Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The New Atheists Are Simpering Cowards

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nietzsche was wrong and tragic and, in the end, insane. But at least he was brave and honest. Brave enough to stare into the abyss and honest enough to report back what he saw there. He would be disgusted by the puerile, simpering cowardice that characterizes atheism in the 21st century.

In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche writes of those who have cast off the restraints and bonds of the past: “Need I say expressly after all this that they will be free, VERY free spirit . . .” And from their vantage point of freedom these new philosophers will look down with contempt on those who espouse the ideals of Christianity and liberal democracy:

What [those espousing love and the equality of man] would fain attain with all their strength, is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for everyone, their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called “Equality of Rights” and “Sympathy with All Sufferers”—and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something which must be done away with. We opposite ones, however, who have opened our eye and conscience to the question how and where the plant “man” has hitherto grown most vigorously, believe that this has always taken place under the opposite conditions, that for this end the dangerousness of his situation had to be increased enormously, his inventive faculty and dissembling power (his “spirit”) had to develop into subtlety and daring under long oppression and compulsion, and his Will to Life had to be increased to the unconditioned Will to Power—we believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and devilry of every kind,—that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite . . . such kind of men are we, we free spirits!

Nietzsche identifies two types of moralities: The Master-Morality, which he advances as superior, and the Slave-Morality, which he despises. To understand what Nietzsche is saying it is important to keep in mind what he means be the words “master” and “slave.” He is not talking about institutional slavery. When he uses the word master, he means the natural aristocrat, the strong man, the one who has the ability to impose his will. When he uses the word “slave,” he means simply the opposite of master, the natural servant, the weak man, the one who if nature were to take her course would serve the master. He describes the Master-Morality as follows:

The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;” he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. . . . one may act towards beings of a lower rank, towards all that is foreign, just as seems good to one, or “as the heart desires,” and in any case “beyond good and evil”

In contrast to master-morality, slaves attempt to alleviate their condition by inducing the natural aristocracy voluntarily to cede their birthright, their right to impose their will on those who are too weak to resist:

It is otherwise with the second type of morality, SLAVE-MORALITY. Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; . . . THOSE qualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence and flooded with light; it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence.

Nietzsche is especially contemptuous of democracy, which is the political expression of slave morality, and Christianity, the religion by which slaves conquered their masters. For Nietzsche nature is cruel and indifferent to suffering, and that cruel indifference is a good thing. The strong rule the weak and that is as it should be. And why should the strong rule the weak? Because that is the natural order of things of course. In a world where God is dead, objective morality is merely an illusion slaves have foisted on masters as a sort of self-defense mechanism.

When Nietzsche urges us to go beyond good and evil, he is urging us to recognize the implications of God’s death for morality. God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms. If God does not exist then neither do transcendent objective moral norms. And if transcendent objective moral norms do not exist, neither do “good” and “evil” in the traditional senses of those words. There is only a perpetual battle of all against all, and “good” is a synonym for prevailing in that battle, and “evil” is a synonym for losing. In the story of the madman Nietzsche explored the profound loss felt at the demise of our comforting God-myth:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out.

I feel like my ears are going to bleed at the bleating of the new atheists who write in these pages. They go on and on and on and on about how morality is rooted in empathy and the avoidance of suffering. Nietzsche would have spit his contempt on them, for they are espousing the “herd animal” Christian slave-morality he disdained and which, ironically, they claim to have risen above. How many times have the atheists insisted, “we are just as ‘good’ as you”? Why have they failed to learn from Nietzsche that “good” means nothing. Why do they insist that they conform to a standard that they also insist does not exist?

The answer to these questions is the same: They refuse to acknowledge the conclusions that are logically compelled by their premises. And why do they refuse? Because they are simpering cowards.

I can respect while disagreeing with a man like Nietzsche, a man who follows his premises where they lead, even if they lead to asking questions such as “Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?” I have nothing but contempt for smiley-faced, weak-kneed, milquetoast atheism that insists that God is dead and all is well because we are just as nice as you.

Comments
Hangonasec says, the passage has little more to offer on the matter of morality than ‘love thy neighbour’, more broadly expressed in the Golden Rule. I say, You found the right passage but missed the whole point. The argument is about the nature of objective morality and how we can know it for sure. It says things like this quote: Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (1Jn 4:7) and In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1Jn 4:10) end quote: I told you it was a tight argument. Perhaps you need some more time to digest it. ask specific questions if you don't understand you said, But if we cannot reliably tune into this frequency, what use is it? How do you ‘know’ when you’re receiving? I say, That is what the entire argument of the passage is about. To greatly paraphrase and overly summarize so that it does not even begin to do justice The arguement goes something like this A Christian can know what to do morally by listening to the spirit sent to him He can know he is receiving the spirit of objective morality if he is receiving a message of love. He can know what true love is by understanding what God did for him and what it cost. He can verify the truth of all of this by comparing it to the testimony of God's chosen messengers. The built in redundancy and error correction of the morality signal is simply over the top. If the genuine Christian errs in moral questions it's not for lack of knowledge. you say, It is my opinion that morality exists only in people’s heads; it’s yours that it exists outside them in some way. I say, The difference is that if you are correct you can never know period. It will always be an open question. On the other hand if objective reality exists it's source can reveal it to me in such a way that I can know it for sure so it becomes no longer my personal opinion but objective reality. peacefifthmonarchyman
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman, OK, I apologise, I read the wrong passage. But even with the right passage, my substantive point stands. The objectivist is in no different a position than the subjectivist in the matter of determining a moral course, other than the ability to refer to scripture. Apart from the dubious merits of damning all theists who are not Christians (not my fight, of course), the passage has little more to offer on the matter of morality than 'love thy neighbour', more broadly expressed in the Golden Rule.
How can you claim to “know” we can’t know these things? Is it not even possible you could be mistaken?
Sure. As an actual state-of-affairs, there could be an objective morality - something outside human heads that determines 'right' or 'wrong' on a moral question. But if we cannot reliably tune into this frequency, what use is it? How do you 'know' when you're receiving?
I just don’t have the same confidence in my own opinions that you have.
I don't see them as opinions! I see myself as disposed by nature and circumstance towards kindness and away from cruelty. In the modern age, I think that is the common human position, for all the horrors we are capable of visiting on each other.
Me: Opinions don’t form morality; it is the other way around. You: I agree but the claim that objective morality does not exist is just an opinion is it not?
Sure. But that's true either way. It is my opinion that morality exists only in people's heads; it's yours that it exists outside them in some way. But that really is opinion! Matters of feeling, including moral ones, are something else. It is not my opinion that I abhor cruelty or admire honesty - I really do!Hangonasec
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Hangonasec You point to a passage in a book, which rather vaguely refers to ‘living water’. The reality, for both of us, is that we can’t know. I say, No you are looking at the wrong book. I pointed to 1st John apparently you were looking at the Gospel of John. The book I pointed to (1st John)gave a tight philosophical argument for how we can know the objective truth. It says things like.... quote: "By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." end quote: You can disagree with the argument once you understand it but just discounting it with out even reading it is silly. How can you claim to "know" we can't know these things? Is it not even possible you could be mistaken? I just don't have the same confidence in my own opinions that you have. you say. And I don’t see how you can know any more surely with them. I say, Actually read the argument I pointed to and then get back to me. OK ;-) You say, Opinions don’t form morality; it is the other way around. I say, I agree but the claim that objective morality does not exist is just an opinion is it not? peacefifthmonarchyman
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman
Me: How can you be sure you are following the ‘right’ religion [...] ? You: Good questions Did you catch my quoting of 1st John chapter 4 especially verses 4 through11? It is a tightly packed well reasoned answer to each of the questions you ask. I recommend you take some time to digest what it says [...]
I’m afraid that just comes across as obscurantism. You point to a passage in a book, which rather vaguely refers to ‘living water’. The reality, for both of us, is that we can’t know. Pointing to passages in a book in support of the ‘rightness’ of the moral messages in the book is circular. The book itself can contain a mixture of good and bad principles.
Me: Do you only do ‘the right thing’ because you think you are being watched? You: Of course not I think you have a mistaken understanding of the relationship I have with the source of objectivity. According to the faith I follow my “eternal” fate is not particularly tied to my moral choices. I want to do the right thing mostly because it’s the right thing to do. I suppose some part of my motivation comes from not wanting to disappoint someone who loves me unconditionally.
Yes, but it does not affect the matter whether the ‘being watched’ thing is problematic because the Watcher will punish you, or simply be disappointed! I find it peculiar that people should forget who is always watching - themselves. My own motivation is partly to be a good example to my family and to be well-regarded by my peers, but also to respect myself. I am always watching! If I value honesty and integrity, kindness etc, in others, it is clear that I should also value those qualities in myself.
Me: I seriously doubt anything I’m currently up to is of that order! You: How can you be so sure? I have had some discussions with wannabe Islamic Radicals and they often characterize the actions of westerners toward Islam in a way that sounds an awful lot like genocide. Some of them would probably say that your willing participation in western society is the equivalent of the Guard in Germany who just follows orders.
I don’t think that really washes. I cannot control everything my society or goverment does. I can merely make my view known. Anti-Islamic foreign policy decision were not made in my name, and I do not support them, any more than I support capital punishment or an armed citizenry.
How about those who sincerely think eating meat is murder?
I sympathise with that viewpoint, though I am not a vegetarian.
With out objective morals I can’t see how I can know that I’m correct about these very important issues and these folks are mistaken.
And I don't see how you can know any more surely with them.
Me: People are demonstrably susceptible to authority, to brainwashing, to herd mentality. You: I completely agree. An objectivist who does not have the right source for his morality is just as wrong as a Subjectiveist who relies on his own opinions.
This is one of the more annoying mischaracterisations of subjectivity. Opinions don’t form morality; it is the other way around. Everybody (or nearly everybody) has a moral sense – they compartmentalise behaviours according to whether their response to them is favourable or unfavourable. If one deplores cruelty, it is not simply an opinion, but a visceral response to it.Hangonasec
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
A famous example of objective morality vs. subjective morality is found in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Huck knew that the objectively right thing to do was to turn the slave Jim in, to return him to his rightful owner. The story is told from Huck's point of view.
So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter—and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote: Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send. Huck Finn.
So Huck's conscience was relieved, having done the objectively right thing.
I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking—thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, 'stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had small-pox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper.
But Huck's subjective sensibilities, his "wicked" nature, got the best of him.
It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: "All right, then, I'll go to hell"—and tore it up.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/76/76-h/76-h.htmZachriel
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Phinehas wrote above:
Certainly, so long as Subjectivists are happy to behave in a manner that is logically inconsistent. Unfortunately, some are not.
I've been mulling this over and it strikes me that subjectivists win the morality contest, because (unlike objectivists) they behave morally without caring about the punishments of HELL or the rewards of HEAVEN that motivate theological objectivists. We are good citizens of our communities because we want to be, not because we are threatened or rewarded for following a cult.Daniel King
February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
So, I issue a challenge for some Christian to prove that their religion logically leads to an objective morality, and I get nothing in response, some changing of the subject.
Me: No Christian has ever been able to LOGICALLY prove that gods can be the source of ANY objective morality or value (must less the only source), and philosophers have trashed the idea, so it’s DEAD. A moral system equated to the inscrutable opinions of genocidal baby-murdering gods is no more “objective” than a moral system equated to the inscrutable opinions of genocidal baby-murdering human tyrants. No Christian has ever proven the moral perfection of their genocidal baby-murdering war deity (the ontological argument is based on equivocation), so Christians just invoke circular logic, “Whatever a genocidal baby-murdering war deity does we will define to be perfect”, DUH. The God of the Bible orders genocide and infanticide and sanctions slavery and the rape of war captives, so no Christian can ever claim that values based on the Christian god’s will are “objective morality” until the day a Christian can prove the moral perfection of genocide, infanticide, slavery and the rape of war captives. That day is not today. Thus no objective morality can be logically derived from theism, except possibly where it shares premises with atheism.
So did anybody even TRY to prove Christianity could logically lead to an objective morality?
Nice rant. But at the end it demonstrates only that you have a profoundly stunted understanding of both Nietzsche and the nature of nihilism.
So, I proved Barry was ignorant of Nietzsche's philosophy and all he's got is "Nyah nyah, I know you are." Is DillyGill trying to prove Christianity can logically imply an objective morality?
Was it fair that he had them all killed, women and children too? You would have to understand that at the time such an act would require a response from the children (revenge killings) it was the social norm at the time.
This is cultural relativism, not an objective morality. You seem to be invoking "the social norm at the time" but you can't prove an objective morality with that. Because I said the Bible God sanctioned rape and ordered genocide and infanticide, it's not clear what this next quote refers to-- who are "they"? The babies that God ordered the Israelites to murder, or the virgins whose parents had been killed by the Israelites and who then would be kept as sex slaves as in Numbers 31?
You would have to understand that at the time such an act would require a response from the children (revenge killings) it was the social norm at the time. Also leaving them there in the desert with no men to defend them would have meant either a slow painful death or assimilation into slavery (a truly miserable experience for them) of another nation and that would present problems later on (revenge killings).
At first the "slow painful death" line would appear to be justifying the murder of orphans (or widows?) on the grounds that it would be a "mercy killing" because they would have hard lives after God orders the murder of their parents. I thought mercy killing was objectively wrong to Christians, because it's the basis of euthanasia. I've often seen creationists say, "Oh Darwinism is bad, it leads to euthanasia and mercy killing," but if that's bad, then God orders people to do bad things. By contrast, the above passage assumes that mercy killing is a good thing, even when a person needs mercy ONLY because you murdered their parents on God's orders. But this is not a proof that objective morality exists; it just ASSUMES that mercy killing/euthanasia is morally good when God's people do it to God's non-people after you murder their parents. But the problem with the "mercy killing is good" hypothesis is that God commands the Israelites to show no mercy to their enemies. Thus, a Christian should not argue that mercy killing is objectively good. It's not. Mercy killing can't be moral because the Bible God says mercy is forbidden, although killing is mandatory. On the other hand, the line about preventing revenge killings hints that the killing was not about mercy, but about self-interest, killing children so they don't grow up and go Inigo Montoya on you later. But that is consequentialist ethics and pursuit of self-interest, not objective morality like I asked for.
All this so God could have a ground camp and a people to launch the ten commandments and the sending of Jesus Christ.
That is consequentialist ethics. You're arguing that the ends justify the means. The end is Christianity, which is so precious that it can justifies any crime, an unlimited number of people can be murdered in order to protect and preserve it. Such consequentialist ethics certainly justified the burning of heretics, massacre of Muslims and Cathars, etc. I asked for proof that Christianity logically lead to an objective morality and I got none.
So while there may have been religious wars fought in the name of Christianity, none of them were sanctioned by God.
Directly contradicted by what the greatest theologians said. When we define Christian values, shouldn't the opinion of the pro-slavery, pro-Crusades, pro-Conquistador big shot theologians count more than yours?Diogenes
February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
Zac @167 You missed the point I think.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
Phinehas:
Certainly, so long as Subjectivists are happy to behave in a manner that is logically inconsistent.
Baloney. Your objectivist logic relies upon objectivist assumptions. False premises, false conclusion. Otherwise, perfectly logical.
Unfortunately, some are not.
Of course, the moral objectivists are so much more moral than the moral subjectivists. More baloney. Can I have mine with mustard on rye?Daniel King
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
WJM #166, Taking it to the next level.Box
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
DillyGill: Please provide some support of this assertion that great Christian Theologians or Martin Luther actually say ‘the Bible supports gang rape’ What do you think it means when you accuse people of being pernicious devils, burn their homes and synagogues, then refuse to provide them safety on the roads?Zachriel
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Phinehas said:
Certainly, so long as Subjectivists are happy to behave in a manner that is logically inconsistent. Unfortunately, some are not.
Well, to be fair, why would atheists care if they are being logically consistent or not? It's not like they think that logic is an objective arbiter of true statements or exists outside of subjective views.William J Murray
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
DK:
Good. I think that we are now in agreement that the objective/subjective distinction hardly matters in practice.
Certainly, so long as Subjectivists are happy to behave in a manner that is logically inconsistent. Unfortunately, some are not.Phinehas
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
@ Zac Zac 'That is not the opinion of many great Christian theologians, including Martin Luther.' Please provide some support of this assertion that great Christian Theologians or Martin Luther actually say 'the Bible supports gang rape'DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
DillyGill: The persecution from Gods people was against the ungodly and the persecution from God against his own people was for their ungodliness. So the answer to your question, "would you think it more likely or less likely that you would find this gang of people at your door?" depends on whether a group of people think you are ungodly for whatever reason. DillyGill: Do you think in your worldly wisdom that ISIS/ISIL should go unpunished if God were to raise an army against them or social Darwinists like Hitler should be just left to get on with it? False dichotomy. ISIS will be degraded by the more organized forces of nations. There have been barbarians on the fringes of settled society since people first settled into towns and villages. The Israelites were nomads who slipped between the settled areas of the Levant, and sometimes attacked those settlements. Over time, more and more of the world has become organized under the rule of law, but there are still areas where barbarians can organize in the wilderness. DillyGill: Yes people can find justifications for their actions but in the example I gave they would not find the justification in the Bible. That is not the opinion of many great Christian theologians, including Martin Luther. DillyGill: Certainly if they were a materialist they would be able to justify their action (in the example I gave) by saying ‘well it goes on in nature’ and as for not helping their neighbor they can easily say ‘it is not in my best interests to get involved, perhaps they will leave me alone if I do not’ Turns out that people tend to form attachments to others regardless of their religious background. They balance this desire to help others with their own needs and their suspicion of strangers.Zachriel
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
I am not sure where you are getting the racism angle from. The nation of Israel was open to everyone the only requirement being to swear allegiance to YHWH. The persecution from Gods people was against the ungodly and the persecution from God against his own people was for their ungodliness. Do you think in your worldly wisdom that ISIS/ISIL should go unpunished if God were to raise an army against them or social Darwinists like Hitler should be just left to get on with it? I am not the greatest of intellects unlike some on here. You are just confusing me now. I am not arguing against the idea that the Bible can and has been misused if that is what you think? Yes people can find justifications for their actions but in the example I gave they would not find the justification in the Bible. Certainly if they were a materialist they would be able to justify their action (in the example I gave) by saying 'well it goes on in nature' and as for not helping their neighbor they can easily say 'it is not in my best interests to get involved, perhaps they will leave me alone if I do not' I am not keen on dragging this on for ages, I have made my points and stick by them. I think you have as well. I have stuff to do, will check in later.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
DillyGill: If you take no account of (give no value to) sins then I am sure that it must seem unreasonable. We didn't discuss any measure of 'reasonableness'. You asked where the Bible could be read to justify persecution, and we answered your question. We also showed how this reading has been pervasive in Christian society up until the present day.
Southern Baptist Convention, 1995: WHEREAS, Racism profoundly distorts our understanding of Christian morality, leading some Southern Baptists to believe that racial prejudice and discrimination are compatible with the Gospel; ... we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past.
It wasn't until 1995 that Southern Baptists apologized for their use of the Bible to justify racism. We point this out not to condemn them or the Bible, but just to note that the Bible can and has been used to justify oppression for centuries. Let's return to our original exchange. DillyGill: Do you think that if as a nation we had taught the truth about what the evidence from science really says about God, that morality is an objective truth and there are eternal consequences for actions and rebellion against God, would you think it more likely or less likely that you would find this gang of people at your door? Z: People find justification for their actions, and that they might hold a Bible or Koran in their hands doesn’t change this.Zachriel
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
159 Zac Like I said, read into it what you will. If you take no account of (give no value to) sins then I am sure that it must seem unreasonable.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
DillyGill: These were violent and ‘demonic’ people. Not incapable of all human emotion but self absorbed and unrepentant causing much misery. Children too? In any case, your question has been answered. The Bible can and has been read to condone persecution, genocide, and the enslavement of women. DillyGill: Certainly if it is them you are referring to I would say there are many issues that you and I would agree on even if it is for different reasons. Luther was the great, learned theologian who started the Protestant Reformation.Zachriel
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
157 @ Zac These were violent and 'demonic' people. Not incapable of all human emotion but self absorbed, violent and unrepentant causing much misery. So as the author of life God has the right to deem a people group as unfit for existence. I did say it would be an affront to the modern day sensibilities. God is not the eternal mug in the sky giving a nod and a wink as we go about our wicked ways. There are consequences. I have to be honest, I am not very comfortable putting God in the dock like this, although it is you who is doing it I am indulging you. I have offered up an explanation, it is what it is. You will read into it as you please. Zac 'A pattern repeated by Christians, as exemplified by Luther.' I am not a fan of the RCC. I will be respectful on this site because I suspect there are many that are. Certainly if it is them you are referring to I would say there are many issues that you and I would agree on even if it is for different reasons.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
DillyGill: So no apologies from God I am afraid, these people were ‘wicked’ in the eyes of the Lord. So your question has been answered. Slaughtering a population, then enslaving the women, is acceptable when God allows it. DillyGill: The Israelites got it all wrong in the end, in a pattern and type very similar to what we see going on today. A pattern repeated by Christians, as exemplified by Luther.Zachriel
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Please remember that for the moment we are suspending your disbelief as attacking the Bible as though it were true requires me to be able to defend it as though it were true! So Zac, there is no getting away with it, the OT is an assault on our modern day sensibilities. The idea that God could approve of the wholesale destruction of a society I hope I covered in my earlier post, I would like to add that obviously these societies had stuff going for them, they were advanced and no fools, there would have been love and laughter and such however there would not have been justice for many and it would have been ruled by an elite whom would be able to do as they please and they were serving the Babylon mystery religions which includes practices that I mentioned, that God is disgusted by. Also although Jesus came as the meek servant leader and sacrificial lamb this time around the Bible promises that at His second coming He will come as the 'kinsmen redeemer' a much more OT prospect and it will be to end the second Holy war and too wrap up history itself. So this first holy war is a shadow, pattern and type of what is to come. It will be total destruction. So no apologies from God I am afraid, these people were 'wicked' in the eyes of the Lord. The fact that somtimes young women were given the option to integrate into the Israelite society is a sign of the times thing. The only other option would be to abandon them to their fate (eaten by wild animals or enslaved by another tribe) or to kill them. Obviously there was the don't attack at all option which interestingly Israel started to adopt but it caused them to commit spiritual adultery. Something I may cover shortly if I have not bored you to death already! The idea that being absorbed into a nation that had just killed everything that you knew is so alien for us now however it was common practice at the time. It was an opportunity to live rather than die. Not an appealing one I have to say and seemingly an unbearable option in my modern mind but then I have the luxury of living in the post Christian era just before it all goes to hell. There is no reported rape and certainly never ever an instruction to do so (unlike another 'holy' book I know of). For many it may have actually been a blessed relief in so far as they would have been marked for a life time of abuse. Marriage was not all about feelings in those days! It was more about tribal convenience so any idea that some how they were missing out on marrying the love of their lives must be dismissed! The Israelites got it all wrong in the end, in a pattern and type very similar to what we see going on today.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Sorry by computer blipped that posted unintentionally I will get to the rest shortlyDillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Zac @143 Martin Luther raised some interesting points. I always thought that his arguments were against the Jew that did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. There is such a thing as a Messianic Jew who properly living in fear and love of the Lord would really be the ideal of Christ. I do not think Luther was arguing against that. Certainly Jesus said some of the most condemning things about the Jewish religious establishment. The Bible is a book of patterns and types and certainly Jesus will have some very hard words against the history of the church. The take downs were as offensive as they could be btw! As for the OT being questionable a couple of things spring to mind. Jesus Christ himself had an opportunity to point out any errors or omissions, it had all been written down at that point and yet he did not. Also why the Jews would write such a damning history of themselves if it were not God 'breathed' would be a mystery to me. Also worthy of note is that just because something is mentioned in the Bible it does not mean God approves of it. I am not sure that applies to any of the queries you have bought up so I will deal with what I understand to be the general thrust of your objections.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Zac @143 Martin Luther raised some interesting points. I always thought that his arguments were against the Jew that did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. There is such a thing as a Messianic Jew who properly living in fear and love of the Lord would really be the ideal of Christ. I do not think Luther was arguing against that. Certainly Jesus said some of the most condemning things about the Jewish religious establishment. The Bible is a book of patterns and types and certainly Jesus will have some very hard words against the history of the church. The take downs were as offensive as they could be btw! As for the OT being questionable a couple of things spring to mind. Jesus Christ himself had an opportunity to point out any errors or omissions, it had all been written down at that point and yet he did not. Also why the Jews would write such a damning history of themselves if it were not God 'breathed' would be a mystery to me. Also worthy of note is that just because something is mentioned in the Bible it does not mean God approves of it. I am not sure that applies to any of the queries you have bought up so I will deal with what I understand to be the general thrust of your objections.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Zac @143 Martin Luther raised some interesting points. I always thought that his arguments were against the Jew that did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. There is such a thing as a Messianic Jew who properly living in fear and love of the Lord would really be the ideal of Christ. I do not think Luther was arguing against that. Certainly Jesus said some of the most condemning things about the Jewish religious establishment. The Bible is a book of patterns and types and certainly Jesus will have some very hard words against the history of the church. The take downs were as offensive as they could be btw! As for the OT being questionable a couple of things spring to mind. Jesus Christ himself had an opportunity to point out any errors or omissions, it had all been written down at that point and yet he did not. Also why the Jews would write such a damning history of themselves if it were not God 'breathed' would be a mystery to me. Also worthy of note is that just because something is mentioned in the Bible it does not mean God approves of it. I am not sure that applies to any of the queries you have bought up so I will deal with what I understand to be the general thrust of your objections.DillyGill
February 12, 2015
February
02
Feb
12
12
2015
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Phinehas @148. Good. I think that we are now in agreement that the objective/subjective distinction hardly matters in practice. The devil is generally in the details.Daniel King
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Hangonasec asks, How can you be sure you are following the ‘right’ religion, interpreting its strictures correctly, or that its strictures are actually derived from that which is objectively right? I say, Good questions Did you catch my quoting of 1st John chapter 4 especially verses 4 through11? It is a tightly packed well reasoned answer to each of the questions you ask. I recommend you take some time to digest what it says and then let me know if you still are unclear as to how I can know these things. It will save some bandwidth you say, Do you only do ‘the right thing’ because you think you are being watched? I say, Of course not I think you have a mistaken understanding of the relationship I have with the source of objectivity. According to the faith I follow my "eternal" fate is not particularly tied to my moral choices. I want to do the right thing mostly because it's the right thing to do. I suppose some part of my motivation comes from not wanting to disappoint someone who loves me unconditionally. You say, I seriously doubt anything I’m currently up to is of that order! I say, How can you be so sure? I have had some discussions with wannabe Islamic Radicals and they often characterize the actions of westerners toward Islam in a way that sounds an awful lot like genocide. Some of them would probably say that your willing participation in western society is the equivalent of the Guard in Germany who just follows orders. or How about those who sincerely think eating meat is murder? If killing a cow for food is the equivalent of killing a child my moral compass truly is in bad shape. With out objective morals I can't see how I can know that I'm correct about these very important issues and these folks are mistaken. you say, People are demonstrably susceptible to authority, to brainwashing, to herd mentality. I say, I completely agree. An objectivist who does not have the right source for his morality is just as wrong as a Subjectiveist who relies on his own opinions. Just because it's possible to be mistaken is no reason to give up looking for the right answer if it exists. Don't you agree? peacefifthmonarchyman
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Diogenes @ 141. Nice rant. But at the end it demonstrates only that you have a profoundly stunted understanding of both Nietzsche and the nature of nihilism. I don't have time to educate you today. Sorry.Barry Arrington
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
DK: First, an objectivist might also take a moral position regarding his own behavior that he would not want forced on others. For instance, he may believe that it is morally right and good to not forsake assembling with other believers on a regular basis, but would cringe at the very thought of a law forcing others to do the same. More to the point, in describing the nature of moral positions, I am not claiming there are no exceptions. But the exceptions do tend to highlight the rule, don't they? Said another way, the objectivist still has a concept of inalienable rights like liberty and freedom of choice. This is also a moral position that most would insist OUGHT to be enforced. The question then becomes one of figuring out which rights OUGHT to take precedence over other rights.Phinehas
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply