A letter from an atheist to other atheists

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

ScioVeritas
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

A letter from an atheist to other atheists

Post #1

Post by ScioVeritas »

I came across this letter which was cited as being from an atheist to other atheist concerning the author's perceived understanding of the atheistic worldview. My question is to atheist - do you agree or disagree with his assessment? and why?

Here is the letter:

“[To] all my Atheist friends.
Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice� and “be civil� you actually do them a great disservice.

We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me.

Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all.
When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.�

ScioVeritas
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

Post #11

Post by ScioVeritas »

That's a nice opinion about the nature of morality but unfortunately it doesn't reflect reality. "Invented by humanity" is incorrect when it comes to morality simply due to the fact that morality is governed by each person's conscience. While each conscience can be refined through experiences it would a mistake to say that the conscience was invented by humanity.

I would agree that all humans don't agree on what it means to be moral which lends itself to the idea that an objective source of morality is necessary.
"In short, the concept of not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself is a no-brainer, and certainly didn't originate with Christianity or Jesus. "
Your assertion that this idea is common sense is unsupported. The concept originated from Solomon circa 970 to 931 BC and by his own admission he was able to articulate the concept due to the wisdom he attributes as having come from God. (I can find a verse that supports this if you want to see it).

Additionally, the concepts of checks and balances and accountability are necessary in order for moral practices to be enforced. This is why the American government is set up the way it is, so that one department doesn't use its power for immoral practices.

If morality really was a subjective concept then there would be no police to enforce objective rules and laws. No one in reality actually lives as if they get to dictate their own morality - and the ones who decide to reject the laws in place are punished because of violating these laws.
Do you think that any person who would do "immoral", or bad things, if there is no God, is a moral person?

And if not, then surely the existence of a God isn't going to change who that person is, right?
As I mentioned before I think any person in the absence of accountability will tend toward immorality. If from the time you were a child until now there were not consequences for your actions then there would be no learned training instructing you on what is "good" or "bad" and you would do whatever was best for you and possibly your loved ones but almost certainly not strangers.
All you need to ask yourself is whether YOU would be a moral person if there is no God. And if your answer is "no", then you must necessarily be an immoral person even if there is a God. Because you are still the same person either way, right?
This assumes that people can't change and that God doesn't change them - both of which are not true. People are inherently selfish and prone to do whatever they think is best for them. When someone believes in God He changes their heart so instead of tending toward selfishness and immorality they tend towards selflessness and morality.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #12

Post by Divine Insight »

ScioVeritas wrote: That's a nice opinion about the nature of morality but unfortunately it doesn't reflect reality. "Invented by humanity" is incorrect when it comes to morality simply due to the fact that morality is governed by each person's conscience. While each conscience can be refined through experiences it would a mistake to say that the conscience was invented by humanity.
I totally disagree with your unsupported guess here.

Conscious does not "govern" morality. We decide what we believe is moral or immoral via other factors, from merely accepting social conventions, deciding what we believe should be moral via pure logic and reason, or blindly accepting the morality shoved down our throats from some dogmatic religion.

Then, and only then, can conscience play a role. Conscience is then nothing more than our awareness that we aren't following our own moral standards if we are tempted to break them.

Moreover, for conscience to be a major factor in anyone's life, that person must necessarily have continual desires to do things that they personally already consider to be immoral. Regardless of where they chose to obtain their moral values.

Also, consider this. People who have no desire to deviate from their moral values aren't bothered by "conscience" because they simply aren't tempted to do things outside of their moral values.

In short, conscience doesn't "drive" my moral behavior. There is no need for conscience to play a role in guiding my behavior at all since I am not tempted to do things outside of my moral values.

The only people who would be heavily driven by conscience are those who are continually desiring to do things that are outside of what they have already accepted as moral conduct.

So I totally disagree with the claim that conscience is even important to morality. It would only play a significant role in the minds of people who constantly desire to break their own accepted code of morality. And those people most likely obtained their moral values from an outside source (most likely a religion) where they either disagree with the moral demands of the religion, or they burden themselves with taking those demands beyond the scope of practicality.

As an example, religion often has people feeling guilty (having a bad conscience) about having a perfectly normal and healthy libido.

Other people who don't beat themselves up over this have no "conscience" about their natural sexual desires, especially in terms of merely thinking about them. They don't consider this to be "immoral" and therefore they have no bad conscience about it.

So your "conscience" definitely comes after the fact. You can't even have a bad conscience about something unless you have first been taught to believe that it is immoral. So your morality cannot possibly come from conscience. Morality comes first, conscience plays a secondary role.
ScioVeritas wrote: I would agree that all humans don't agree on what it means to be moral which lends itself to the idea that an objective source of morality is necessary.
Necessary for what? :-k

Humans haven't had an objective source of morality since the dawn of time and they've managed to do quite well overall.

Even the most strict fundamentalist religions disagree passionately with each other over what their dogmatic religions claim is moral or immoral.

So we can't even point to a source of objective morality at all. Even religions don't have any objective morality to offer. All they have is disagreeing theists and clergy.
ScioVeritas wrote:
"In short, the concept of not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself is a no-brainer, and certainly didn't originate with Christianity or Jesus. "
Your assertion that this idea is common sense is unsupported. The concept originated from Solomon circa 970 to 931 BC and by his own admission he was able to articulate the concept due to the wisdom he attributes as having come from God. (I can find a verse that supports this if you want to see it).
This is totally unimpressive. Even if you should show records that Solomon was the first man in recorded history to record this, that doesn't demonstrate that it's not also common sense and that people before his time had similar thoughts.

Moreover, just because some guy attributes his wisdom to an imagined God doesn't make it so.

ScioVeritas wrote: Additionally, the concepts of checks and balances and accountability are necessary in order for moral practices to be enforced. This is why the American government is set up the way it is, so that one department doesn't use its power for immoral practices.

If morality really was a subjective concept then there would be no police to enforce objective rules and laws. No one in reality actually lives as if they get to dictate their own morality - and the ones who decide to reject the laws in place are punished because of violating these laws.
You are not properly gasping the concept of subjectivity. Just because a large number of individual humans have come together and have created a society with laws, does not mean that their law have objective origins.

Obviously, if they have constructed governments and police to enforce laws, then their legal system has indeed become "objective" in the sense that these people actually exist and are enforcing their laws.

But no God is required for that. Moreover, all societies do this a bit differential. The laws in different countries differ, thus proving that they are indeed subjective in nature.
ScioVeritas wrote:
Do you think that any person who would do "immoral", or bad things, if there is no God, is a moral person?

And if not, then surely the existence of a God isn't going to change who that person is, right?
As I mentioned before I think any person in the absence of accountability will tend toward immorality.
This is true. But there is absolutely no reason at all why a person can be accountable for their own actions. So there is no need for an imagined invisible man in the sky to hold people accountable for their actions. There are many people who do quite well being accountable for themselves.

In fact, people who require that some invisible man be watching over them constantly shouldn't be considered to be very stable or trustworthy as they clearly have no accountability of their own.
ScioVeritas wrote: If from the time you were a child until now there were not consequences for your actions then there would be no learned training instructing you on what is "good" or "bad" and you would do whatever was best for you and possibly your loved ones but almost certainly not strangers.
Is this how YOU think? :-k

Please don't push your personal views of life onto me or others.

There are many people who are concerned for the welfare of their fellow man. In fact, there are many people who have dedicated their lives to helping others.

My own sister is extremely concerned about the welfare of people she has never met. And she is an extremely strong atheist. Totally convinced that there is no God. She works as a social worker and is always becoming emotionally involved with her cases. Cases of people who are basically strangers. In fact, many people have told her that she is in the wrong line of work precisely because she allows herself to become so emotionally evolved with empathy toward people she really has no control over at all.

So I don't buy into your "selfish philosophy". You are more than welcome to hold that philosophy yourself if that's how you feel (in fact you sound very much like this "atheist John" who wrote the letter if you advocate this as a natural way to be).
ScioVeritas wrote:
All you need to ask yourself is whether YOU would be a moral person if there is no God. And if your answer is "no", then you must necessarily be an immoral person even if there is a God. Because you are still the same person either way, right?
This assumes that people can't change and that God doesn't change them - both of which are not true. People are inherently selfish and prone to do whatever they think is best for them. When someone believes in God He changes their heart so instead of tending toward selfishness and immorality they tend towards selflessness and morality.
I disagree.

And I see nothing here but an unsubstantiated opinion on your part.

In the real world we see selfish religious people. Their belief in a God doesn't seem to have helped them much at all.

And, at the same time, we see very compassionate and empathic atheists, like my sister, who clearly violate your unsubstantiated opinionated claim.

Moreover, in my own personal experiences I have found that Wiccans and Pagans are some of the most empathic and compassionate people I've ever met. Far more so than orthodox Christians, for example.

Therefore, even if I was going to accept your claim that God makes people compassionate, then I would have to conclude that Wiccans and Pagans must be closer to God than Christians.

I don't see where there is any strength in any of your arguments here. The things you claim simply aren't supported by the real world.

You are also trying to force negative philosophies and mentality onto people who disagree with you simply by claiming that you think they would be selfish without a belief in God.

But there is no real world evidence to back up your opinionated accusations toward these people. And there is also no real world evidence that even remotely suggests that religious people are not themselves selfish and greedy on average.

So your opinions simply don't match up with reality.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

ScioVeritas
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

Post #13

Post by ScioVeritas »

Morality comes first, conscience plays a secondary role.


I disagree. Your depiction of the connection between conscience and morality is flawed. Being a "moral" person (doing the "right" thing) is determined by conscience which informs you of what the "right" thing is. Without a conscience you wouldn't know what is right or wrong so conscience necessarily comes first.
Humans haven't had an objective source of morality since the dawn of time and they've managed to do quite well overall.


Really? So the wars, genocides and mass killings that occur almost routinely within every generation is humanity doing "quite well"? You're speaking relatively so what are you comparing our current state of affairs with?
Moreover, just because some guy attributes his wisdom to an imagined God doesn't make it so.


I agree with this. The purpose of pointing it out was to show that I understand the concept of putting others first didn't originate with Christianity.
The laws in different countries differ, thus proving that they are indeed subjective in nature.


Maybe the specific laws are different but they're all based on the same principle of not doing harm to others and keeping the people in the society as safe as possible. That would seem to imply that there is some sort of underlying understanding within everyone regardless of the country they live in. Just because people agree on something doesn't make it subjective - Everyone agrees that the sun is the sky but that doesn't make it so. They agree because it's the case, it's not the case because they agree. So I don't think that this proves that moral ideals are subjective.
There are many people who do quite well being accountable for themselves.


There are people like that, but to say that there are "many" people like that...that's debatable 8-) (/end not so clever pun/)
There are many people who are concerned for the welfare of their fellow man. In fact, there are many people who have dedicated their lives to helping others.


And you hold to the view that some people are born this way? You don't think that their parents, or culture, have anything to do with this? Are you honestly saying that these people made those decisions without any outside influence? I don't think you're saying that because if you were then you would in fact be advocating for an objective morality view - i.e. that people are born with a moral law written in their hearts that must have come from an outside source.
In the real world we see selfish religious people. Their belief in a God doesn't seem to have helped them much at all.

And, at the same time, we see very compassionate and empathic atheists, like my sister, who clearly violate your unsubstantiated opinionated claim.

Moreover, in my own personal experiences I have found that Wiccans and Pagans are some of the most empathic and compassionate people I've ever met. Far more so than orthodox Christians, for example.

Therefore, even if I was going to accept your claim that God makes people compassionate, then I would have to conclude that Wiccans and Pagans must be closer to God than Christians.


To clarify, the claim I was making is that if you look at the life of a person who initially doesn't believe and then starts to believe you will see a change in their values and priorities. You originally stated that if someone would not be a moral person without God then they are neccesarily an immoral person regardless. I disagreed with that because it assumes that the person is still the same just with a different set of beliefs. What I'm saying is that a person who believes in God will have become a new person with different motives and goals. Obviously people have varying degrees of compassion and empathy and a lot of people who claim to be orthodox Christians that I've encountered are also very judgmental and not loving - but I think that says more about the individual person than anything else.
You are also trying to force negative philosophies and mentality onto people who disagree with you simply by claiming that you think they would be selfish without a belief in God.


I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. Originally I read the letter thought it was interesting and wanted to see what people thought. My original intent was not to get into a conversation about morality but that's what happened. Your opinions are dictated and influenced by your environment, as are mine and so far all I've read are opinions and ideas based on your individual experience. In order to actually prove that morality is subjective what historical events, psychological studies, philosophical papers or anything other than your own ideas can you point too? What is your source of authority other than yourself?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #14

Post by Divine Insight »

ScioVeritas wrote:
Morality comes first, conscience plays a secondary role.


I disagree. Your depiction of the connection between conscience and morality is flawed. Being a "moral" person (doing the "right" thing) is determined by conscience which informs you of what the "right" thing is. Without a conscience you wouldn't know what is right or wrong so conscience necessarily comes first.
This is absolutely wrong.

If you were taught to have moral values that differ from the moral values of other people, then your conscience would inform you to adhere to those moral values.

So conscience necessarily comes after your ideas of what even constitutes a moral action or behavior.
ScioVeritas wrote:
Humans haven't had an objective source of morality since the dawn of time and they've managed to do quite well overall.


Really? So the wars, genocides and mass killings that occur almost routinely within every generation is humanity doing "quite well"? You're speaking relatively so what are you comparing our current state of affairs with?
Even religious people go to war and support wars.

Gee whiz, the Biblical God not only condoned wars, but even participated in them offering his own supernatural help according to the Bible.

Here is an example of the Bible proclaiming that the LORD they God has commanded people to go to war and utterly destroy their neighboring nations.

Deuteronomy 20

[1] When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
[13] And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
[14] But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
[16] But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
[17] But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:


If you disapprove of war, or believe it to be objectively immoral, then you disapprove of the God of Christianity.

Now, I'm not suggesting that I personally approve of war or subjectively see it as being moral. I believe it to be as immoral as you seem to be suggesting. However, this doesn't help your case at all if you support the bible or Christianity because the Biblical God totally supports wars. He has clearly commanded people to utterly destroy other people.

So all you are saying is that you disagree with the moral values of the God of Christianity.

And clearly that has to be a subjective disagreement because you have no objective morality to point to, to back up your subjective sense of morality.
ScioVeritas wrote:
Moreover, just because some guy attributes his wisdom to an imagined God doesn't make it so.


I agree with this. The purpose of pointing it out was to show that I understand the concept of putting others first didn't originate with Christianity.
It most likely didn't originate with Solomon either.
ScioVeritas wrote:
The laws in different countries differ, thus proving that they are indeed subjective in nature.


Maybe the specific laws are different but they're all based on the same principle of not doing harm to others and keeping the people in the society as safe as possible. That would seem to imply that there is some sort of underlying understanding within everyone regardless of the country they live in. Just because people agree on something doesn't make it subjective - Everyone agrees that the sun is the sky but that doesn't make it so. They agree because it's the case, it's not the case because they agree. So I don't think that this proves that moral ideals are subjective.
I never claimed that there doesn't exist objective factors that influence our views of what subjective morality should be.

Of course humans lean toward moral values that protect humans. That's actually a result of being human-centric. So there are those type of objective factors that play into why we choose to consider certain forms of morality.

But again, no supernatural God would be required for any of that.

In fact, there are indeed atheists who argue for a potential "Objective Morality" based upon these natural physical factors. So in that sense we could develop a type of "objective morality" that does not require any imagined supernatural God.

However, in truth, when it comes down to a matter or practically this method of trying to establish an "objective morality" ultimately becomes subjective in the end.

For example, should gay relationships be considered "moral" or "immoral" based on pure physical objectivity? There is no clear cut answer to this.

In fact, many people who have studied these types of moral systems have come to realize that many things would necessarily need to be "Neutral" (i.e. neither moral nor immoral).

In other words, something like sexual orientation simply wouldn't be able to be labeled as either moral or immoral. It's neither. It's just an aspect of life that is neither intrinsically "good" nor intrinsically "bad". In fact, this is something that would ultimately come down to personal subjective opinion. It couldn't even be made objectively moral or immoral at all.

So there are limitations concerning just how far we can take the concept of objective morality even in this natural secular sense.
ScioVeritas wrote:
There are many people who do quite well being accountable for themselves.


There are people like that, but to say that there are "many" people like that...that's debatable 8-) (/end not so clever pun/)
The number of people who are self accountable is actually irrelevant. If there is one person who is self-accountable who doesn't believe in the God in question, then that single example is sufficient.

In my case, I know that I'm personally accountable for my own moral actions. And I don't believe in the Biblical God. So I'm living proof that a belief in the Biblical God is not required to have moral accountability.

I may not be able to convince someone else of this. But that's irrelevant from my perspective because I am the living proof of this. So I have my proof. ;)

And if you don't have this proof for yourself, that can only be because you are not morally accountable for your own actions.
ScioVeritas wrote:
There are many people who are concerned for the welfare of their fellow man. In fact, there are many people who have dedicated their lives to helping others.


And you hold to the view that some people are born this way?
I never said or implied that. I also don't see why this should even be important.

Can't people develop their own sense of morality as they grow and mature?
ScioVeritas wrote: You don't think that their parents, or culture, have anything to do with this?
Possibly. But I have also seen examples of children being born into immoral families with immoral parents in an immoral neighborhood, and coming away to become a totally moral person in spite of this.

So the idea that we are forced to take on the moral values of our parents or culture doesn't seem to pan out.
ScioVeritas wrote: Are you honestly saying that these people made those decisions without any outside influence?
I don't recall having ever said anything remotely like that. It's certainly not my worldview. So I can't imagine having said such a thing.
ScioVeritas wrote: I don't think you're saying that because if you were then you would in fact be advocating for an objective morality view - i.e. that people are born with a moral law written in their hearts that must have come from an outside source.
No, I have no clue what causes a person to become what they ultimately become.

And besides, if you are proposing that we supposedly get our moral compass innately from birth, then from whence does that compass come? And why isn't EVERYONE a perfectly moral person then? :-k

I've thought about this quite a bit actually.

I know that I'm an extremely moral person. So why is that? Was this my choice to become a moral person? Or was I magically born this way?

If I was magically born a moral person then I had nothing to do with it.

If it was my choice then how did that happen?

Did it happen because of outside influences as you seem to be suggesting?

If so, then I was just super lucky to have been influence in this way accidentally.

Did it happen because I have some sort of free will and simply chose to be a good person?

I have no clue. Maybe that is the answer. But if so, then it was my personal free will choice to be a good and moral person.

And this goes against Christianity, because according to them I have no choice in the matter. Without Jesus I supposedly can't even be a moral person if I wanted to.

So there's huge problems for Christianity here.
ScioVeritas wrote:
In the real world we see selfish religious people. Their belief in a God doesn't seem to have helped them much at all.

And, at the same time, we see very compassionate and empathic atheists, like my sister, who clearly violate your unsubstantiated opinionated claim.

Moreover, in my own personal experiences I have found that Wiccans and Pagans are some of the most empathic and compassionate people I've ever met. Far more so than orthodox Christians, for example.

Therefore, even if I was going to accept your claim that God makes people compassionate, then I would have to conclude that Wiccans and Pagans must be closer to God than Christians.


To clarify, the claim I was making is that if you look at the life of a person who initially doesn't believe and then starts to believe you will see a change in their values and priorities.
That's totally understandable in terms of pure secular psychology. Especially if the person in question is depressed and unhappy with life prior to being inspired by their new belief.

I think too that you seem to be missing a very important factor here. This is only going to work for people who are miserable to begin with, or totally confused, unhappy, or helplessly addicted to unpleasant things in the first place.
ScioVeritas wrote: You originally stated that if someone would not be a moral person without God then they are neccesarily an immoral person regardless. I disagreed with that because it assumes that the person is still the same just with a different set of beliefs. What I'm saying is that a person who believes in God will have become a new person with different motives and goals.
That doesn't make them a "new person". It simply means that they have changed their worldview. This doesn't even require religion or a God. There are actually examples of people who have dramatically changed their lives and their attitude by simply changing their worldview, totally without any religion being involved.

So this is explained by pure secular psychology and does not require the existence of a magical God.

And far more to your point, this happens in ALL RELIGIONS too. So that wouldn't support Christianity's stance that Jesus is the only way, etc.
ScioVeritas wrote: Obviously people have varying degrees of compassion and empathy and a lot of people who claim to be orthodox Christians that I've encountered are also very judgmental and not loving - but I think that says more about the individual person than anything else.
I agree. But that doesn't so anything to support the idea that there is a magical God behind the religion that helps these people. To the contrary it indicates that there is no God helping these people.
ScioVeritas wrote:
You are also trying to force negative philosophies and mentality onto people who disagree with you simply by claiming that you think they would be selfish without a belief in God.


I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. Originally I read the letter thought it was interesting and wanted to see what people thought. My original intent was not to get into a conversation about morality but that's what happened. Your opinions are dictated and influenced by your environment, as are mine and so far all I've read are opinions and ideas based on your individual experience. In order to actually prove that morality is subjective what historical events, psychological studies, philosophical papers or anything other than your own ideas can you point too? What is your source of authority other than yourself?
I don't need to prove that morality is subjective. That should be the default assumption until evidence can be shown to be otherwise.

It's up to YOU to provide evidence for a source of objective morality (and absolute objective morality).

Where are you going to point to show me such a thing?

We don't see morality in nature. The natural world does whatever it wants it has no sense of morality. Natural disasters will maim and kill anyone including innocent new born babies.

So there's no evidence for any absolute morality in the natural world.

What about the Animal Kingdom? Can you point to any absolute objective morality there?

Clearly not. Animals eat each other, steal each others food, eggs and babies. There is no objective morality in the animal kingdom.

How about plants, bacteria, viruses, insects etc.

Nope, we don't see any objective morality there either.

How about humans? Do we see any objective morality in humans.

Well, no. By your very own admission humans will easily go to war with one another and you have already suggested that this is not moral behavior.

Have we seen any objective morality in the Bible?

No, we don't even see it there.

I have already posted one verse from the Bible where the Bible is instructing people to go to war and to utterly destroy their neighboring nations. And you have already suggested that war is immoral.

So where are you going to point to this "objective morality" that you claim exists? :-k

It's not up to me to prove subjective morality.

If you want to claim that there exists an absolute objective morality you need to produce it, or at least some sort of evidence for it.

You need to have this thing you claim exists so you can at least point to it.

I don't see where you have anything to even point to.

So I don't need to prove subjective morality. We simply don't have any evidence for anything other than subjective morality.

There's no need to prove it.

If you claim the existence of some absolute objective morality, it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists and show where it can be found. And you already can't point to the Bible because the Bible has God commanding people to do things that you have already stated are immoral (i.e. going to war with each other)

So where can this proposed objective morality be found?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

ScioVeritas
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

Post #15

Post by ScioVeritas »

If you disapprove of war, or believe it to be objectively immoral, then you disapprove of the God of Christianity.

Well, no. By your very own admission humans will easily go to war with one another and you have already suggested that this is not moral behavior.

I have already posted one verse from the Bible where the Bible is instructing people to go to war and to utterly destroy their neighboring nations. And you have already suggested that war is immoral.


I don't believe war is objectively immoral, I disapprove of the reasons behind a lot of the modern wars that have occurred - but that's a politics issue and is not a statement of my approval or disapproval of God's actions (who's actions I don't need to defend anyway). My point was more about the fact that there are mass killings (shootings in schools and churches) and somehow you've equated that with society doing "quite well" for itself.
So all you are saying is that you disagree with the moral values of the God of Christianity.


No that's not what I was saying. My claim is that for anyone to be able to say to someone else "that's not right" then that person needs to have an objective source to point to. If their morality is subjective then they have no authority to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't be doing.
Can't people develop their own sense of morality as they grow and mature?


Sure, but they can't impose that morality on anyone else since it's subjective.
Possibly. But I have also seen examples of children being born into immoral families with immoral parents in an immoral neighborhood, and coming away to become a totally moral person in spite of this.

So the idea that we are forced to take on the moral values of our parents or culture doesn't seem to pan out.


I didn't say that the children take on the moral values of the parents, I said that they were influenced by them. So in the event that a person is born into an immoral family in an immoral neighborhood it's precisely because of their situation that they developed good moral values since they would have seen the results of immoral behavior.
And this goes against Christianity, because according to them I have no choice in the matter. Without Jesus I supposedly can't even be a moral person if I wanted to.


Is that something you read in the Bible or something that someone told you? Additionally, moral according to who's standards?
If you claim the existence of some absolute objective morality, it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists and show where it can be found. And you already can't point to the Bible because the Bible has God commanding people to do things that you have already stated are immoral (i.e. going to war with each other)


Once again I did not say that going to war is immoral. And obviously the Bible is exactly where I'm going to point to as my objective source of morality but that is because I trust the source. If you don't then that's your prerogative in which case you're right- for you there is no source of objective morality and your morality is subjective. But you have no source of authority to point to in order to dictate anyone else's morality because what you think is moral will be different from the next person.

Also in morally ambiguous situations I will always be consistent in my decision making because my definition of right and wrong isn't based on how I feel in the moment. Additionally when speaking with other people who have the same source of objective morality as I do, we can hold each other accountable for our actions because we both use the same source.
In my case, I know that I'm personally accountable for my own moral actions.


If that works for you then great. It sounds like you have a solid set system of morals and you're diligent in making sure you don't fall short. If more people had your self-control and discipline then maybe we wouldn't have people shooting up churches and schools, politicians wouldn't be greedy, professional athletes wouldn't beat their wives and kids and there wouldn't be marital affairs in the news every other week. And that's not being sarcastic it really does seem that you're very passionate about being a moral person and I honestly applaud that. However most people are not like that. In fact I would even go so far as to suggest that you are in a minority of people who have a strict moral compass and the larger majority of people need that external moral compass.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #16

Post by Divine Insight »

ScioVeritas wrote: I don't believe war is objectively immoral, I disapprove of the reasons behind a lot of the modern wars that have occurred - but that's a politics issue and is not a statement of my approval or disapproval of God's actions (who's actions I don't need to defend anyway).
Yes, you do need to defend a God's actions if you are claiming that this God is righteous.
ScioVeritas wrote: My point was more about the fact that there are mass killings (shootings in schools and churches) and somehow you've equated that with society doing "quite well" for itself.
Society in general does not participate in those kinds of atrocities, nor does it condone them.

You are seeking to use the perverted behavior of a few psychopathic outliers to define the norms of society.

Surely you don't expect anyone to accept that argument as having any credibility at all?
ScioVeritas wrote:
So all you are saying is that you disagree with the moral values of the God of Christianity.


No that's not what I was saying. My claim is that for anyone to be able to say to someone else "that's not right" then that person needs to have an objective source to point to. If their morality is subjective then they have no authority to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't be doing.
I agree. All anyone can say is "I personally don't approve of that behavior".

That's all any of us can say.

In fact, as soon as a person starts to claim that they speak on behalf of some absolute moral authority is when it becomes problematic.

Of course, in organized human civilizations, we have formed governments and laws. So within those civilizations we can point to the laws that are on the books as something that can legally be enforced.

To even refer to those laws as "laws of morality" is a mistake. They aren't laws of morality. They are just laws that the society has chosen to enforce.

Where is there any immorality in driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone? It has nothing to do with morality. It just a law that was put into place for various reason. How is it immoral to drive straight through a stop sign on a day when there's no traffic and you can clearly see that there no other cars coming well before you approach the intersection? There would be nothing immoral about driving right through without even slowing down. But technically it would be against the law.
ScioVeritas wrote:
Can't people develop their own sense of morality as they grow and mature?


Sure, but they can't impose that morality on anyone else since it's subjective.
Absolutely, I agree. And that's the way it should be.

Why are you so anxious to impose your moral beliefs on others? :-k

The only time humans impose "laws" on each other is when they become "civilized" and decided to make laws as a society and enforce them. And as I have already pointed out, those laws don't even need to have anything at all to do with "morality".

Laws aren't about enforcing morality on anyone. Morality shouldn't even be part of the consideration when making a law. We don't make laws that you aren't allowed to go around killing people because we judge that to be "immoral". We make laws against killing people because we simply don't want you to do it.
ScioVeritas wrote:
Possibly. But I have also seen examples of children being born into immoral families with immoral parents in an immoral neighborhood, and coming away to become a totally moral person in spite of this.

So the idea that we are forced to take on the moral values of our parents or culture doesn't seem to pan out.


I didn't say that the children take on the moral values of the parents, I said that they were influenced by them. So in the event that a person is born into an immoral family in an immoral neighborhood it's precisely because of their situation that they developed good moral values since they would have seen the results of immoral behavior.
I wouldn't even begin to second guess what might motivate anyone to be a moral or immoral person.

I personally don't believe that everyone who desires to have high moral values is motivated to do so solely for the purpose of avoiding the results of immoral behavior. On the contrary, they might actually be positively motivated to enjoy the benefits of living on high moral ground.
ScioVeritas wrote:
And this goes against Christianity, because according to them I have no choice in the matter. Without Jesus I supposedly can't even be a moral person if I wanted to.


Is that something you read in the Bible or something that someone told you? Additionally, moral according to who's standards?
It's innate to the religion. If the religion allows that you can be a moral person without Jesus then Jesus becomes irrelevant for you. And Christianity can't have that.

In fact, wasn't it the most famous Christian in all of History (i.e. the Christ himself) that said, "No one comes to the Father but by me".

Christianity can't allow for anyone to be a moral person without Jesus. It would break the backbone of their dogma.
ScioVeritas wrote:
If you claim the existence of some absolute objective morality, it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists and show where it can be found. And you already can't point to the Bible because the Bible has God commanding people to do things that you have already stated are immoral (i.e. going to war with each other)


Once again I did not say that going to war is immoral. And obviously the Bible is exactly where I'm going to point to as my objective source of morality but that is because I trust the source. If you don't then that's your prerogative in which case you're right- for you there is no source of objective morality and your morality is subjective. But you have no source of authority to point to in order to dictate anyone else's morality because what you think is moral will be different from the next person.
I have no need or desire to push my sense of morality onto anyone else.

Why would I want to do that?

Why would I need to do that?

It's totally unnecessary.

You seem to be hung up on a need to push moral authority onto others. I think this is a problem with these Abrahamic religions in general. They cause people to become morally arrogant.
ScioVeritas wrote: Also in morally ambiguous situations I will always be consistent in my decision making because my definition of right and wrong isn't based on how I feel in the moment. Additionally when speaking with other people who have the same source of objective morality as I do, we can hold each other accountable for our actions because we both use the same source.
I don't base my morality on how I feel at the moment either. My sense of morality is not based on feelings, it's based on purely on reason and empathy.

We've already discussed how societies can hold the individuals of the society accountable to laws. No need to bring a concept of "morality" into the picture at all.

I think you need to recognize that laws do not need to be based on morality. And most laws aren't. Were I live it's the law that I have to pay property tax. What does paying property tax have to do with morality? Same thing goes for income tax.

We have tons of laws that have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality.

ScioVeritas wrote:
In my case, I know that I'm personally accountable for my own moral actions.


If that works for you then great. It sounds like you have a solid set system of morals and you're diligent in making sure you don't fall short. If more people had your self-control and discipline then maybe we wouldn't have people shooting up churches and schools, politicians wouldn't be greedy, professional athletes wouldn't beat their wives and kids and there wouldn't be marital affairs in the news every other week. And that's not being sarcastic it really does seem that you're very passionate about being a moral person and I honestly applaud that. However most people are not like that. In fact I would even go so far as to suggest that you are in a minority of people who have a strict moral compass and the larger majority of people need that external moral compass.
I won't hesitate to say that if everyone were like me the world would indeed be a very safe place. At least as far as human behavior is concerned. There wouldn't even be any need for police at all.

There would be no need for locks and keys. There would be no risk of getting raped because no one would ever rape anyone. There would be no shootings at schools or churches, or anywhere else. There would be no suicide bombers in the world. There would be no thieves. In fact if everyone were like me there probably wouldn't even be any need for money at all.

If everyone were like me the world would be radically different from the way it currently is. There's no question about that. There would be no big cities. Everyone would live in a very simple basic lifestyle close to nature. There would be no overpopulation problem. There would be no pollution problem precisely because the world wouldn't be over populated in the first place.

And yes, there would still be great technologies and people creating things. In fact, if everyone were like me that would be everyone's focus. Everyone would be an inventor. ;)

There would be no spousal abuse. No child abuse. No broken families. Not even any need for nursing homes since no one would ever abandon their aging parents.

Yes, absolute, if everyone were like me the world would be extremely different from the way it currently is.

~~~~~

So where does Christianity come into play in all of this?

Am I to be doomed to everlasting eternal damnation simply because I don't believe in Hebrew mythology or that Jesus was the demigod son of Yahweh.

And I ask, "What in the world would any of that have to do with morality anyway?"
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

ScioVeritas
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

Post #17

Post by ScioVeritas »

Yes, you do need to defend a God's actions if you are claiming that this God is righteous.
I don't judge God's actions because I believe Him to be all-knowing and I know myself to be lacking in knowledge on an abundance of subjects; so for me to presume to know why God does something and judge if that reason is adequate isn't consistent with what I believe about God and what I know about myself. But more to your point, if you look at the 10 commandments and then the parallel commands in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, I don't see how you can look at those and conclude that if people followed them closely that the world would be worse than it is now.
You are seeking to use the perverted behavior of a few psychopathic outliers to define the norms of society.
I'm only pointing out that you said our society is doing "quite well" without an objective source of morality and I was waiting for you to define what "quite well" meant - and it looks like your definition is that with the exception of these outliers then everything else is fine?
Why are you so anxious to impose your moral beliefs on others?
Like I said before, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on others - the point is that without an objective source of morality no one can force their beliefs on others. Which you seem to agree with. So theoretically, those outliers mentioned above can't be said to have acted "immorally" since there is no objective standard for what is moral. (They acted unlawfully but we established that laws and morality aren't mutually inclusive.)
It's innate to the religion. If the religion allows that you can be a moral person without Jesus then Jesus becomes irrelevant for you. And Christianity can't have that.

In fact, wasn't it the most famous Christian in all of History (i.e. the Christ himself) that said, "No one comes to the Father but by me".

Christianity can't allow for anyone to be a moral person without Jesus. It would break the backbone of their dogma.
Jesus also says that He didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Which implies that there are two groups of people and it is the latter who Jesus came for. So if you see yourself as perfectly moral (i.e. righteous) then you're not in that group that needs Him.
You seem to be hung up on a need to push moral authority onto others. I think this is a problem with these Abrahamic religions in general. They cause people to become morally arrogant.
I will be the first person to tell you that I am not morally superior to anyone and by no means am I trying to push my morals on you. The issue of moral authority is relevant in situations where someone steals from you and you feel wronged but you have no basis to tell them they acted wrongly/immorally because your morality is subjective. (Of course this is assuming a society in which stealing wasn't also against the law so maybe that's not the best analogy but I think you'll understand the point I'm making.)
So where does Christianity come into play in all of this?
It comes into play precisely because people need an external moral compass. Not you, since we established that, but many others. In fact most of Jesus' teachings concern what it looks like to have a properly oriented moral compass and rightly ordered priorities. Obviously you don't agree with who He said He was, but I don't think you can disagree that if more people loved their neighbors as themselves the world would be a better place.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #18

Post by Divine Insight »

ScioVeritas wrote: Like I said before, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on others - the point is that without an objective source of morality no one can force their beliefs on others. Which you seem to agree with. So theoretically, those outliers mentioned above can't be said to have acted "immorally" since there is no objective standard for what is moral. (They acted unlawfully but we established that laws and morality aren't mutually inclusive.)
I don't understand why there is any need to judge these people morally or say that they have acted immorally.

What purpose does that serve?

Why can't we just accept that they might be mentally ill?

Maybe their actions have nothing to do with being immoral. Maybe they are just aren't thinking clearly. Maybe their brains are malfunctioning?

I don't see what's gained by branding them as being "immoral".

As a society, and the overwhelming majority of people, agree that these events are not desirable.

Do we need to go further by branding the people who do them as being "immoral"?

What's wrong with just accepting that they are sick people?
ScioVeritas wrote:
It's innate to the religion. If the religion allows that you can be a moral person without Jesus then Jesus becomes irrelevant for you. And Christianity can't have that.

In fact, wasn't it the most famous Christian in all of History (i.e. the Christ himself) that said, "No one comes to the Father but by me".

Christianity can't allow for anyone to be a moral person without Jesus. It would break the backbone of their dogma.
Jesus also says that He didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Which implies that there are two groups of people and it is the latter who Jesus came for. So if you see yourself as perfectly moral (i.e. righteous) then you're not in that group that needs Him.
I agree with that completely. In fact, I used to even argue for that. But the standard Christian response is that Jesus never actually meant this and he was just being sarcastic when he was taking to the Pharisees who thought themselves to be moral when in fact they were not.

The Christians can't have anyone being exempt from Jesus having paid for their sins. Because if they allow for this then many people could actually be legitimate Christians who simply take the position that they are among those who aren't sinners and therefore have no need to repent and accept Jesus as their "savior".

In fact, those people wouldn't even need to be "Christians" at that point. They wouldn't even need to believe in Jesus or anything.
ScioVeritas wrote:
You seem to be hung up on a need to push moral authority onto others. I think this is a problem with these Abrahamic religions in general. They cause people to become morally arrogant.
I will be the first person to tell you that I am not morally superior to anyone and by no means am I trying to push my morals on you.
But you do seem to think that it's important to label those people who have committed terrible acts as being "immoral". You don't seem to be satisfied with just recognizing that perhaps they are just plain sick.
ScioVeritas wrote: The issue of moral authority is relevant in situations where someone steals from you and you feel wronged but you have no basis to tell them they acted wrongly/immorally because your morality is subjective. (Of course this is assuming a society in which stealing wasn't also against the law so maybe that's not the best analogy but I think you'll understand the point I'm making.)
I do understand the point you are trying to make. But why should I need to convince this person that what they are doing is "immoral". Shouldn't it be sufficient to convince them that I don't personally appreciate what they have done?

Do I really need to claim that there's a Daddy in the sky who will also disapprove in some absolute sense?

I think the only advantage to that is that if I can convince the other person that there is a Daddy in the sky keeping track of things then they might stop doing the bad thing just to avoid getting a possible spanking from the Daddy in the sky.

After all, if they gave a hoot about morality they should already know that taking things that someone else has time and energy invested in without asking their permission is 'immoral' just in a purely logical secular sense. If the term "morality" has any secular meaning at all.

ScioVeritas wrote:
So where does Christianity come into play in all of this?
It comes into play precisely because people need an external moral compass. Not you, since we established that, but many others. In fact most of Jesus' teachings concern what it looks like to have a properly oriented moral compass and rightly ordered priorities. Obviously you don't agree with who He said He was, but I don't think you can disagree that if more people loved their neighbors as themselves the world would be a better place.
The problem I have is that the people you keep referring to in order to make your points (i.e. school and church shooters, etc) aren't likely to give a hoot about morality in any case.

Moreover, how can you be so sure that those people weren't religious anyway?

What do you hope to achieve? To convince everyone on the planet to adopt the better side of Jesus' teachings?

And Jesus also had a dark side.

Matthew 10:
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


The Bible isn't all sunshine and roses.

Jesus can be used to support some pretty nasty stuff too.

And then there's always:

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This gives everyone a free pass to use Jesus to support any jots and tittles they can dredge up from the Old Testament and support following those laws in Jesus' name.

So I'm not sure what you even hope to achieve actually.

Leading people to Christianity and the Bible is no guarantee that they won't use Jesus himself to support their atrocities.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

ScioVeritas
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

Post #19

Post by ScioVeritas »

I agree with that completely. In fact, I used to even argue for that. But the standard Christian response is that Jesus never actually meant this and he was just being sarcastic when he was taking to the Pharisees who thought themselves to be moral when in fact they were not.

The Christians can't have anyone being exempt from Jesus having paid for their sins. Because if they allow for this then many people could actually be legitimate Christians who simply take the position that they are among those who aren't sinners and therefore have no need to repent and accept Jesus as their "savior".

In fact, those people wouldn't even need to be "Christians" at that point. They wouldn't even need to believe in Jesus or anything.
I see both sides. I understand where they're coming from because they're most likely thinking in evangelistic terms and were attempting to proselytize you - and in order to do that they would first need to convince you that you are a sinner. However I agree with your reading that if you are a perfectly moral person then not only will you not go to Jesus, but there would be no reason to - even by His own admission.
But you do seem to think that it's important to label those people who have committed terrible acts as being "immoral". You don't seem to be satisfied with just recognizing that perhaps they are just plain sick.
The issue I'm having is that how can you even label those people as sick without appealing to a morality outside of your own? Maybe a better way to say it would be that there are people who don't agree with the accepted morals society has decided upon and those people are detrimental to the safety of said society - it's a mouthful but it's a more accurate description. I would have no problem with that.
What do you hope to achieve? To convince everyone on the planet to adopt the better side of Jesus' teachings?
My immediate goal in the context of this specific discussion is to come to some sort of agreement concerning the nature of morality. My larger goal in the context of visiting this forum is to kill boredome during my day. My goal in life is currently undefined but I'm working on that. At the end of the day the ultimate goal is to here God say "Well done good and faithful servant."

The verses in Matthew 10:34-36 is a prediction Jesus is making about what's going to happen in the world because of Him - which is true. The fact that this forum exists and there are people on both sides of the issue is a testament to this prediction. More specifically there are families that fall apart and become at odds with each other because some of them don't believe in Jesus and some of them do. I would find it hard to believe someone would try to use that specific verse in order to support any type of violent actions.

Matthew 5:18 does not give everyone a free pass to reinstate the OT law because it clears says that the jots and tittles won't pass from the law until the law is fulfilled. Jesus' life and death fulfilled the law. He lived a perfectly moral life and then died for all those who would be unable to live that perfect life and who would trust the eternal resting place of their souls with His work. (I'm in a rush right now but I'll be back with verses that support this tomorrow).

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #20

Post by Divine Insight »

ScioVeritas wrote: However I agree with your reading that if you are a perfectly moral person then not only will you not go to Jesus, but there would be no reason to - even by His own admission.
I agree. And I also see no reason why anyone can't be perfectly moral. But again that can depend on how they define morality. I mean according to the Bible no one can be perfectly moral in any realistic sense. Especially if they are required to follow ever jot and tittle of the Old Testament.

You had mentioned the Ten Commandments. But the first four of those seem to be about worshiping this God and not about morality anyway. Therefore according to the Bible if you aren't worshiping this God you are already a "sinner" even though you may be a "perfectly moral" person.
ScioVeritas wrote: The issue I'm having is that how can you even label those people as sick without appealing to a morality outside of your own?
Because sickness doesn't require a moral judgement. Even the most secular atheists can recognize that killing innocent people for no good reason is pretty sick.
ScioVeritas wrote: Maybe a better way to say it would be that there are people who don't agree with the accepted morals society has decided upon and those people are detrimental to the safety of said society - it's a mouthful but it's a more accurate description. I would have no problem with that.
Well, I've already been through that. There is no reason to refer to societies standards of behavior in terms of "morality". Especially if you plan on holding any absolute value to that.

Humans typically place the welfare of humans above the welfare of lower animals. Is that "Absolute Morality" or "Human-Centric Morality"?
ScioVeritas wrote:
What do you hope to achieve? To convince everyone on the planet to adopt the better side of Jesus' teachings?
My immediate goal in the context of this specific discussion is to come to some sort of agreement concerning the nature of morality.
Well, unless you are prepared to agree that humans create their own human-centric subjective morality I can't help you much with that.
ScioVeritas wrote: My larger goal in the context of visiting this forum is to kill boredome during my day. My goal in life is currently undefined but I'm working on that. At the end of the day the ultimate goal is to here God say "Well done good and faithful servant."
Well I certainly wish you the very best of luck in hearing a God say this to you. '
ScioVeritas wrote: The verses in Matthew 10:34-36 is a prediction Jesus is making about what's going to happen in the world because of Him - which is true. The fact that this forum exists and there are people on both sides of the issue is a testament to this prediction. More specifically there are families that fall apart and become at odds with each other because some of them don't believe in Jesus and some of them do. I would find it hard to believe someone would try to use that specific verse in order to support any type of violent actions.
The very fact that belief or non-believe in Jesus is the cause of families breaking up doesn't say much for Jesus.

Especially in terms of Jesus having been very convincing.

In fact, if you feel that evangelism is your "service" to God, consider this:

If you succeed in convincing anyone to believe in Jesus where both Jesus and God had previously failed in convincing them, then you will have succeeded at something that both Jesus and God failed at miserably.

Don't you think there is something quite strange and not right about that?
ScioVeritas wrote: Matthew 5:18 does not give everyone a free pass to reinstate the OT law because it clears says that the jots and tittles won't pass from the law until the law is fulfilled. Jesus' life and death fulfilled the law. He lived a perfectly moral life and then died for all those who would be unable to live that perfect life and who would trust the eternal resting place of their souls with His work. (I'm in a rush right now but I'll be back with verses that support this tomorrow).
Excuse me, but if you actually read the verse it says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

So it makes no sense to claim that Jesus "fulfilled" these laws by simply not sinning during his extremely brief life. Jesus never married, was never a husband, was never a father. In short, he never even truly had a life.

Moreover, if Jesus was the incarnated demigod Son of God sent specifically to do this, then Jesus could not have possibly failed, or sinned. Therefore the fact that he didn't wouldn't have been legitimate. A demigod who can't fail can hardly be said to satisfy the requirements that mere moral men live a perfectly sinless life.

Also, it cannot be said that Jesus paid the ultimate penalty in any case. The wages of sin is death. But Jesus didn't die. He rose again and then ascended to heaven to obtain eternal life. He obtained the greatest reward that every Christina dreams of. The reward of Saints. In fact, according to Matthew there were many saints who were resurrected at the same time so obviously Jesus was not the only one who earned eternal life.

The whole story shoots itself in the foot over and over again.

And all of this even depends that we "FIRST BELIEVE" that some angry jealous God is out to condemn us in the first place.

We must first place our faith in the belief that some jealous angry God is out to condemn us before it even makes any sense in placing our faith in Jesus to "save" us from the wrath of this original angry God.

If you're going to devote your life to evangelizing this fairytale I sure hope you have plans on improving your arguments.

Because don't forget, you are going to need to surpass both Jesus and God.

The people you will be trying to convince were already not impressed by this God's Old Testament. Neither were they impressed by the hearsay rumors about Jesus.

So both Jesus and God had failed to convince these people.

Now, it's up to you to show both Jesus and God how to do it right. ;)

You will need to succeed at something they both failed at miserably.

Good luck with that!
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply