Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Hockeycowboy]

It's not what I say...it's how the Bible explains itself.

Matthew 6, part of the Sermon on the Mount, was all counsel, pretty much. The verses you linked, speak about serving two masters, putting one over the other inevitably happens...if each is a master over you. It doesn't say a person can't have money, just don't serve it. It's about your attitude toward money, is it your priority. And having it can lead to wanting more of it, i.e., greed; selfishness is actually the opposite of love for others. And this should be a priority for Christians. (Having love for others, I mean.) Even for your enemies. --Matthew 5:44

Many misquote 1 Timothy 6:9-10, saying 'money is the root of all evil'; but it doesn't say that....it's "the love of money is a root"; a desire for power could be a root, or cause, of someone hurting others.


Matthew 10 is about Jesus sending his followers out to preach. And no, they shouldn't accept money for it! Jesus said, "You received free, give free."

How different from Christendom!

It's late. Goodnight, my cousin!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not what I say...it's how the Bible explains itself.

Matthew 6, part of the Sermon on the Mount, was all counsel, pretty much. The verses you linked, speak about serving two masters, putting one over the other inevitably happens...if each is a master over you. It doesn't say a person can't have money, just don't serve it. It's about your attitude toward money, is it your priority. And having it can lead to wanting more of it, i.e., greed; selfishness is actually the opposite of love for others. And this should be a priority for Christians. (Having love for others, I mean.) Even for your enemies. --Matthew 5:44

Read the whole passage. It talks about how storing up of riches - not just love of money, but wealth in general - to be ready for the future shows a lack of faith in God.

The last passage I cited is the one that most explicitly condemns wealth:

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already.

"Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry.

Jesus condemns not only being rich, but having enough resources for food security.

So I'll ask you again: if an observant Christian living by Jesus's commandments wouldn't have enough wealth to guard against hunger for himself, how could he ever have enough to afford a slave?

Many misquote 1 Timothy 6:9-10, saying 'money is the root of all evil'; but it doesn't say that....it's "the love of money is a root"; a desire for power could be a root, or cause, of someone hurting others.

Like I just pointed out, other passages condemn not only the love of wealth, but the acquisition of wealth in general.

Matthew 10 is about Jesus sending his followers out to preach. And no, they shouldn't accept money for it! Jesus said, "You received free, give free."

Actually, I read it as saying the opposite: don't bring anything with you, because the people you preach to will provide for your needs.

In any case, that was just one example of where Jesus comes down against wealth. Like I said, I think the strongest one was the passage from Luke I quoted: "woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already."

In the context of the passage, where Jesus has just finished saying how the suffering and the persecuted will receive comfort in Heaven, the implication is that we choose between comfort on Earth or comfort in Heaven, and those who live a comfortable life on Earth will not receive comfort in Heaven.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They didn't. They sought (and garnered) power. The martyrdom (where it happened) was an unfortunate complication.

Please list here the power signifiers of the NT writers/apostles:

1.
2.
3.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That question doesn't even make sense.

I'll repeat, "How many selfish acts would it take for a person to ruin utopia?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you determine your own morality?


Because there aren't any conflicts. It's extremely easy to reconcile the two.

I disagree, therefore the OP.

Rape can propagate the species.

Rape is enjoyable for the perpetrator, not for the victim.

Your notions of evolution are not accurate and your notions of jurisprudence are just societal contrivances.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That maybe the only honest thing you have stated so far.

Good....baby steps is where I began, and now you have taken yours.

FYI - to find religion subjective is an understatement......in truth.....Christianity is incomplete.

So you are very correct.....you just can't realize what you are saying....well......is true.

As you were.

I will remain on the lookout for facts in evidence or logic regarding rape and the OP.

The above is new age rhetoric, without substance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In a purely natural system they don't exist. Matter is just matter, your brain is just matter, incapable of appreciating and valuing concepts like right or wrong, good or evil. According to Dawkins, "we dance to our genes". We are driven by the purely genetic drives to eat, procreate, survive. Anything is only right or wrong within this framework, and it really isn't right or wrong, it is only what is best to meet our genetically driven needs

There are two sides to rape: The rapist likes doing it, the victim doesn't.

Why does the victim "win" if good and evil are made up concepts?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That question doesn't make sense to me. Even when I was Christian I didn't believe right and wrong have weight/exist independently of mind. And most Christians say 'without God there would be no morals' which means they don't believe morals are a thing that exist independently of God's instruction either.
I just think:
A. their deity doesn't exist so
B. the morality outlined in the bible is no less human-derived than any other ethical system and
C. I'm not an authoritarian so I wouldn't value the Christian deity's perspective as being less subjective than anyone elses even if I believed it exists.
D. Even in non-authoritarian systems, I don't agree with morals by revelation or call to emotion or 'gut feeling'ism. But by a mix of utilitarian consequentialism and pragmatism

I have goals, things like maximizing happiness while reducing suffering in human society and ecological responsibility for humans and other animals. And I have an ethical system to outline the way I judge behavior and ideas to best meet those goals. But I can't force anyone else into thinking those goals are inofthemselves valuable. But I can make associations and build social ties with other people who share that goal.

Morals exist without God or the Bible and have weight. They weigh on our conscience!

If rapists do what you say and "make associations and build ties" with similarly minded people, and change laws to make rape legal, is rape WRONG?

It can be proven that right and wrong are existing, immaterial things.

2 + 2 = 4,509 is 100% wrong.

2 + 2 = 4 is 100% right.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, your questions make no sense. In what way can we measure a "utopia"?

A utopia is where you experience maximal pleasure and peace of mind. Man must be transformed to be allowed into Heaven.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think I am mocking anything. I just say what I see. And Swedes are famous for being quite direct and not so politically correct. Personally, I love the believer. I just find the belief is quite funny. Which is good. Movies like "the life of Brian" would not exist without religious belief. I include my past self as a believer, obviously.

Anyway, what is the problem with mocking, if any? You should be happy: isn't it a prophecy that you will be scoffed at for your beliefs? I am sure it is somewhere in the Bible. Even though, I could have made such a prophecy myself, since it is rather easy to fulfill.

But I am really curious. If someone ridicules my beliefs, or knowledge, then I cannot imagine myself being hurt in the slightest.

Ciao

- viole

In other words, if I mock you, you're okay, but if you mock me, it makes me feel bad, and since you only care about you, and care nothing for me, you will go on mocking me.

Additionally, the Bible says skeptics love to mock, and you love to mock, and you don't care that every time you mock me, it proves to me the Bible is true! THANKS FOR PROVING THE BIBLE SPEAKS THE TRUTH THAT SKEPTICS LOVE THEMSELVES, HATE BELIEVERS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thousands of followers, fame... it's kind of hard to measure their motivations 2000 years after the fact. But by your logic why would Mohamed do it? Or Joseph Smith? What about Buddha or Charles Russel? They can't have all done it because they were compelled by the one true god...

Muhammed, Smith, Russel had immense wealth, dozens of wives and concubines, adulation, fame . . . Jesus embraced a cross. Jesus compelled Himself to go to the cross for you, for me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is just priming for spinning way off topic of the thread, but no, we don't have to assert any absolute morals. What we assert is what our society places higher value in and why. And what tangible data can be used to determine what minimizes suffering and why, if we agree that minimal suffering is what we are going for. But it's not universal because we must first agree on definitions (or at least find consensus) and have the same goals.

For example suffering of forced continuance of pregnancy is greater than the suffering the fetus by the pregnancy ending. There's also arguments to be made about body autonomy and compromising human rights for reasons that have to do with calls to emotion. (Such as dissolving the rights of criminals for medical testing And that being cruel and unusual punishment.)

For homosexuality the suffering of homosexuals whoncant access the rights of marriage which helps a great deal with taxes, insurance, merging property and wealth, and helping with children (And yes, gays have kids too), is greater than Christians who never really controlled how marriage was defined in this country to begin with. And for consistency should np more be able to control if gays get married than if Satanists do.

And again, I don't believe Christians are making absolute moral claims. Because I don't agree that arguments from authority are absolute, or that moral instruction they receive from that authority aren't filtered through several subjective POVs. (The deity itself, the writers, translators and interpretors.)

I would claim that pregnancy and having one's own natural children is a blessing. Most mothers say the sickness in the morning and etc. was alright. My wife had a VERY hard labor with our firstborn and almost died, but counts it all joy.

Your compass isn't pointing north any longer because you are astray from God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If that's the case, how can I possibly answer your questions, since a utopia is essentially impossible?

Then you understand the gospel, which is a good thing:

1. Heaven is impossible for sinful man.

2. Jesus died to not only take us to Heaven, but to make us fit to reside there.

3. Trusting Christ transforms us.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you believe that rape isn't always wrong?


What are you talking about? Can you please try to remain on ONE subject at a time?

Rape is always wrong. If the Bible said it was okay, the Bible would be invalidated IMO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The morality of killing is not like rape, it does vary. It is never right to murder, but a person can be right to kill in self defense, etc......... So if someone said killing was absolutely wrong, they would in fact be wrong. Glad you looked it up and explained it, it makes perfect sense.

Let my give you two definitions that may save you time debating atheists about morality. Because they mean something entirely different by the term it is good to clarify this upfront.

Objective morality -
Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. .
Malum in se - Wikipedia

This is what theists mean by the term morality but this kind of morality cannot possibly exist without God.

Subjective morality, relative morality, or simply ethics -
Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

This is what atheists are talking about. To avoid confusion I ask them to refer to the first as morality and the second as ethics just to keep from talking past each other.

Also watch for them to respond to a claim about the nature (ontology) of morality with a response about how we come to know about (epistemology) morality. I used to warn them up front not to do so, but when I saw they would eventually do it anyway, I gave it up.

That's why I used rape in the OP as malum in se, not malum prohibitum.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am an atheist and recognize that the bible condemns rape. The prescribed biblical punishment in some cases is death, in other cases the rapist must pay the father of the victim 50 shekels I believe and has to marry the victim whom he can never divorce. What atheists are saying that the bible doesn't condemn rape?



I've never heard ANY sane person say rape wasn't bad, EVER. Regardless of their religious beliefs. This is just a ludicrous strawman argument.



This might be hard for you to understand but, you don't need an ancient book of mythology to understand what's right and wrong.



Perhaps you should take your own advice.



Yes, that's all your post was, a self-righteous rant lacking in any well-reasoned points that's only purpose was to insult a group of people that don't believe in your religion. However, since your beliefs lack any reasonable arguments or evidence to support it, ranting is all you've got.

Start reading at page one and you will see atheists saying "rape is bad societally here, but I can see how someone might not say it is a universally bad thing," just as predicted.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? I didn't in the OP. We both would know, deep down, that rape is always bad without a Bible in hand, yes?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure, I'll disagree with the assertion.

First of all, if it were universally evil it would also be something non-human animals wouldn't do this isn't true. Its not even universally evil to humans, as not every culture agrees on what is or isnt rape and how, if at all, it shoukd be punished.
And I as a human do not bother condemning animals (including human animals) who do not have the capacity to reason out potential harm (Such as animal rape or children [yes, it happens] or severely mentally handicapped individuals [yes, it happens.] )
Depending on how expansive a definition of rape we're talking about, there are situations of statutory rape which are illegal but not immoral to me, such as a 17 and 18 year old.
Further there are things in the bible condemned by me as immoral instances of rape which are not condemned by the vast majority of Christians.

Once again, as a consequentialist, my evaluation of what is morally incorrect behavior is not based on defining the behavior and labeling it categorically right and wrong, but assessing damage that a behavior causes before determining wrong. Absolutism (Especially based on authoritarianism) is not analytical enough for that, imo.

So far I haven't seen any situations where violence and coersion used to get sex hasn't resulted in unnecessary harm. So those instances of rape offend my moral compass as a consequentialist. But again, that's exactly what Israel did, on Gods instruction, during their conquest of the 'promised land.' So clearly not everyone will agree.

Please give us three examples, then, of where rape is not wrong:

1.

2.

3.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In this discussion, it is important to remember that many places today and many more in the past, that rape was not considered a possibility between a man and his wife. Essentially, it was considered that a husband owned his wife and so any sexual use was justified. Today, fortunately, some places realize that husbands having sex with their wives without permission should also be considered to be rape.

Similarly, it was not considered to be rape to have sex with someone 10 years old not all that long ago. Once again, we have come to our senses and realized that this also should be criminalized.

The point is that rape has been considered to be bad in most societies but the specifics of what counts as rape differ from one society to another. The upshot is that it is *society* that defines rape and not some overarching morality.

Fortunately again, we have learned to be more compassionate about the effects our actions have on others. We have learned to value the pain and suffering of women whose pain and suffering would have been ignored before. The *reason* we have progressed in this way is that we allowed our humanist impulses expand and have realized that morality comes from compassion and a sense of fairness more than whether some deity approves or not.

But humanist morality, as opposed to theist morality, can take into consideration human pain and suffering and value it over adherence to some scriptures that only serve to increase such pain and suffering. In this way, atheism is a much stronger foundation for morality than theism ever could be.

I disagree, since in your post above, clearly rape is subjectively, not objectively, wrong. I'd say you have a "foundation" that is subject to human whims and popular/majority votes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do i have to acquit some rapists guilty of rape if they do condone rape? I cannot think of such circumstance.

If some rapists think it's right for them to condone rape, it's their own opinion.

To me, in my opinion, their behaviour is always wrong, i'll never say that their behaviour is right.

Yet another skeptic says "rape is conditionally, subjectively wrong."

To me, in my opinion, their behaviour is always wrong.

No, to EVERYONE, who has ever lived, rape is always wrong. Even those who commit rape are sinning against their guilty consciences.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

** Blind Post **

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Today's rant is concluded.

I agree that atheists as a whole, are neither immune to innocent of "holier than though". But here, in this rant, I think the main point of the atheist objection is missed.

What is missed is this: The Bible is held by many theists as a book of moral absolutes; yet in spite of that belief that it holds moral absolutes, theists in our cultures hold to moral standards that either are not explicitly stated in the "Book of Moral Absolutes". For example, most theists would hold slavery as being an inherently immoral act; which is not expressly condemned in the "Book of Moral Absolutes". In fact, in the New Testament, slaves are advised to "obey their masters"; so if you are a slave, you are ordered by God himself to obey your owner; yet theists today will condemn slavery. We all also know that "spousal rape" is "rape"; yet if we follow the teachings of Paul, a woman is to submit herself to her husband "in all things" as the "husband is the head of he house as the Lord is the head of the church"; which really implies that for my wife to disobey my command to lie with me, she disobeys God himself.

As an athiest, I do not necesarily believe in "righteousness" or "sinfulness" due to the religious connotations of these words; but as an atheist, I certainly believe in "right" and "wrong"; "moral" and "immoral".

One last note for my rant:

I find it interesting that the theist will fault the atheist for being a "moral relativist" (not all of us are, btw) yet when confronted about such things as genocide and other parts of the Bible that do not conform to today's moral standards, the theist often responds with, "Well, it was right for the time"; which is the precise definition of moral relativism ....