Polygamists and Pedophiles want to know . . .
When will love, rather than sexual propriety, define marriage?
Polygamist and pedophile rights are human rights!
Love is not a gender, a number, or an age.
Our love isn't a political agenda!
God made us ALL equal!
Stop the bigotry and let ALL people get married.
Brought to you by CIDASGM, the Center for Insanely Dumb Arguments Supporting Gay Marriage.
Your problem with polygamy is a secular objection, not a religious one. It can't be. Otherwise, you'd be condemning the patriarchs and fathers of the faith you claim to uphold. Abraham had not one, not two but THREE wives (one of them his half-sister, Sarah). Kings David and Solomon had scores of wives. Solomon had not only hundreds of wives but hundreds of concubines as well (that's the old-fashioned word for what we today call "hos").
ReplyDeleteThere's no record of them having repented of polygamy, per se (David's "sin" was that he took another man's wife and had the man murdered).
Further, orthodox Jewish tradition allowed minor females to marry (this means under the age of 18). Often it was to other minor boys, but sometimes it was to men over 18.
"Your problem with polygamy is a secular objection, not a religious one."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. My point here is that these arguments would support marriage between all groups, and possibly creatures. I'm saying nothing here of what my problem with the behaviors above might be.
However, if you must know, polygamy is tolerated by God in the OT, even though it is said not to be His ideal, simply because it is still procreative. Pedophilia is never tolerated and neither is homosexuality.
We can argue over the age of 18 as cultural. I completely concur that it is. In some states, people marry at 16. But marrying a bona fide child at an age that even the rabbis would see them as children, is an evil that I can decry because of my religious reasons. What secular reasons would you give to condemn either one of these practices? And would it discredit the above arguments that are given to legitimate homosexual marriage?
"There's no record of them having repented of polygamy . . ."
ReplyDeleteWhy would there be. There is no law against it. Jesus tells us that it was not God's ideal plan for man, but there was no law in the OT that condemned it. He draws out the principle from the OT and condemns it in the New, but this is not a law they were bound to obey. That's like saying they should have repented of not believing the Trinity because they are unaware of it in the OT.
"My point here is that these arguments would support marriage between all groups, and possibly creatures"
ReplyDeleteWe grant powers-of-attorney to gay men on behalf of their partners. By your logic, we must therefore grant powers-of-attorney to a man and his sheep then? This is proposterous. Civil contracts require reciprocal human consent, whether it's marriage or anything else.
"What secular reasons would you give to condemn either one of these practices?"
Same reasons we deny alcohol to youths under 21 as well as other types of things available to adults: we've come to agreement as a culture about where the line in the sand is regarding reasonable maturity. There are measurable, quantifiable ways of coming to these conclusions. Because the line is based on age (and thus applies to everyone), it discriminates against no one.
Is that a "moral" assessment? I suppose in a way it is, but it's based on shared cultural values that are not specifically religious (that is, they cut across multiple religious beliefs).
"There is no law against it."
For some reason, I thought you were critiquing polygamy as unbiblical or anti-biblical (when clearly it is not).
"We grant powers-of-attorney to gay men on behalf of their partners. By your logic, we must therefore grant powers-of-attorney to a man and his sheep then? This is proposterous. Civil contracts require reciprocal human consent, whether it's marriage or anything else."
ReplyDeleteSo children and multiple wives aren't humans who can give consent? Oh, and where did the law of consent come in? I just argued that if love defines who can get married then your current laws are oppressive (which is exactly what gay marriage is arguing).
"Same reasons we deny alcohol to youths under 21 as well as other types of things available to adults: we've come to agreement as a culture about where the line in the sand is regarding reasonable maturity. There are measurable, quantifiable ways of coming to these conclusions. Because the line is based on age (and thus applies to everyone), it discriminates against no one.
Is that a "moral" assessment? I suppose in a way it is, but it's based on shared cultural values that are not specifically religious (that is, they cut across multiple religious beliefs)."
And the Greeks concluded as a culture that having sex with young boys was a good thing. And Nazis concluded as a culture that Jews aren't humans who have rights to life. So what? Cultural taboo is arbitrary and thus all may work to change those laws. Hence, what I said above stands.
"For some reason, I thought you were critiquing polygamy as unbiblical or anti-biblical (when clearly it is not)."
Um, I don't think you're paying attention. It is unbiblical. The Bible has to be taken as a whole as the Word of God, which means you can't just read part of it and think you know what it says about a topic. The only prescriptive teaching concerning marriage are in Genesis 1-2 as they are interpreted by Jesus.
btw, before the irony of the argument made by James above escapes anyone, I should point out that we, as a culture, have decided against gay marriage. That's why Prop 8 exists. It's not the culture, but liberals in high places seeking to overturn the will of the people. So now dictators can define morality for all of us.
ReplyDeleteBy that logic all we have to do is wait 5 to 10 years until gay marriage passes in every state. And why shouldn't we just have left it up to the states to vote on slavery and civil rights? Oh yeah we did that, and Mississippi just made slavery illegal last month.
DeleteI'm not the one who sees the will of the people as the standard for morality in our society. If one is arguing that society decides morality, then that works against the reversal of Prop 8. If it's only the elite within society, then you can have them overturn it. My point is neither the people or the elite get to define what is moral. They simply can decide on civil laws, but not morality.
DeleteOk. So then you should have no problem continuing to believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, while it becomes legal. I guess that's pretty much what you are going to have to deal with anyway.
DeleteBCHodge asks " Oh, and where did the law of consent come in?"
ReplyDeleteCertainly not from the Judeo-Christian tradition. According to Deuteronomy, if a woman was raped, the man was required to marry her, whatever the woman happened to think about the matter. Certainly consent was never given any consideration by the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention (such as Richard Furman) who argued for the slave trade as a divine institution and who used other people against their will for their own profit and gain.
Maybe you should ask the Catholic Church if they ever bothered to get the consent of the children who were raped by the pedophiles they've shielded from the law for decades (if not longer).
Most of us are not interested in basing our civil laws on the morality of religious fanatics. Wherever that occurs, tyranny and bloodshed results. Just go ask the Anabaptists who were expelled by that thug, John Calvin, while in Geneva, or Michael Servetus who was burned alive. Go ask the conversos of Spain how well the morality of the Catholic Church worked for them. When they weren't being expelled from their homes, they were finding nails driven into their skulls ... if not worse.
Sorry, pal. Not interested in what you're selling.
James,
ReplyDeleteYour inability to track an argument is astounding. You're just shooting at whatever you can without answering any of my clear and rational refutations of your nonsensical arguments.
" According to Deuteronomy, if a woman was raped, the man was required to marry her, whatever the woman happened to think about the matter."
Liberal fanatics like yourself need to put these tired arguments to rest. The woman's father had a choice between choosing to give his daughter in marriage or taking a financial remuneration in order to take care of her. Apparently, if you had been god of the ancients, you would have thought it better to let the raped woman remain abandoned, barren, and die in poverty. You know nothing of what a woman would have wanted in such a terrifying situation. The law is attempting to care for her, which is the point of all of the case laws in Deuteronomy (to seek care for the oppressed). It's easy to snipe at such things from the comfort of your lazyboy.
The rest of what your rhetoric has nothing to do with what I've argued, so I can only chalk it up to your irrational emoting.
"Most of us are not interested in basing our civil laws on the morality of religious fanatics. Wherever that occurs, tyranny and bloodshed results."
Oh, I agree. I say we all set up laws without any worldview at all by giving ourselves a lobotomy. Other than that, since it's impossible to not operate from some religious opinion, and we are all dogmatic about what we think, a lack of religious fanaticism is impossible, as everyone is a religious fanatic. So, I can only assume that you are arguing against a specific type of religious fanaticism characteristic within Christian circles. I'll also assume by your own words here that you feel the secular Utopias of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are something to which your group should aspire. I guess you're buying a lot of what they're selling?
"Liberal fanatics like yourself need to put these tired arguments to rest. The woman's father had a choice between choosing to give his daughter in marriage or taking a financial remuneration in order to take care of her. Apparently, if you had been god of the ancients, you would have thought it better to let the raped woman remain abandoned, barren, and die in poverty. You know nothing of what a woman would have wanted in such a terrifying situation. The law is attempting to care for her, which is the point of all of the case laws in Deuteronomy (to seek care for the oppressed). It's easy to snipe at such things from the comfort of your lazyboy."
DeleteAnd what if the raped woman didn't want to be forced to marry her rapist? What then? Tough luck? What if she didn't get pregnant? She'd basically be in the same situation as if she was married and her husband died shortly thereafter. If the laws were designed to care for her, why not just leave out the part about being forced to marry the rapist and just leave in the part about the financial compensation? Then she could marry him if they were both willing. But then god would have to care about individual rights, which of course he doesn't.
It seems to me that with such a law in place, if I wanted a wife that didn't want me back, all I'd have to do is rape her, and she could be forced to be mine. That actually can encourage rape.
The problem is that your mixing modern ideas with ancient ones and then coming out with nonsense like "that encourages rape." No, it doesn't. In the ancient world, you would just ask for the woman from her father in marriage. Men raped women because they wanted to have sex with them without having to financially care for them. The law addresses that by saying that they will still have to financially care for them either way. Hence, it discourages rape.
Delete"And what if the raped woman didn't want to be forced to marry her rapist? What then? Tough luck? What if she didn't get pregnant? She'd basically be in the same situation as if she was married and her husband died shortly thereafter. If the laws were designed to care for her, why not just leave out the part about being forced to marry the rapist and just leave in the part about the financial compensation?"
DeleteYou don't get it. She's not forced to marry him. The father decides and the woman would want to be cared for. It was their primary concern in life, i.e., survival. You need to realize that ancients don't function off of romantic novels and movies like we do. If the situation allows, the marry when they love the person, but that was not often the case. That's why when Tamar is raped by her half brother, she is extremely upset that he's not going to marry her now. A modern mind finds that unthinkable, but that is how the ancients thought. Your comments, again, are simply ethnocentric.
And since you don't want any religious basis for laws, what is wrong with polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. Don't assume any special place for humans in your argument. Humans are just matter. Don't bring religion or human worth gained from some exalted view of man or God here. Just give me a basis for morality that is purely secular. OK, go.
ReplyDeleteBC Hodge writes: "Apparently, if you had been god of the ancients, you would have thought it better to let the raped woman remain abandoned, barren, and die in poverty"
ReplyDeleteSo I'm to believe that the God of the Bible -- who can turn water to wine, part the sea, make snakes and donkeys speak with a human voice -- can only do justice to the victim of rape by making her wake up to the face of the man who raped her? That's the best He can do? If you can believe that, there's really no limit to what you'll believe, is there?
By the way, I noticed you ignored the slavery question. No comment?
Why do you liberals always sidetrack arguments? Is it that you can't deal with what I actually said, so you need to replay the talking points?
ReplyDeleteYour points have nothing to do with what I've said.
But, again, so that you can know how racist and ethnocentric your arguments are:
Slavery exists in a fallen world that God desired to exist to accomplish His purposes. So did rape. God does not destroy evil by taking it out of the world or making its effects null and void. He deals with it through righteous instruction of His people. What that means is that they need to deal with those things in the world in a way so as to preserve human life through them. And that's what those laws do. If you don't like that, or think you have a better way for evil to exist in the world and for good to answer it, too bad. You have no ability to assess right and wrong in terms of the ultimate cosmic goals of a divine being. You're an ant complaining that God made trails for His creatures to follow rather than fly them there Himself. Your self-righteous condemnation of God's ability to preserve life through evil acts is superficial and hollow.
And I noticed that you didn't answer the question I posed to you.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, my reasons are biblical, because you need revelation from God in order to have any objective standard upon which your morality is based. Otherwise, you just have to convince or force your views on others.
ReplyDeleteThe biblical understanding of ethics is based in the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply. It is the goal of God to fill up the earth with human beings as opposed to have a dead world without humans. Hence, anything that creates and preserves human life that represents God is good. Anything that works against that is evil, as it works toward chaos rather than creation. Hence, giving to the poor, preventing murder, sheltering the homeless, and sexual acts that are procreative all work toward creation and the preservation of human life. Sexual acts, such as pedophilia and bestiality are wrong because they don't work toward human life. Slavery can be either good or bad in the ancient world depending upon whether it works to preserve human life or works against it. I said nothing about why slavery should exist in our world. We have no need of it and it is only a bad thing in our world.
As for polygamy, it was tolerated because it can still work toward human life, but it disrupts the order of the family unit and often disrupts the nurture of the children. Hence, the ideal is for one man and one woman to have children and raise them in a family.
There are my pearls. Will you trample them underfoot, and by what absolute ethical standard do you condemn these other than your society just views them as taboo?
"Otherwise, you just have to convince or force your views on others."
DeleteAll laws and morals have to be forced onto others no matter where they originate from. So this is not an argument.
"It is the goal of God to fill up the earth with human beings as opposed to have a dead world without humans."
So two elderly people cannot marry and have sex since they've lost the ability to procreate? An infertile woman cannot marry either since she cannot bear children? According to you every sex act she could ever have would be an abomination since it will never lead to offspring. Why would god design such a dilemma to a person?
And what if our population becomes too high that there isn't enough food to feed us all? Is it still a good idea for a woman to get pregnant every time she has sex?
"We have no need of it and it is only a bad thing in our world."
So when exactly did slavery become bad? When man decided it was bad? When government took care of the weak? By what justification do you have for man altering morality and moral laws as situations change under a worldview of divine command theory of ethics?
"by what absolute ethical standard do you condemn these other than your society just views them as taboo?"
I don't believe in absolute morality, and neither do you. We both agree morality is situationally relative. But we can have the same principle in every situation. Since I don't have room here to fully explain, if you want to hear my justification of objective morality without god, see this link: http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/a-case-for-secular-morality-objective.html
One more thing...you said:
Delete"you need revelation from God in order to have any objective standard upon which your morality is based."
Muslims have revelation from god and they believe polygamy and child marriage is alright because god commands it. So now we have a problem here, two different people are founding their morality in god and we're getting two different results.
Now of course you'd say Muslims don't have revelation from god, and I'd agree with you, but they'd say the same thing about you, and I'd also agree with them. So tell me, without secularism, without a principle of separating religion from government, without our moral values and laws being based on the most informed, most pragmatic, most practical and rational, and the most scientific and evidence based reasons that are humanly available, how do you propose we resolve this problem?
B C Hodge: If it were somehow proven that the entirety of the Bible was fiction, are you suggesting that you'd simply not know how to act and that you'd resort to pedophilia, rape and cannibalism? Even I doubt that.
ReplyDelete"The biblical understanding of ethics is based in the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply. "
That's not the definition of morality, not even according to Scripture. Christ said there would be "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven. He also told some men to abandon their families to follow Him. Were these general recommendations for all of humanity, do you suppose?
"I'd like to hear your reasons why polygamy is wrong, pedophilia is wrong, bestiality is wrong"
Polygamy: People are free to live as they wish. As it stands, it's legal for one man to shack up with 20 women. Personally, I wouldn't advise it: it's good for the man, bad for the women. It usually involves a bunch of religious propaganda sold to them by Mormon fundamentalists who insist that they should deny their reasonable desires for exclusivity and attention. That being said, it's none of my business. Again, Scripture doesn't seem to address it as a moral evil, either, so why do you care?
Pedophilia? The damages due to child molestation are well-known and measurable (as are the damages caused by rape). It's a fundamental rejection of the child's freedom and autonomy. A society that denies the concept of consent will not survive (which is why late-term abortion is problematic).
"If it were somehow proven that the entirety of the Bible was fiction, are you suggesting that you'd simply not know how to act and that you'd resort to pedophilia, rape and cannibalism? Even I doubt that."
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about what I would personally do. I, like you, have been heavily influenced by a Christian ethic, as opposed to one of a cannibalistic tribe, a polytheistic or pedophiliac one, etc. The issue is warrant and arguing why it is wrong beyond cultural taboo or acceptance.
"That's not the definition of morality, not even according to Scripture. Christ said there would be "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven. He also told some men to abandon their families to follow Him. Were these general recommendations for all of humanity, do you suppose?"
Actually, it is. The command is given to human couples. Singles can fulfill the principle of preserving human life in various ways, but a human couple is to work toward creation of life as well in their sexual acts. For that reason, singles are to abstain from sex (i.e., become eunuchs)because their sexual activity would work against the mandate.
"Again, Scripture doesn't seem to address it as a moral evil, either, so why do you care?"
It's actually not ideal for the children, and thus works against nurture and preservation. Hence, the Bible does speak against it, specifically in Jesus' teaching the one man and one woman are to be united for life.
"Pedophilia? The damages due to child molestation are well-known and measurable (as are the damages caused by rape). It's a fundamental rejection of the child's freedom and autonomy. A society that denies the concept of consent will not survive (which is why late-term abortion is problematic)."
I agree, but people have argued against this throughout history by saying that the damage is only due to the psychological effects of religions telling children that it's dirty. In any case, whatever is concluded, it's just the personal opinion of you and the culture. You come at it from a psychological perspective, but cheeseburgers are damaging to children too. Yet, they're legal. There is well documented evidence that suicide rates are higher among homosexuals. Again, the same argument is applied to that in saying that such is due to religious shaming of the act as dirty rather than to the act itself.
Also, the bit about freedom and autonomy is an American ideal not shared in many societies throughout history, and yet those societies have survived just fine. Again, you can argue for your opinion on why you think this or that is the best course of law or not, but it is not an objective standard. It's merely pragmatic, looking to the effects and toward an ethic of human life and preservation, which is what the Bible argues for, but without the objective basis in God for seeking such a goal.
All laws and morals have to be forced onto others no matter where they originate from. So this is not an argument.
ReplyDelete"It is the goal of God to fill up the earth with human beings as opposed to have a dead world without humans."
"So two elderly people cannot marry and have sex since they've lost the ability to procreate? An infertile woman cannot marry either since she cannot bear children? According to you every sex act she could ever have would be an abomination since it will never lead to offspring. Why would god design such a dilemma to a person?"
He doesn't. You don't understand the ethic. These are tired old arguments that the Bible addresses. The male and female union is one where God creates children and He also makes barren. If He chooses to give children to the elderly, which He does to Sarah, He can. The issue is whether the humans will participate in that sexual act through which He may or may not decide to create human life.
"And what if our population becomes too high that there isn't enough food to feed us all? Is it still a good idea for a woman to get pregnant every time she has sex?"
The Bible tells us to move out and cultivate more land. We have plenty of resources. Overpopulation is a localized problem, not a global one. The answer isn't, Let's reduce the human population, but rather, Let's spread out. Otherwise, I could make the same argument for withholding welfare from the poor and murder being acceptable, since there are too many humans and we need to reduce the population.
And women don't get pregnant every time they have sex. That's biologically impossible and God works through the biology He has made.
"So when exactly did slavery become bad? When man decided it was bad? When government took care of the weak? By what justification do you have for man altering morality and moral laws as situations change under a worldview of divine command theory of ethics?"
You don't get it. Slavery isn't commanded in the Bible as an ethic. That's not even a right category. Its seen as a neutral institution that can be used or abused. I didn't say that slavery was bad. I said that there is no need of it in our culture, and since it has been so horribly abused in our country, it's better that we've rid ourselves of it altogether. Yike, even the Bible says it's better to not be a slave, so where you getting the idea that all are commanded in the Bible to participate in slavery as an absolute moral principle is beyond me. The principle is what creates and preserves human life as God intends it. If slavery was used to work against that, and it was, then it was bad. If slavery was used to work for it, and it sometimes was (Abraham's servant, Joseph and Daniel in the Bible come to mind) then it was good. But the institution itself is neutral. It's what surrounds it and how it is used that makes it good or bad. For us, the only reason it would exist is for a bad use (oppression, racism, etc.), as we have other things in place of the good use of it.
"I don't believe in absolute morality, and neither do you. We both agree morality is situationally relative."
Yes, I do. You don't have one. I have absolute moral principles from which individual ethics stem. You don't have that. You're confusing objective and subjective again by simply making a subjective argument. You have no objective basis for morality.
God doesn't create infertility? Than who does, the devil?
Delete"The Bible tells us to move out and cultivate more land. We have plenty of resources."
Where is the land? We've chopped down most of the world's forests, farmed all of the cultivable land. You're living in the middle ages if you think we can all have 10 kids and everything will be all right. Have you ever been to China? I have. They're packed in like sardines in cities with 10 to 20 million people. And their cities are extremely polluted. Why not be smart and have smaller families? Oh wait, I forgot, your ethical standards don't allow you to be pragmatic.
"And women don't get pregnant every time they have sex. That's biologically impossible and God works through the biology He has made."
I obviously didn't mean that to be literal. You obviously can't tell hyperbole.
I suppose I wouldn't expect any better from someone in the 21st century who can't tell slavery is wrong.
"Yes, I do. You don't have one. I have absolute moral principles from which individual ethics stem. You don't have that. You're confusing objective and subjective again by simply making a subjective argument. You have no objective basis for morality."
You morals are based on the opinion of a bunch of desert dwelling Jews. There's nothing objective about it at all. And since your ethics can't even allow you to call slavery wrong, it doesn't appear to be working too well. That's why divine command theory ethics is classified as under "subjectivism" in ethical theories. The Muslim and Mormon can make the same exact argument that you can with the same amount of evidence backing it up: nothing.
"God doesn't create infertility? Than who does, the devil?"
DeleteWhat? I'm speaking about what humans are to do. Obviously, I believe that God causes both fertility and infertility. Again, you want to make morality flat and assume that whatever a man should not do, God should not do either. That's nonsensical.
"Have you ever been to China?"
Yep. And I've actually flown over it and spent most of my time in the countryside. Guess what? Your perspective is completely from the cities. The land is vastly underpopulated and uncultivated. The cities are overpopulated. Ergo, spread out. If we do your way, then we should actually start killing people in China to reduce population because it's already overcrowded in the cities.
If we all spread out we will have to cut down more trees and more wilderness, and that is the exact opposite of what we should do. China is a mostly mountains and desert, there is little land for use to cultivate and live in, unless you want to live on a 45 degree incline prone to mudslides. There's no way 7 billion people can spread out, and certainly not once it's 12 billion in 50 years.
Delete"If we do your way, then we should actually start killing people in China to reduce population because it's already overcrowded in the cities."
Another absurd assumption from a man who cannot even discern what to do in a moral dilemma. I think a much better idea would simply be to use a condom or a birth control pill.
"If we all spread out we will have to cut down more trees and more wilderness, and that is the exact opposite of what we should do."
DeleteYes, let's make sure that the earth is filled with trees instead of humans. I think we've done just fine with an equal balance thus far. The issues we have are a matter of waste, not human habitation.
"China is a mostly mountains and desert, there is little land for use to cultivate and live in, unless you want to live on a 45 degree incline prone to mudslides. There's no way 7 billion people can spread out, and certainly not once it's 12 billion in 50 years."
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is plenty of land in between those mountains and people already live there. They are just few in number because cities attract the greatest amount of people.
"Another absurd assumption from a man who cannot even discern what to do in a moral dilemma. I think a much better idea would simply be to use a condom or a birth control pill."
Another ad hominem from a man who can't make a real argument. You didn't understand, yet again, what I said. If the problem is overpopulation now, and the solution is reduction of human population, rather than to spread out or make use of space, then you cannot reduce the human population that exists now with birth control. You're giving bc as a future solution, but why is it OK in the future to reduce humans but not now as a solution? It seems you and Mao have equal solutions. Atheists think alike I guess. Just glad you aren't in charge.
"All laws and morals have to be forced onto others no matter where they originate from. So this is not an argument."
ReplyDeleteYes, it is, because we're talking about the establishment of those laws and morals. Who gets to decide and why? And if everyone disagrees, you have to force them to comply to morals with which they do not agree just because you think they're right even though others think they're wrong.
"Now of course you'd say Muslims don't have revelation from god, and I'd agree with you, but they'd say the same thing about you, and I'd also agree with them. So tell me, without secularism, without a principle of separating religion from government, without our moral values and laws being based on the most informed, most pragmatic, most practical and rational, and the most scientific and evidence based reasons that are humanly available, how do you propose we resolve this problem?"
ReplyDeleteSo your answer is to shun the two worldviews with which you don't agree and go with your worldview? How do you propose we resolve the problem that secularism is still a religious belief and worldview that is making a claim about morality as equal to the claims made by Christians and Muslims? The way I would deal with that is exclude secularism outright because it clearly cannot decide what is right and wrong. It has no basis for it. It can only decide what it wants to do, not what really should be done according to objective moral principles. And I would then argue that Islam is false and Christianity is true and that morality must be based on Christian principles. What would you think I would argue for, secular ethics? Even though I don't believe the state decides moral issues, I do believe the state needs to be informed of its particular duties concerning morality, and that means that some worldview is always going to be informing its laws.
Secularism is not a religious belief, we went over that already. There is no equivalent in the secular moral theories and religious ones. One aims to base moral laws on the most informed, most pragmatic, most practical and rational, and the most scientific and evidence based reasons that are humanly available; and the other bases morality on what some people wrote in a book from centuries ago. That's like having an unchanging adherence to medical standards from a medical book from the 1920s. It's outdated.
DeleteClearly two completely different methods.
"The way I would deal with that is exclude secularism outright because it clearly cannot decide what is right and wrong. It has no basis for it."
And this is coming from a guy who thinks human slavery is morally neutral. Tell that to an angry black man.
"And I would then argue that Islam is false and Christianity is true and that morality must be based on Christian principles."
Oh so you do what to force Christian principles onto others. You have every right to impose them on yourself, but you have no right to impose them onto me.
"some worldview is always going to be informing its laws."
Right. we tried using Christian values and we got the Salem Witch trials and 300 years of slavery. I don't think it went that well. Christian values can only really work if it is voluntary. It can't be forced by the law. Our moral laws need to be informed by evidence, reason and science, not ancient books.
" One aims to base moral laws on the most informed, most pragmatic, most practical and rational, and the most scientific and evidence based reasons that are humanly available; and the other bases morality on what some people wrote in a book from centuries ago."
DeleteWe have discussed this before and I refuted you. Unfortunately, you don't realize it. Reasons are not simply practical and rational and science based without first having a worldview to interpret what is practical, rational, and the right conclusions of science. That's clear to everyone who has a grip on epistemology. It's completely unclear to you.
"And this is coming from a guy who thinks human slavery is morally neutral. Tell that to an angry black man."
Another brilliant reply. It's ironic that the very ethnocentricism that cannot understand other cultures as equal to one's own is what led to the abusive form of slavery that made the black man so angry in the first place. Your "my modern Western view is so much more superior to everyone else" is the way of the Nazi, not tolerance and understanding.
"Oh so you do what to force Christian principles onto others. You have every right to impose them on yourself, but you have no right to impose them onto me."
LOL. Two things here. First, I said "argue for" not "force," so your statement is a strawman. Second, it's funny that you're the one who said that all laws are forced upon others, and that you would base law in your worldview. So no one has the right to impose their laws on you, but you have the right to impose your laws on all others because you're more enlightened (Mao and Pol Pot would be proud).
"Right. we tried using Christian values and we got the Salem Witch trials and 300 years of slavery. I don't think it went that well. Christian values can only really work if it is voluntary. It can't be forced by the law. Our moral laws need to be informed by evidence, reason and science, not ancient books."
Yes, don't mention the fact that we're still functioning off of Christian values in our laws. Just mention those periods where people claiming to be Christians ran the state contrary to Christian principles. Good one. You should mention the Crusades and then the Inquisition next, as that seems to be the only thing you know of what a Christian state would actually look like.
And, again, reason and science don't function without a priori ultimate beliefs, so you are simply imposing your faith on others.
"Reasons are not simply practical and rational and science based without first having a worldview to interpret what is practical, rational, and the right conclusions of science."
DeleteYou basically think that the only way we can come to moral knowledge is through the bible, which is highly interpretative and vague at best in most areas. Now I know why Lutherans are so highly critical of Calvinists like you. They at least understand that we possess a moral compass and can understand morality without a bible on hand. You apparently wouldn't know your way out of a moral dilemma if it were a wet paper bag.
"Your "my modern Western view is so much more superior to everyone else" is the way of the Nazi, not tolerance and understanding."
Straw man....if it only had a brain. There is something about moral evaluation that can discern the virtue of an action. You obviously have no sense of morality whatsoever, which is why you assume everyone else is as morally blind as you. If you had no bible, how would you evaluate the morality of an action? What would you use to calculate its goodness or lack of goodness? It seems to me you'd be totally lost in this exercise.
"Second, it's funny that you're the one who said that all laws are forced upon others, and that you would base law in your worldview. So no one has the right to impose their laws on you, but you have the right to impose your laws on all others because you're more enlightened (Mao and Pol Pot would be proud)."
Everyone gets laws imposed on them they don't like. I don't like the drug laws, but I don't get to have my way. History lesson: We live in a secular democracy. In a secular democracy we do not base laws on things that are purely religious observances. That would include things like prohibiting eating pork, or forcing women to cover their hair, or forbidding someone else from worshiping an idol. A secular law must be made using a rational, evidence-based secular argument where there is no appeal to religious authority. When this is violated, it is a violation of secularism.
"Yes, don't mention the fact that we're still functioning off of Christian values in our laws."
Don't forget the wisdom of ancient Greece and enlightenment philosophers who were deists who gave us our freedom that you enjoy everyday.
"You should mention the Crusades and then the Inquisition next, as that seems to be the only thing you know of what a Christian state would actually look like."
Why not? You mentioned Pol Pot and Mao, as if atheism is the same as communism. Is Christianity the same as theocracy? No. Nether is secularism the same as communism. Just look at Western Europe today. Get over it.
I'm so glad that I represent the winning end of this debate. Fundees like you will be slowly dying out overtime and I can't wait until you're all just a tiny fringe minority clinging on to your annotated bibles shouting out nonsense that no one listens to. The future looks good.
"You basically think that the only way we can come to moral knowledge is through the bible,"
DeleteYou basically think that monkeys can decide the great questions of the universe.
There, now we've equally both made assertions that have nothing to do with what is being argued. Try and follow an actual argument, because this is getting tiring.
"Straw man....if it only had a brain. There is something about moral evaluation that can discern the virtue of an action."
LOL. I.e., "my modern Western view is so much more superior to everyone else." Thanks for proving that you argued exactly what I said you did and then called it a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Because I didn't give you one. I noted EXACTLY what you've been doing this whole time.
"You obviously have no sense of morality whatsoever, which is why you assume everyone else is as morally blind as you."
I don't assume that I am blind because I have revelation from God, but your next statement is true.
"If you had no bible, how would you evaluate the morality of an action? What would you use to calculate its goodness or lack of goodness? It seems to me you'd be totally lost in this exercise."
Exactly. And my point is that SO ARE YOU. You just don't have no clue how lost you are. You're still assuming all sorts of things about the worth and rights and value of humans that is based on biblical ethics, not secular ethics. Secular ethics is nothing more than "use others for your own survival." Anything else is not secular ethics, but you don't get that because your assumptions run too deep.
"A secular law must be made using a rational, evidence-based secular argument where there is no appeal to religious authority. When this is violated, it is a violation of secularism."
Yeah, I know. I refuted this before. There is no such thing as a system of law and ethics that is not based in some religious worldview. Again, you're clueless.
"Why not? You mentioned Pol Pot and Mao, as if atheism is the same as communism. Is Christianity the same as theocracy? No. Nether is secularism the same as communism. Just look at Western Europe today. Get over it."
No, Pol Pot and Mao are regimes based on true atheism. One must force others to comply in an atheistic system when they do not agree. There is no objective standard to decide between them. Hence, they were being consistent with atheism when they did what they did. The same is not true of Christianity. Christianity does not call the government to execute people for not believing or following other religions. Ergo, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc. were not Christian governments acting in accordance with Christianity but in accordance with folk religion, and ironically, were more consistent with atheism.
"I'm so glad that I represent the winning end of this debate. Fundees like you will be slowly dying out overtime and I can't wait until you're all just a tiny fringe minority clinging on to your annotated bibles shouting out nonsense that no one listens to. The future looks good."
Oh, I agree. You are winning. That's because our society is becoming dumber by the minute, and your comments represent that well. Kudos.
[Slavery is] seen as a neutral institution that can be used or abused.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you would say that if you or someone you loved were used as property against their will for the selfish gain of another. I'd think you'd come to see it as a moral evil pretty quickly.
Now see this is interesting, though. Here I am, someone who sees nuance in many ethical issues ranging from contraception to war to cloning and other medical ethics, yet I don't see slavery as a very "morally neutral" action. Taking someone against their will and forcing them into servitude for your own gain is about as selfish as it gets, isn't it?
Frankly, I can't figure out which direction you're coming from. Slavery is morally neutral, you say, yet contraception -- even when used by married couples who have had children -- seems to be (at least according to your links) a more obvious "evil"? Based on what?
How do you make decisions on issues not addressed by Scripture when your hierarchy of values seems so ... incoherent?
"Now see this is interesting, though. Here I am, someone who sees nuance in many ethical issues ranging from contraception to war to cloning and other medical ethics, yet I don't see slavery as a very "morally neutral" action. Taking someone against their will and forcing them into servitude for your own gain is about as selfish as it gets, isn't it?"
ReplyDeleteWell, if you define slavery that way, of course, that would be evil, since it's not done for the good of the other, the good of God, the good of His people, or the good of society as a whole. The problem is that slavery in the ancient world isn't limited to that definition. You had people put themselves into slavery. You had people put into slavery as an alternative to killing them in war as a mercy upon them. You had people born into slavery. You also had people redeemed from abusive slave owners by benevolent slave owners. So the ethic remains the same. If something works toward the creation or preservation of human life as God meant it, that is good. If something works against the creation or preservation of human life as God meant it, that's bad. There is no incoherency here at all. I just don't think you see how it's all linked. And, of course, you keep assuming that the Bible just teaches whatever you can grasp off of the surface of the explicit, but it teaches principles upon which those other things are based. As such, the Bible gives us some examples of the principle, but it's not an exhaustive rule book or something. The principle is clear and it clearly is the foundation of all biblical ethics. It's up to us to apply it consistently in whatever may come. That's a part of growing in the mind of Christ given to us through the Scripture.
"The problem is that slavery in the ancient world isn't limited to that definition."
DeleteYou are thereby admitting that it does include the definition of involuntary servitude, but is not limited to it.
"If something works toward the creation or preservation of human life as God meant it, that is good. If something works against the creation or preservation of human life as God meant it, that's bad."
There is no good or bad on your worldview because you believe god can arbitrarily make up the rules as he goes along. He can say it's good to kill all Palestinians, and that would be good. He could say it's wrong to have sex on Thursday after noon, and that would be wrong. There's no grounding for morality other than someone else's opinion that is not required to make any rational sense. That's why your moral system fails and no one's adopting it except for uneducated stupefied fools in third world countries.
"You are thereby admitting that it does include the definition of involuntary servitude, but is not limited to it."
ReplyDeleteI never denied such and even said in my above comment. Slavery from war is involuntary, but it's a mercy. Of course, you would just abandon the remnant in war for dead or kill them yourself, because slavery is bad NO MATTER WHAT. Pat yourself on the back for being a good liberal who would rather sacrifice other people than use a less than ideal system for good.
"There is no good or bad on your worldview because you believe god can arbitrarily make up the rules as he goes along. He can say it's good to kill all Palestinians, and that would be good. He could say it's wrong to have sex on Thursday after noon, and that would be wrong. There's no grounding for morality other than someone else's opinion that is not required to make any rational sense. That's why your moral system fails and no one's adopting it except for uneducated stupefied fools in third world countries."
This is where I'm not going to engage you anymore. All of your comments from here on out will be deleted. I clearly refuted your idiotic claim here long ago, and thought that maybe you had a chance of actually putting some thinking in "The Thinker," but instead you just keep on spouting your strawman talking points as though you never actually heard a word I said. Goodbye, Simple Atheist. You are an atheist for good reason and that is because you have no good reasons.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete