The following is in response to a couple of comments to the effect that I do nothing but attack religion. It is a simple statement of what I am for. Every one of these things, I should point out, is threatened by religious fundamentalism. That's why I spend so much time talking about the things I do.
- I believe in reason.
- I believe in being honest with oneself.
- I believe in improving on accepted beliefs.
- I believe in having the freedom to seek the truth without worrying that the evidence will point to the "wrong" conclusion.
- I believe in having the determination to make a careful investigation and not accept the first answer that is presented.
- I believe in having the courage to face unpleasant realities.
- I believe in the demonstrated human ability to change unpleasant realities.
- I believe in using advances in knowledge to fight the things that have plauged humankind since the beginning of history.
- I believe that religion, once understood as a human-created social phenomenon, can be a fascinating subject of study.
- I believe in the value of human beings.
- I believe in our ability to create and appreciate beauty.
- I believe in laughter.
- I believe in joy.
- I believe in questing to fulfill our dreams.
- I believe in the ability to find good in life's imperfections.
- I believe in the richess of variety.
- I believe in pondering the universe's puzzles.
- I believe that all of this gives human beings worth that no one can take away.
23 comments:
How do you discern moral rightness from moral wrongness? Your list does not answer that.
(the anonymous poster you were replying to is not I) By the way, I liked your reply to my comment--particularly, when you said do not hate christians, but hate what the follow. I think you do not understand Christianity. I think the bible leads us to a place where we are what you would call conservative (not in a political sense), but it soundly rejects what you would call fundamentalism. I'd be happy to try and tell you about this later. I can't try to convince you now, because I need to get going. (real life beckons!)
Let me turn your first question around--what's your basis for morality? The problem with God centered morality is that it tends to make ethics arbitrary and human beings worthless. We see this in attempts to defend the Old Testament massacres by saying "God created us, he can do whatever he pleases to us." Humans are treated as having no inherent worth but rather as divine chattel. For this reason, I think the only coherent morality is one that starts with the value of human beings.
Chris, I would like to have a dialogue with you.
Are all humans valuable? Why are humans valuable? What about Jerry Fallwell?
The biblical summary of morality is, "love your neighbor as yourself," where neighbor refers to everybody, not just your friends.
You said you are willing to acknowledge error. I think you have a straw-man view of Christianity.
Now I will answer a question you posed: How can christians call moral, a morality that allows for killing in the name of God?
The Bible teaches that humans are of great value to God. The Bible calls us his beloved children. In the new testament there is a vast witness to this. I assume you know that tale of the prodigal son. (That's one of my favorite examples) Biblical man-to-man morality is based on "love your neighbor as yourself." And who is my neighbor? Well, it's your friends and also the guy you don't like. (In Christ's day it was the half-breed jew.)
Now for the old testament. In the new testament we are taught that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. The old testament shows what the wages of sin look like. God had judged the peoples of canaan. The dwellers in canaan were burning their children in fires in the worship idols. (Deutoronomy 18:9-16) Why did this make God angry? From the new testament we know that all humans are valuable to God, but especially children. (Matthew 19:13-14) It is also interesting that God waited four generations to invade canaan because their sin was not great enough to justify an invasion during Abraham's time. (Genesis 15:16).
Even fundamentalist christianity cannot justify killing in the name of God. Why? In the old testament all killing in the name of God was commanded very specifically, "God said to group A to kill Group B." Thus, this killing is in the past. Christians to do not kill in the name of their God.
I'm willing to agree with you that much wickedness has been committed in the name of God (and that *is* using God's name in vain). I hope this is enough to convince you to, at the very least, to be slower to condemn the bible. (I don't mind, particuluarly, if you condmen Christians, a lot of us deserve it). If not this does not satisfy you, please ask me some more questions.
I would like to explain why the *bible* and true christians reject what is called fundamentalism and christian liberalism. But I'll have to do that some other time. This post is already too long.
I should say, I am more eagerly anticipating your reply to my questions, than your opinion of my answer. :-)
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
This comes right after the above...
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
The actions of God described in Genesis are not the actions of a just being. They are the actions of a corrupt official interested in fulfilling the letter but not spirit of the law. What would you think of a police chief who avoided doing anything about a criminal organization until it had committed severe enough crimes to give him the excuse to seize its assets and give the assets to someone else?
Even ignoring this issue, there remains no excuse for the complete extermination of the nation, any more than there would have been an excuse for exterminating all Germans in the wake of WWII and the Holocaust.
The Bible, though, seems fairly murky on the question of what, in principle, makes killing okay. One of the things it is clear on is that all unbelievers go to hell (see especially John chapter 3). This is sheer madness. It means some people will go to hell simply as a result of education, of finding out they were lied to about the evidence for Biblical creationism, or because they decided to honestly ask themselves whether there's good reason to suppose that Christianity is true. The only way around this monsterous conclusion that I've seen is the claim that everyone knows deep down that Christianity is true. I know that I don't know this. I'm fairly certain that many others don't know this either: see the testimonials section on the Secular Web. If you doubt our testimony here, ask yourself: do you have trouble with it because of independent evidence against it, or just because you need it to be false to justify Christian doctrine?
Hi Chris,
First, you did not answer my question. Why are humans valueable, and are all humans valuable?
And for you, I will once again try to answer your question. You ask about john 3. I suspect you mean verses 18-21.
I suspect you interpret this passage to mean that unless you know about Christ the man and think that Christ told the truth about everything you are going to hell. (whatever that it is) You couldn't be more wrong. This is how your beloved fundies interpret that passage. They are wrong. :-)
I claim that once you posit the existance of a personal God, John 3 is almost tautologically true.
Verse 16 states christ came to save the world (and there is an enormous corroborating biblical witness to this effect). So, strictly, this passage says we must believe in the part of God that wants to save the world to avoid condemnation.
This must be interpreted in light of Romans 1 and 2. According to these passages man knows enough from his concience and nature to believe in God. God's really not asking for much here. He asking us to accept that he wants to save us, and for some, merely obeying their concience in a world that demands we violate our concience was enough.
Morever, God will judge each man individualy based on specific circumstances. (1 cor 4;5, Romans 2:15, John 5, John 8) That is why christians are strictly commanded not to judge: we do not know, "men's secrets."
You asked about the old testament again. Justice is strict. Justice is, "eye for eye." The culture of Canaan embraced buring their infants, justice demanded that they die. As for sodom, there was not one righteous man among them. Christians are interested in love and grace. Christians are commanded to turn the other cheek. Justice and judgement, that is God's job. Only He is qualified to do it.
At the very least I hope I've gotten you to question your interpretations of scripture.
I want to state how I interpret scripture. I believe the bible is the only explicit record of God's words and is the best source of knowledge about God; however, there are other sources of knowledge about God, for example, the human concience, and nature. Fundamentalists believe their interpretation is inerent, and thereby try to bring themselves glory. God does not like that go and read (please do this) john 7:15-19. He implies the teachers of the law had their strict interpretations to bring honor to themselvs. He offended their egos, and they wanted to kill him. Sounds like fundamentalists, eh?
Hi Chris,
You did not answer my question. Why are humans valuable, and, are all humans valuable?
And for you, I will once again try to answer your question. You ask about john 3. I suspect you mean verses 18-21.
I’m guessing you interpret this passage to mean: unless you know about Christ. the man, and think that Christ, the man, told the you are going to hell. (whatever that it is). This is why I think those who you would call fundamentalists have often used God’s name in vain.
I claim that once you posit the existence of a personal God, John 3 is almost tautologically true. Verse 16 states christ came to save the world (and there is an enormous corroborating biblical witness to this effect). So, strictly, this passage says we must believe in the part of God that wants to save the world to avoid condemnation.
This must be interpreted in light of Romans 1 and 2. According to these passages man knows enough from his conscience and nature to believe in God. God's really not asking for much here. He asking us to accept that he wants to save us, and for some, merely obeying their conscience, in a world that demands we violate our conscience, was enough.
Moreover, God will judge each man individually based on specific circumstances. (1 cor 4;5, Romans 2:15, John 5, John 8) That is why christians are strictly commanded not to judge: we do not know, "men's secrets."
You asked about the old testament again. Justice is strict. Justice is, "eye for eye." The culture of Canaan embraced burning their infants. Justice demanded that they die. Keep in mind the bible says Noah wasn’t that long ago. The old testament portrays a world where they had recently exchanged God for and Idol. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor mathematical simulation puts the common ancestor around 4 to 5 thousand years ago) As for sodom, there was not one righteous man among them. Christians are interested in love and grace. Christians are commanded to turn the other cheek. Justice and judgement: that is God's job. Only He is qualified to do it.
At the very least I hope I've gotten you to question your interpretations of scripture. I’m still waiting for you to answer my question
I want to state how I interpret scripture. I believe the bible is the only explicit record of God's words and is the best source of knowledge about God; however, there are other sources of knowledge about God, for example, the human conscience, and nature. Fundamentalists believe their interpretation is without error, and they thereby try to bring themselves glory. John 7:15-19 tells us that this, “fundamentalist,” behavior displeased God. In this passage Christ implies the teachers of the law had their strict interpretations to bring honor to themselves. They responded by wanting to kill him; he offended their egos, thereby confirming Christ’s statement. Sounds like modern-day fundamentalists, eh?
I've tried to answer your question. Can you try to answer my question now?
Many of the things on my list are reasons I think human beings are valuable. If none of these things mean anything, what do you think God does to change this?
I will give you credit for the most plausible attempt to show that the Bible is compatible with non-Christians going to heaven. Still, a couple of problems. I wouldn't call the fundamentalist interpretations "strict" as much as "straightforward." If they're wrong, it seems to me that God has caused a lot of needless suffering by not making himself clearer about this and many other issues in the Bible. Also, it still seems to me that on your interpretation, a person still must have the right theology to be saved--something resembling Christianity, even if it doesn't refer to Jesus. This causes most of the same problems that a "Christians only" heaven does.
When I talked about Genesis, I wasn't talking about Sodom. I was talking about the fact that God avoided doing anything about Canan until things got bad enough that he could justify exterminating them. You also didn't deal with the question of why the entire nation and not just specific wrongdoers. The main instance where God spared any is when he let the Israelites keep the virgin girls for themselves, and the motives don't seem particularly pure there.
God's will really is clear to those who seek to do what is right in their heart and mind, but He allows us to choose. Even when Jesus, God in the flesh, was teaching here on earth, people misunderstood. But he pinned down in John 7 why they misunderstood: they wanted honor instead of wanting to honor God, even to the point where they wanted to kill Jesus. They had taken the rules and turned them into an excuse for making others bow down to them, and they weren't about to give up that power. The most telling part was when he ended the discussion with, "Why do you want to kill me?"
God still offers the choice to bringing Him honor or yourself honor, and the wrong one manifests itself as hatreful, dominating oppression of others to get their way and to sit in the place of honor. That was the original rebellion of Satan; he didn't want to follow God, but he wanted to be God. So he set out afterwards just to do damage to what God loves, misleading and destroying by holding out the carrot of having glory and honor.
So you have a way of spotting the error around you. Those who want control, honor, and demand to be obeyed are dangerous. Everyone else is left only with a message of good news, and they know some will reject it because they have their own plans and others will accept it because it is written in them and they listen because they truly want to do what they know to be right.
Romans 2:13-16
------------------
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Sorry to post so much. But here's some final questions to get you thinking this way.
Whose honor does someone seek when they adopt ad hoc doctrines of inerrancy, literalism, etc. in order to determine a certain interpretation? Whose will do they want enforced?
When people treat a Church as an exclusive club, whose honor do they seek?
When someone points out your sin, but ignores their own lovelessness, are they really seeking God's will in their own life?
These are the errors.
So, you have chosen as a starting point that humans are valuable? I think that is a very Christian value. We are God's beloved creation. You and I are both valuable in God's sight: so I should show you the love, that I would show myself. I should treat you as I want you to try me. (both are almost quotes from scripture)
I guess I'm surprised. As an atheist Darwinist, shouldn't you begin with: That which advances the human species' evolution (or acquisition of power) is good? This would be an ethic wholly incompatible with, “every human is valuable.”
As for salvation, the bible is clear that if you believe in Christianity then you will be saved from condemnation. The bible does not imply the converse. With respect to the converse, what it really says is God will judge on a case by case basis according to truth.
Furthermore the bible tells me, not to worry about how God will judge. That's God's job. I know God is good. His judgement will be fair, and his punishments will be just. I don't understand the punishments completely nor do I know how God will judge, except that those who have faith in Christ are saved. The bible does tell me to be an ambassador for christ making disciples of all nations.
Turning to the story of canaan: If you read the narrative of the old testament, you shall see what brings Israel down is their failure to destroy everything of Canaan's culture. The children of Isreal got greedy, and the remnants of that culture that they saved provided the them with temptation to turn away from God. Canaan had to be completely destroyed because God wanted their religion and their culture to be gone; apparently, it was that evil. I don't know if God judged everybody in that culture guilty or not--God will deal with them on the day of judgement. And if some among them were innocent, I’m sure they will be dealt with in a way that is right.
Lastly I interpret scripture literally fundamentalists often don't. Take for example:
I cor 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Fundamentalists never take this literally. Christ said to turn the other cheek. Fundamentalists don't do that either. You should know Christian's by their love. Paul says that without love, he is but a ringing gong. In revelation the lampstand represents the church, and God says to the church at Ephesus: (revelation 2:1-7)
"I know your works ... I know you cannot tolerate evildoers. ... But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. ... Repent and do the works you did at first. ... [If you do not] I will come to you and remove you lampstand." These are the fundamentalists.
So, you have chosen as a starting point that humans are valuable? I think that is a very Christian value. We are God's beloved creation. You and I are both valuable in God's sight: so I should show you the love, that I would show myself. I should treat you as I want you to try me. (both are almost quotes from scripture)
I guess I'm surprised. As an atheist Darwinist, shouldn't you begin with: That which advances the human species' evolution (or acquisition of power) is good? This would be an ethic wholly incompatible with, “every human is valuable.”
As for salvation, the bible is clear that if you believe in Christianity then you will be saved from condemnation. The bible does not imply the converse. With respect to the converse, what it really says is God will judge on a case by case basis according to truth.
Furthermore the bible tells me, not to worry about how God will judge. That's God's job. I know God is good. His judgement will be fair, and his punishments will be just. I don't understand the punishments completely nor do I know how God will judge, except that those who have faith in Christ are saved. The bible does tell me to be an ambassador for christ making disciples of all nations.
Turning to the story of canaan: If you read the narrative of the old testament, you shall see what brings Israel down is their failure to destroy everything of Canaan's culture. The children of Isreal got greedy, and the remnants of that culture that they saved provided the them with temptation to turn away from God. Canaan had to be completely destroyed because God wanted their religion and their culture to be gone; apparently, it was that evil. I don't know if God judged everybody in that culture guilty or not--God will deal with them on the day of judgement. And if some among them were innocent, I’m sure they will be dealt with in a way that is right.
Lastly I interpret scripture literally fundamentalists often don't. Take for example:
I cor 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Fundamentalists never take this literally. Christ said to turn the other cheek. Fundamentalists don't do that either. You should know Christian's by their love. Paul says that without love, he is but a ringing gong. In revelation the lampstand represents the church, and God says to the church at Ephesus: (revelation 2:1-7)
"I know your works ... I know you cannot tolerate evildoers. ... But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. ... Repent and do the works you did at first. ... [If you do not] I will come to you and remove you lampstand." These are the fundamentalists.
You should read the letters to the church's in Revelation 2 and 3. I suspect you would like what God says to them. Also, I think you should go and read the whole new testament (and especially the Gospels) trying to erase from your mind all you have learned about it in the past. Don't worry about the fundamentalist interpretation or the atheist insult against it. Don't even worry about my interpretation. Just read it and see what it says. Perhaps, its worth keeping in mind that Christians interpret the whole thing as God's words. The Strong's concordance at crosswalk.com is very useful for understanding confusing words. (Its almost a greek dictionary). I’m not sure where I read it, but I know you wrote somewhere that you think religion could be an interesting thing to study.
As an atheist Darwinist, shouldn't you begin with: That which advances the human species' evolution (or acquisition of power) is good? This would be an ethic wholly incompatible with, "every human is valuable."
Why would you expect that? It's an idea that gets mindlessly repeated by religious apologists, but what's the rational basis for it? And what do you think God's role in determining morality is?
I meant no insult. I'm sorry, that it could have come off that way. :-)
I liked your answer; I was just surprised. You've invented your own morality by following your concience. I think ascribing value to every human, even those who are annoying is a very good place to start. The bible says do good to those who hate you, and bless those who curse you. I think valuing human life is a very compatible thing.
Did you read the rest of my post?
Yes, I read the rest of your post, but this was one issue I'd like to focus on. Re-reading my comment, I realize it was rather terse, but I would like to hear your answers to those questions.
As a christian the thing that bothers me the most about darwinism is how different it is from "blessed are the meek." Many choose their morality to extend from their world-view. The early eugenics types did this.
I don't particularly care about evolution. Evolution could have happened--doesn't change my faith. I answered your question by apologizing, because I meant to admit that my expectation was silly, if not stupid, and kinda insulting. However, I do not want it to nullify my other points which were far more important. Please accept my apology and leave it at that. For you, as an atheist, I think it is consistent for you to choose your own moral code arbitrarily. As a christian, that idea is foreign to me.
I only hope that I've convinced you that fundamentalists are not biblical literalists. More importantly, I hope I've convinced you to look at the bible again with a a fresh eye. Even if you don't believe it, I think it is far richer than either liberal Christians like Spong, or fundamentalists like Fallwell believe it is.
Also, I'd enjoy the posts this would generate about how various Christian groups fail to live up to the Bible. I'd even enjoy posts attempting to show how silly some passage of the Bible are. I'd be sure to try to answer your questions; although, no guarantees I could.
You may be interested to know that the idea of eugenics existed over two millenia before Darwin. Plato argued for it based on observations about dog breeding. Evolutionary biology lends no real support to the idea, even though it was championed by a relative of Darwin's.
On literalism--the idea always amuses me. If I hear that, say, 31% of Americans believe the Bible should be taken literally, what that tells me is that 30% of Americans don't know what they're talking about at 1% think that the Earth is flat. On the other hand, I think conservatives who try to take the Bible as plainly as possible have a point--a perfect being should be nothing if not able to make himself clear.
I don't buy the justification for the extermination of Canaan. Bringing in the issue of human sacrifice boils down to "killing children is a crime so horrible it must be punished by killing children." Also remember that this is the God who praised Abraham for be willing to sacrifice his son for God. Insofar as the Bible really does justify the killing of the Canaanites in terms of things they did, their main crime seems to have been just worshiping the other gods, regarless of the human sacrifice. Deuteronomy 13, for example, proscribes the death penalty for proposing worship of other gods. There is no mention of human sacrifice in this chapter.
As for the story of Abraham and the sacrifice. That was a story about trusting the Lord. Even though He lead Abraham down a seemingly bad path, God provided a way out. There was no child sacrifice.
I believe God gave mankind his concience. If we knew what God had known, I believe we would have been convinced of the danagers of canaan as well. I believe your proposed morality of "valuing humans," came to you because God has written his moral code on your heart, even though you don't realize it. You are created in His image. I have a sinking feeling that for the time being, we will have to agree to disagree.
Before we agree to disagree, one last point--how was Abraham supposed to know that he could trust God, and the Canaanites supposed to know that they could not trust their gods?
I noticed that you fellows were discussing the invasion of Canaan.
Is that the invasion dealt with in the book of Isaiah, which reads (13: 15-16): "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished"
Seems fairly intense for trying to liberate those children - by dashing them to pieces on the ground before their parents' eyes?
Quoting Human Being:
"As for the story of Abraham and the sacrifice. That was a story about trusting the Lord. Even though He lead Abraham down a seemingly bad path, God provided a way out. There was no child sacrifice."
What about the story in the book of Judges, where the man promises god he'll sacrifice the first person he sees coming out of his house upon his return home if god lets him conquer some city -- and then cooks his daughter? Was the guy just not right?
Post a Comment