”Read the latest from Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman. Are we smug and arrogant? Damned right, and with good reason.”Good reason? What is it that Paul and Zuckerman wrote? Well, it wasn’t a piece that directs one to any actual, you know, facts. They make airy claims of the superiority of Atheists as determined by a slew of undocumented “studies” which they say prove that Atheists are more ethical than non-Atheists. For additional clarity: undocumented studies are meaningless. What these two produced, and the WaPo printed, was an opinion piece biased with unsupported claims that suggest scientific rigor, yet actually provide zero facts and zero pointers to the sources. This Appeal To Authority doesn’t even name the authorities.
Consider this factoid which is presented as evidence that Atheists are more ethical:
”Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison.”and,
” Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.”Let’s see. No reference for that data; the suggestion is that religious populations are more muderous. But the inference is being drawn from possibly acausal but co-incidental phenomena. Were the same conclusions drawn about the size of black populations in these countries and states corellating with murders, violence and prison populations, the inference would be disallowed, regardless of any real causal connection.
But back to PZ. There is no piece of news or study that will receive any critical scrutiny by PZ, if it supports – however superficially and irrationally – the cause of Leftism and Atheism. PZ needs no reason for being smug and arrogant, he just is. And he will explain that arrogance is actually an ethical state.
I cannot imagine wanting any child to be taught by such a poor thinker.
48 comments:
Did anyone hear the recent
Lane-Harris debate on morality?
It seemed to me that Harris totally skirted around ontological problem for a utilitarian "morality".
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
This will give a long list of the studies being used.
Makes some interesting reading.
I listened to the WLC/Harris debate. A usual, the only thing Harris knows how to do is criticize Biblical fundamentalism. He never even supported his consequentialist theory.
On his planet, all Christians are fire-and-brimstone young-earth fundies. I presume all black people eat watermelon and fried chicken as well, and all Asians are doctors and bad drivers.
In that debate, rather than directly addressing his consequentialist theory, he goes into offensive mode with an attack on theism(the problem of evil) and then an attack on organized religion in general (the scandal of particularity).
Being committed to "science", he does seem to harbor sympathy for the esoteric dimension of religion because it is experiential and therefore, qualitatively, empirical.
But I always get a kick out of those who are receptive to "spirituality", yet remain enthralled by scientific materialism all the while. I don't know. To me that's like saying I love hamburgers and steaks, but I'm a staunch vegetarian.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the deaths of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
~WLC
Hurumph. So attempting to justify the slaughter of children is an example of progressive christian values?
If you don't think Harris supports his theory, you aren't paying attention. Is health better than sickness? Is well being preferable to suffering? If the answer is yes, then the ontological utilitarianism is solved. If the answer is no, it's likely because you think some divine presence has a grand plan for the 'benevolent' slaughter of children.
It's statements like these - from some of the most respected, sophisticated apologists no less - that provide fertile grounds for humanistic moral superiority.
... I just read the article. There are multiple links in it referencing the statistics used.
"If the answer is no, it's likely because you think some divine presence has a grand plan for the 'benevolent' slaughter of children."
If the answer is no, then deontology could be the correct normative theory. Most ethicists (many of which are non-theists) are deontologists.
The point I'm making is that Harris just asserts utilitarianism, without arguing for it. Saying "well, it's just intrinsic value for good health" is all well and good, but realutilitarians/consequentialists argue for their position; they don't just assert it. Harris has done no responding to the usual problems with utilitarinism as far as I can tell.
What is it non-theists like to say?
Oh yes! "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Well?
OK.
"Humanistic moral superiority"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The scientistic materialist is sentimentally optimistic. A morality of utility is the key ingredient for collectivism.
Humanists who don't understand humanity. That's peculiar.
Brave New World, here we come.
Martin, deontology is simply adherence to the rules and is analogous to divine command theory. Both are moral frameworks useful for grade school children.
Harris does argue for his position by using health as an analogy. He argues for it other ways as well, but the health example seems to most effectively make the point.
It's not that complicated. Not-suffering is preferable to suffering. You want evidence for that?
Chris, yes humanistic values are superior to theistic values. Theistic values do not value humanity but the imagined whims of a divine dictator.
Given the choice where we define the slaughter of children as good (1984 anyone?) or define suffering as bad .. are you really rebelling against the determination that suffering is bad??
"Both are moral frameworks useful for grade school children."
This, of course, does nothing to refute it and is as substanceless as Harris' defense of utilitarinism.
Via just bare appeal to experts in normative ethics, 32% are in favor of deontology and 22% are in favor of consequentialism. Which of course does nothing to show it to be true, but at least shows that it isn't something you can just wave away with snarky comments about grade school children.
"Not-suffering is preferable to suffering. You want evidence for that?"
No doubt there is a role, but to identify "good" with "non suffering" is amateur at best. What about people in vegetative states? What about fetuses? While I'm neither pro nor anti choice myself, clearly lots of people see it as morally wrong to abort human babies and thus there is at least prima facie evidence that "moral goodness" is not clearly the same thing as "well being of conscious creatures."
You can use Moore's open question argument to show the weakness of it:
1. If moral goodness is equivalent to the well-being of conscious creatures, then asking if moral goodness is equivalent to the well being of conscious creatures is a tautology and thus a pointless question
2. Asking whether moral goodness is equivalent to the well-being of conscious creatures is not a pointless question
3. Therefore, moral goodness is not equivalent to the well-being of conscious creatures
At the very least, Harris' defense of utilitarinism is amateurish and displays a complete unfamiliarity with the vast literature on ethics. Which is baffling coming from someone with a BA in philosophy.
050211 Sam
”It's not that complicated. Not-suffering is preferable to suffering. You want evidence for that?”
Suffering is preferable to death, and death is preferable to suffering: it is situation dependent and personal opinion dependent, therefore it is relativist, not an absolute moral.
”Chris, yes humanistic values are superior to theistic values. Theistic values do not value humanity but the imagined whims of a divine dictator.”
Sam, are you sure you want to take this position? Humanism is the religion of the Atheist mega-bloodbaths of the 20th century. Humanism is a replacement of personal character development as an ethic with dictated equality and loss of personal freedom to human dictates. Better read up on the Humanist manifestos and the backgrounds of their writers. The original manifesto was so close to describing the German National Socialists (NAZIs) that the manifesto was replaced with a new one which obscured the techniques for arriving at their utopia. But only after the NAZIs were defeated.
”Given the choice where we define the slaughter of children as good (1984 anyone?) or define suffering as bad .. are you really rebelling against the determination that suffering is bad??”
Of course you are the one who is claiming what the theist position is, as if you actually know that theists want infants to suffer and be slaughtered. That is an absurdity which is patently ridiculous as a logical tenet, and it is even lower than that as an argument. What the theist position states is that infants who die before an age of competence would not be rejected by the deity. (None of which addresses whether a first cause for the universe exists, and is therefore a REd Herring). Your apparently deliberate inverted misinterpretation is completely unsuccessful as an argument.
Moreover, suffering is neither good nor bad, it just is, in the same sense that tornados just are, a position which Atheists take in the face of blaming tornados on someone or something. For consistency the same position would be applied to both situations… unless one situation conveys the characteristic of evil to human behavior in causing suffering, in which case an opinion has been asserted as fact, an opinion which is not verifiable empirically.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
The Atheist position seems to depend on the situation, and thus is relativist. This must always be the case in a worldview that does not accept absolutes: changing positions to satisfy ideology is outside the realm of logic and is usually rationalization rather than rational.
For example, suffering due to a tornado which just is is a neutral effect from a neutral cause. Suffering due to the actions of another human, however, would be deemed evil, even if the suffering is identical with the suffering due to the tornado. The difference is that suffering due to the actions of another human is pre-judged to be non-neutral: evil. This is purely an opinion which gives value judgment to one situation but not to another identical situation.
So it cannot be suffering that is the issue, it is human behavior leading to suffering. And here is the problem: what if the human behavior is justified for some unforeseen reason? And who does the justification? The issue is swamped with relativism.
An example: Were the Allies justified in bombing German cities in WWII, in light of the German bombing of British cities? What metrics and objective, scientific measurements of the suffering vs justification would you make?
An objective, science based moral would require a differentiation with respect to “good” and “evil”, with a metric for both regarding characteristics familiar to science, such as dimensions in measurable co-ordinates, mass, energy, and so on. But science deals with existential issues, such as an hypothesis that “X exists and is caused by Y, with an epiphenomenon of Z, all of which are measured in space-time, mass-energy.” The attempt to claim science for non-physical opinion is a false claim, certainly a claim that is outside of scientific capability to either prove or falsify.
Martin, I'm sorry if you are offended, however a moral framework which can be summed up by 'follow the rules because authority says so' IS childish. Your appeal to statistical authority does you no favours. If 32% are for the proposition, 68% are against.
Moore's question is irrelevant for this comparison. Replace 'well-being of conscious creatures' with 'whims of the divine' and you end up with the same result.
So now his defense is amateurish instead of non-existent? Have you even read the book?
Stan, I'm blown away that you are equating humanism with nazism. Nazi values are not humanism values. The two could not be more separate. I'm a bit sickened and more than a little offended.
I could fill a half dozen posts with quotes from Hitler and examples of the overwhelming theodicity which pervaded Nazism. However I'll just invoke Godwin's Law and save myself the effort. You lose 1 internets.
Better re-read what I originally posted. That quote about babies suffering and dying was from Mr. Religious Apologist Poster Boy William Lane Craig. He literally and directly states that God is good to kill children. Similar examples of religious morality can be found throughout the foundational texts.
Of course I don't actually think that WLC wants babies to be slaughtered. He's just trying to defend the bible and is bending his moral compass into knots to do it.
You then to go on to state that suffering is neither good nor bad. So maybe I'm wrong. Personally, I think suffering is bad. Yes this is very simplified. Yes each situation will be different. It's like you could write a whole book on the subject...
But you know what's not helpful at all? Saying it happened because some god willed it so and is therefore good.
When someone claims that one ethical system is superior to another, the question in my mind is "By what standard?" How do you measure and compare moralities? Against what?
It sounds like the militant atheist brigade are indulging in circular reasoning, as usual.
All they really do is assert their own preferences, then complain about Christian morality not being the same as that.
Sam,
You said,
”I could fill a half dozen posts with quotes from Hitler and examples of the overwhelming theodicity which pervaded Nazism. However I'll just invoke Godwin's Law and save myself the effort. You lose 1 internets.”
Perhaps you should get beyond sound bites and quote mining and look into the actual history of the things of which you speak. The reference was not mine, it was made by the actual writers of the first and second Humanist Manifesto. The issue was not the religious aspect of Humanism, it was the political, dictatorial aspect of Humanism. Sarcasm doesn’t replace actual research and knowledge.
”Better re-read what I originally posted. That quote about babies suffering and dying was from Mr. Religious Apologist Poster Boy William Lane Craig. He literally and directly states that God is good to kill children. Similar examples of religious morality can be found throughout the foundational texts.”
This disproves a first cause of the universe… how?
” But you know what's not helpful at all? Saying it happened because some god willed it so and is therefore good.”
Helpful in what regard? Helpful in developing character? Or helpful in developing a theory of ethics which matches one’s behavior, and so making one ethical as a tautology?
Humanism is the latter. Humanism is ethics for the other guy, as dictated by the Humanist. The world would be a utopia if everyone did as I intend for them to do, following my rules for behavior, politics, economics, manufacturing and personal outcomes. But I, the Humanist, understand that people are weak and need a firm hand to position them into their role in the new utopia.
At least find out the relationship between the original Humanist Manifesto and the Progressive movements that dominated much of the world in the 20th century. Then read their reasons for the second Humanist Manifesto.
Internet snark is not the same as history, natural law, or logic.
FrankNorman,
Exactly right. An ethic without the grounding of an absolute value system is merely opinion - opinion that is given the force of behavior control under the aegis of being an "ethic".
"a moral framework which can be summed up by 'follow the rules because authority says so' IS childish. Your appeal to statistical authority does you no favours. If 32% are for the proposition, 68% are against."
You'll note I was careful to only state that this shows there is an active amount of experts in normative ethics who are deontologists. In fact, they are the largest group; more than the consequentialists. Which doesn't mean it's true, only that you must argue against it, not just call it names.
"Moore's question is irrelevant for this comparison. Replace 'well-being of conscious creatures' with 'whims of the divine' and you end up with the same result."
I am not a divine command theorist, so I don't see how pulling out a tu quoque is a good defense of Harris.
"So now his defense is amateurish instead of non-existent? Have you even read the book?"
I'm going by his debate with WLC. As well as reviews of his book. Outside the world of his fans, reviews of the book have been almost universally negative. He says that science can determine values. Then he decides what's valuable himself (well being of conscious creatures) and then tries to show how science can measure that value that he has already decided. So he should have subtitle his book: "How Science Can Measure What I've Already Decided is Valuable."
""By what standard?" How do you measure and compare moralities? Against what?"
Against themselves of course.
Happiness, joy, pleasure, misery, suffering, pain are benchmarks. This seems intuitively obvious, and can easily be confirmed by observation.
The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. —Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. ”
—Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936
These are not quote mines. It's not like in the sentence preceding or following he states anything that negates what the quote claims.
Maybe instead of referencing something written 80 years ago, you could look at humanism in todays world.
I think I'm going to have to make shorter posts...
Stan: "Of course you are the one who is claiming what the theist position is, as if you actually know that theists want infants to suffer and be slaughtered. "
Sam: "Better re-read what I originally posted. That quote about babies suffering and dying was from Mr. Religious Apologist Poster Boy William Lane Craig. He literally and directly states that God is good to kill children. Similar examples of religious morality can be found throughout the foundational texts."
Nothing to do with attempting to disprove a god. As some may be aware, it is impossible to prove to anyone that either god or imaginary friends are not real.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
Point out to me anything that is reflected by Nazi values. Anything that would lead to a bloodbath?
Point out to me anything there that implies the whims of a dictator. Anything that says that people are weak and require control.
Humanism embraces peace, equality progress and our common humanity. To equate is with Nazism is nothing but a disgusting, ignorant slander.
"A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men." Bertrand Russell
"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. . . ." American Humanist Association
"Intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest wisdom. . . ." Robert Ingersoll
"The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth." Albert Einstein
"We might as well require a man to wear the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson
"The world is my country, and to do good my religion." Thomas Paine
Please, contrast these values with that of divine command theory and tell me with a straight face which you think is superior.
Btw, a militant atheist is someone who disagrees with you, and will say so. The term is really a pathetic pejorative.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yuGrGn6oYns/SogtZpzYlVI/AAAAAAAAAII/S8vq4bRjWf0/s1600-h/militant_atheists.jpg
Heck, even suffering is relative. I've sustained injuries that have hurt, but I didn't really suffer, and yet I've know others that have suffered over the same sort of thing.
Does that make me less human? More human? Or are other people faking it?
What about people that exhibit even less signs of suffering? Toss me in a MMA ring and I'm going to be in a world of hurt quickly, but the fighters that have trained can soak up the punishment like it's nothing. Are they more or less human?
How can we tell if someone is really suffering? Just on their word? Or are there object standards of "suffering"? If not, then how can we based ethical standards on a completely subjective, and temporary, experience?
The moment in time when the word, values, entered the conversation, is precisely the moment when value died. Why?
Because the term suggests absolute variability and relativity. As if "value" is a place holder in which anything can be programmed. This is materialist reductionism at its finest. The battle cry of scientism is "it works!" Yes, it works alright. But the religion of effeciency is precisely the ideology of totalariansim.
The naturalist believes that grounding qualities in quantities, consciousness in matter, mind in physics, is safeguarding the human estate. This is a gross error. It is "progress" by the "downward path".
The atheist presumably believes in the irreducible "value" of truth. But this is an illusion by his own definition. "It works!" is an ideology that will turn human civilization into an ant hill.
Martin. Deontology/divine command theory would claim that it is just to follow an evil law. If that's not a strong enough argument against it, nothing will convince you.
Are you familiar with Kohlberg's stages of moral development?
"People who exhibit postconventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Contemporary theorists often speculate that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning."
If you watched the debate, you'll know that WLC argued for DCT. Although he provided no basis for it of course.
The Moral Landscape is sitting at 4.5 stars on Amazon. Not what I would call 'almost universally negative'.
Russell. Well even health is relative. I've been sick before, but never so sick to be infirm. Yet I know of people who have suffered and died because of sickness.
Does that make me less human? More so? Were the other people faking it?
What about people that never seem to get sick? Does health even apply to them? Are they robots?
How can we tell if people are really sick? Take their word for it? Are there objective standards of health? If not, how can we have ethical medical standards of practice on a completely subjective and temporary experience?
Not trying to be an ass, just making a point. Hopefully it comes across in the manner intended.
Chris. Value is a placeholder which can be used to represent any array of ideologies. Ie: Judeo-Christian values. Humanistic values. Neo-Nazi values. The term is alive and well.
I'm having a hard time making sense of the rest if your post. It just comes across as angry rhetoric.
Perhaps a little annoyed. I prefer spirited. You argue well.
As far as the rhetoric goes, what else but rhetoric could you, me, or anyone else expect within a subjectivist worldview? Ultimately, whenever there is a debate, what's the point of contention- truth. But according to the relativist, there is no such thing. To say that something is relatively true, my question is, "relative to what?"
If to say of an action that "it is good" is equivalent to saying "I feel approval of it because it is expedient, or useful", how did it come about that this distinction between "good" on the one hand and "expedient" or "useful" on the other was ever made?
Presumably, our ancestors "felt approval for certain kinds of conduct" because they regarded the approved kinds of conduct as expedient.
Did our ancestor, then, never say "good" or "ought" and always say "expedient" or "useful"?
Of course not. Both words were, and are, still used. So again, why did this distinction ever come to be introduced, since "expedient" or "useful" on the one hand and "good" or "right" on the other mean, in the long run , the same thing?
I do not distinguish one from one, hot from hot, useful from useful, or good from good.
I conclude that the fact that I explicitly make this distinction entails that by the word "right" I do not mean the same as by the word "expedient", and that when I say, "this is right and ought to be done", I do not mean merely, "this is approved of by me because it will conduce to my advantage", nor do I mean any of the variants of this expression which I have mentioned.
-CEM Joad
Utilitarian "morality" doesn't work for me.
Sam said,
”Are you familiar with Kohlberg's stages of moral development?
"People who exhibit postconventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Contemporary theorists often speculate that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning."
(I know you were talking to Martin, but I can’t resist).
“Social order and human rights”: these are the corrupted terms which the new totalitarian elites love… and were favored by the 20th century totalitarian elites also. Vague buzz words with concealed meanings. Social order is best exhibited these days in China, Burma/Myanmar, and is falling apart in the Arab Spring as totalitarians are overthrown. Social order is the opposite of freedom. Human Rights means Social Justice and Egalitarianism which are specifically designed to force equality of outcomes on everyone. Key word is force.
A parable I heard the other day. A hapless person is caught in a raging river. A savior jumps in to rescue him: that is empathy. But more people come down the river, all crying for help. The savior goes upstream to stop the people from being pushed into the river: that is justice. But another savior comes along and orders everyone into the river so that everyone will be equal (except him of course). That is Social Justice.
Most people won’t want to go into the river in order to satisfy egalitarianism, so they will need increasing levels of inducement, culminating in whatever force might be necessary. After all, it is in the name of Justice (Social), and those who resist are unjust and immoral.
This is the current form of Value Ethic that is popular with Atheists and Humanists.
Repeating the last part of the Kohlberg quote at the top:
” Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Contemporary theorists often speculate that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.”
This is the most absurd philosophical maundering I’ve yet come across. An ethic which eschews rules is hardly anything more than behavioral anarchy, a society of unrestrained children. When moral reasoning is abstract, it is also useless. Prisons are full of those who have abstract reasoning concerning morality and rules. When you get to choose which rules to obey, and when you might deign to obey them, then there are no rules. This is the final Atheist state: no rules – freedom from absolutes, freedom from constraints on logical thinking, total personal freedom, at least for the Atheist. But wait and watch for the Atheist to assert his own personal rules on everyone else because they need to be equal in outcome and Social Justice must be enforced. And that is because society is the perpetrator in the Atheist and Humanist world.
Chris. I would prefer measured conversation to rhetoric. Something expedient and useful is not good if it causes suffering. Keep in mind that I am speaking very generally. There are multitudes of ethical scenarios and I cannot hope to encompass them all in a couple sentences.
" To say that something is relatively true, my question is, "relative to what?" "
It is relatively true (but not 100% accurate) that the moon is made of rock. It is completely false to say it is made of cheese.
Stan. Although I can find fault with your parable, I think I agree with the point you are making. Forced charity is not charity but slavery? And all the trees were made equal, by hatchet, axe and saw.
I also disagree. Unjust laws are unjust and should be resisted. This does not mean there are no just laws. Abstract does not mean useless, it means not confined by established laws.
I hardly think it is warranted to claim that atheists are attempting to force their morality on others when theists literally claim to possess rules handed down from the creator of the universe and if you don't follow them you will be tortured for eternity.
I like the parable.
Sam,
Again you must be clear about what justice you are talking about and what sort of resistance is justified. For example, if I am forced by law to transfer all my wealth to the government for redistribution to non-producers, am I justified in forming a militia to liberate the government from the parasites? Or to blow up government buildings? Or is it limited to certain concepts of justice which are approved for resistance?
As for the Atheo-Humanists, Whatever it is that Christians (which ones?) do has no bearing on what Atheo-Humanists do. Here's why: First, Atheo-Humanists claim to be superior intellectually and morally; second, justifying bad behavior based claims of other's bad behavior is not a satisfactory reason for bad behavior. So what Christians do is trivial in that equation.
Last, there is no comparison between a concern for your soul (which Atheo-Humanists deny exists) and Social Control of the behavior and possessions of the Other. How is it possible to be threatened if there is no God, no Hell, no Soul, no Objective or revealed Truth, no objective or revealed morality? All that is possible is pique, and Atheo-Humanists are certainly subject to fits of that. However, being annoyed by words is different in kind and magnitude from having one's outcome equalized to the lowest common denominator in society, and having one's possessions redistributed to the perpetual Have Nots / Do Nots.
Surely this is obvious.
I should add this: Certainly there are corrupt Christians; and all Christians are admitted violators of the revealed code. Some Christians undoubtedly are merely criminals using Christianity as a front. Some Christians don't even understand their own "faith". And some Christians are just flat annoying.
This has no bearing on the actual message in the red print, and more importantly it has no possible logic useful in the refutation of a first cause.
Like I said, there are a multitude of ethical scenarios and I couldn't possibly articulate in a couple sentences or paragraphs a framework for resolving them all.
In your example, (with no further information) I would say you are not justified in blowing up government buildings to resist increased taxation. Christan or humanism, the reasons why should be obvious. Also, referring to poor, sick and hungry people as 'parasites' seems incredibly callow, and not very Christian.
First. Christians claim to be morally and intellectually superior to atheists as well. And they'll quote holy scripture to support it. Atheists/Humanists tend to cite statistics...
Second. Yes I don't think I framed that as well as I could have.
In an example, it is not bad behavior to lobby peacefully against religious laws, not is it bigotry against theists to do so. Regardless, there is bad behavior on both sides.
"How is it possible to be threatened if there is no God, no Hell, no Soul, no Objective or revealed Truth, no objective or revealed morality?"
Because Christians don't threaten our souls (well, they do, but that's easy to laugh off), but push for societal control. It's not just words. Surely that is obvious.
What are worldly concerns if there is a God, and eternal soul, and paradise awaits you? Didn't Jesus say to give away all your belongings?
"For example, if I am forced by law to transfer all my wealth to the government for redistribution to non-producers, am I justified in forming a militia to liberate the government from the parasites?"
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/texas-yacht-tax-break/
Speaking of laws that transfer wealth to parasites ;)
Somehow it seems exponentially worse when the government mandated wealth transfer goes from the have-not to the have-a-kickback-on-my-$250000-yacht.. But I still wouldn't suggest blowing up government buildings.
“In your example, (with no further information) I would say you are not justified in blowing up government buildings to resist increased taxation. Christan or humanism, the reasons why should be obvious. Also, referring to poor, sick and hungry people as 'parasites' seems incredibly callow, and not very Christian.”
I had thought it surely obvious that I was referring to the confiscatory policies of the Humanists, and the leveling of all people to a point dictated by them. It would be interesting, though, to see a study on how many Humanists are actually producers, vs how many producers are Humanist.
”First. Christians claim to be morally and intellectually superior to atheists as well. And they'll quote holy scripture to support it. Atheists/Humanists tend to cite statistics...
This is false on its face; there is no scripture that claims that Christians are superior.
”Second. Yes I don't think I framed that as well as I could have.
In an example, it is not bad behavior to lobby peacefully against religious laws, not is it bigotry against theists to do so. Regardless, there is bad behavior on both sides.”
Nor is it bad behavior to lobby peacefully against the dictates of secularism; yes, agreed: there is bad behavior on both sides
"How is it possible to be threatened if there is no God, no Hell, no Soul, no Objective or revealed Truth, no objective or revealed morality?"
Because Christians don't threaten our souls (well, they do, but that's easy to laugh off), but push for societal control. It's not just words. Surely that is obvious.
Your original objection was to the threats, not the push for control. But concerning the threat of control, your fears are well founded, based on all the Atheists burnt at the stake in the last several centuries (pardon the sarcasm, it’s just that Atheist fears of Christianity appear so ludicrous, based on actual history of Christianity vs the history of Atheism – care to talk gulags?). I'd be interested to see a list of Atheist Martyrs... killed for their faith. Or lack of.
But consider this: since Atheism comes with no ethic attached, and every Atheist is free to derive his own personal ethic, and similar ethics tend to band together to assert their ethic on others, then which of these homebrew ethics should we give any value to, and why? Because all Atheist ethics are merely personal opinions, what gives any one of them any force over any of the other personal ethics (key word being force)?
”What are worldly concerns if there is a God, and eternal soul, and paradise awaits you? Didn't Jesus say to give away all your belongings?
Do you seriously believe that? First off, Jesus said that to one specific person, a man who cherished his wealth more than anything else. It was not a commandment – have you read the document you are criticizing? I mean read it for meaning rather than the typical Atheist search for contradictions and sound-bites to take out of context?
Second, people require food, shelter, and nurture, all of which require resources and the protection of resources. It is not the function of Christians to destroy the resources of earth which will nourish human progeny, and to say that it is, is absurd. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were Atheists, you know.
Seriously. What evidence do you have for saying that Christians give away all their stuff and prowl around destroying the earth? This is the type of statement that emerges from being too long cloistered in an unreal environment of intellectual ideology rather than reality, as I have seen on many Atheist sites… where mob rule dominates and is declared to be rational, yet with no hint of logic applied to it, much less evidence for their claims.
Sorry I'm about to head out of town for the weekend and don't have time to respond at length.
One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.
Proverbs 11:24-25
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Luke 14:13-14
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
I John 3:17-18
In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Acts 20:35
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
II Corinthians 9:7
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.
Ecclesiastes 5:10
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Bible
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=shipka_27_6§ion=library
Scroll down to the list starting with Bill Gates for some humanists who are "producers".
"This is false on its face; there is no scripture that claims that Christians are superior."
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.
I haz score points now?
Sam,
I hope you have a great weekend, there is sun here, and more projected.
I am unable to find the bible quote that says that the government should take the function of confiscation from those that have in order to distribute to those that have not.
What each of these quotes declares is that personal generosity is a favorable condition in personal morality. This one is an example:
"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
Humanism, on the other hand, dictates the removal of one's possessions for distribution to someone else, based solely on the level of wealth which is possessed: too much wealth is unfair; too little wealth is unfair.
Take Bill Gates, your example. He is not redistributing his wealth, he is enabling the poor to remain poor by making unprotected, profligate sex safe. Abstinence is immoral to him. He does not choose to enable strong personal character, rather he chooses to enable the very weaknesses that entrap the poor into perpetual poverty: profligate sex, producing orphans, one of Africa's biggest problems.
I have trouble thinking of Gates as a producer rather than a thief, liar, bully and owner of politicians. And now a world financier of social problems.
Next, the link doesn't take me to a list. But I'm sure Gates is on it.
Is the reference from Psalms all there is? That's what upsets you? It says that the fool is an Atheist. It does not say that Atheists are fools. Assertion: All Q is W; but it is not inferrable from this assertion that all W is Q.
Regardless, the Psalms are songs, full of imagery. The lord does not really lead me beside still waters, etc. and so on. People who assert that every word is TRUE and LITERALLY SO are going totally against the entire thrust of Jesus and his issues with the Pharisees - which was that pompous righteousness and literalism is wrong. And the Bible literally says so!
Christian literalists are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees and Saducees.
And none of this reflects on the issue of whether there exists a powerful, rational first cause for the universe... which you have not addressed.
The existence of corrupted ecclesiastics is in no way a refutation of the existence of a powerful, rational first cause for the universe.
Let's discuss first cause when you get back, mmKay?
Hi! Great weekend thanks.
Matthew 22:17-21 "Render unto Caesar..."
The verses I quoted were to demonstrate that a Christian value is to put little value on material wealth. Which strikes me as clashing with the resistance towards helping those less fortunate.
Humanism is against extreme disproportion of wealth, yes. It does not say that all the trees should be made equal by cutting them all to stumps.
"Is the reference from Psalms all there is?"
No, just the most obvious. And you said there is no scripture that claims Christian superiority.
I'm not upset. I am a bit sad, and discouraged that intelligent, educated people put more trust in iron age stories than modern science.
Why, if the Bible is divinely inspired, is it so hard to make any sense of it? Why does one half contradict the other half? If GOD wrote/inspired a book attempting to inform us of our place in the world, shouldn't it be overwhelmingly accurate?? It seems to me that complaints about biblical inerrancy are admissions that God can't write properly.
I don't think a discussion on imaginary friends will get us very far. I suspect the conversation will go something like:
"You can't prove its true!"
"You can't prove its not true!"
The imaginary and the non-existent look very much alike...
Sam,
Welcome back.
Your concept of “helping those who are less fortunate” is extremely limited; it is limited to enforced governmental help for the less fortunate. You equate resistance to governmental acquistion and redistribution of personal property with lack of generosity, when in fact genrosity is not related to governmental confiscation. Around here, the outpouring of personal assistance to those in need is strikingly high. For example, when my daughter’s house burnt down people – strangers – started showing up with furniture, household goods, electronics, etc until she had more stuff than before the fire. Her dog was pulled from the blaze by firemen and dumped across the street for dead; a neighbor actually said no! and performed mouth to nose respiration on the dog and saved it. My daughter had to start giving away the gifts, her new place couldn't hold them all. This is all in a highly religious town.
Who would you suspect is still working on rebuilding the South after Katrina? The government? Atheists? No. It is Christian organizations traveling through the South and rebuilding. Actually made NBC Nightly News.
No, it is not the Atheo-secular concept of enforced giving, it is the personal gifts that continue. Our city sends mountains of help to victims, not via the government, but through NGOs. The churches here send help to children in Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe/Russia. I don’t know what is the source of your low opinion of Christians, but it does not match reality.
”The verses I quoted were to demonstrate that a Christian value is to put little value on material wealth. Which strikes me as clashing with the resistance towards helping those less fortunate.”
Then I submit that you did not understand the very Bible quotes which you wrote down. Nor do you know what Christians actually do.
”I'm not upset. I am a bit sad, and discouraged that intelligent, educated people put more trust in iron age stories than modern science.”
Modern science conflicts with a First Cause, how? Modern Science produces moral tenets, how? Modern science produce character development, how?
When viewed dispassionately, there is no conflict between the “truths” of modern science vs the moral principles of Judeo- Christianity. For one thing, there are no “truths” of modern science, because science produces only contingent factoids which are, as Einstein said, never proven True but are merely proven not false as far as we can discern under current conditions. Expecting Truth to emerge from science is Scientism, a belief system which itself is not verifiable by science.
(continued from above)
”Why, if the Bible is divinely inspired, is it so hard to make any sense of it? Why does one half contradict the other half? If GOD wrote/inspired a book attempting to inform us of our place in the world, shouldn't it be overwhelmingly accurate?? It seems to me that complaints about biblical inerrancy are admissions that God can't write properly.
The bible was perfectly senseless to me until 2003.
”I don't think a discussion on imaginary friends will get us very far. I suspect the conversation will go something like:
"You can't prove its true!"
"You can't prove its not true!"
The imaginary and the non-existent look very much alike...”
Of course they do. But that’s not the actual discussion, it’s merely your take on it. The proof of validity is first logical, and second a personal connection, and because you don’t have it, you declare it non-existent. But merely calling it “imaginary friends” is prejudicial in the sense that you cannot actually know that, you merely presume that. So you are right, declaring a non-existence is truly a non-starter. And thus it is not useful as an argument, because it is without the evidence which Atheists love to demand as an artifact of their claimed belief in science as the only source of knowledge.
Being without evidence of a thing believed in is a characteristic of a religion, in the common definition used by Atheists. But they have no evidence for the non-existence which they claim: a clear indication that Atheism is a religion. (Of which Scientism is a subset).
If the universe is [U], then the Atheist declares that there is no [!U]. Where then is the evidence for that? The Atheist can no longer even declare that the universe always existed; cosmological science is in favor of [!U] having existed prior to the Big Bang. The Atheist might cliam that [!U] is a null set; that is wishful thinking, without a shred of evidence. Does wishing it make it so? Hardly. More curiously, why would one wish that, rather than wish for knowledge of an actuality? Psychological issues come into play at this point.
Regardless, there is no material experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of the non-material; it is a category error to think that it could.
You are imposing limits, not I. Taxes and charity are both options for helping those less fortunate.
It is wonderful that your community rallied around your daughter and her loss. That is an excellent example of the charity of Christians and your community is to be commended on their generosity and compassion. I would merely point out that Christianity is not a requirement for generosity, empathy and compassion.
Modern science conflicts with religious beliefs on almost every level. One is based on observation, the other on faith.
"The bible was perfectly senseless to me until 2003."
I wouldn't say the Bible is entirely senseless. However I see nothing in it which speaks to divine inspiration.
Even a mildly competent writer is able to get their point across to a large audience. I would think that God would qualify as "the greatest conceivable writer", yet the bible fails to speak to so many regarding the (positive) truth of his existence.
"Regardless, there is no material experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of the non-material; it is a category error to think that it could."
Yes, that's what I said. Does too! Does not!
Actually, there are hundreds if not thousands of material experiments which could prove the existence of God. The Bible makes many claims to this effect. However the apologists has a plethora of excuses for why such a test is invalid. ie: Category Error.
”Modern science conflicts with religious beliefs on almost every level. One is based on observation, the other on faith.
This barely even passes for Atheist dogma. How about addressing the real issue. Is there a rational reason to believe /believe/ that there is no first cause for the existence of the universe?? Yes or No?
All your objections about the Bible and selfish Christians have no bearing whatsoever on that basic question. And any answer you give will be categorized as a “belief”. This is the issue that is on the front burner here. It is the issue that most Atheists who come here avoid completely, because it demonstrates that their worldview is based on faulty issues, issues surrounding a distaste for certain ecclesiastics, certain rules, and/or a disdain for the authority that absolutes bring with them.
“I wouldn't say the Bible is entirely senseless. However I see nothing in it which speaks to divine inspiration.”
Fine; is there a First Cause for the Universe?
” Actually, there are hundreds if not thousands of material experiments which could prove the existence of God. The Bible makes many claims to this effect. However the apologists has a plethora of excuses for why such a test is invalid. ie: Category Error.”
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. How about a couple of examples? I presume that these are replicable, and falsifiable as well as objective material proofs of the non-existence of a First Cause for the universe? I wonder why I have not heard of these before. And you have the Bible references for these material experiments too! Now if these experiments exist and are definitive in demonstrating the non-existence of a First Cause for the universe, I’d be delighted to be the first blog to have them. However, if they really are category errors as you suggest, then such experiments – valid ones - do not actually exist, and to make the reference that they do would be false. An experiment that cannot do that which it proposes to do is not a valid source of knowledge, is it. So anyway, go ahead and propose some experiments, rather than make vague claims about their existence, I am quite interested.
Meantime, answer this: is there a First Cause for the universe?
"Meantime, answer this: is there a First Cause for the universe?"
I don't know? And it would be rather arrogant to claim such knowledge without evidence to support it.
Do I accept the claim that you have a personal relationship with an intelligent being that exists outside of space and time? No, and I will not without some justifiable reason.
You are also conflating "First Cause" with "God" and they need not be the same thing.
I agree, that last quote made no sense to you. Give it another go?
All it is saying is that the Bible claims God is real, and provides methods for proving even to an non-believer that this is case.
However all these 'proofs' fail miserably, and so are declared 'category errors' by apologists.
For example:
King James Bible
Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:11-13
Sam, here is a quick summary of what you have said. Your position is that Christians are evil, and you are incensed by their evilness. You deliberately have misconstrued WLC’s comments to form your narrative, which extends to the superiority of humanism compared to theism. Every one of your misconstruals has been addressed, but you ignore that and charge ahead as if oblivious to anyone’s writings but your own. Here are your comments:
” Hurumph. So attempting to justify the slaughter of children is an example of progressive christian values?”
” Better re-read what I originally posted. That quote about babies suffering and dying was from Mr. Religious Apologist Poster Boy William Lane Craig. He literally and directly states that God is good to kill children. Similar examples of religious morality can be found throughout the foundational texts.”
’Is health better than sickness? Is well being preferable to suffering? If the answer is yes, then the ontological utilitarianism is solved. If the answer is no, it's likely because you think some divine presence has a grand plan for the 'benevolent' slaughter of children.”
” It's statements like these - from some of the most respected, sophisticated apologists no less - that provide fertile grounds for humanistic moral superiority.”
” Chris, yes humanistic values are superior to theistic values. Theistic values do not value humanity but the imagined whims of a divine dictator.”
” Stan, I'm blown away that you are equating humanism with nazism. Nazi values are not humanism values. The two could not be more separate. I'm a bit sickened and more than a little offended.”
” Maybe instead of referencing something written 80 years ago, you could look at humanism in todays world.”
” Point out to me anything that is reflected by Nazi values. Anything that would lead to a bloodbath?”
Point out to me anything there that implies the whims of a dictator. Anything that says that people are weak and require control.
Humanism embraces peace, equality progress and our common humanity. To equate is with Nazism is nothing but a disgusting, ignorant slander.
” Btw, a militant atheist is someone who disagrees with you, and will say so. The term is really a pathetic pejorative.”
” Deontology/divine command theory would claim that it is just to follow an evil law. If that's not a strong enough argument against it, nothing will convince you.”
” I hardly think it is warranted to claim that atheists are attempting to force their morality on others when theists literally claim to possess rules handed down from the creator of the universe and if you don't follow them you will be tortured for eternity.”
” Also, referring to poor, sick and hungry people as 'parasites' seems incredibly callow, and not very Christian.”
” Christians claim to be morally and intellectually superior to atheists as well. And they'll quote holy scripture to support it.”
” What are worldly concerns if there is a God, and eternal soul, and paradise awaits you? Didn't Jesus say to give away all your belongings?”
” "This is false on its face; there is no scripture that claims that Christians are superior."
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.
I haz score points now?”
Your record for answering the refutations of your accusations is zero so far. Shall we take them one at a time now, and address them?
First issue: What WLC said is unconscionable to the Atheist mentality based on exactly which Atheist moral tenet?
Second issue: Christians are unconscionable based on what WLC said based on exactly what Atheist moral tenet? Evidence for claim?
Third issue: Christians and Christianity is inferior to humanism based on what Atheist tenets? Evidence for claim?
Fourth issue: Christians would follow an evil law based on what Atheist tenets? Evidence for claim?
Fifth issue: Humanism specifically addressed NAZISM, why?
Sixth issue: Humanism explicitly called for seizure of all institutions and redistribution of wealth in Manifesto I, and this was obscured but not refuted in II and III, why?
Please address these; there is more, this will do for now.
I never said all Christians were evil. In fact I commended the charity of your Christian neighbours.
Everything you quoted above is accurate, and I will readily defend it. If anyone actually cares, they can reread the thread and see the quotes in context. Direct replies to direct questions.
You claim my record is zero, but you are the one keeping score, and the one throwing out non-sequitors like "This disproves a first cause of the universe… how?"
And then when I do address that, you jump to this.
If you are going to continue to argue this way, I'm done with this thread.
If you'd like to stick to a single topic, and have a rational discussion, let me know.
http://i.imgur.com/OrNZz.jpg
Sam said,
"I never said all Christians were evil. In fact I commended the charity of your Christian neighbours."
The entire thrust of your comments since you have been here is that Christianity is characterized by WLC and the desire to slaughter children, and that Christianity is inferior to Humanism, and thrusts like Christians are childish followers who will perform to an evil law. Your denial is not fact, and it is not accepted.
On that background you did commend the charity I mentioned.
You have addressed none of the items I have listed on either of the two threads you are using. You continue to skate on almost every issue, save the answer to the First Cause question where you took a firm "no opinion" stance.
The issues are listed above; choose just one and go for it. My preference would be to discuss how it is that you cannot attribute a cause to the universe, which is clearly an effect. But go ahead, you choose one of the issues.
I specifically said I did not believe that WLC actually thought the slaughter of children was a good thing, despite him actually saying it was. It really seems like you are just picking what you want to hear and responding to that.
I do think that humanist morals are superior to Christian ones. I am more than happy to continue to express why I think so. Be assured I have plenty of examples of human failings inspired directly by Christianity.
I do think that adherence to authority, simply because it is authority, is a childish notion of morality. I am specifically speaking of Divine Command Theory and deontology.
I specifically addressed many of the issues you raised. Unfortunately a blog format does not lend itself to in depth discussion on each topic, especially when you raise multiple issues at once. And raise even more when I address some. I do have to pick and choose to some extent.
I said it was pointless to discuss a First Cause. If you have reason to convince me otherwise, I would be delighted to hear it. Otherwise I would prefer to continue to elaborate on the moral superiority of humanism/atheism, which after all is the actual topic of this thread.
Again, if you would like a discussion, can we please take it one point at a time. That way you can be assured I won't be able to miss something, I and can be assured that you won't bring up an unrelated topic you expect a response to.
I have listed several topics above. Go ahead and choose one. Or perhaps elaborate on why the Manifestos are superior to the Red Print in the Bible. Your choice.
Awesome. Back on track. Humanism vs Jesus.
Where to start?? Well Jesus specifically endorses the Old Testament. Matthew 5:18-19 RSV, Luke 16:17 NAB, Matthew 5:17 NAB, 2 Timothy 3:16 NAB, among others.
So the baggage of the rest of the Bible cannot be simply discarded. But here are some direct quotes.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30
Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22
Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17, 19
Ye fools. Luke 11:40
O fools, and slow of heart to believe. Luke 24:25
There are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off ... And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off ... And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48
God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matthew 15:4
Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luke 12: 5
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53
I'm just getting started. We already have him saying to hate and abandon your family, hate yourself, cursing those who call others fools to hell, he calls others fools (hypocritical), endorses self mutilation (balls, hand and eye), honor your parents or die, fear God, baptized and saved but the crime of unbelief warrants eternal pain and suffering, brings not peace but war.
And your main gripe with the humanist manifesto is that it could be interpreted as claiming that personal property should be confiscated? I don't read it that way, but I do see how you could.
Regardless, it seems obvious (to me) when contrasting the two which is the superior morality. Share vs believe I am God or burn forever.
OK, I see what has happened here. I have allowed myself to enter into a literal verse pissing contest. Nearly everything that Jesus said right up to his betrayal was spoken in parable / metaphor form. This gives the literalists a heyday in stripping out verses while ignoring their meaning. And that is exactly what Jesus fought and was killed for: the literalist Pharisees refused to see the meaning. So it was literalism which was at the base.
So I must renege on the promise to debate on those issues because you take them on the Pharisitical literalist terms. I will give you one example and no more.
the term "hate" in your example from Luke 14:26 is also translated as "not love more than", and as "refuses to let go of", in other translations.
I have no intention of attempting to get the actual meaning extracted from every chapter/verse for you - either you get it or you don't/won't.
Same way with the Manifestos, which you choose to interpret non-literally; I choose to read them for their meaning. And the meaning is quite clear.
I've been just sitting on the side lines for this one, but to say Luke 14:26 teaches hate is nothing more than willful stupidity or outright lying.
Matthew 10: 37 (KJV) "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Two different men reporting the same words said by Christ. If the meaning was truly to hate, then Matthew would be wrong, and so would Christ, since he also said the two great commandments were to love God and love your neighbor.
The original Greek uses the word "μισεῖ" or in our alphabet "miséō", which indicates a moral choice in placing greater weight on one value or the other. Which is in accordance with the verse in Matthew.
So, no, only anti-Christians teach that Luke 14:@6 teaches hate.
Christ didn't.
So again, I believe it's either willful stupidity or outright lying that would make someone claim otherwise when the matter is easy to clarify and understand.
You didn't 'allow' yourself, you requested it.
"Or perhaps elaborate on why the Manifestos are superior to the Red Print in the Bible."
Why the can't GOD speak clearly then? You just get to pick and choose the interpretation which suits you. What's that called? Cafeteria Christianity?
At least admit that a book chock full of hate, violence and cruelty is perhaps not the best guide to morality??
The Manifestos do not literally say that your wealth should be seized and redistributed. That is your non-literal interpretation.
Whereas the Bible literally says if you don't think Jesus is God, you can burn in Hell forever.
""the term "hate" in your example from Luke 14:26 is also translated as "not love more than", and as "refuses to let go of", in other translations.""
Citation? I can't find anything that can confirm that. What Bible version?
Post a Comment