserve to get killed during the holocaust. The jews as a whole didn’t deserve to get killed during the holocaust. Despite what the jews’ christians, and perhaps muslims think, the sins of the father do NOT get passed down to their sons. They didn’t commit genocide, ergo they didnt deserve to have it committed upon them. However, the same can be said of those they killed via the ethnic cleansing they utilized to build up their ‘Israel’. But when you go around as the self-declared ‘chosen people’ and a significant portion of your people engage in unscrupulous business practices around the world, chances are people are going to hold a grudge. Boiling point? Nazi Germany. Though they still don’t realize why their neighbors are pissed at them. They and the Palestinians both claim the land which we now call Israel as their ancestral homeland, to which I say BULLSHIT. It’s a chunk of worthless desert which the Jews first stole from the indigenous peoples while slaughtering them en masse because a ‘higher power’ declared it to be theirs, which they later left for whatever reason. After the holocaust, the victors felt sorry for the Jews and arbitrarily decided they should get the land back, so they declare a new Israel and look they other way as they snatch the land from the rightful inhabitants. Then the Jews get all militant when the current inhibitants don’t want to leave! Anyone noticing a pattern here? History DOES repeat itself.
“quit hurting people because they are different you peice of shit; you are just lucky you were born. heavan is right in front of you. open your eyes”
Really? But that’s what the religious do best! Also, my eyes are quite open, sir, and I see a computer screen. Perhaps it is YOU who should open your eyes. Or at least pull the wool from over them.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
hmmm maybe americans deserved 9-11 as a small down payment for all the atrocities they’ve done, and that’s just prior to WW2.
and way to link to a neo-nazi site to make your point, dumbass. no culture or religion is free of bad things they’ve done in the past. but to try and (even partially) justify industrialized murder of 6 million people is really rich.
unscrupulous business practices practices? bullshit argument, like non-jews don’t practice that.
“the jews” got all militant cause they had no choice.
“the jews” are not the first or the last to occupy land because a “higher power” told ‘em.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Possibly. Most americans don’t like to think about all the horribly wrong shit our nation has done, continental genocide of the natives being at the top of the list.
you’re referring to shaze with the neo-nazi thing, right?
I never said they were the only ones to do so.
The jews wouldn’t have HAD to get all militant if they hadn’t suddenly placed themselves in someone else’s land and tried to force them out. They were doing just fine where they were, there was no justifiable reason to kick the palestinians out and set up a new nation like they did with international aid, nonetheless. Feeling sorry for one group of people is no reason to give them land taken from others.
Naturally, but to do so TWICE, with the SAME strip of land, and try to paint themselves as the victims, is utter nonsense.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 am
Can we agree on not talking about “the Jews”? Not only is there a difference between the sins of the father and the son but also between the sins of someone else of your people and you!
I don’t like the United States’ foreign policy but still I blame it on their government and not on any individual American that I meet.
If there was the perception that the majority of Jews used unscrupulous business practices it was still completely unjust to make each and every individual one of them suffer. And besides that, killing is always out of the question.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:51 am
** Step back for a closer look **
Xian doctrine is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. Four hundred years of opposition have not yet rid the West of the rotting corpse of its dead god.
Chinese culture was far luckier. From that very rational, this worldly, and practical book, The Analects, attributed to Confucius (500 BCE):
6:20 Fan Ch’ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, “To give one’s self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.â€
15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?†The Master said, “Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.†[trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]
No god is needed to police human behavior. All ethics is irreducibly social. Harming others can not be generalized; otherwise, no culture could exist.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
September 24th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Ah, if only the west were full of Confucianism instead of Theism.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
First of all I’ll state my bias, I do consider myself to be a Christian. But I, along with many other Christians do not claim to have all the answers. I don’t know why it seems as though God “transforms” from a jealous God who punishes the sons of the evil for three and four generations to a God of mercy and forgiveness in the New Testament, but someone presented something interesting to me the other day I just thought I would share. Where did we get the idea that God never changes? There is a verse that says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but what does that mean? It could mean that his laws (the ones you agree with) will always be true. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he won’t change the way he relates to us. I’m not saying I’m right (b/c I don’t really know) but it’s just a thought.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
@Drew.
I would like to add something to your point. Some days back i was listening to a lecture on “Abstraction of Modern Science.” The whole lecture was a blend of philosophy and science and i really couldn’t make much out of the lecture. But one interesting point i think i can add here. The lecturers was referring to the change in Abstraction of God in Old Testament and New Testament. In old testament, God never directly made relationship. It was more of an indirect relation where he communicated via priests, kings, or other few selected people. Christ came and changed this whole attitude and gave more importance on personal relationship with god rather. This was a whole change in model.
That reminds me of the days when i was not an atheist. I always thought that god was very experimenting. He doesn’t know how to convince people to believe in him. He kept on experimenting to state his importance and he utterly failed every time. People may have believed in him but they never could follow his footsteps of being a moral being. Man by nature is sinful and god just tries to keep on showing himself in different forms just thinking that one day he will catch the right nerves and make people believe that moral human being is the only way of achieving god.
But now i think i was very naive and kind of acted like an apologetic. This theory itself has many drawbacks and doesn’t really take care of all the atrocities mentioned in all forms of religious texts, which i found very difficult to accommodate in my theory. And Dawkins gave a good insight about the way evolution works, i read some things about abiogensis and grasped as much as i could and concluded there is no god and even if there is god, it is not what we can imagine. Even if i was wrong and if there is god, i think that god would always want us to be a moral human being rather than a delusional person.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Thank You!
smilingface said: Be humble and in awe of what there is to know; for there is no absolute truth, but change.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
It seems atheists are winning this war, slowly but steadily. That’s why Gosmonso is running out of threads to start a conversation. Hey Gosmonso, where are you? Waiting for you to start a new conversation.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:15 am
I feel reminded of a few lines from a song by one of my favorite artists.
Excerpt from Diary of Dreams’ Skin Skinner:
Your secret world is far away,
you don`t listen to what I say.
…
Keep my integrity intact.
I want to base my life on facts.
What ever comes, I never know,
But life will ultimately show.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
In all truth, every response made to Jagannath’s entry has been a socially constructed, relative response. I am reading a lot about people’s various opinions and “what they think”; however, where do your ideas and logic come from? Are your ideas not derived from some form of a fundamentally bankrupt perception? This is to question whether or not the ideas presented are anything more than mere opinions — has anyone presented their case with an absolute truth? When the “Christian” testifies of his or her faith in the doctrine of Christ, the individual is more often than not referring to what he or she believes is the infallible word of God. This is to say that the logic and reasoning of the individual comes from an absolute source: to the Christian, God’s absolute character establishes a fundamental foundation for reason and logic; another form of this truth would be to say that the Christian idea is not relative or socially constructed.
Most individuals deem religion (and particularly Christianity) as a result of some psychological breakdown or psychosis. This view, however, is no more ignorant than to say that all Asians are good at math or that every African American with a lower socio-economic status is gang-related. In other words, simply by saying that a Christian who has fervent beliefs in his or her views is a “Religious Freak” is instigating contradiction because ANYONE who holds this view is, in fact, a “Religious Freak”: someone completely blinded by his or her beliefs. To illustrate this point, slave owners in the early American history perceived their slaves as property. The problem with this perception (as Abraham Lincoln and anti-slavery activists realized) was that the things slave-owners depreciated of their “property” were things they themselves had: certain hue to their skin, arms, legs, energy, custom, etc. Another illustration: in our post-modern culture, racists are often seen ignorant and foolish for believing that they are better than someone who is chemically, biologically, and perhaps even socially no different (or perhaps even better) than the racist individual. Now ask yourself this: are the many of you, who desperately try to reason and defend your collateral views, not ignorant or foolish?
Is it not quite humorous and even clumsy for an individual to participate in bashing fervent, religious individuals under some bravado of “logic and reasoning” when they themselves are doing the very same things these religious “freaks” are doing? Yes, it is humorous; indeed, it is even clumsy.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hello Apologist,
Your comment is cleaver but fallacious. In the first paragraph, you used post-modern philosophy, that all truths are relative, to try to refute that we can have any basis in logic and reasoning. You then go on to treat Christianity as an absolute that is somehow immune to social constructivism. In fact, Christianity is socially constructed. All stories, books, ceremonies, and other religious practices were all invented by man and thus, by your own reasoning, relative.
Really, this is an intellectual version of an old argument against atheism. This is that atheism (or in your version, logic) requires faith (belief without evidence), just as religion does. The irony of this argument is that it is proffered by people of faith yet it treats faith as a bad thing. I’ll ignore this double-thinking in favor of the content of the argument.
The main difference between one who has ‘faith’ in reason and logic and one who has faith in any particular religion is in the practice. Reason and logic have produced demonstrable and repeatable effects, religion has not. I’m not going to argue that reason requires no faith (for I believe it does), but would argue that it requires far less faith than any religion and it’s proven track record makes it a superior faith.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am
The difference is that the one’s Religion or Secularism is not a given of their existence. You provide what you consider a valid counterexample in the form of American racism, and neglect to recognize that racism is indeed foolish because it involves pre-judging an individual based on factors not within the realm of the individual’s control. One’s ethnicity and thus skin color, facial structure, etcetera which we take to collectively determine their ‘race’ is purely genetic, and thus they cannot be faulted for this, nor should they. Culture is on similar, yet not altogether equal standing. Being raised in a certain culture obviously causes one to hold said culture’s values and beliefs as valid and natural, yet unlike one’s ‘race’, this can be altered over the course of one’s life. A great many individuals from all walks of life grow up with one culture being predominant in their lives, let later for one reason another begin to hold other cultures or aspects of some cultures as having relevance for them and thus adapt them into their being.
Religion is something else entirely. While one can shift from one religion to another, or out of the field of religion entirely, one’s faith is on altogether different standing. Every religion is based in the supernatural, which cannot be tried, questioned, measured, or otherwise observed. Thus, the rules, obligations, mores, and attitudes which are derived from this belief in the supernatural are fundamentally flawed in that they cannot be justified. Unlike culture which changes with time and the needs of the population, religion changes with excruciating slowness, if at all. Because of this, religion causes one to hold on to largely outdated attitudes which clash with the needs of the current culture, and in those common cases where the religion is a huge component of the culture slows the progression of the culture if not bringing it to a grinding halt.
Here are several glaring examples of the religion being entirely detrimental to humanity from largely different cultures:
Aztec blood sacrifices - the practice of regularly butchering live human beings in the hopes that this will keep the sun rising every day. On festival occasions, this can include groups as large as or larger than 40,000 people on a single occasion. Obviously, the sun will ‘rise’ every day with or without this ’sacrifice’. It rose every day well before the practice of human sacrifice began, but naturally the populace neglected to recognize this. How many lives could have been saved and resources spent on more worthy pursuits had this religious notion not permeated the culture?
Judaism - The Caanan genocide is one of the most celebrated events of the Old Testament/Torah. In this, the Hebrews take what is a legitimate desire to acquire new lands through conquest not out of place for its time and complicate it with religion. Logically, they desired a patch of land to establish their own nation. Illogically, the priesthood decided that in order to keep their populace from questioning the excruciatingly brutal methods that would be employed and guarantee that their wishes would be carried out after their demise, they would declare that god wished them to murder every man woman and child who dared dwell in the lands they wished to take, and take the land as their own. Brutal genocide commences, creating a deep-seated cultural hatred between the Hebrew/Jew and Caanan/Arabic peoples that exists to this day.
Christianity - So much to choose from. Let’s take the example of the many instances of widespread witch burning. In the ‘Bible’ it is stated that one “should not suffer a witch to live”. The definition of a witch is ambiguous at best, but key identifiers are often meddling in potions (herbal medicine which is far more effective than prayer in healing), living in the woods (necessary to have access to herbs), and ’suspicious behavior’. This leads to many cases in which a village wise woman/healer/herbalist who does real good in providing somewhat valid medical care for her neighbors lives as a pariah because of her craft, and when a scapegoat is needed she is tied to a stake and burned alive. In particularly turbulent times, outbreaks of ‘witch epidemics’ cause people to turn on one another in a manner they would not otherwise. If someone is a bit awkward, somewhat disliked, or is not as fervent in their prayer as the rest, they are accused of witchcraft and often subsequently executed.
Virtually every religion - Can you say “Stagnation of women’s rights?”
There are many problems with religion, but the largest and most glaringly problematic one is that religious thinking or lack thereof causes people to act contrary to their common sense. We see people engaging in acts of brutal violence in the name of their deity, taking obscure passages from holy books as holy law and oppressing their fellows therefor, and otherwise impeding social and scientific progress.
We don’t see every religious person as a ‘religious freak’. Those who take to religion for personal peace and otherwise keep to themselves are welcome to do so, though I personally think they are wasting their time. However, those who obey unquestioningly the laws of their faith and in doing so cause untold harm to their fellow man as well as preventing a great deal of good, are indeed ‘religious freaks’.
I find your straw man of american slavery to be wildly insulting and entirely unfounded. Here we are discussing logical opposition to an institution that severely impedes human society, and you compare us to slavers and plantation owners because we have a pet name for those we oppose? That is the height of idiocy. We aren’t calling blacks ‘niggers’ or jews ‘kikes’, we find a name adequate to describe the group we dislike and occasionally use it in moments of heated discussion. Is it detrimental? Yes, but we apply it to those who have earned our scorn, rather than to anyone with a certain shade or skin or an unfamiliar tongue.
You sir, are a fool.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
And by the sounds of it, a Religious Freak.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Wow, that was great blasph.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
*bows* Thank ye.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 am
Once again, virtually every response and argument was relative. In terms of my first rebuttal, I said that to the Christian, his or her morals and ethics are not relative but absolute. To the moralist, he or she simply can not say that his or her morals and ethics are indeed absolute truth — the extent of his or her argument would be “in my personal opinion, I find that this-and-that is moral and that-and-this is immoral.” Now the assumption here is that all doctrines are absolute to the follower; yet to the atheist, there simply is no doctrine (assuming the literal definition of “no religion” also implies no doctrine in regards to what exactly defines a doctrine; in this context, I mean to say doctrine of faith).
Blasphemer even says, “We don’t see every religious person as a ‘religious freak’. Those who take to religion for personal peace and otherwise keep to themselves are welcome to do so, though I personally think they are wasting their time.” Yet obviously Shaze doesn’t agree because he/she said, “And by the sounds of it, a Religious Freak.” So Shaze, assuming he/she is in accordance with Blasphemer, contradicted the very person he/she was supporting. This is exactly the kind of mind-set that makes such individuals “Religious Freaks.” Even sid’s definition of a religious freak (in that the practice of dogmatic beliefs defines the “freak” in the religious individual) would imply that Shaze is a religious freak, simply because he/she is making ignorant comments in practice. If he/she wasn’t doing so, then such a comment would not have been made or a better developed comment would have been presented, would you not agree?
Not only so, but according to sid’s definition of a religious freak (again, in link with devout and almost dogmatic practice), the “religious” attendees of a forum bashing religious “freaks” simply implies that such devout members are, indeed, “religious freaks” — that is to say that their religious practice of coming onto this forum and pouring their vigor into responses and into bashing religions is, without a doubt, a symptom of a religious freak.
Had there been a Buddhist or Christian forum where individuals religiously attend and post vigorous responses on atheists, I would assume this forum would surely be one of the first to say that the members of those forum are simply “religious freaks.” If the members on this forum are indeed upset and in disagreement with the ignorance and the imposing of religious beliefs from religious individuals, then I can sympathize — I could even empathize. But to go about and be just as ignorant and just as imposing of your personal beliefs would be, in every sense, no different and no less dogmatic.
Additionally, I use the name Apologist because I find that much like Socrates against Epicurus, there is a deficiency in modern thought that I must make a defense against: there is more often than not a stubborn ignorance that simply will not admit that perhaps not all religious individuals are dogmatic and condemning. Many of history’s most influential, most intellectual, and most academic minds have been religious. This is to make one personal point: if someone would like to honestly disagree with the logic I’ve presented here, please do so in respect to how little you may know (Socrates himself never admitted to know much — he always, ALWAYS proclaimed he knew very little). This is to say that (1) your personal, relative ideas are invalid; if you’d like to present stern logic, illustrate your points and, even better, provide commentary from experts in the field. Bertrand Russell himself devised his personal proclamations on the foundation of much, much literature (and I want to emphasize the word “much”). (2) Secondly, if ignorant comments like “So-and-so is a religious freak” suit your fancy, then simply continue doing so; you will only be revealing how religiously ignorant and “freakish” you, yourself, truly are. (3) Finally, I do not want to possess the position that the presented arguments are invalid — many of the points made are, in fact, very well reasoned points — however, many of these strong points are still based on personal, subjective truths (this is to say that if someone presents a verse from the Bible or a piece of Muslim history, that individual, unless supported by several valid commentators, is simply imposing personal beliefs and interpretations, often times taking things out of context). Going back to point 1, this is why proper justification is required. Not only so, but thus far, I’ve made no appeal to either religion or atheism; I’ve simply argued an apparent flaw in many of the reasoning skills provided. So beware, you who are quick to judge what my beliefs are and are not — it was this kind of ignorance that martyred the earliest of intellectuals and grandest of thinkers (Disagree? Take any 1000-2000/100-200 level History of Philosophy class)
Otherwise, to Blasphemer, when you were repulsed at my illustration of early American slavery and the ignorance in their logic, consider how repulsive YOUR comments and illogic can be to the well-educated or to, dare I say, the “religious” individual.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Hello again Apologist,
Thanks for responding. I’m afraid that you’ve back-peddled from your previous comment. In your first comment, you accuse us of being philosophical relativists (all truths are relative to who believes them). In your most recent comment, you limit your accusation to only moral relativism (moral truths are relative). You admit, then, that logic and reason is sound regardless of who practice them? This, at least is a step forward.
And to the Hindu, a different set of morals are “absolute”. Muslims have another set, Sikhs, another, etc. Thus a religious person’s ethics are relative to their religious opinion. If the ‘absolute’ aspect of morality is dependent on who believes it (as you said, ‘to the Christian’), then it is nothing more than relative, even if the believer thinks otherwise. Objectively, Christian morality is just as subjective as any other.
The other mistake you make is to assume that all of us are moral relativist. Some of us are, some of us are not. But since we, like yourself, are capable of reasoning and logic, we are able to base our morality on these foundations and not on a byproducts of our religious opinions. So most of us would never say “in my personal opinion, I find that this-and-that is moral and that-and-this is immoral.” We would say “I find this-and-that moral and that-and-this immoral based on the following reasons“. No opinion is necessary.
I can’t find where I defined ‘religious freak’. I would define it as “one who acts in directly harmful and/or extreme ways based on religious beliefs that contradicts evidence and/or reason.” Dogmatic belief alone is not enough to qualify as a freak. The belief must be religiously based, contradict reason and evidence, and must motivate directly harmful or extreme behavior. If I have previously given a definition that is at odds with this one, please let me know where it is so that I can either qualify or retract the statement. Thanks.
Criticizing religious beliefs (or ‘bashing’, as many try to relabel it) is not freakish at all. It does no direct harm nor is it extreme. It’s comparable to criticizing communism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Religion is just another system of human thought. There is no rational basis for giving it special status that immunizes it from criticism. This reasoning, of course, extends to criticizing atheism; ‘bashing’ atheism is not freakish either.
Indeed they are not! I invited one such individual over for Thursday night dinner to discuss religion, politics, and philosophy. I’m afraid you may have made assumptions or generalizations about us that simply aren’t valid.
Great advice! My college philosophy courses ended up being the most valuable I’ve ever taken. I would have majored in it, if the job prospects weren’t so bleak. Do you have a favorite philosopher?
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“My college philosophy courses ended up being the most valuable I’ve ever taken. I would have majored in it, if the job prospects weren’t so bleak. Do you have a favorite philosopher?”
Haha. I’m in your prior spot, except I decided to soldier on anyways. May have been a bad idea, but who knows?
Also, to Apologist:
“yet to the atheist, there simply is no doctrine (assuming the literal definition of “no religion†also implies no doctrine in regards to what exactly defines a doctrine; in this context, I mean to say doctrine of faith).”
Why can atheists not have a doctrine? Do I need a doctrine of faith to have values? I believe in free thought and action whenever allowable, prevention of harm whenever we can, and goodness towards humankind and a general feeling of value as a member of the species. I believe this because I know it’s what I want, and if others don’t agree, they are still able to choose their own ways (so long as they show adequate respect for others). It’s a good way of life from what I can see, and once again, those who disagree are allowed (with certain restrictions) to follow their own way. Can’t I believe in this and yet not be religious? Must there be something more?
Also, you seem to be making a dichotomy of absolutist v. relativist positions, with absolutist being good and relativist being bad. I’d be careful where that could be led, as certainly there are a lot of factors that go into judgments and methodology on both sides.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Apologist: “Otherwise, to Blasphemer, when you were repulsed at my illustration of early American slavery and the ignorance in their logic, consider how repulsive YOUR comments and illogic can be to the well-educated or to, dare I say, the “religious†individual.”
My comments would be repulsive to the well-educated? How so? How would YOU define well-educated?
As for your thoughts on the rest, which as far as I can see focus mainly on defining a ‘religious freak’ and one’s approach to ascribing such a label to an individual, I shall explain my approach to such in detail.
Sidfaiwu’s explanation is an adequate, if basic definition.
However, I define as a religious freak as anyone who for reasons related to their faith:
1) Attempts to push one’s beliefs upon others via force, propaganda, subterfuge, or objective socialization.
2) Attempts to quiet the voices of those who speak contrary to one’s beliefs.
3) Attempts to pass one’s beliefs into law at the exclusion of others or offering support to such action.
4) Attempts to cause blatant, outright harm to groups or individuals holding contrary beliefs.
There may be other actions which would be suitable to qualify one as a ‘religious freak’, but most I can think of at the moment fall into these four categories. Notice that I do not qualify any of them with any thought to religion. Anyone with any set of beliefs can be a freak, and such a list can be applied to any beliefs, political for example.
As Snurp stats, a Doctrine is entirely unnecessary to have values or morals. As I see it, a Doctrine is a set of rule and regulations to keep at hand as guidance, forced though it may be at times. Doctrines are only necessary for those who lack the ethical capacity to decide what is right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, etc. I cannot count how many times I have heard religious folk claim that atheists cannot possibly be moral because ‘the will of god does not guide their actions’. I say, if you require the supposedly guiding hand of faith to act in a moral manner, you are, in fact, immoral.
I have no guidelines for my behavior aside from my own conscience. Yet, I have never murdered, raped, assaulted, stolen, vandalized, or otherwise committed any ill deed towards another person.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:06 am
To encompass what seems to be several ways in projecting one apparent problem, I want to pose this scenario to all, in hopes to illustrate my overall position in terms of relativism (including the personal conscious): In my favorite Van Gogh canvas called “Starry Night,” there is a magnificent presentation of wild shades of blue. Let us say that years after the canvas was made, two artistic interpreters — both experts in their field of study — disagree on what shade of blue was used to paint the sky. One expert proclaims that the base color for the blue was cyan. The other expert, however, proclaims that the base color for the blue was navy. The two experts provide statistics, commentary from other artists, and provide a solid case for how and why the base color is of their own. Who, in this scenario, would be correct?
Obviously, no one would know — the experts could literally spend their entire lives debating the issue and never know. At times, the navy blue supporter will seem to hold a stronger case in terms of hypothetical points A and B; however, at other times, the cyan supporter will provide a stronger case in terms of hypothetical points C and D. In the end, neither one will possess the absolute, infallible, and fundamental truth but both will possess fragments or ‘relative’ perspectives on the absolute. The only way to establish settlement for the debate, would be to go back to the creator of the canvas, Vincent van Gogh himself, and ask of him: as the creator of this object of debate, who among us is right and who among us is wrong — which color did you use as the base for your blue, cyan or navy blue? Only the originator and author of the canvas can testify to the absolute, infallible, and fundamentally supported truth.
Now I find no difference for ethics and morals. To say that a person’s morals are derived from society would establish an etiology in linkage with Aristotle, who was mentored by Plato, who was taught by Socrates — the list, of course, goes on. Even the so-called authors of philosophy cannot testify to know the truth: the Stoics derived their philosophy from an already established philosophy (much like knowing up, simply because of the existence of down — if this concept needs further clarification, please notify me). In this, there lacks an absolute origin for our morals and ethics.
Now, to assume that the individual is born with ethics, psychologically speaking, is not true (support for this finding is available throughout Dr. David Myers’ textbook, “Psychology: Seventh Edition in Modules” Modules 1-6). To further illustrate this point: in what context do we commonly use the phrase “be on your best behavior”? Typically, this phrase is expressed to children simply because children do not know what deems correct and incorrect, thus the parent is obligated to teach that child of what is and is not so (an example from literature: William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”). So then, where do our morals truly and honestly come from? If not from society and psychology, then where?
Well, the answer MUST lie in the creator of ethics — only the author of morals and ethics would be able to determine what is absolute, exclusive truth and what is not. Now, going back to my previous illustration, in order to discover the beginning, we ought to trace backward: Western civilization’s dominant philosophies came from the Greeks, the Greeks ultimately found their philosophy from the Egyptians, the Egyptians from the Babylonians, and so forth and so forth — the list will be almost unending. In other words, in order to find this author of our ethics, there must be a presence or intelligence that had existed from the very beginning and is, much like the list of philosophical derivations, unending. This intelligence would have the fundamental foundation and infallible position to clarify what is, in fact, morally and ethically right and morally and ethically wrong. To this end, it ought to implant some thorn in our side to recall the first verse of the first chapter of the Bible, “In the beginning God…”
God: that is to assume a presence unending and an intelligence linked to the very beginning. This provides the Christian with the absolute, fundamental truth that he or she rests all morals and ethics on. How does the moral relativist know that murdering babies for pleasure is wrong, besides federal law? S/he doesn’t. How does the Christian know that murdering babies for pleasure is wrong? Because it says so in the fundamental and infallible words of their God, written in the Bible.
Now, here, of course, is where the roads split into a plethora of eclectic paths that all promote a similar ideology and logic — there will obviously be a great storm to come considering I’ve done what is seemingly forbidden on this forum: proposing possible logic and literacy in the Bible. Nonetheless, as philosophers yourselves — I mean to take the literal definition of the word as ‘lovers of wisdom’ — you must see the existential support for the need of some alternative intelligence that is not our own, in terms of identifying the origins of absolute, exclusive morals and ethics. If not, please do justify yourself/yourselves.
Otherwise, I’m personally very impressed with the presentation of quality arguments without ignorant bashing — kudos and thanks to all of you who have presented excellent arguments under respectful mannerisms. Otherwise, my favorite philosophers are actually known as writers and novelists, though their works obviously promote and reveal a magnifying depth in philosophical concepts and realizations: Clive Staples Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Yours?
October 4th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Hello Again Apologist,
I would like to first address your Van Gogh analogy. There is a possibility that you haven’t considered. Suppose someone, long ago, wrote a book that was ‘inspired by’ Van Gogh. This book becomes widely considered to be the ‘word of Van Gogh’, and the final arbiter of all things in Van Gogh paintings. In this book, it states that the sky in Starry Night is based on cyan. Everyone agrees with this for it’s a reasonable conclusion and there is no reason to doubt it. The book goes on to say that it is wrong to view any Van Gogh painting while wearing the color red, for red is abhorrent to Van Gogh. It is the color of Ghog Nav, the evil one who besmirches Van Gogh’s otherwise perfect paintings with his red-full ways.
This, I think captures the essence of religion in relation to morals. The holy book states some moral truth that is obvious to all, such as “Do not kill innocence people” and then goes on to make other arbitrary moral statements like “Don’t be gay”.
Again, the Bible, Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita, etc. suffer from the same criticisms that you wage against any other moral system, they was created and interpreted by men, who where influenced by their teachers (like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates in you example). Also, religions, like philosophies, were built on previous religions. Islam and Christianity grew out of Judaism, which grew out of Zoroastrianism, etc. The difference between philosophy and religion is, there are a minority of people who claim that their particular religion represents God’s final revelation whereas philosophy claims only to be the likely fallible creation of humans.
Finally, simply claiming absolute truth does not guarantee absolute truth. First, you’d have to demonstrate that Christianity represents God’s absolute truth. How does a Christian know that the Bible is the word of God? One does not, one simply accepts it.
This is a classic argument from ignorance. Even if morals don’t come from society or psychology, it doesn’t imply a supernatural origin. There could be some other natural, as of yet undiscovered cause for our morality.
There is a lot more in your comment that I’d like to address, but I’m trying my best to keep my argument focused.
I’ve read Lewis, Dostoevsky, and Chesterton. I loved Dostoevsky’s novels and have read Lewis’s, but haven’t really read their philosophy, so I’m a bit unfamiliar with it. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is on my reading list though. I just recently finished Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton and was unimpressed. You can read about it on my blog, if you’re interested. My favorite philosophers include Rene Descartes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and George Berkeley.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:20 am
The ONLY place morals and ethics come from is from the forces STUDIED BY Psychology and Sociology. The idea that our moral and ethical standings must have origins in the supernatural is utter nonsense.
Morals are simply sociologically identified standards of behavior which are in essence derived from ethics, which are essentially individual motivators of behavior. So, what the majority considers to be ‘good and right’ is considered moral. In what I regretfully call my society, that of the U.S.A., it is generally viewed by the Religious Majority that to be moral is to be ‘pious’ and focused on ‘family values’ and whatnot. I myself am in no way whatsoever pious, and I care little about so-called ‘family values’. Thus, in the eyes of the majority, I am ‘amoral’. Yet at the same time, as I am guided by my conscience and logical, rational thinking and thus do my best to co-exist with those around me as best I can doing no violence or wrong as I see it, I am ethical.
Let’s consider WHY the values of the majority, thus what is considered ‘moral’ come from. The vast majority of the U.S. population is sadly, Christian. This is largely because the initial emigrants who founded the future bases of our nation were Christian. The majority of immigrants into the nation, once founded, were also Christian. Those who were not Christian were pressured to become so, and a sizable amount did, though there is certainly a respectably population who are by no means Christian. There are of course Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Rastafarians and what have you, a minority though they be. However, as the Christians had the time to build a political power base and develop the society to conform to their values, they have created a culture in which what Christians by and large are guided by their own ethical standards to believe to be good and right, becomes considered moral.
This is true for any culture. In the U.S.A., if you openly consider rational alternatives to Christian thinking or perhaps have a sexually ’swinging’ lifestyle, you are labeled ‘immoral’. In Saudi Arabia, if you have a beer or being female you show some ankle in public you are labeled ‘immoral’. In some ‘primitive’ island cultures in the Pacific, you refuse to eat the remains of a dead relative in order to honor their spirit, you are labeled ‘immoral’.
Morality is entirely relative, based on what the majority in any given culture or situation considers to be ‘right’ or ‘good’, and as cultures vary widely, what is considered ‘moral’ varies widely.
I care not a pittance for what anyone considers ‘moral’. I guide my own actions for the good of myself and refrain from causing harm to others, and thus, I consider myself to be ethical.
“Now, to assume that the individual is born with ethics, psychologically speaking, is not true.”
So then, where do our morals truly and honestly come from? If not from society and psychology, then where?
“Well, the answer MUST lie in the creator of ethics — only the author of morals and ethics would be able to determine what is absolute, exclusive truth and what is not.”
More contradictory statements there could not be.
You seem recognize that there are no inherent attitudes towards ethics in humanity, which is largely true. John Locke famously suggested that humans, and arguably any conscious creature, are born with a ‘tabula rasa’ a blank slate. This is the idea the we have no inherent ideas or attitudes, though I would add the qualifier “outside of what we are biologically predisposed towards”. Personal ethics are derived from experience and observation. If your culture’s morals teaches you from day one that it is wrong to perform a certain act, chances are quite high that you will grow to believe this and integrate the idea into your personal ethical thinking. Inversely, if someone in a different culture is taught the opposite, they will integrate it into their own thinking just as well.
How then does ‘the origin of morals and ethics’ lie exclusive in an infallible author who determines what is absolute? Why has this author given different sets of morals to different cultures, visibly based on what is acceptable given the history of any given culture? You provide no supporting evidence outside of your claim, nay your declaration that it is so. Thus, you have set out to discuss what is or is not true with a goal already in mind, and this your entire logical process is altered to suit this. Just because you wish something to be true does not make it so.
I also feel that attributing any and all ethical capacity to some invisible sky wizard is extremely degrading to humanity as a whole. To suggest despite all evidence to the contrary that we are what we consider to be moral or ethical purely because an unknowable, unprovable, baseless IDEA declared it so is pure nonsense, incredibly insulting, and the purest cowardice.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Is anyone else amazed at how intelligent Apologist is, yet has not been able to think his way out of the mental, supernatural box his brain is enclosed in? I truly see many simularities to the Matrix movie in this exchange. If Apologist would only choose the red pill, he might be our Neo! j/j I promise you, Apologist, if you ever do choose the red pill, life may not be as rose colored as it was before (with the promise of Heaven after life, etc.), but at least you will know its real, only then do I think could you ever truel appreciate how fantastic and precious life is… and how hard and interesting the road is… and exactly how much we all need each other… and the amazing things we, as humans, can accomplish all on our very own… Random thought, I wonder if religion.. or “Second Life” is such a hit with alot of people because most people would choose the blue pill even if they knew the difference?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Sorry, one more question for Apologist.
Would you even consider it possible that relgion was created by man? I’ve always wondered if in the corner of intelligent, religious peoples’ minds that they think this all might be a sham. Maybe they won’t let their reasoning skills anywhere near this part of the mind to even start considering it because they were raised religiously, and they don’t see any benefits of having a personal paradigm shift.
I was not raised in a religious family, so my realization that god was not real, and the reason religion was created, was not a painful one.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Pope John Paul 2 makes a surprise appearance. Really interesting and that too in a bon fire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/16/wpope116.xml
What does this signify? Fire appearance after death, makes a strange combination in Christianity. Does that mean that hell is for real and Pope is in hell? Would like to have some intellectual comments.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Not even worth considering. You can see practically anything as an outline of flame if you have enough fire, a high speed camera, and enough time to waste sifting through the stills.
This doesn’t dignify anything. It’s just wishful thinking, nothing more, and possibly a great deal less.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Intellectual comments on a random shape in a bonfire? As Blasphemaster said above, anyone with enough spare times can take such a picture. Ask yourself, would you really have associated the fire with the pope (or any random person) if there wasn’t a side by side comparison?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Gosh darn, another burning bush and I missed it by being in hospital.
Sadly I did not miss the demonstration of where the term biblebasher comes from, it can actually be used to bash people with.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Watch this sarcastic video. We atheist are supposed to die at night and we may even die if we take a shower. This shows the amount of stupidity surviving amongst humankind. There is something really wrong with the education system. Citizens ought to have some bare knowledge about basic aspects of life in every field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLG-XYuB-Mc
October 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Hey whats happened to this site? Updates have stopped? People - religious freakism is on the rise! No time to stop the mocking! hehe :)
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Here’s an interesting tidbit to tide you over:
http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20071010/NEWS/71009023
October 26th, 2007 at 1:01 am
aaah c’mon. this site was getting updated more than once a day sometimes there… and now not for 6 weeks??
At least ive been able to go through the archives. :)
October 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Strange that gosmonso has been absent for quite some time now. Hope everything is alright. It would nice to hear from him.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:33 am
That it would. Perhaps he should grant posting privileges to key site members to keep things moving when he’s away.
October 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I’m getting a little worried about Gasmonso, I hope he’s ok.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Im hoping he didnt get jumped in a dark alley by some loopy fundie.
I mean its almost 2 months since the last update.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
There is nothing to worry i assume by looking at this site. Probably Gosmonso has decided to devote more time on other sites. See, this site was updated by Gosmonso on Oct 20th.
http://politicalfreaks.com/
Probably i have to search another site to blog. I really like the clean layout of this site and small and clean fonts, which is very inviting.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
me too… maybe he is enjoying the millions he made from this site? anyone agree?
He is a U.S. Marine and he is doing his duty for our Country- USA!
The question is, where is his tour of duty? Iraq or Afghanistan?
God Bless our troops! GO! Gasmonso!
October 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Alcari, are you sure you’re not a girl? just curious, man;)
October 30th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Anyone who buys this rubbish that Jesus only preached 2 commandments or that there are less that the ten God the Father wrote in stone is likely not filled with the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. Jesus would never and has not EVER negated one word of the Father’s. The trouble with modern day Christian’s is that they are constantly blaming Jesus for their watered down faith and beliefs. The Sabbath for example is one and now this putrid idea that there are only seven commandments,”according to Jesus”. Baal-Jesus you mean. Your false Christ that Christians blindly follow. Now you’re talking!
October 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
God:
Jesus:
I assume you would not like to read the ‘Secular Jesus who wined and dined’?
October 30th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I assume you would not like to read the ‘Secular Jesus who wined and dined’?
I ASSUME YOU DO NOT LIKE TO READ THE ENTIRE WORD OF GOD SO AS TO UNDERSTAND HIM IN HIS FULNESS?
October 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
smilingface:
Unfortunately that post was made Oct 20th _2006_
October 30th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Jagannath, you are a typical Christian cult follower. You are taught by liars and so look for ways to divert God’s word in like manner. It is sad and pitiful to watch the likes of you and yours tread such a devious and obvious path to destruction. It is devious for you deceive many, and obvious to those of us who read God in His entirety, and clearly see what you are doing. If you read the Prophets it is all too clear what they fortold is what is occuring in Christian churches today.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Jagannath Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
God:
Leviticus 26:7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
I do indeed still live by this word. You would not understand it since it is obvious you have not the Holy Spirit to teach you. My enemies fall by the sword of the word of God, which is what this passage means to us followers today. But in order for this to occur we must read His word, nay, consume it! Daily and that means throughtout the day and evening. That is why you missed the point Jag!
October 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Check your assumptions, RRock, Jagannath is not any kind of Christian, as far as I know.
I can’t quite tell what you are, a scarily deluded freak, or an expert satirist. Either way, your comments are funny. Keep them coming! Hopefully your extremism (whether real of faked) will frighten even more people away from religion.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
sidfaiwu,
Well you know what they say about assumptions! They make an ass of u and me! I should know better than to assume anything, but got caught up in the reply. I define myself as a messenger, if you will, of the TRUTH.
modern day religion has nothing to do with the truth so i find myself writing expose’s about the hypocrisy.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Religion plain and simple has nothing the do with the truth. Have fun wasting your life praying to the invisible sky wizard.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Well Michael, let me check.
*unzips pants and looks down*
Yup, I’m quite sure :p
“”Have fun wasting your life praying to the invisible sky wizard. “”
Thou shalt not blaspheme against the great and powerfull Oz!
oh, and pay no atention to the man behind the curtain.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Howdy all,
I would say that telling people that the Bible is the truth is deceiving people. To me, claiming that you have all the answers is devious and deceptive. I don’t believe anyone can know for certain anything about something as intangible and enigmatic as your supposed God. If he is indeed as real as you claim and the bible is his standard operating procedure then I would guess that a lesson in humility may be somewhere in your future.
Cheers
Simon Bond
October 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Alcari, you’re gay, right? I don’t mean to judge you, i just want to understand you.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I would say that telling people that the Bible is the truth is deceiving people. To me, claiming that you have all the answers is devious and deceptive. I don’t believe anyone can know for certain anything about something as intangible and enigmatic as your supposed God. If he is indeed as real as you claim and the bible is his standard operating procedure then I would guess that a lesson in humility may be somewhere in your future.
Cheers
Simon Bond
How can a man be so wrong & then so right? You are dead wrong about God, and right on about the bible leading into a lesson of humility! Flesh & blood did not reveal this to you. As for your antagonistic remarks about the living God, it’s your soul pal! I’m not called to defend He who needs no defense. I am called to expose Christianity as a cult religion. Carry on Simon! If God wants you He will call you. Otherwise, you are in for it!
October 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Michael, I don’t why you’re suddenly so interested in my life, but i can asure you I’m not gay. I wonder how you manage to come to that conclusion by reading my posts here.
So what you’re basically saying is that your fictional beliefs are superior to other fictional beliefs.
Besides, we allready know Christianity is full of crap. As are all other religions imho
October 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“I do indeed still live by this word. You would not understand it since it is obvious you have not the Holy Spirit to teach you. My enemies fall by the sword of the word of God, which is what this passage means to us followers today. But in order for this to occur we must read His word, nay, consume it! Daily and that means throughtout the day and evening.”
And this is any different to Islamic extremism in what way??
What makes you so sure you’re right and theyre wrong? Or any other religion is wrong for that matter. You cant both/all be right, but you can all be wrong… My money is on the latter, being a reformed, ex-christian who (has both read and studied the bible in detail) ’saw the light’ so to speak. :)
October 30th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
To Jayman all I can say is I shall not cast my pearls before swine. I am cautioned by the word of God not to engage in foolish controversies and opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge. That fits you to a tee.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:44 am
The Great Commission is intensely personal! to embrace Christ is to embrace the will of Christ. May Godstregthen us as His people to become involved in carrying out His Commission across America and the world!
October 31st, 2007 at 4:03 am
Right Michael Hyrocket.
May god strengthen me to hate myself and lead in the path of Christ. May god give me the strength to love my neighbor the way I love myself (actually we have to hate ourselves) (Luke 14:26).
May god give me the strength to hate my mother, father, sister, brother to embrace Jesus (Luke 14:26). May god give us the strength to follow the commandments (but how do I reconcile the the fact that we have to respect our parents and hate them too).
May god give me the strength to sell all our possession and donate it to poor(Luke 18:22) (but again how am i going to donate money to churches who have taken pain to spread the gospel).
May god give me the strength to follow the 600 plus laws of Old statement like sacrificing the goat, burning animals, sacrificing two pigeons, etc.
Really it is not just believing in Jesus as son of God will lead us to the kingdom of heaven. There are lots of other things to do and some of them cannot be mutually reconciled. So let god give me the strength to kick him out of my life and stop worrying about the imaginary life after death.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:02 am
Hey Rrock
if your sole purpose here is to dangle your illusion fo high and mghtyness in front of faces, then i suggest you go somewhere else.
Over here we prefer intelligent discussion.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am