Would you like some values with that tea?

TW & WALT

Part 1 of 3

A few random thoughts as we are now (...sigh...) practicing full-blown “scatter shot” apologetics.

We really do need to slow down and be more thorough. Walter, what you are doing reminds me of the “banny” rooster in the chicken yard, dancing around, cackling, and crowing to the top of his lungs while the real roosters are engaged in a bloody fight. You never seem to respond to many of my arguments, and even when you do engage one you are now falling into the pattern of simply regurgitating the same tired responses you have in the past...and that without ever actually meeting my points “head on.”

TW, I love the fact that you are with us again. However, I want to be thorough in my responses to you, so don't wear me out by pulling me in too many directions at once. Let's just slow down a bit and examine the biblical texts that you and Walter have offered. I'll respond briefly below to the questions you raised, but I do want to deal with what we have on the table more precisely. Besides, you guys are playing ball on my turf when you start delving into scripture. :-) I am really looking forward to your analysis of my offerings from last night.

Ok. Here we go.

TW: “By the way, I think it was Sam Harris who commented on the improvement in the bible by tearing out Leviticus.”

I think you may be right on that one. The “bloviating” of these guys is copious, and I have been know to get them crossed up before. Btw: Most guys on these posts (I.E. Walter) never respond when I point out that they are using “Dawkinsian” (or the like) arguments. It's almost as if they think if they don't acknowledge it I won't notice....hmmmm

TW: “You think these (Leviticus passages) were the basis for our constitution?” and “
I'm curious, where is the historical evidence describing that Tom Jefferson and company used Leviticus as the basis of our constitution?”

You may have misunderstood what I said. I was just pointing out that an astounding number of the laws of American jurisprudence (philosophy of law—or, as Walter would frame it our highly “evolved” moral law) were based on principles stated in the ancient text of Lev. 6:1-5 specifically. I wasn't talking about the framing of the constitution per se (a whole other argument).

TW and WALT,

Part 2 of 3

WALT: “after quoting, nay proof-texting, a few nice verses from leviticus you asked,
'Ooooooh! Terrible stuff, isn’t it?' well...no, they're lovely. but...it's supposedly written/inspired by god. the abundant HORRIBLE verses prove either:
1)leviticus was not written/inspired by god
or
2)god is not all good
which is it?”

Hey....hey....hey. You can't use that tactic on me. :-) You are “borrowing” from me, and that without having ever responded to my question. But, as I am not hampered by “subjectivism” as you are, I will respond to your use of my tactic. “Which is it?” Neither. God is all good in the passages that you think are “lovely” and He is all good in the passages that you think are “horrible.” Your rejection of God and your subjective moralism blind you to the greater good that exists in the so-called “horrible” passages. You think you want a world in which YOU set the standards of what is moral and just and what is immoral and unjust, but guess what....you are not God. Get over yourself.

WALT: “rco, you said, "And Walter, do you realize that this little handful of passages from ONE BOOK in the OLD TESTAMENT completely undermines all of your arguments that we are MORE EVOLVED MORALLY and are MORALLY SUPERIOR to the “God of the Old Testament?' how the hell do you figure that?!?!”

Well...you don't think murder (a pretty basic level of morality) is immoral...you seem to have no problem with “bearing false witness” (another fairly basic level of morality)...and you consistently contend that the modern world is highly evolved morally despite the fact that it is being overrun with abhorrent forms of moral depravity (see the list I posted to you at October 6, 1:13 AM)...Well, neither you nor the modern world with which you seem to be so enamored are “living up” to the standards of morality found in that little handful of passages. Hence, your deluded sense of superiority is nothing more than hot air and hypocrisy. See?

And I do find it telling that you didn't respond to that rather damning list I offered @ October 6, 1:13 AM. That list also utterly undermines your argument that our morality is “evolved” and superior. Your premise simply does not square with the facts that are staring you in the face.

Your repeated boast that your morality is superior to God's is a statement that would give any sane person at lest a moment's pause, yet it seems to be rolling off your computer keyboard with increasing frequency. Frankly, I am more than a little concerned for you.

WALT: “btw, i didn't ask which bibles you own or read or whatever. i asked which one is the "right" one? which one does your church preach from? what's your church called?”

I personally prefer the English Standard Version.

TW & WALT,

Part 3 of 3

TW: “So here's a personal question. Do your observations conclude that we are better off trying to write morality into our laws as was done for years? Or are we better off now, letting consenting adults decide amongst themselves who to marry, sleep with and have sex with.”

The short answer to the first question is that I would contend that morality cannot be legislated. It must first be effectively modeled and then clearly articulated and taught. The short answer to the second question is that, besides the clear teaching of scripture, I have counseled too many people with broken lives (as a result of promiscuity) to buy into the myth that this is somehow “better.” And, for a teaser, both of my daughters allowed my wife and I to be extensively involved in their choice of their spouses...but I can't get into that right now. :-)

TW: “In referring to the covenant (new or old) with Walter, I'm curious as to how you reconcile your views with mine. I've concluded a long time ago that the covenant is simply a justification for racial / tribal discrimination. There are lots of examples throughout the OT where god seems to be encouraging slaughter simply because they were not the "favored" people.”

Give me a couple of examples from the OT so that I can get a bead on why you see it this way.

WALT: “it is correct, not absurd, to say my morals are better than the o.t. God's: i have NEVER KILLED AN INFANT or ordered an infant to be killed. i have never vacuumed a fetus out of a uterus or ordered a fetus to be vacuumed out of a uterus. i have never raped a woman..” etc.

Walter, Walter, Walter. Do you think I am too slow to see what you just did?....or....do you even realize what you just did? You have argued all along that MODERN SOCIETY'S morals were more “evolved” and superior to God's. Now, when I back you into a corner, you want to shift the argument to yourself...”well...I...never did this...and I never did that....” C'mon, Walter. Go back and read my list of atrocities that are taking place in our world. Mankind's morality is not “evolving,” it is DEVOLVING.

WALT: “ah...yes...the "new covenant". i know christians don't "have to" follow all those old rules (they can now pick and choose...).”

No, not pick and choose, Walter. We simply have been given rest from the demands of the law in Christ, who obeyed and fulfilled God's law perfectly on our behalf. I do wish atheists such as yourself would actually READ your bibles instead of just using them to erect straw-man arguments. This is really quite lame.

WALT: “one time you hedged on whether you would characterize god as "perfect". what's your reservation? i've never heard of a christian who doesn't characterize god as perfect.”

Huh? You must have misunderstood me. I am not sure what you are referring to.

Peace, fellas

WALTER,

Correction here.

My 9:42 AM post should have read:

WALT: "a little sensitive about the southerner thing, huh?"

RCO: "Nah. Just amused by the stereo-typing. You didn't recognize the literary device of self-deprecating humor?"

...Did you not?

That should have been preceded by your question:

oops... the paragraph in the post below should read:
------
i have never cursed all humans with a "sinful nature" (as punishment for someone else's sin), then killed everyone on earth 'cept noah et.al.... for being sinful. that's demented.

the o.t. god's moral standard is not really that high.
------------

rco, you said,
"You fault God for killing David's child as an act of Divine judgment (one is left to wonder if you bothered to read the entire account), then claim that you are morally superior to such a God....Yet you support the "right" of a woman to have her child's skull pierced, collapsed, and then it's body dismembered and extracted from her womb with a vacuum cleaner. That, my friend, is beyond absurd.

it is correct, not absurd, to say my morals are better than the o.t. god's:

i have NEVER KILLED AN INFANT or ordered an infant to be killed. i have never vacuumed a fetus out of a uterus or ordered a fetus to be vacuumed out of a uterus. i have never raped a woman or ordered a woman (or women, plural, in god's case) to be raped. in fact, i daresay i've never advised people to OWN THEIR SLAVES CHILDREN...FOREVER.

i have never cursed all of humanity with a "sinful nature" for adam/eve's sin, then killing everyone 'cept noah et.al. for being sinful, he flood atrocity,
god's o.t. standard is not really that high.
-------------

can't wait to hear you "deconstruct", or whatever fancy mississippi word you use, deut13. from where i sit, it seems really horrible. really horrible.

--------------------
ah...yes...the "new covenant". i know christians don't "have to" follow all those old rules (they can now pick and choose...). nonetheless, god supposedly once advised the killing of one's children for disobedience. i would never do that. so my morals are better than god's as of 1000 b.c.(or whatever date you ascribe to various parts of the o.t.). we can't really fault 1000 bc israelites for killing their disobedient children, but we can fault god for (supposedly) telling them to do so. he's god - he should have known better. is morals are eternal, supposedly, right?

the "new covenant" represents an EVOLUTION of god's (really "our" - since we invented god) morals.
---------------

one time you hedged on whether you would characterize god as "perfect". what's your reservation? i've never heard of a christian who doesn't characterize god as perfect.
---------------

ok...NOW i've got to get back to work...really...

RCO,

One last point before analyzing your responses in detail which, based on your historic level of detail, will take some time. In referring to the covenant (new or old) with Walter, I'm curious as to how you reconcile your views with mine. I've concluded a long time ago that the covenant is simply a justification for racial / tribal discrimination. There are lots of examples throughout the OT where god seems to be encouraging slaughter simply because they were not the "favored" people.

What's your interpretation?

RC,

"Atheists-R-Us." I love it. That's a wonderful phrase. Do you know there are plans for stores selling all sorts of unbelievers paraphernalia. You can purchase the official set of unbelief rules; of course there's a problem in that it's hard to make money when the book is 1/4 page long and says "use evidence and reason".

I'm curious, where is the historical evidence describing that Tom Jefferson and company used Leviticus as the basis of our constitution? I always thought that since Jefferson published his own, personal guide which amounted to throwing out all of the OT and most of the NT, that he would have been the last one to use Leviticus as a basis for law.

So here's a personal question. Do your observations conclude that we are better off trying to write morality into our laws as was done for years? Or are we better off now, letting consenting adults decide amongst themselves who to marry, sleep with and have sex with.

Lastly, have you ever seen the original video of the Leviticus rant from the West Wing? If not, here it is. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

TW,

Tsk, tsk.

"I think you are missing the bigger point. First, do you or anyone else need a book to tell you it's not a good idea to have sex with animals."

You guys really should actually study your bibles for yourselves instead of just regurgitating these tired lines from "Atheists-R-Us."

WALTER,

WALT: "yes, i am MORALLY SUPERIOR to a god who advises me to KILL MY DAUGHTER for disobeying me. (20:9)"

Surely, surely....you are not so unfamiliar with the bible that you honestly think this passage is advising you to kill your daughter for disobeying you?! Do you not understand the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

Nah. Just amused by the stereo-typing. You didn't recognize the literary device of self-deprecating humor?

To RC,

"He's back"! This will take some time to review and counter.

I think you are missing the bigger point. First, do you or anyone else need a book to tell you it's not a good idea to have sex with animals. "What's your hurry?" said one shepherd to the other as the herd of sheep came into town. "Why are we rushing, there are plenty of sheep?" "We want to get there quickly" replied the other shepherd, "so we can pick out a good looking one."

By the way, I think it was Sam Harris who commented on the improvement in the bible by tearing out Leviticus. The problems with Leviticus are quite obvious when one repeats the classic dialog between president Jeb Bartlett and a call in talk show host modeled after Dr. Laura. This is from the TV show The West Wing.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16).

There is more RC. You think these were the basis for our constitution?

rco, you said,
"And Walter, do you realize that this little handful of passages from ONE BOOK in the OLD TESTAMENT completely undermines all of your arguments that we are MORE EVOLVED MORALLY and are MORALLY SUPERIOR to the “God of the Old Testament?”"

how the hell do you figure that?!?!

modern society has kept the good parts and tossed out the "burn at the stake", "4-legged birds", "slaves' children are yours for life", "women are worth 3/5 of men" crap. that's moral evolution.

(lev 21:9, 11:20, 25:46, 27:3-4)

yes, i am MORALLY SUPERIOR to a god who advises me to KILL MY DAUGHTER for disobeying me. (20:9)
------------

btw, i didn't ask which bibles you own or read or whatever. i asked which one is the "right" one? which one does your church preach from? what's your church called?
------------

a little sensitive about the southerner thing, huh? at least you got bret favre and jerry rice to boast about.

WALTER,

Patience, my dear Watson, patience. You didn't read everything I posted last night did you? It may take a little time for all of that to soak in for you.

I'll get to all of your straw-man passages in due time. And there will be no "nuances" or "subjectivism." That fig-leaf is yours, not mine.

WALT: "come on...that deut13 seems pretty gosh darn horrible to me. how is that not immoral?"

There you go again. You really should make up your mind which way you want to argue this issue. Maybe this will help:

A: Biblical morality was "pretty good"

B: Biblical morality was "pretty gosh darn horrible and immoral."

Circle one.

There is no "all of the above" option.

Peace.

rco,
after quoting, nay proof-texting, a few nice verses from leviticus you asked,
"Ooooooh! Terrible stuff, isn’t it?"

well...no, they're lovely. but...it's supposedly written/inspired by god. the abundant HORRIBLE verses prove either:
1)leviticus was not written/inspired by god
or
2)god is not all good

which is it?

rco,
"Likewise, your offerings of “prostitute burning,” “JIHAD” (good grief), “sexism” etc. fail to take into account numerous contextual and historical-setting considerations."

hahahaha....good one...."context"...huh? i see...it's nuanced. it's all about context...and historical setting...? is that another way of saying "it depends" or "it's subjective"...?

so, sometimes it's ok to murder neighboring infidels (what i'm referring to as "jihad" - in islamic terms this would be "lesser jihad"), and sometimes it isn't...depending on the context...? ok...

come on...that deut13 seems pretty gosh darn horrible to me. how is that not immoral?

what's the proper context for prostitute-burning?

that chronicles passage about david explains the proper context for wife-raping, and infanticide, but what's the proper context for slavery?

unfortunately, i won't be able to blog much today...

TWMATTHEWS and WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

TW: "I've always thought that the "good book" could be made more perfect if we simply tore out Leviticus."

I won’t bring up the fact that this is almost a verbatim quote of Christopher Hitchens……whoops…..I already did. Oh, well.

A few citations (with more than a few sarcastic comments by me) from that "terrible" book of Leviticus:

Lev. 6:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor 3 or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely––in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby––4 if he has sinned and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found 5 or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you guys have any idea how many laws of American jurisprudence are derived from the principles set forth in the above passage?

Le. 18:20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife
Le 18:23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

Oh, my. Prohibitions that warn other men not to sleep with your wife? And no bestiality??!! What a terrible book.

Le 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer (sacrifice) them to Molech…..
Le 19:2 “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.

What? No child sacrifice? And this “be holy” thing? Who in the world does God think He is…wanting those hapless, un-evolved-morally Israelites to be pure and clean (holy)? Yes. Tear that part out. What in the world is THAT doing in the bible?

TWMATTHEWS and WALTER

Part 2 of 3

Le 19:3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father….
Le 19:32 “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

Now, who in the world would want to live in a culture that respects their elders? Let’s follow Jefferson’s example and cut that part out too. (btw, do you boys have any gray hair yet?)

Le 19:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
Le 19:33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

What?? Surely God is being too demanding to expect them to be this “evolved” morally, right? This kind of philanthropy was not supposed to come along for another 3,000 years…you know…after the “Enlightenment.” And providing for strangers? Doing no wrong to a stranger? Loving them as you love yourself? Doesn’t God realize that they are “out-group” and that He is only supposed to be promoting “in-group” morality? (Walter, I DO hope you read this.)

Le 19:11 ¶ “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.
Le 19:14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

Ooooooh! Terrible stuff, isn’t it?

TWMATTHEWS and WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

Le 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

Oh, my! Fairness and justice and equality between the rich and poor? What in the world was God thinking? He is not supposed to be THAT morally “evolved” until the New Testament, right?

Le 19:17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.
Le 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
Le 19:29 “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land become full of depravity.
Le 19:35 “You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. 36 You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Wow, TW. The “good book” would be “more perfect” without all this?

And Walter, do you realize that this little handful of passages from ONE BOOK in the OLD TESTAMENT completely undermines all of your arguments that we are MORE EVOLVED MORALLY and are MORALLY SUPERIOR to the “God of the Old Testament?”

Are you guys SURE you want to continue arguing this point? Because if you do, and you hang with me long enough, I will eventually bury you with moral demands from the bible that are so impossibly high…and so infinitely superior to your beloved UDHR…you will have no choice but to fall on your face and beg for the covering of the blood and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to hide you from the wrath of Holy God….

WALTER,

WALT: "then god kills david's newborn baby....yikes! this is something god supposedly did?"

and then:

WALT: "of course the simple truth is that OUR morals have evolved"

To quote the venerable Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."

You fault God for killing David's child as an act of Divine judgment (one is left to wonder if you bothered to read the entire account), then claim that you are morally superior to such a God....Yet you support the "right" of a woman to have her child's skull pierced, collapsed, and then it's body dismembered and extracted from her womb with a vacuum cleaner. That, my friend, is beyond absurd.

Fifty million recorded abortions in America since 1973, roughly 800 million worldwide since 1920...200 million war casualties during the 20 century alone, cold-blooded geonocides, shameless eugenics, underground sex-slave trade worldwide involving hundreds of thousands of children, mass sterilization of the "unfit", encroaching euthanasia....Yes, Walter, our "evolved" morality is really something to behold, isn't it? Dear God, man. You can't POSSIBLY be THAT disconnected from reality.

WALT: "btw, rco, what's your favorite version of the bible? like...which is the inerrant one? NIV? just curious. i'd like to make sure i text-proof the "right" one."

It's "proof-text" Walter, not "text-proof." I own and am conversant with all the English translations from the Wycliffe Bible of the 14th century to present, as well as the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint (greek translation of O.T.), and the greek New Testament.

Pick your poison.

WALTER (and TWMATTHEWS)

Part 1 of 5

These posts will be primarily in response to Walter, but I will occasionally refer to the two of you in tandem.

Walter, I am going to respond to your scriptural offerings, but I do want to then return to your wildly inconsistent application of your “subjective” view of morality. You really are all over the place on this point as I have, and will continue, to demonstrate.

But let’s talk about your (and TW’s) anti-theistic interpretation of scripture. I pointed out earlier that you were “proof-texting” (not “text-proofing” as both you and TW have regurgitated my statement). LOL. You have both unwittingly exposed yourselves here, for even one who is a novice to the study of the bible very quickly realizes the commonality of the proof-texting mistake.

Proof-texting is the common practice of bringing one’s prejudices (or presuppositions) to scripture and looking for texts to “support” said prejudices/presuppositions. In doing so, you search through the bible with whatever preconception you have as your “filter,” seeking to “prove” that you are “right.” Well, it doesn’t require intellectual brilliance to realize that one can “prove” virtually anything using this method of pseudo-study. Guys, I could do the same thing by looking back over your numerous posts, isolating partial statements, sentences, or even entire paragraphs, detaching them from their context, and forcing a foreign meaning into what you actually said, and thus “prove” that you said virtually anything. This is what you guys are doing with the biblical text.

In studying ANY piece of literature, CONTEXT, historical setting, word definition, and grammatical construction are vitally important. It is no different when studying the bible. For instance, Walter, you tried to “prove” that God was “pro-abortion.” You used Exodus 21:22 as your “proof-text.” In doing this, you brought all of your anti-theistic prejudices and presuppositions to the bible and searched for a passage to “support” what you had already decided. And, predictably, you found what you were looking for.

WALTER (AND TWMATTHEWS)

Part 2 of 5

The only problem was that you completely IGNORED all of the above listed interpretive principles and literally butchered the text with your uninformed exegesis. Had you considered the grammatical construction of the passage (relationship between subject/verb/direct object) you would have immediately recognized that your interpretation was preposterous. Further, if you had taken the time to properly understand the definitions of the words used in the text you could have avoided your embarrassing interpretative mistake.

Now, you did retract this silly offering after I challenged you, but did you come away from this with any humility or tendency to be more cautious? Noooo. You have continued to “proof-text” shamelessly, constantly forcing your prejudices into the text to “prove” your point, utterly ignoring all of the commonly accepted principles of interpretation.

At this point I want to discuss a couple of interpretive principles in detail. First, CONTEXT. When seeking to understand the meaning of a text (be it a biblical text or the text of, say, Tacitus’ “Agricola”), context is absolutely indispensible. Analytical study of the bible begins with the IMMEDIATE context of a passage, and asks “what is being said in this verse.” This is then expanded to the consideration of the surrounding verses, the entire chapter, and the entire book of the bible. And finally, the passage is analyzed by comparing it to the over-arching context of the whole bible (it is ONE text).

As with any text of antiquity, it should be presumed that the text of the bible is cohesive unless it is ultimately proven otherwise (you consistently presuppose the exact opposite). Therefore, if one’s interpretation of a particular passage contradicts one’s interpretation of another passage, one should at least CONSIDER the possibility that he is interpreting at least one (if not both) passages incorrectly. And re-examine each text accordingly. We do this on a subconscious level with virtually everything we read (unless, of course, you are an atheist reading the bible). The extent to which you guys are NOT considering context is laughable. If you read the owner’s manual of your automobile the same way you read the bible, the results would be catastrophic.

WALTER (AND TWMATTHEWS)

Part 3 of 5

Secondly, the HISTORICAL SETTING must be considered. This is done by familiarizing oneself with the manners and customs of the time in which the text was written. This is a point in which you are both woefully uninformed. For example, Walter, it is obvious that you are completely unaware that there were at least 3 different forms of slavery in biblical times. You defined slavery as the deprivation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That is one type of slavery.

But there was also “slavery” in which an individual would “sell” himself to a “master” for material/financial considerations or even to obtain a bride (see the story of Jacob/Laban). This was hardly any different from (and was certainly a precursor to) the modern practice of borrowing money from a lending institution and “binding” oneself to repayment (Proverbs 22:7 The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender). Anyone who has ever made house-payments understands this perfectly.

Additionally, there was the “slavery” of a “bondservant.” A bondservant was one who WILLINGLY devoted themselves to another to the disregard of their own interests. It was not uncommon for one who became a “slave” to eventually become so much a part of his “master’s” family that they would gladly commit themselves to the life-long service of their master even after they had fulfilled their obligation to him. From that point onward they we called a “bondservant”—one who gladly and willingly “bound” himself to his master (Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ…).

Both the Old and New Testaments are literally filled with allusions to these types of slavery. Even some of the passages that you have offered allude to these, and you offer them with absolutely no recognition of this whatsoever. Your interpretations of the biblical passages concerning slavery completely ignore these types of slavery even though the passages make no sense UNLESS one is aware of these.

Likewise, your offerings of “prostitute burning,” “JIHAD” (good grief), “sexism” etc. fail to take into account numerous contextual and historical-setting considerations.

WALTER (AND TWMATTHEWS)

Part 4 of 5

I will deconstruct your anti-theistic interpretations of each of the passages that you have offered over the next few days as time permits.

In the meantime…..you should both take care not to wrench your shoulders out of socket patting yourselves on the back for your “evolved,” superior morality. Let’s not forget that you are both champions of a woman’s “right” to have her child ripped from her womb by an abortion “doctor.” This is “evolved” morality? Give me a break.

A brief sampling of your “subjective morality” inconsistencies:

TW: “Walter, nice citations from the bible. I've always thought that the "good book" could be made more perfect if we simply tore out Leviticus. I agree with you that the NT is an improvement over the OT when speaking of morality, but I don't think that the OT set the bar particularly high when it comes to defining what is moral and what isn't.”

Hmmmmm. Do you consider supporting the “right” to murder an unborn child to be “setting the bar particularly high?”

WALT: “i think there is a big time connection between racism and slavery.”

Hmmmm. And yet you don’t see the “big time,” even HISTORICAL connection between racism and abortion. I know….I know…..you “became, and could still become, fed up with the abortion talk…” Please. If I offered you that sort of evasive tactic on the issue of slavery you would rightly consider it pathetically ridiculous…..

And, given your “revisionist” offering of the history of the Great Awakening/Southern thinkers/George “Whitehead” thing….and my pointing out to you that you were grossly misrepresenting these individuals…and your subsequent refusal to acknowledge your error…I guess you consider that whole “Thou shalt not bear false witness” thingy beneath your highly “evolved” morality, huh?

It appears that Christians have not cornered the market when it comes to hypocrisy….

WALTER (AND TWMATTHEWS)

Part 5 of 5

On a lighter note…..after waxing eloquent about those imbecilic, Cretanous “southerners,” one of you asked me where I am from. Wait for it…….wait for it…..I am from South Mississippi—born and raised. And….I chew tobacco, am missing most of my teeth, have crossed eyes, live in a trailer park, own several guns with which I shoot game (and eat it too…gasp!), speak with a pronounced drawl, have a “Save yer Confederate money boys, the South is gonna rise agin” bumper sticker…..and I am irrevocably convinced that the evidence irrefutably proves that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. Oh….almost forgot: I also enjoy being a bee in atheist’s bonnets in my spare time (you’d have to be from the South to understand that one).

Of course, you boys probably live too far north of the Mason-Dixon Line to appreciate what a refined “Southerner” I actually am.

Keep your powder dry.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "funny how people have to go through all these rationalizations to explain how god's not really sexist or racist or pro-slavery or scientifically illiterate...etc..."

As TWMatthews said, people pull out what they want to pull out, but the key is to understand as God intended us to and think His thoughts after Him. That is a gift from God, for the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him. But I bet they burn your ears.

You keep mentioning the OT and slavery. If you want the Authors intent then you have to understand what He is teaching us through the actual history of the people of that time.

And He, as our Creator, has the right to determine what roles and limits/boundaries He has designed for His creatures. He created man first and put him as head over the woman and the family, just as Christ is the head over the church, His bride.

He created man to unite with woman and become one in marriage (not man with man - perish the thought, for that is unnatural and not His intent), just as in Christ we, as Christians are one in union with Him, and one family. We are united with God in a bond of agape love. Christ has brought us into the family of God, something unbelievers are alienated from unless He is graceful to them for they are hostile to Him and want to be in the place of God.

But He is no respecter of persons in that each one is created in His image and likeness so the lesson for us is that each person is to be treated with dignity and respect.

But as Christians we are opposed to that which is bad and harmful to others.

We are just touching the tip of the matter when you reference OT Scripture however. The Israelites, who God chose to be His people, to make Him known to the world, were 'stiff-necked' and in constant rebellion to Him. There are many lessons that we, as Christians, learn about ourselves from their examples that could be illustrated and expanded upon from this historic people. And God kept giving warnings as to what was acceptable in His eyes and what was sinful practice for the Israelites. He told them that when they entered the land, to kill all the inhabitants of the land because they were evil and they would only influence the Israelites to do evil. We as Christians learn a lesson from the Israelites being influenced by other nations and cultures. Just like them, we as Christians have been set apart to God and told not to live with the same values that the world has (relative/changing/immoral/sinful). If we live by the shifting standards of this world we practice all kinds of evil and do what is wrong in God's sight.

RCofield has a knack for picking really good biblical examples to illustrate and counter some of your points. I'll leave them, for the most part, in his court, if he wants to address the issues.

rco, tw,
i was more summarizing than "splainin'"...

rco, i was text-proofing biblical polygamy when i came across this shocking passage. beginning w/2sam12:11:

**********begin quote:
11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die."

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.

16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died.
***********end quote

omg! yuk! it sounds like a verse from the horrible man-made koran...(which i view as a step BACKWARD in our moral evolution....)

the polygamy is small potatoes compared to god's punishing david by having people RAPE his wives in public. then god kills david's newborn baby....yikes! this is something god supposedly did? he could have punished david however he wanted...and he came up w/THAT?! there's no regard for the women...or the baby....it's all about david...the women and the baby are like scenerey... anyway, this horrible passage cannot have been inspired by a god with good morals... hopefully, you think god's morals have evolved to the point where he doesn't order rapes of wives to punish husbands and doesn't kill babies to punish fathers anymore.

of course the simple truth is that OUR morals have evolved, bringing our man-made god's morals along with them.

btw, rco, what's your favorite version of the bible? like...which is the inerrant one? NIV? just curious. i'd like to make sure i text-proof the "right" one.
--------------------

peter, i'll answer your two most recent posts next.

Hi Walter, TWMatthews, PSolus, RCofield,

Walter, you have allies! (^8

RCO: "Simply put, when you say these things were not immoral "then," and then turn around and call them "atrocious, vindictive, racist, sexist, etc.,"...well, you've just completely contradicted yourself."

This is the point we continue to stress, Walter. You have no basis for good. It keeps shifting/changing. Good is good one minute and bad the next. You keep grabbing for that illusive value system/objective that is not there because it is based on relativism and subjectivity. All you have shown is your preference.

WALTER: ""no. it looks horrible to us looking back, but, like jesus, our morals are a product of our times."

We kept bringing up Hitler's Germany and ask you why it was bad, or was it? Based on your answers all you have to go by is popular opinion or personal/cultural choice that changes over time. How do you get good out of that? How do you justify your opinion of good as opposed to theirs? Or what makes abortion right now and wrong not so long ago, or gay marriage for that matter? What do you compare good to? Your ideal is always evolving.

And TWMattews, the point we make about God is that He is absolutely good and that there is an absolute, objective, universal, unchanging standard and reference.

The Bible portrays the gross inhumanity of mankind that is in rebellion to a just and gracious God. Hence all the grizzly facts. I'll attempt your post later on in the week. I am working 12 hour shifts for the next two days and running out of time tonight.

RCO: "The most basic rule of logic is the law of non-contradiction--two statements which are utterly contradictory cannot both be true. You should pick one or the other, but you cannot have it both ways--at least you can't do this and still claim intellectual integrity."

Yes, one minute good is good and the next it is bad. How can this be? Which is it?

Ah shucks RC. All Walter was doing was translating those big old words that you enlightened ones reveal to each other. While you guys do some revealin, Walter was doing some "splainin".

TW

WALTER and TWMATTHEWS,

Wow! I leave you boys alone for a few hours and you whip yourselves into an orgasmic lather of pontification! I couldn't help being a little amused reading through all that you have posted today. Don't you guys have work to do during the day? :-)

Ah, well...you've sure given me plenty to respond to. And plenty of ammunition with which to do so.

I'll try to post later on tonight.

Peace

tw,
with regard to peter's position on slavery. he agrees it's biblically sanctioned, but that yahweh/jesus used to (not sure why he stopped...) use real, actual, physical slavery as a way to teach people about "mental bondage".... like how i'm now a "slave" to my worldview or something...

it's an extremely unsatisfying defense.

funny how people have to go through all these rationalizations to explain how god's not really sexist or racist or pro-slavery or scientifically illiterate...etc...

tw, you said,
"I've always thought that the "good book" could be made more perfect if we simply tore out Leviticus."

uh...yeah... you and thomas jefferson. as you probably know, he tore out the whole old testament - which seems wise to me - and deleted all the crazy magic and "dogma" parts of the new testament too, but kept the "good parts" to create a tidy little handbook he called "the life and morals of jesus of nazareth". it's about all anyone needs from the bible, imao...

Oh RCO, are you really trying to make us believe that the bible was being coy about its feelings on slavery?

If the bible has been anything it had been direct when it comes to its rules -- thou shall not steal, covet and all that stuff. (My favorite is graven images....man I'm a sucker for a good graven image. Really, that represents 10% of what god thought so important that he wrote it down?)

It seems to me to be pretty direct and absolute: What shall we do with someone collecting sticks on the sabbath? Stone them of course.

No matter how I search, I simply can't find "no man shall own another man". Or "buying slaves is prohibited." If there were any prohibitions against slavery found in either the OT or the NT, you would have found punishment for those that defy that prohibition. Have you seen any punishments for owning slaves?

No, there are punishments and lots of times remediation for breaking God's laws -- sacrifice a she goat -- but one can search the bible high and low and find neither prohibition or punishment for owning slaves.

btw, blacksburg is in rural southwestern va.

tw, you mused,
"If I'm understanding Peter correctly, morality is absolute. If that were the case, why do our laws reflect more tolerance with respect to these kinds of issues? Could it be that moral standards of equality and fairness have improved over the years not because God has revealed new meaning in scripture but because more and more secular people are ignoring religious moral standards."

well, rco just said that the bible does not condone slavery, we've apparently been reading it wrong. when i said that up until abolition it had been perfectly acceptable for christians to own slaves, he said,

"Actually, it has never been "perfectly acceptable" for christians to own slaves. You are conflating social acceptability with scriptural acceptability."

i don't know, i can find (have found) lots of pro-slavery (and sexist) verses. rco calls this "text-proofing" or something, but...well...it's just reading the bible. i'm not making these verses up.

Walter, nice citations from the bible. I've always thought that the "good book" could be made more perfect if we simply tore out Leviticus.

I agree with you that the NT is an improvement over the OT when speaking of morality, but I don't think that the OT set the bar particularly high when it comes to defining what is moral and what isn't.

An interesting story from a nearby town involved the police dispatcher who was fired for not living up to the moral precepts as defined by the town. She was fired by the police chief for living with her boyfriend. (She was 26 at the time).

Here's where I have a big problem. Any absolute definition of morality is flawed when it comes to the actions of two, consenting adults. It shouldn't matter whether they are male/female, black/white, male/male, Christian/Jew; it simply should not matter.

The town was forced to rehire her, pay back wages, her attorney's fees, court costs and to include any cost of living adjustments that occurred during the time period in which she was fired.

It seems most religions are real hung up on sex and many local laws were written in accordance with those hang ups.

If I'm understanding Peter correctly, morality is absolute. If that were the case, why do our laws reflect more tolerance with respect to these kinds of issues? Could it be that moral standards of equality and fairness have improved over the years not because God has revealed new meaning in scripture but because more and more secular people are ignoring religious moral standards.

hi tw,
i spent a few years in blacksburg and environs, so i know whereof you speak. the next town over from blacksburg is called "christiansburg" - surely named to confer high moral standards... i agree that there are many christians and many racists in the rural south. often, otherwise perfectly "nice" people would say something shockingly racist without meaning to or realizing it.

i think there is a big time connection between racism and slavery. it is so much easier to enslave an "other" than one of your own. even those bible verses i just referenced to rco describe different rules for enslaving hebrews and "aliens".

rco, where are you writing from?

god instructs israelites to take slaves:
lev25:44-46

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

but, is god sexist? actually, here's one endorsing slavery AND being sexist: ex21:2-4

2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

and, the massah gets to keep the slaves' children! cool for him, huh?

new testament sexism: 1 tim 2:12

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

as a result of that lovely verse (and other similar ones), my crazy church up the street here DOES NOT LET MY WIFE VOTE in congregational affairs. they rationalize, "well, it's one vote per family" or some other lame excuse. what about single women and widows? they're just basing this position on the biblical position that women are inferior to men. and of course no female pastors are allowed.

these "atrocities" are plainly SEXISM, supported by biblical passages. but at least our church (contra paul's instructions) allows a woman to pray without her head covered OR her hair shaved off... hahaha.

anyway, churches that don't allow women pastors etc... are clearly being sexist but...i can see how they say, well...yeah, but it's in the bible...

timothy and paul seem rather mild compared to the horrible sexist verses in the old testament. i mean, sheesh...the 10 commandments lists "wife" along with "house" and "ox" as a man's possessions. and how many husbands is a woman allowed to have? this evolution of sexism in the bible further illustrates my point: the evolving morals in the bible are just a reflection of man's (..not so much woman's...) evolving morals.

the new testament is so much better about this stuff than the old. you can see that, right?

Another question RCO and Peter that I think Walter asked but I didn't see the answer (if it was answered then please insert your response below) is if moral guidelines are God given and unchanging, what new revelations from god were encountered between the time of Jesus and when America actively started opposing slavery? It was close to 1500 years from the time of JC and when America realized that slavery was morally wrong. So what revelations occurred (assuming god didn't inspire a new, improved bible during that period)?

Wow, Peter, RCO, Walter and Psolus. When last I left this discussion some 2 months ago, you all were arguing the same thing. Well, actually I believe it was Peter and RCO against poor Walter with Psolus providing comic relief.

Are you still in the same relative area; Peter claiming the morals are absolute and were given by God; RCO claiming much the same and using the bible to illustrate? And Walter claiming the bible is man-made and a particularly poor source of morals.

We can all pull out whatever verses we want from the bible to illustrate our respective points and I'm pretty sure that RCO can find even more morally bankrupt statements in the bible than I ever could. It's an acknowledgment to his articulation that he is able to hold his own -- still claiming moral superiority of Christians by way of the bible -- in view of the stark and voluminous evidence in the bible to the contrary.

So here are a couple of questions for Peter and RCO.

Since I live in North Carolina in one of the most conservative sections in the US, you would assume that this part of the country is highly religious and overwhelmingly Christian. You would be right in that assumption. We refer to this section as the "belt buckle" of the bible belt.

Given your various positions on morality, one would expect that based on our God-given morals and the teachings of the bible, moral positions on equality and fairness would come first to this area. (You know where I'm going from here).

As a matter of fact, the more conservative Christians there are, the more likely people were to resist civil rights and equal rights. I will use local towns as an example. We still have laws on the books (no longer enforced because they have been usurped by federal statute) preventing people of mixed race to be married. We have moral codes in nearby towns, that still have laws but again no longer enforced, preventing unmarried couples from living together. In fact you can point to an area and based on the percentage of conservative Christians in that area, be able to determine how much resistance to racial equality (civil rights era) and now equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, you would find. Why do you suppose that is?

In my own church, there's a major disagreement causing a schism as a result of a recent ruling allowing committed homosexual couples to be welcomed.

Are these trends, easily documented, an example of absolute morals as taught in the bible? Or are the more evangelical of my friends not feeling the holy spirit? In other words, is resistance to civil rights a God-given moral structure?

And one final question: Were southern Christians among those leading the way toward equality regarding civil rights?

wow...weird...look at the fonts in my post. i didn't know you could do that.

rco, i said,
"old testament morality may have been good for 1000-500 b.c. canaan, but it's horrible by today's standards. for instance, we're no longer encouraged to kill neighboring infidels (gross misrepresentation) or burn prostitutes at the stake (gross misrepresentation) etc...like O.T. yahweh told ancient hebrews to do."

(the incorrect parenthetical comments are yours.)

then you said,
"Note the absurdity. You say that "killing neighboring infidels" and "burning prostitutes at the stake" was GOOD...in 1000-500 b.c. That is BS and you know it. Further, any gradeschool child knows these things are not now, nor have they EVER been "good."

whoa there big fella! your entitled to your opinions, but facts are facts.

any gradeschool kid TODAY knows killing neighboring infidels is wrong. but kids in those days were taught those horrible things. biblical authors alive at the time, supposedly inspired by god, CLEARLY THOUGHT JIHAD and BURNING AT THE STAKE WERE GOOD. IF you believe the bible, then you MUST believe that god, at least at one time, thought killing neighboring infidels and burning prostitutes at the stake was good. my characterizations WERE NOT "misrepresentations" as you charged:

killing neighboring infidels: (deut 13:12-18)

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must....put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock....because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

RCofield,

"On what do you base your opinions about people's rights?"

Common sense, experience, understanding, evidence, the reality of the situation - all that and more - but, not belief.

"You seem (unless, of course, I have not read you closely enough) to be basing your opinion about a woman's "right" to abortion (at least in part) on there being a distinction between a fetus and a child."

That you might actually believe that does not surprise me.

You also believe that your bible is the written word of your god, you probably believe in the whole Adam and Eve story, the virgin birth story, the 80 cubit ark story, the turning to a pillar of salt story, the dying for man's sins story, etc.

"Hence my suggestion that you look at the etymology of the word "fetus.""

That, also, does not surprise me.

jeez...you guys just don't get it.

i don't think the bible is anything but an entirely man-made artifact from ancient times. but YOU think it's from god. now, my outrage comes from taking you at your word and, for the sake of discussion, imagining the bible is "from god". well, if that's the case (and if god is perfect, and eternal), then there should not be verses like lev21:9 and deut 13.

modern god wouldn't write crap like that....but you think old god did. and you think that god is worthy of worship?!

"RCO: "The bottom line is that you DID just completely unravel your own argument. If you contend that such "atrocities" were NOT immoral THEN, you cannot with ANY degree of intellectual integrity condemn God/Jesus/Scripture, etc. In point of fact, you can't even call them "atrocities," nor can you contend that modern morality is "better." To do so is to completely contradict your own argument."

no. as i said, i think scripture may have been a fine source of morals - IN ITS TIME. it's a man-made document reflecting the state of man-made morality of ancient times. but YOU think the bible is FROM GOD. the morals contained there should much much much better - perfect, according to my understanding of christian beliefs - than little ol' fallible human morality.

on the other hand, if the morals in the bible are...well...full of human imperfections, that's pretty good evidence god didn't write/inspire/dictate it (or at least not an all-good god).

come on: you can't claim god is all-knowing and all-loving and simultaneously claim he told israelite to burn prostitutes (lev 21:9) - unless you think burning prostitutes is good. mind you, according to ancient israelite morality, burning prostitutes clearly was good. in modern western enlightened society, we don't do that anymore - no matter what we think of prostitutes.

WALTER,
Sorry, gotta insert this.

WALT: "you ask, "why all the vitriol?" because you are trying to claim yahweh/jesus is/are PERFECT. and that the morality they laid out in the bible is eternal and perfect. well, it's certainly not perfect, as any vindictive or slavery or racist or sexist verse proves."

Aside from the fact that I have not (yet) tried to claim perfection for the morality laid out in the bible, AND the fact that you have not yet offered a single scripture that is ACTUALLY DEALING with issues of morality...you are missing the point.

You simply cannot, with intellectual integrity, claim that the morality of the bible is equivalent to "atrocities," is "vindictive," is "sexist," "racist" etc. **while at the same time claiming that it was not immoral "then".** Atrocities are and always have been, immoral. Slavery/vindictiveness/sexism/racism are, and always has been, immoral. All these things are immoral, even by your own watered down standard.

IF the bible upholds these as acceptable (it does not) the bible upholds immorality. As the bible does not advocate these, your accusations are at once both horribly misguided AND totally inconsistent with your premise that these things were not immoral "then." If they were not immoral "then" they were not atrocities/vindictive/sexist/racist.

Simply put, when you say these things were not immoral "then," and then turn around and call them "atrocious, vindictive, racist, sexist, etc.,"...well, you've just completely contradicted yourself.

The most basic rule of logic is the law of non-contradiction--two statements which are utterly contradictory cannot both be true. You should pick one or the other, but you cannot have it both ways--at least you can't do this and still claim intellectual integrity.

Let me illustrate: [comments in () mine]

WALT: "old testament morality may have been good for 1000-500 b.c. canaan, but it's horrible by today's standards. for instance, we're no longer encouraged to kill neighboring infidels (gross misrepresentation) or burn prostitutes at the stake (gross misrepresentation) etc...like O.T. yahweh told ancient hebrews to do."

Note the absurdity. You say that "killing neighboring infidels" and "burning prostitutes at the stake" was GOOD...in 1000-500 b.c. That is BS and you know it. Further, any gradeschool child knows these things are not now, nor have they EVER been "good."

THEN, you turn around and say these things were "horrible." So which is it? Were they "good" or "horrible?" Can't be both.

Read this again--carefully:

RCO: "The bottom line is that you DID just completely unravel your own argument. If you contend that such "atrocities" were NOT immoral THEN, you cannot with ANY degree of intellectual integrity condemn God/Jesus/Scripture, etc. In point of fact, you can't even call them "atrocities," nor can you contend that modern morality is "better." To do so is to completely contradict your own argument.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "my premise is that human's morals have evolved over the eons to get to where they are are now. therefore it makes perfect sense to me that modern morals are better than biblical morals. and by "better" i mean "kinder, gentler, more respectful of individual rights" - i.e., more conducive to getting along in society."

Unbelievable Walter. You keep throwing all these qualitative value statements around without them resting on anything more than your personal style, Hitler like opinion, that this is the way that it should be because they are my moral opinions and therefore they should be binding.

Case in point:

WALTER: "if you're gonna say, "who says kinder is better?", well, i do."

WALTER: "so do the vast majority of theologians, philosophers, and ordinary people."

Christian theologians base it on a source that is necessary for mean and morality - God, the ultimate, objective, outside ourselves, reference point that can make sense of morality and that is necessary for eternal, unchanging, absolute values or for that matter and qualitative values at all, for good, better and best have to have an ideal to be based on. You can't show me that ideal as being anything other than yourself. You want to call the shots (Romans 1:18).

WALTER: "it's probably because humans have developed/evolved the capacity for empathy. we can imagine what the other guy feels when we oppress them. we don't want others to take away our rights so we don't violate others' rights."

Look around you Walter.

Hi Walter,

RCO: "Was it immoral THEN for them to have slaves, rule by "divine right," burn witches, be sexist, be racist, etc.?"

WALTER: "no. it looks horrible to us looking back, but, like jesus, our morals are a product of our times."

This is the point we continue to make. Morals to you are nothing more than subjective/individual choice or social opinion. As such there is nothing right or wrong, good or bad about them, for there is no ultimate foundation for them to rest on but personal feelings which change from person to person, social convention to social convention and time to time.

On your world-view basis and such statements as above (not necessarily your own private opinion, for I don’t believe you live consistently by such a world-view) Hitler's Germany was not good or bad and what they did to those 11 million or so people whom they tortured/killed/ experimented with cannot be justified as immoral because what "is" is not necessarily what "ought" to be. You have no basis for “ought” for you have not demonstrated why it should be so, yet you continue to pontificate such views. Feelings that change do not make something good for if they did make it good Hitler’s Germany is good based on the relative morals of that shifting culture at that time.

BUT, you live inconsistently in your world-view by making absolute style “should” statements (the way things should be) condemning the Christian world-view as being wrong without showing anything other than a personal opinion that betrays your immense dislike and prejudice of Christianity. You try to make it seem like your opinions contain an absolute reference in that you state it as if they “should” be believed as true as based on reality, yet your basis for morality and truth is shown to be shifting. It has no fixed address. As Greg Bahnsen points out in Van Til’s Apologetics,

“Your [the unbelievers] logic claims to deal with eternal and changeless matters; and your facts are wholly changing things; and “never the twain shall meet.” So you have made non-sense of your own experience. “p.140.

The question always becomes why is your opinion right? Why is the social convention that you support the right convention? You offer nothing more than personal preference or majority view as an answer. It “should be” because you say it should be and you share this view with a bunch of like-minded people. Based on that rational I share my beliefs that oppose yours with a bunch of like-minded people. We have a Mexican standoff in which you have nothing but personal preference to act as your ultimate basis for determining truth.

Furthermore, I can force my point if I am stronger than you. Hence we have a whole sub-culture that can justify flying planes into buildings to further their “good.”

PART 2

RCO: "I really don't think you will even try to answer this question (you will likely obfuscate and misdirect), but if you do answer it....regardless of which way you answer it....you will have completely undermined your own argument."

WALLTER: "how the heck do you think i've undermined my argument?"

You try to justify reality/morals without an objective, ultimate, absolute foundation. Why is anything you say meaningful? What makes your opinion of such significance that it "should" be treated as absolutely binding on all peoples? If not binding on all peoples then why cannot someone with an opposite belief have values that are more binding than yours? You express that your beliefs ought to be followed and yet you cannot justify why.

RCO: Subjectivism is a problematic bed-fellow."

WALTER: "it's more complicated, but closer to reality than objectivism."

Objectivity is reality. If it is real then it is objective, for it is what is; it is the way things truly are.

Bahnsen again says,
“The predicament is that man as a knower can never “get outside” the ideas formed within himself. When the unbeliever begins his philosophizing with himself at the center, he ends up unable to escape himself (subjectivism); and since every unbeliever faces this dilemma, nobody can speak with authority about objective reality for anybody else (relativism).” P.314.

rco,
"Ok....So...if it was NOT immoral for anyone to own slaves BEFORE the "Enlightenment," why all the vitriol?.....Your conclusions simply do not square with your premise."

my premise is that human's morals have evolved over the eons to get to where they are are now. therefore it makes perfect sense to me that modern morals are better than biblical morals. and by "better" i mean "kinder, gentler, more respectful of individual rights" - i.e., more conducive to getting along in society.

if you're gonna say, "who says kinder is better?", well, i do. so do the vast majority of theologians, philosophers, and ordinary people. it's probably because humans have developed/evolved the capacity for empathy. we can imagine what the other guy feels when we oppress them. we don't want others to take away our rights so we don't violate others' rights. we've evolved these complex human-rights ideas based on mutual respect and so forth that have no basis in the natural world. people used to call them "natural rights", but i think that's a misnomer - probably meant to put them beyond the reach of church and state.

also, since these are not really "natural rights" that can be gleaned from "nature" or revelation", we must be vigilant and teach these things to children - just like (you think) we have to teach bible stories.

you ask, "why all the vitriol?" because you are trying to claim yahweh/jesus is/are PERFECT. and that the morality they laid out in the bible is eternal and perfect. well, it's certainly not perfect, as any vindictive or slavery or racist or sexist verse proves.

old testament morality may have been good for 1000-500 b.c. canaan, but it's horrible by today's standards. for instance, we're no longer encouraged to kill neighboring infidels or burn prostitutes at the stake etc...like old testament yahweh told ancient hebrews to do.

in the new testament we have the meek, pacifist, kinder, gentler, offer-the-other-cheek god. that's perfectly understandable given my understanding of the bible as man's creation. i imagine you have some complex rationalization for this apparent improvement in god's morals, but to an outsider it's pretty obvious that man's, i.e., the biblical authors', morality had evolved...and that's a good thing.

more to come.

WALTER,

"still replying. let me catch up. later today or tomorrow."

Sorry. Let me know when you're there.

WALTER,

Typo alert.

"To do so is completely contradict your own argument (that they were NOT immoral).

Should read:

To do so is TO completely contradict your own argument (that they were NOT immoral).

Sorry.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Yes. Hence my question "have you ever looked at the etymology of the word 'fetus,' specifically its Latin origin and usage?""

PSO: "I have already answered this question: No, I haven't."

RCO: Contemplate the etymology of the word "hence." (I'm sorry...that was just too tempting)

PSO: "Do you believe that I would one day be of the opinion that pregnant women have the right to make their own medical decisions, and then, having looked at the etymology of the word "fetus", change my mind, and be of the opinion that pregnant women do not have the right to make their own medical decisions, simply because of the etymology of the word "fetus"?"

RCO: No. I would, no doubt, have to unravel several more of your yet-undisclosed arguments for you to do that.

PSO: "Do you base your opinions of people's rights on the etymology of random words?"

RCO: No. I base my convictions about peoples rights (including the rights of an unborn child) on a number of logical arguments....made up of words....which have meanings that can be understood.

On what do you base your opinions about people's rights?

You seem (unless, of course, I have not read you closely enough) to be basing your opinion about a woman's "right" to abortion (at least in part) on there being a distinction between a fetus and a child. Hence my suggestion that you look at the etymology of the word "fetus."

still replying. let me catch up. later today or tomorrow.

RCofield,

"Yes. Hence my question "have you ever looked at the etymology of the word 'fetus,' specifically its Latin origin and usage?""

I have already answered this question: No, I haven't.

Do you believe that I would one day be of the opinion that pregnant women have the right to make their own medical decisions, and then, having looked at the etymology of the word "fetus", change my mind, and be of the opinion that pregnant women do not have the right to make their own medical decisions, simply because of the etymology of the word "fetus"?

Do you base your opinions of people's rights on the etymology of random words?

WALTER,

RCO asked: "Was it immoral THEN for them to have slaves, rule by "divine right," burn witches, be sexist, be racist, etc.?"

WALT: "no. it looks horrible to us looking back, but, like jesus, our morals are a product of our times."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok....So...if it was NOT immoral for anyone to own slaves BEFORE the "Enlightenment," why all the vitriol? For example:

WALT: "...old-testament yahweh clearly instructed israelites to take slaves (among many other atrocities)"

I could post literally dozens of such statements you have made in the course of our discussion.

The bottom line is that you DID just completely unravel your own argument. If you contend that such "atrocities" were NOT immoral THEN, you cannot, with ANY degree of intellectual integrity, condemn God/Jesus/Scripture, etc. In point of fact, you can't even call them "atrocities," nor can you contend that modern morality is "better." To do so is completely contradict your own argument (that they were NOT immoral).

The position that you have taken through-out our discussion of morality has now been utterly and irrefutably shown to be illogical. Your conclusions simply do not square with your premise.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RCO: "Subjectivism is a problematic bed-fellow."

WALT: "it's more complicated, but closer to reality than objectivism."

You gotta be kidding me. That may be the most illogical statement I have ever encountered. Walter, you couldn't even get out of bed in the morning, let alone function in the real world, if you did not embrace hundreds, even THOUSANDS of OBJECTIVE truths!

Good grief, man, do you not understand that subjectivism, if it COULD be practically applied unilaterally (which it cannot) would utterly paralyze you?

As Peter would say, your intellectual feet are "firmly" planted in thin air.

rco,
WALT: "4)for most of christian history, it has been perfectly acceptable for christians to own slaves. it's not any more. where's the "objectivity" in that?!"

RCO: "Actually, it has never been "perfectly acceptable" for christians to own slaves. You are conflating social acceptability with scriptural acceptability. And what I can't figure out is why you would do this when you believe morality is a cultural/social construct. It seems to me you are complaining about the very thing you are trying to defend...."

riiiight....they weren't "good christians"... darn that adam!

weak. extremely weak. but i guess it's all you've got. like i said earlier this past weekend, i thought you might be able to pull something out of your... well... bible, but...

you say they weren't "good christians" - based on what?
----------------------

"..... :-) So....this really boils down to one very simple question, doesn't it?"

"Was it immoral THEN for them to have slaves, rule by "divine right," burn witches, be sexist, be racist, etc.?"

no. it looks horrible to us looking back, but, like jesus, our morals are a product of our times.

I really don't think you will even try to answer this question (you will likely obfuscate and misdirect), but if you do answer it....regardless of which way you answer it....you will have completely undermined your own argument."

how the heck do you think i've undermined my argument?

"Subjectivism is a problematic bed-fellow."

it's more complicated, but closer to reality than objectivism.

rco,
WALT: "3)in fact, historically, christians have used the bible and all sorts of contorted logic to defend the institution of slavery."

RCO: "In fact, historically, Enlightenment proponents have used economic arguments and all sorts of contorted logic to defend the institution of slavery.

see above (or below, on this blog...they really should put new comments at the bottom....for ease of reading through everything...).

that you can "turn this around" doesn't disprove the statement. if you hold the bible to the incredibly high standard of being "from god", then it should be so much better than enlightenment-man's feeble attempts at moralizing.... yet... 18th century humans come off so much better than god does - especially the old testament god...

oh, wait, that's the same god, but he's surely not evolving... even though jesus kind of "cancelled out" all the bad stuff from the o.t., that's not evolving morals it's just...well...boy it's tough maintaining a facade of perfection.

rco, you said,
"Christians were opposing slavery well before the "Enlightenment," even to the extent that slavery had largely disappeared in Western Europe around the 12th century, only to be revived again in the 16th...and then overcome again--you guessed it--almost exclusively through the efforts of christianity."

really, "largely disappeared"? never heard of that. do tell. is that just western europe? or everywhere christians were? why'd it even take 12 centuries? why didn't JC just say, "don't own slaves"?
-----------

WALT: "2)the fact that christians have been simultaneously for and against slavery indicates that the bible is an extremely poor source for an opinion on slavery."

then you said, "I think I told you back when we first started our discussion that most of the arguments you were using could be easily turned around and used against you. Here's how that looks: 'The fact that Enlightenment proponents have been simultaneously for and against slavery indicates that the Enlightenment is an extremely poor source for an opinion on slavery' See?"

you think this is "turning the tables" on me or something, but it's really just childish, unimaginative, and in this case, it actually undermines your case by admitting of the similarity between modern christian and enlightenment moral evolution.

remember, i'm just arguing that the enlightenment was a step in our moral maturation, whereas you're arguing that the morals issued in the (entire) bible are perfect.

and, given that old-testament yahweh clearly instructed israelites to take slaves (among many other atrocities), surely jesus could have said "no slavery". but no...he talked all around the issue. he used it in parables and analogies and offered rules about it. but, never once did he prohibit slavery.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Do you think that your usage of a word is definitionally superior to that word's etymological grounding?"

PSO: "I think that one should learn the meaning of words, and use words correctly."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes. Hence my question "have you ever looked at the etymology of the word 'fetus,' specifically its Latin origin and usage?"

RCofield,

"Do you think that your usage of a word is definitionally superior to that word's etymological grounding?"

I think that one should learn the meaning of words, and use words correctly.

PSOLUS,

"More likely, you simply fail to understand what I write because it does not conform to your beliefs."

Not usually the case...It must be that your profundity is just beyond my intellectual ability....

"Do you believe that the etymology of a word magically changes the properties of an object, when that word is used to refer to that object?"

No.

"Did you find that belief written by your god somewhere in your bible?"

See above.

Do you think that your usage of a word is definitionally superior to that word's etymological grounding?

RCofield,

"Ah yes...In your absence I forgot that you seldom actually say anything."

More likely, you simply fail to understand what I write because it does not conform to your beliefs.

"By the way, you earlier contended that a fetus was not a child (unless, of course, I didn't look closely enough at what you were saying). Anyway, have you ever looked at the etymology of the word "fetus," specifically at its Latin origin and usage?"

No, I haven't.

Do you believe that the etymology of a word magically changes the properties of an object, when that word is used to refer to that object?

Did you find that belief written by your god somewhere in your bible?

PSOLUS,

"If you take another closer look at my comment, you will see that I did not comment on the substance of your arguments."

Ah yes...In your absence I forgot that you seldom actually say anything.

"Perhaps you ask me to point out the lack of logic of your arguments because you subconsciously fear that your arguments are indeed illogical."

Perhaps.

By the way, you earlier contended that a fetus was not a child (unless, of course, I didn't look closely enough at what you were saying). Anyway, have you ever looked at the etymology of the word "fetus," specifically at its Latin origin and usage?

RCofield,

"So...what, precisely, do you find illogical about my arguments referenced by Peterhuff?"

If you take another closer look at my comment, you will see that I did not comment on the substance of your arguments.

Perhaps you ask me to point out the lack of logic of your arguments because you subconsciously fear that your arguments are indeed illogical.

PSOLUS!

You impish devil, where the heck have you been? Has the growing "Psolusism" movement been keeping you away?

So...what, precisely, do you find illogical about my arguments referenced by Peterhuff?

WALTER,

WALT: "uh...rco, wth are you talking about? take a closer look at the 2:32 post."

Well, now. Don't I have egg on my face? My apologies, Walter. Didn't realize that one was from PSOLUS.

I hereby retract my entire post of 4:51 PM (erroneously addressed to Walter) and will submit to 40 lashes with a wet noodle. Again, with apologies to Walter.

WALTER,

On October 2, 2010 10:20 AM you wrote: "i'll get to your attempts soon."

So that we don't have another misunderstanding, am I to presume from this that you are going to respond further to my "attempts" of September 30, 2010 5:55 PM, 6:43 PM, 6:57 PM, and 10:36 PM?

uh...rco,
wth are you talking about? take a closer look at the 2:32 post.

WALTER,

You quote Peter, writing to me: "Great logical arguments against CalicoJ, PSolus, Justtilthennow, Justacomment, Rikki and the rest!"

To which you respond (to Peter): "You are aware that simply believing that something is logical does not actually make that something logical, don't you? But, groom away, I'm sure that your mate finds it comforting."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOL...and still laughing out loud. This is rich! Let me remind you of a couple of posts from the not-so-distant past.

On August 11, 2010 2:49 PM TWMATTHEWS posted:

"Walter, I'm with you 100%. Your posts describe what I have been trying to say much more elegantly than I've been able to do. Nice job."

To which you (Walter) responded on August 14, 2010 4:20 PM:

"twmatthews, thanks for the kind words."

So...who is getting "groomed" by their "mates"....and lovin' it??!! I'm sorry, give me a moment here to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes....

C'mon, Walter. Why don't we just deal with one another's arguments rather than resorting such "playground" tactics?

And...given that my discussion with those referenced by Peter took place well before you and I engaged one another...and you probably have no idea what Peter is refering to...shall I assume that you presuppose I cannot offer a logical argument simply because I am on the opposite side of the debate from you?

That seems to me to be juuuuust a hint of "elitism," don't you think?

I know you are capable of better than this.

WALTER,

WALT: "you guys have it exactly backwards. they were wrong to have slaves...by TODAY'S standards... they were wrong to have kings rule by divine right. they were wrong to burn people as witches. they were wrong to be sexist and racist and on and on and on...wrong - by today's standards."

..... :-) So....this really boils down to one very simple question, doesn't it?

Was it immoral THEN for them to have slaves, rule by "divine right," burn witches, be sexist, be racist, etc.?

I really don't think you will even try to answer this question (you will likely obfuscate and misdirect), but if you do answer it....regardless of which way you answer it....you will have completely undermined your own argument.

Subjectivism is a problematic bed-fellow.

peterhuff,

"Great logical arguments against CalicoJ, PSolus, Justtilthennow, Justacomment, Rikki and the rest!"

You are aware that simply believing that something is logical does not actually make that something logical, don't you?

But, groom away, I'm sure that your mate finds it comforting.

"You WANT to say they were absolutely wrong and practicing immorality...but your subjective view of morality precludes your being able to do so with intellectual integrity. On the other hand, I can say that Christians (and atheists) who owned slaves were absolutely wrong and immoral PRECISELY BECAUSE MORALITY IS FIXED AND OBJECTIVE. (not shouting there) Do you not see the difference?"

you guys have it exactly backwards. they were wrong to have slaves...by TODAY'S standards... they were wrong to have kings rule by divine right. they were wrong to burn people as witches. they were wrong to be sexist and racist and on and on and on...wrong - by today's standards.

but, for you to say, "...Christians (and atheists) who owned slaves were absolutely wrong..." you have to find where jesus told people not to have slaves. otherwise, you're just basing your sentiment that slavery is wrong on today's standards.

if jesus didn't say, "slavery is wrong", and christians now think slavery is wrong, then christian morals have changed... even... EVOLVED... (dun dun dunnnn! (plays sinister movie music.))

for you to imagine that jesus just kind of neglected to say anything bad about slavery, or that he "hid" his anti-slavery instructions so it would take us 1800= years to find them is well...it's just not something an all-loving all-good godman would do imho.

besides, see how you've truncated my argument? the slavery issue doesn't begin with jesus. it goes way back to the old testament - maybe to when yahweh sentenced ham (?) and his descendants to be slaves for some childish reason. and since morals, in your world, don't change, then jesus (as yahweh) said all kinds of things clearly condoning - even advocating - slavery in the o.t.

[the easy answer is that jesus didn't bother with slavery because he thought social reform was pointless since the end of the world was imminent...]

rco,
i'll get to your attempts soon.

one thing about your logic on slavery. i was thinking you might be able to come up with a substantive defense of slavery (as impossible as that seems to me). but, you're going with the "good scotsman" defense, huh?: sure, jesus never told them not to own slaves, and christians happily owned slaves for 1800+ years, and sure, jews before them were instructed to take people as slaves, and even after abolitionists made the case for "no slaves", plenty of christians still saw no problem with slavery...it's all because they weren't "good christians", right? hahahahaha.

busy weekend ahead. i'll respond further as possible.

Hi RCofield, Walter,

RCO: "I particularlly like this statement by Frame: "Subjectivism is...a renunciation of epistemological dialogue (in which case it has nothing to say to us.)" In other words, if morality is subjective, then one particular moral view is of no greater value than another and there really is nothing to discuss!"

That is exactly right.

RCofield to Walter: "Hang with us here, for your posts ARE forcing Peter and I to think more precisely about our christian worldview. For that I am grateful."

That has always been the case with both Walter and Pam. There have been so many times that I have had to pull away from the fray for a while and regroup and some of their responses have left me without a suitable answer as of yet. But the beauty of looking at things from God's perspective is that when you rightly interpret God's thoughts it does tear down strongholds.

While I was looking for the Pam statements, of which I'm still not convinced I have the main jist of the arguments she provided, I came across some of your correspondence. Great logical arguments against CalicoJ, PSolus, Justtilthennow, Justacomment, Rikki and the rest! I'm looking forward to see how you develop this discussion with Walter.

Hi RCofield, Walter,

RCO: "I particularlly like this statement by Frame: "Subjectivism is...a renunciation of epistemological dialogue (in which case it has nothing to say to us.)" In other words, if morality is subjective, then one particular moral view is of no greater value than another and there really is nothing to discuss!"

That is exactly right.

RCofield to Walter: "Hang with us here, for your posts ARE forcing Peter and I to think more precisely about our christian worldview. For that I am grateful."

That has always been the case with both Walter and Pam. There have been so many times that I have had to pull away from the fray for a while and regroup and some of their responses have left me without a suitable answer as of yet. But the beauty of looking at things from God's perspective is that when you rightly interpret God's thoughts it does tear down strongholds.

While I was looking for the Pam statements, of which I'm still not convinced I have the main jist of the arguments she provided, I came across some of your correspondence. Great logical arguments against CalicoJ, PSolus, Justtilthennow, Justacomment, Rikki and the rest! I'm looking forward to see how you develop this discussion with Walter.

PETER, WALTER

John Frame does know how to "frame" the argument, doesn't he? I am not familiar with Nash, but the quotes you supplied are excellent.

I particularlly like this statement by Frame: "Subjectivism is...a renunciation of epistemological dialogue (in which case it has nothing to say to us.)" In other words, if morality is subjective, then one particular moral view is of no greater value than another and there really is nothing to discuss! Yet....subjectivists want to engage in the epistemological dialogue, not realizing that they have no rational grounds on which to do so. That is illogical.

Haven't had the time to sort through the posts you sent me by Pam yet. The "altruistic animal" argument presupposes inherrent good in humanity. I think that at the root of this concept of subjective, evolving morality is a failure to recognize the utterly depraved nature of fallen mankind.....a whole other "can of worms" that I hope to delve into at the proper point in our discussion with Walter. I think Dawkins' "selfish gene" concept opened a tremendous line of argumentation for the christian worldview that is often overlooked.

Walter, I sense a little frustration on your part. I do hope you are not taking any of my rather pointed posts personally, for they are not thus intended. Hang with us here, for your posts ARE forcing Peter and I to think more precisely about our christian worldview. For that I am grateful.

I do so wish Pam could find us and re-engage. That would be most excellent and instructive for all of us.

Sorry, that was John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, and Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, with the respective pages.

Hi RCofield,

You to Walter:
"Don't you see, Walter? You are arguing from the wrong presupposition--that morality is subjective/evolving. As a result, your offerings are subjective and non-linear. Your conclusions do not follow your premises."

"You argue that slavery is objectively and absolutely immoral, yet your premise is that morality is subjective--that is illogical. You then offer arguments that the morality of Christianity is subjective (because SOME christians owned slaves), all the while not realizing that, because morality IS OBJECTIVE, it was immoral for them to do so."

"You WANT to say they were absolutely wrong and practicing immorality...but your subjective view of morality precludes your being able to do so with intellectual integrity. On the other hand, I can say that Christians (and atheists) who owned slaves were absolutely wrong and immoral PRECISELY BECAUSE MORALITY IS FIXED AND OBJECTIVE. (not shouting there) Do you not see the difference?"

RCofield, you don't know how long I have belabored this point with Walter. I think John Frame put it well,

"The subjectivist tries to convince others of his view, and thus he concedes that there is some truth knowable to others besides himself. But his theories denies such inter-subjective truth. He claims to know objectively the truth that there is no objective truth, and that is a self-defeating argument, a kind of contradiction. p.120

"Subjectivism is either self-refuting (claiming objective knowledge of the fact that there is no objective knowledge) or a renunciation of epistemological dialogue (in which case it has nothing to say to us.)p.161

Ronald Nash furthers the argument,

"Ethical subjectivism is the belief that whenever people say something is morally good, they mean they like or approve of it.
The key to understanding this position and then grasping its failings is seeing that moral judgments, on this view, refer not to the objective good or evil of actions but instead to inner, subjective feelings on the part of the speaker..."

Now you take this concept one step further to group or cultural subjective ethics and bingo, you arrive at Hitler's Germany. This is evolving ethics. Anything is possible. Pam's theory of the altruistic animal does not pan out when you survey world history. There have been tyrants in every culture that have taken that culture for a relative, subjective ride based on their feelings of what is right and wrong.
This UDHR agenda is nothing more unless it is based on universal objective morality.

And you and I can say that it is in some degree, when it is in conformity to and based on God's word. Walter has no such claim. Where does his 'rightness' come from? It is illogical to say that subjective morals are evolving. Evolving from what as its foundational point of reference? It doesn't have one.

If subjective ethics are a product of subjective minds, then whose is the ultimate judge of which mind has the truth on subjective ethics? Hitler?

WALTER,

WALT: "furthermore, there are many christians who have historically used bible quotes to justify slavery. surely you don't deny that point, right?"

I certainly don't deny that. This is called "proof-texting," simply looking for passages to support a pre-supposed position and forcing one's opinion into the text instead of allowing scripture to speak for itself.

I've noted you doing the exact same thing several times during the course of our discussion (and even challenged you on the Exodus 21 fiasco). This is not a credible approach whether one is a christian or an atheist.

WALTER,

RCO: "The cross-pollination of evolutionary concepts into social constructs has a sobering history of violence."

WALTER: "darwin and government have nothing to do with each other. and, i'm sure i have responded to this point of yours. i think when you guys don't like an answer, you say i haven't responded to it. are you thinking of hitler here?"

RCO: No, Darwin is dead, but his disciples do live on...and you seem somehow blissfully uninformed of the social policies of eugenics, abortion, sterilization, genocide, euthanasia, etc. that have been enacted by various GOVERNMENTS over the last 150 years...on the basis of evolutionary thought.

WALTER,

WALT: "and christians had had 1500 years to "do something" about slavery. it only took humanist/renaissance/enlightenment thinkers a few hundred years to abolish it."

Man...you do make some broad, self-serving statements about history. That one, though, may "take the cake." I am having difficulty understanding how you think you can historically claim the abolition of slavery as an accomplishment of Enlightenment thinking.

The abolitionist landscape is replete with well-known christians who were actively involved in these movements. I've done a little digging, and, unless I have just overlooked something, I have made a startling discovery. I am having a REALLY hard time finding all these "Enlightenment Abolitionists" you keep referring to.

Could you give me a reasonably comprehensive list of notable Atheistic/ Enlightenment advocates who were ACTIVE (not just "criticizing" from the sidelines) in abolishing slavery?

And secondly, could you provide ONE historical example of an abolition movement prior to the 20th century (where something was ACTUALLY DONE) that was NOT founded on Christian convictions?

WALTER,

WALT: "think whatever you want."

.... :-) So...you are going to "stand by" that nifty little piece of history you offered?

WALT: "1)slavery is bad."

Yeah. Most christians are aware of that. And it didn't take the "Enlightenment" to inform them. Christians were opposing slavery well before the "Enlightenment," even to the extent that slavery had largely disappeared in Western Europe around the 12th century, only to be revived again in the 16th...and then overcome again--you guessed it--almost exclusively through the efforts of christianity.

WALT: "2)the fact that christians have been simultaneously for and against slavery indicates that the bible is an extremely poor source for an opinion on slavery."

I think I told you back when we first started our discussion that most of the arguments you were using could be easily turned around and used against you. Here's how that looks: 'The fact that Enlightenment proponents have been simultaneously for and against slavery indicates that the Enlightenment is an extremely poor source for an opinion on slavery' See?

WALT: "3)in fact, historically, christians have used the bible and all sorts of contorted logic to defend the institution of slavery."

RCO: In fact, historically, Enlightenment proponents have used economic arguments and all sorts of contorted logic to defend the institution of slavery.

WALT: "4)for most of christian history, it has been perfectly acceptable for christians to own slaves. it's not any more. where's the "objectivity" in that?!"

RCO: Actually, it has never been "perfectly acceptable" for christians to own slaves. You are conflating social acceptability with scriptural acceptability. And what I can't figure out is why you would do this when you believe morality is a cultural/social construct. It seems to me you are complaining about the very thing you are trying to defend....

Don't you see, Walter? You are arguing from the wrong presupposition--that morality is subjective/evolving. As a result, your offerings are subjective and non-linear. Your conclusions do not follow your premises.

You argue that slavery is objectively and absolutely immoral, yet your premise is that morality is subjective--that is illogical. You then offer arguments that the morality of Christianity is subjective (because SOME christians owned slaves), all the while not realizing that, because morality IS OBJECTIVE, it was immoral for them to do so.

You WANT to say they were absolutely wrong and practicing immorality...but your subjective view of morality precludes your being able to do so with intellectual integrity. On the other hand, I can say that christians (and atheists) who owned slaves were absolutely wrong and immoral PRECISELY BECAUSE MORALITY IS FIXED AND OBJECTIVE. (not shouting there) Do you not see the difference?

rco,
think whatever you want.

1)slavery is bad.

2)the fact that christians have been simultaneously for and against slavery indicates that the bible is an extremely poor source for an opinion on slavery.

3)in fact, historically, christians have used the bible and all sorts of contorted logic to defend the institution of slavery.

4)for most of christian history, it has been perfectly acceptable for christians to own slaves. it's not any more. where's the "objectivity" in that?!

WALTER,

WALT: "i was thinking of quakers and there is a quaker named george whitehead. i may have mixed up whitehead and whitefield,..."

RCO: C'mon, Walter...don't try to blow smoke up my skirt here. I am familiar with the Quaker George Whitehead, I've even visited his grave at Bunnhill Field in London. He was active in the Nonconformists movement in England, to my knowledge he never visited America, and he certainly was not involved in the Great Awakenings in the U.S.

Besides, you said "QUAKERS and mennonites who had to drag "great awakening" mainstream (southern) christians thinkers like george whitehead kicking and screaming into the post-slavery age." No one had to "drag" Whitefield OR Whitehead "kicking and screaming into the post- slavery age."

You are dead wrong on "southern Christians" being the "mainstream" of the Great Awakening and you are dead wrong on Whitehead/Whitefield.

I've seen this EXACT argument (Whitefield/Great Awakening/Southern Christians) before from anti-theists with an axe to grind and no qualms about revising history.

I stand by my contention that you probably "googled" this. It sounds good, even plausible, to those with a predisposition against Christianity so...to heck with the facts, just throw it out there...right?

WALT: "i stand by the assertion that christians were among the most vocal defenders of slavery and hilariously often defended it on religious grounds."

Ok. You seem unaware that many of your "Enlightened" brethren were also vocal defenders of slavery. Your assertion proves nothing as to whether slavery was moral or immoral. If it was immoral, it was immoral for both Enlightenment thinkers AND for Christians thinkers.

This is nothing more than a non sequitur. Just because some Christians were pro-slavery, it does not follow that the "morals of the bible" are "subjective"--as I shall demonstrate when we take up this part of our discussion in earnest.

whitefield/whitefield:

i was thinking of quakers and there is a quaker named george whitehead. i may have mixed up whitehead and whitefield, but my point was that southern christians had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the post slavery world.

i stand by the assertion that christians were among the most vocal defenders of slavery and hilariously often defended it on religious grounds.

the fact that christians were both for and against slavery speaks to the subjective nature of the supposedly objective morals in the bible.

WALTER,

Thanks for the responses. Despite a few instances of predictable misdirection and the utter refusal to engage in a discussion of the morality of abortion, you seem to have grudgingly conceded a few things here.

There was, however, one section of my response that you did not even mention. I'll re-post it as follows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WALT: "as far as i can tell, it was montesqueiu, voltaire, rousseau, diderot, along w/quakers and mennonites who had to drag "great awakening" mainstream (southern) christians thinkers like george whitehead kicking and screaming into the post-slavery age."

To which I responded:

RCO: "Oh boy….. You have been "googling" again. SOUTHERN Christians were the "mainstream" of the Great Awakening?! BOTH the first AND second "Great Awakenings" in America were concentrated in the New England states!

And George "Whitehead?" Don't you mean George "Whitefield"...who, incidentally, was British, NOT a "southerner." And to typify him as having to be "dragged kicking and screaming" on the slavery issue is extremely disingenuous, for his preaching and journals were liberally sprinkled with deep, impassioned concern for the plight of American slaves. Good grief, man. Sometimes your bias is painfully obvious.

This is the sort of "revisionist" history that often characterizes the New Atheism rhetoric. Frankly, it not only lacks factual integrity, it is often flat-out dishonest. I will presume you just found it somewhere on the 'net and didn't do any fact-checking."
*****************************

You really butchered your history here. In light of our upcoming discussion of the slavery issue....it would seem to me that you should either concede or rebut the above.

I would like to get your response on this and then offer a summary (from my perspective) of where we are at this point in our discussion. Would you mind offering a summary from your perspective? And then maybe proceed to the discussion of the slavery issue?

here's our old thread:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/09/shouting_peace_peace_where_there_is_no_peace.html

rco,
i quoted: "Under the banner of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the French Enlightenment philosophes, Encyclopédistes, and liberal economists managed to effectively criticize proslavery economic policy of the French government."

and, after criticizing the french - talk bout your easy targets these days... - you said,
"My point was, where were all these "Enlightened" folks when Wilberforce (a Christian) was waging a 26 year battle to abolish the British slave trade....oh...yes...I remember now. They were busy cutting one another's heads off during that great period of the Enlightenment known as the Reign of Terror."

i mentioned those guys in RESPONSE to your claiming there were NO enlightenment thinkers who opposed slavery - which clearly is not true.

of course the reality is it was christians and others involved in abolition. but i think christians like wilberforce could not have come along before the enlightenment. or if they did, no one would have listened to them. but it seems to me like wilberforce must have been influenced by enlightenment thinking. there's nothing in the christian books(s) that says "no slavery". and christians had had 1500 years to "do something" about slavery. it only took humanist/renaissance/enlightenment thinkers a few hundred years to abolish it.

furthermore, there are many christians who have historically used bible quotes to justify slavery. surely you don't deny that point, right?

rco, you said,
"I do find it interesting that you take Peter to task for contending that this nation was formed on the basis of his Christian worldview and then turn around claim it was founded on the basis of YOUR Enlightenment/Atheistic worldview. If you see his worldview as “needy” and “dependent” for desiring predominance in the government of this nation, what does that make your worldview?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

i'm not saying jefferson/madison were atheists (they certainly weren't christian), or that they wanted to form an atheist government. i do know that they specifically DID NOT want to create a christian government. as to whether their morals were derived from or based on or whatever their religious beliefs is not at all my point about america. america, the first country w/o an official guiding, protective god, could not have happened w/o the enlightenment. the idea of a government not favoring/promoting (and being promoted by) a religion, as ordinary as that seems now, was a new idea back then. and it's a direct result of the realization that all humans, regardless of religion, have certain rights. i do think this is a humanistic enlightenment idea.
---------------------

you said,
"And the “Enlightenment” was certainly not without its own particularly vicious brand of blood-letting—i.e. the “Reign of Terror” in France, which was, to no small degree, directed at Christianity."

well, it was directed at teh oppressive establishment - which certainly was the church/state entanglement. admittedly, they got a bit out of hand.

WALT: “in fact, the kind of restricted inbreeding that hitler imagined (much like that moses, and david imagined) would lead to genetic problems.”

RCO: (LOL) I gotta give you one thing. You are nothing if not consistent with your wild interpretations of the bible.
------------

my point - wherein i was RESPONDING to something you said - was that IF hitler was basing something about a "master aryan race" on evolution, then he was wrong to do so. darwin was just explaining the history of life. hitler was just the latest in a long line of egomaniacal dictators.

also, if hitler was trying to improve the human genetic pool, then by breeding lots of aryans and eliminating jews he was doing it all wrong. hahaha.

my tangential point (and "dig" at moses and david and religious morals) was that hitler is not the first to come up with the idea that his race was the best race. the bible, especially the o.t., offers all kinds of examples of divisive, us/them, we are the chosen people (god's favorite) kind of thinking.

rco, you said,
"You raise the banner of the UDHR, yet the UDHR does not extend to the child in the womb. The UDHR is utilitarian in nature, and Dr. Peter Singer (professor of bioethics at Princeton University) is a leading utilitarian who contends that infanticide is not murder because a child is not human until they are self-aware (3-4 years old?)."

no, the udhr doesn't extend it's rights to fetuses. maybe someday it will. still, either way, i'd put the udhr up against any religious set of moral/behavioral/ethical codes. are you saying this guy "dr. peter singer" supports killing infants and children up to 4 yrs old...or are you just being a little provocative? or loose with definition - like calling a fetus an infant?
------------------

you said,
"Additionally, he contends that euthanasia is not murder."

this is an entirely different issue. and there are many kinds, i.e., shades, of euthanasia. do you mean "euthanasia" with consent? like, say, dr kevorkian (sp?). or like when a cancer patient says "just let me die"? or when i say to my wife, "if i'm ever in a permanent coma, pull the plug"? or a "do not resuscitate" order?
-------------------

you said,

"When individuals like yourself begin defending such evolutionary/utilitarian worldviews (whether out of ignorance or not) you can bet your boots there will be those of us who will raise a red flag and point to the horrific abuses that this kind of thinking has produced in the past."

ok - though i question again your association of evolution with things moral and civic...

rco, you said, [w/my comments in brackets]
Further, when leading proponents of your particular brand of Enlightenment Atheism/Darwinism/Anti-theism are writing entire books stating that Christians are “delusional” [i'd say that's true - given that i don't think the bible is true] and have “a mind-virus” (Dawkins) [that's just a metaphorical way of talking about it, but i get the analogy. it's a pretty good one...] and that Christianity “should be abandoned altogether” (Dennett) [that's just a matter of personal choice - so long as your personal choice doesn't impinge on my rights.] and that Christianity is “evil” [eh..."evil" is a bit strong. i'd say "evil" depends more on the person and how they use the ideas of god etc... but i would say that the belief that "god want you me to" can be pretty powerful - in a negative or positive way] and should be “eradicated altogether” (Harris)[eh...seems too strong and intentionally provocative. christianity doesn't have to be eradicated - but it certainly should be kept out of biology class. i think one thing some of these guys criticize christianity (and all religion) for is that to be a christian you have to believe something w/o the normal rules of scientific evidence. religion is irrational and unscientific.] well, you will just have to excuse me for calling your “metaphors” into question.

rco, you said,
"While I know you don't want to talk about the abortion issue, it is a classic example of "subjective/evolving" morality, and as such it is a glaring and persistent weakness in your argument. I don't see how you can continue to contend for the superiority of "modern" morality without dealing honestly with this issue."

i became, and could still become, fed up with the abortion talk because it seems to be your obsession. every discussion with you was (is?) "going there". even though "rights of fetuses" are not (yet?) codified in the UDHR, human rights are still better than they were 200 years ago. many many less - percentage-wise, i suppose - adults and ex-utero children's rights are being oppressed.
----------------

you said,
"Peter and I are not taking your “cultural chromosome” concept “literally.” It is you who are taking the presumed principles (concepts, if you prefer) of evolution and applying them to society, claiming that we are "evolving" socially."

ok. so cultural chromosome is just an analogy. but i DO think we are evolving morally. the cultural chromosome is just that which we teach/learn. it's philosophy, morality and religion and math and science. without all this stuff every generation would have to "start over". there would be no society.

i do think the average person in the world today is "better off" than 200 and 500 and 1000 etc...years ago. i guess i'm defining "better off" as "having less of his/her individual freedoms - part of what you'd call "god given" - taken away by force." i'd call this a good measure of "overall morality." in terms of this, society's morals are improving.
---------------

you said,
"The cross-pollination of evolutionary concepts into social constructs has a sobering history of violence."

darwin and government have nothing to do with each other. and, i'm sure i have responded to this point of yours. i think when you guys don't like an answer, you say i haven't responded to it.

are you thinking of hitler here?
-----------------

PS. RCofield,

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/08/ignorance_about_sexually_transmitted_diseases.html

Hi RCofield,

I found some of the threads I was looking for on Susan Jacoby’s blog “Ignorance About Sexually Transmitted Diseases” back in August 26, 2009.
I don't think this is the main thrust of the discussion however.

Pamsm | September 8, 2009 5:15 PM – Pam on the origin of life
Pamsm | September 9, 2009 3:07 PM - Pam on the origin of life
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Pamsm | September 4, 2009 1:38 AM – Pam on altruism
Pamsm | September 4, 2009 1:19 AM – Pam on abortion

PS:

Susan Jacoby is a CATHOLIC! Oye Vay!

To SUSAN JACOBY:

C/O: S.B.T. & Newsweek/onfaith:

goodriddenceTo ALL/Every & Any ABRAHAMIC "War Blessing" & Satanic-Versus (not only Ishalmi's) Lovin Satanic-Versus of their [Never OUR] "Drunkin Racist Noah" Jealousy Blessers/Recievers etc..!

All wannabe Christians are ADDICTED Symbolic Cannibals & Vampires [zOMBIES] aka Humans. NOt like Us HUUMANS. AND

ALL wannbe Jews are addicted [Jealousy Worshipers] "GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE" SUPERSTUPIDSTITIOUS Humans. NOt like US HUUMATE(s).!

NOTE: ALL wanabe Vedic Hindu's & Buddhists are just as Pre-Apocalyptic [unlike US Apocalyptarians] as the God Players of Israel and Vatican et al!

The "AQUARiUS-AGE" is Unfit for All those Whom Still Live In and Worship as if the PISCES-AGE! Foooooooolllls.

Death To ALL Every & Any ABRAHAMICs (Jews, Xrstians, Islami's, Mormons etc And All VEDICs (Hindus, Buddhists, Sieks, Ja{ins, Confusions et al..!).

Goodbye HUMAN(S)! {Piscesians/PRE-Apocalyptic-OFF's]

Hello HUUMATE(S)! [Aquarians/Apocalyptic-ON's}

A Prophecy who's TiME via time is Com'th [Prophetically and as foretold in All Ye/Yo's iNfixus-Books & More).