How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[anthony022071]

Wow, really. Well, there we have it. You think that in some contexts, it’s ok for one human being to own another.

There are plenty of theists who hold to that position – slavery and other things like it are a-ok when God says so – but they often don’t admit it in public.

And these are usually the same theists who are critical of “moral relativism.” Yikes.

to own another person is inappropriate and insulting to the diginity of persons,but it does not by itself amount to a sin like murder or physical abuse.

Parents don’t own children as property to be passed down like other pieces of property.

Parents have cultural and legal rights over their minor children,and when parents dies,their children are given over to relatives or they become wards of the state.

Look what your religion has you doing – it has you defending the concept of owning people.

My religion holds that slavery is intrinsically wrong.

Now look, if you want to believe that slavery is a-ok whenever sky daddy says so, then that’s your right to believe that. But I just want to make very clear to people what the stakes are here.

What are the stakes?

Yes, precisely. They were opposed to slavery because of moral developments that had taken place.

The moral developments of the 18th and 19th centuries did not amount to an improvement in morals overall. People gradually lost their sense of personal sin as they became more aware of human rights and social injustices.

 

[AntiTheist]

My religion holds that slavery is intrinsically wrong

Well, it seems that you are at odds with Ddarko, who has stated that not all slavery is wrong.

Who’s correct here?

to own another person is inappropriate and insulting to the diginity of persons,but it does not by itself amount to a sin like murder or physical abuse. …] My religion holds that slavery is intrinsically wrong

So slavery is not a sin but “intrinsically wrong” anyway? It seems like a contradiction, but I’m sure there’s a semantic two-step you can do around it.

More to the point, if slavery is “intrinsically wrong,” why is a supposedly all-good god character endorsing it in his holy book?

Parents have cultural and legal rights over their minor children,and when parents dies,their children are given over to relatives or they become wards of the state.

People owning others as slaves and people having rights over their children aren’t remotely comparable. Children in today’s society aren’t considered “property” that you “own” – guardianship of them passes to others, not “ownership.”

And if you are saying that parents having rights over children is comparable to owning them, then by your own logic, parents having rights over children must be “inappropriate and insulting to the dignity” of those children, if not “intrinsically wrong.”

So stop making silly comparisons.

What are the stakes?

Quite simply, that theists consider “good” – in fact, they define “good” – as nothing more than the arbitrary decrees of a being (or his “nature,” if you prefer). What this amounts to, practically, is that morality for a theist can and does change depending on context – for theists, in some contexts, slavery is good, as is murder, genocide, rape, etc.

It all depends on what the “big guy” says today. Some objective morality, eh? And these are the same people who go around bemoaning so-called “moral relativism.”

 

[donsnow]

About Slavery

Today, in the EuroAmerican civilization, we hold that slavery is wrong and illegal.

However, some people on this thread want to know about slavery and God, but they are not of God. Slavery comes under the aegis of the scripture, “All things work out for the good of those who love God and are called to serve Him.”
Then, even slavery, under God, can work out for the good.

Now, taking God out of the equation, since it’s mostly the godless posters on this thread in such a tizzy about slavery, then slavery, of course, becomes relativistic. Relativistic in that, it depends on the slave holder or slave owner. A slave holder would be a steward, chief slave or some such other person, for the owner. If the one in charge of the slaves did good to them, for example they had it good with food, clothes, allowed to hold and sell their own property, then it’s good.
However, if the person in charge of the slaves were cruel or mean or sadistic, etc, then their slavery would be bad.

On the other hand, when we put God back into the slavery equation, slavery becomes moot. You see, the kingdom of God is eternal and real. All else is a temporary illusion. As pointed out by PRmerger, since we have eternal life because we are made in the image of God, then the few days under a cruel government or a cruel slave master or a cruel banker or a cruel employer, or a cruel parent, or a cruel teacher, etc, pale in comparison to the eternal joy ahead of us who do what Jesus Christ says to do: love God; and love other people as ourselves.
That’s why slavery and other earthly things are moot: they’re temporary in the eternal scheme of things.

Just my two cent’s worth,
Don

 

[ddarko]

Well, it seems that you are at odds with Ddarko, who has stated that not all slavery is wrong.

Who’s correct here?

Quiet the contrary. If you read Anthony’s post in total, you will realize that when he condemns slavery, he is condemning it in the sense that slave traders used it.

Then again, that might be too much to ask since you don’t seem to read much.

Btw, SLAVERY in the slave trading sense even is ONLY wrong because God is the owner of his creation. No other human can own another human being because they already belong to God. So unless God wills it, then there is no ownership.

But you are forgetting that at the same time, God does will for us to serve each other. In marriage, we do become part of the other spouse. So we do belong to each other. Similarly, kids belong to their parents. This ownership is MORAL because it is God willed and therefore consistent with God’s nature.

In short, you are confusing a lot of things when arguing slavery. You already forget God, the source of morality and start condemning slavery. Not very bright…

Quite simply, that theists consider “good” – in fact, they define “good” – as nothing more than the arbitrary decrees of a being (or his “nature,” if you prefer). What this amounts to, practically, is that morality for a theist can and does change depending on context – for theists, in some contexts, slavery is good, as is murder, genocide, rape, etc.

It all depends on what the “big guy” says today. Some objective morality, eh? And these are the same people who go around bemoaning so-called “moral relativism.”

God is our creator Mr. AntiReason. He can DO ANYTHING to us.

Man on the other hand HAS NO RIGHT to go against God’s nature.

Your charge that it equates to moral relativism is your own retarded thinking.

Moral Relativism is when ATHEIST like you decide to do their OWN little thing and play God. Obviously THAT IS DUMB. God has the right to do what ever he wants with us BECAUSE we are his creation. BUT that does not mean we have the right to do what we want with God’s creation. To think so is utter stupidity.

You can think of it as its all about Justice. For God, it is JUST to do anything to us. But for us to do something AGAINST God’s nature and will is UNJUST. Since we are his creation, we must obey his will and try to be consistent with his nature.

The problem you have is that you are putting yourself in the same level as God. Get off your high pedestal and start being real.

Kapish?

You and truthseeker60 need to do some REAL thinking. Otherwise, from garbage only garbage will continue to come as we are continually forced to witness.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

That is because religion provides a rational basis for belief in goodness whereas materialism doesn’t.

If selfless concern is habitual it is less praiseworthy than that motivated by love. We Christians don’t think of reward or punishment because our sacrifices are based on the love Christ has for us. We know we are created for love and that is the reason we exist. We don’t always succeed but we try to see Christ in everyone because we believe He suffered and died for all of us. Selfless concern alone is as cold as charity!
You say that religion provides a rational basis for belief in goodness. However, if a Christian can do something out of love (entailing that it’s not done because of reward/punishment) why can’t an atheist do the same?

Of course atheists can - and do. But the question is whether you have a rational basis for believing in unselfish love. If you believe we are not created for love then it is a strange intruder on the scene!

The Bible does not say anything! It is a collection of scriptures which can be interpreted in many ways without the teaching of Christ and the Church He instituted.

I you have any writings of the sayings of Jesus outside the Bible, I’d be very interested. I’m sure some historians would die for it.

The teaching of Christ has been handed down to us by those who heard Him and witnessed His life, death and Resurrection - and by the unbroken line of their successors who have preserved His message intact for two thousand years.

Happiness for everyone in this life is not only unattainable but unacceptable for many because they would lose much of their power and wealth.

I think that’s one of the dangers with religion. I think it somewhat hinders one’s abilities to appreciate this life, which, as far as I know, is the only one we get.

On the contrary. An accident which leads nowhere is far less valuable than a** gift from God** which leads to eternal life. As they approach death materialists are dismayed by the futility of life and often commit suicide whereas believers appreciate its true significance as an opportunity for developing our capacity for love. Even young people who see no point in living are more likely to opt out rather than wait for what they regard as inevitable extinction.
While things are going well for you life seems wonderful but you don’t know how long it will be before you discard your rose-tinted spectacles…

Human morality has not led to peace and harmony in the world because it ignores the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

Studies have shown that the most religious countries have been the most violent (even if one excludes Muslim countries), while countries which have had the highest percentage of non-believers have been the most peaceful. Considering this, as well as considering that until recently lack of belief in some sort of god (which influenced moral thinking), I would say that morality from religion has failed keeping peace.

You need to cite your sources. Even if it were true it would prove nothing because few church-goers are criminals. To live in a religious country is not a guarantee of virtue any more than it is in a secular state - except of course for hideous crimes like abortion on demand, although they are proscribed by law and not…

What’s more dangerous, arbitrary, and relativistic, non-believers choosing to adopt a non-violent morality, or a believer adopting morality from a god who ordered that children be killed?

Endorsed by Jesus? Think again…

God didn’t write a book! He communicates with us through fallible human beings.

God authored a book (according to Christian theology). It’s a cop-out to blame all the contradictions and other problems on those incompetent humans he inspired.

Not at all. We are not created to be spoon-fed but to use our own judgment, choose what to believe and decide how to live. The teaching of Jesus is clear and indisputably based on the command to love others and if necessary die for them. Everything else fades into insignificance if we take that message to heart and put it into practice. It’s a cop-out to evade the truth by spending your time and energy searching for excuses to ignore His teaching and live according to the way you please. The acid test is whether you reject His words and replace them with your own interpretation of life. If so the onus is on you to produce your superior version of morality…

 

[Rocinante]

About Slavery

Today, in the EuroAmerican civilization, we hold that slavery is wrong and illegal.

However, some people on this thread want to know about slavery and God, but they are not of God. Slavery comes under the aegis of the scripture, “All things work out for the good of those who love God and are called to serve Him.”
Then, even slavery, under God, can work out for the good.

Now, taking God out of the equation, since it’s mostly the godless posters on this thread in such a tizzy about slavery, then slavery, of course, becomes relativistic. Relativistic in that, it depends on the slave holder or slave owner. A slave holder would be a steward, chief slave or some such other person, for the owner. If the one in charge of the slaves did good to them, for example they had it good with food, clothes, allowed to hold and sell their own property, then it’s good.
However, if the person in charge of the slaves were cruel or mean or sadistic, etc, then their slavery would be bad.

On the other hand, when we put God back into the slavery equation, slavery becomes moot. You see, the kingdom of God is eternal and real. All else is a temporary illusion. As pointed out by PRmerger, since we have eternal life because we are made in the image of God, then the few days under a cruel government or a cruel slave master or a cruel banker or a cruel employer, or a cruel parent, or a cruel teacher, etc, pale in comparison to the eternal joy ahead of us who do what Jesus Christ says to do: love God; and love other people as ourselves.
That’s why slavery and other earthly things are moot: they’re temporary in the eternal scheme of things.

Just my two cent’s worth,
Don

this all sounds like moral relativism to me. the one thing that pretty much everyone agrees on is that slavery is wrong always and everywhere. only a relativist could find a way to say that under certain conditions it is a good thing or simply cannot be judged to be good or bad. i thought catholics were against moral relativism?

rocinante

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I suppose you think that God does not send the wicked to hell either to writhe in pain for eternity. What kind of extraordinary evidence do you expect to find for the extraordinary claims of hell and judgement.

I’m saying that if there was an afterlife, a god who was not sadistic wouldn’t deal with his enemies by having them tortured forever.

Regarding evidence, reasonable evidence for the existence of god or the veracity of a certain religion would be solid.

When you are standing on the brink of the lake of fire being judged then I am sure that you will have an opportunity to make your accusations against God, his scriptures and his church to him then.

Your post makes it sound that you almost want me, and others who don’t think god exists, to burn in a lake of fire forever. If so, that’s scary.

If I die and meet a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and wants the best for the creatures he made, I wouldn’t go to a lake of fire. Such a being would understand why I didn’t think he existed (and thus not worshiped him). Such a being would also know what’s in my heart. In that situation, I’ll be able to ask him why it seems he took steps to hide the fact the he existed.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Take this analogy, TS.

Parents give their children knowledge. Once the children have it, it cannot be taken away by the parents. It already exists.

Similarly, God has given us an immortal soul. Once we have it, it cannot be taken away. It exists for eternity.

If god is said to keep all things, including the existence of persons, from going out of existence, god could simply allow persons to cease existing.

Interesting exerpts from aa Newadvent article:

The question of immortality was a principal subject of Plato’s speculations. His account of the origin of the soul in the “Timaeus” leads him to deny the intrinsic immortalityeven of the world-soul, and to admit only an immortality conditional on the good pleasure of God.

The ascription to a creature of an absolutely spiritual nature, and the claim to endless existence asserted as a strictly de jure privilege in the case of the “perfect”, seemed to them an encroachment on the incommunicable attributes of God. The theory of Emanation too was seen to be a derogation from the dignity of the Divine nature For this reason, St. Justin, supposing that the doctrine of natural immortality logically implies eternal existence, rejects it, making this attribute (like Plato in the “Timaeus”) dependent on the free will of God

Even in Scholastic philosophy, which asserts natural immortality, the abstract possibility of annihilation through an act of God’s absolute power is also admitted. Similarly, Tatian denies the simplicity of the soul, claiming that absolute simplicity belongs to God alone.

newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

God, however omnipotent, cannot make sense out of nonsense. So it’s an absurdity to say, “Can God make a square round?”

God allowing a soul to stop existing isn’t a logical contradiction (like a round square is).

Well, clearly, no atheist has done the same. :sad_yes:

That’s a bold claim. Have you really done that much research to confidently come to this conclusion?

Certainly Christians and atheists are capable of doing natural acts of love. However, atheists cannot provide supernatural acts of love, ala Maximilian Kolbe. You need to say yes to God for that.

This isn’t an answer to my original question unless you name a specific action that is not a “natural” act of love, but is a “supernatural” act of love.

Clearly he was influenced by Judeo-Christian principles.

!!!
After I quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, “[Christianity is] the most … perverted system that ever shone on man,” you think he was influenced by Judeo-Christian principles! The is amazing considering that Jefferson was disagreeing with Christians in the Bible Belt who were defending slavery on the grounds that the Bible didn’t say anything against it!

TruthSeeker60;7224762:

PRmerger, you didn’t answer the question of how you know what Jesus said. I probably should have rather asked, how do you know what Jesus ** said and did**

? The gospels contradict themselves many times, and thus aren’t good sources.

The same way you do, TruthSeeker. From the Catholic Church.

!!!
You’re saying that you know what Jesus said because the CC tells you what he said?! That’s like being told by a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba that Sathya Sai Baba worked miracles! How do you know that what the CC tells you is what Jesus said?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I found that the article gives no specific references and that it comes across as an unsubstantiated leftist propaganda rather than anything credible.

like I told another person, I was citing the study that article cited, but at that time didn’t think I could provide a link to the full journal article itself, so instead a gave a link to an article that cited it.

You have done the typical skeptic reaction of rejecting the evidence on one flimsy ground or another. Of course I accept his writings as valid evidence. AD100 is plenty close enough for me, for Flavius Josephus to have published his works. Wonder how long he took in the writing of them?

100 C.E. Is about 70 years after the alleged death of Jesus. That’s like if someone didn’t write about the Pearl Harbor attack until now. Sure, they didn’t have the communication technology back then like we do today, but even if we only had the technology they had back then, historians two thousand years in the future I’m sure would be able to find plenty of contemporary writings about Pearl Harbor. Also, although the Pearl Harbor attacks were spectacular and noteworthy, having thousands of dead people come back to life (Matt 27:52) is more even more spectacular and noteworthy.

Aw, TruthSeeker,

I guess you didn’t notice, but both links are to the same article in this journal.

I did know that when I posted it (how could I not if I posted it). I wanted emphasize the statistics by having a second link that directed people directly to the charts.

This thread’s OP is NOT about whether or not God exists.

This thread’s OP is how does a Christian handle an atheist’s facetious argument that compares the Creator to His creatures?

Noted. However, the topic of this thread (which is basically how to deal with Russell’s flying teapot) is in the context of arguing about the existence/non-existence of god. For those who don’t know, Russell’s teapot analogy (just like the analogy with fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.) is to show that lack of proof against something isn’t evidence for something.

Are you trying to hijack our thread? Please answer this question plainly yes or no.

I wasn’t trying or intending to hyjack this thread. So no. However, if a thread goes off-topic, one must consider how it happened. I think I was responding to someone’s argument that the way to deal with Russell’s teapot by proving god’s existence through using the Bible as evidence (I think that was you). In responding to that, others responded to me by challenging may alleged problems with the Bible, and arguing that god’s existence can be proved through morality. In responding to these, people kept going deeper and deeper off-topic, asking me about my morality, stating that contradiction in the Bible are attributable to the humans (and thus the Bible is still considered an OK response to the question of the OP), and so forth. Basically, it’s been a cycle of responses in which I refuted someone’s answer, someone responded by going to a subtopic that doesn’t have as much to do with this thread, and the cycle repeats. No one person, after hundreds of posts, is responsible for the direction of this thread.

 

[NE_Catholic]

I wasn’t trying or intending to hyjack this thread. So no. However, if a thread goes off-topic, one must consider how it happened. I think I was responding to someone’s argument that the way to deal with Russell’s teapot by proving god’s existence through using the Bible as evidence (I think that was you). In responding to that, others responded to me by challenging may alleged problems with the Bible, and arguing that god’s existence can be proved through morality. In responding to these, people kept going deeper and deeper off-topic, asking me about my morality, stating that contradiction in the Bible are attributable to the humans (and thus the Bible is still considered an OK response to the question of the OP), and so forth. Basically, it’s been a cycle of responses in which I refuted someone’s answer, someone responded by going to a subtopic that doesn’t have as much to do with this thread, and the cycle repeats. No one person, after hundreds of posts, is responsible for the direction of this thread.

let’s be frank. All your posts come down to one thing YOU believe: there is no God. You can not post anywhere without ultimately leading to that. It’s an impluse you can not shake.

 

[PRmerger]

If god is said to keep all things, including the existence of persons, from going out of existence, god could simply allow persons to cease existing.

That, TS, is a Logic 101 basic. You are proposing nonsense. :sad_yes:

It is nonsense to say, “God can create a soul that’s immortal and not immortal at the same time.” :whacky:

God allowing a soul to stop existing isn’t a logical contradiction (like a round square is).

Immortal soul and mortal soul are logical contradictions, TruthSeeker.

The ability to recognize logical contradictions is a basic axiom of reason.

See Aristotle on Non-Contradiction.

 

[PRmerger]

we are talking about believing or disbelieving a creed.

The point of creeds is Truth.

You believe in creeds, too, Rocinante. If you don’t, you live in a world of chaos and confusion.

And the primary object of our creeds is a Person. Catholics profess, "We believe in God", not “We believe in a creed.”

“Creeds are to the head what good works are to the heart: creeds express truth, the head’s food, as good works express love, the heart’s food. Both are sacred.
If there is any doubt about the need for creeds, it can be settled by fact: the fact that the Church established by Christ, the Church Christ promised to “guide into all truth”, has in fact formulated and taught creeds.” -Peter Kreeft “What’s the Point of Creeds”.

 

[PRmerger]

i thought catholics were against moral relativism?

No, Rocinante. You are professing an impoverished understanding of Catholic teaching.

All moral relativism states is that we don’t know the truth. Certainly there are many, many questions which remain unanswered–and thus we are permitted to be "moral relativists’ in these areas:

Catholics can be moral relativists on torture, capital punishment, spanking, evolution, how many children to have, whether to abstain from fish on non-Lenten Fridays, Marian apparitions, whether praying the rosary is beneficial, receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Latin Mass vs vernacular, vigil vs Sunday, (whew! I think I could go on and on, but my point has been made! )

Catholics just don’t believe that ALL things are morally relative.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying that if there was an afterlife, a god who was not sadistic wouldn’t deal with his enemies by having them tortured forever.

God’s love is so great that he has provided a place for these immortal souls which consider his love* so odious* it would** be torture** for them to be in Its Presence.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s a bold claim. Have you really done that much research to confidently come to this conclusion?

Yup. [SIGN1]I’ve found* not a one.*[/SIGN1]

And, I’m going to guess, that you’ve done a little research on this yourself and have come up with…nothing either.

Am I right?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

let’s be frank. All your posts come down to one thing YOU believe: there is no God. You can not post anywhere without ultimately leading to that. It’s an impluse you can not shake.

Yet another ad hominem. In general, I tend to get a lot more ad hominem attacks now that I’m an atheist.

I’ve stated some of my reasons for writing posts that contest the belief that there’s a god. It has nothing to do with lack of ability to control an impulse.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

That, TS, is a Logic 101 basic. You are proposing nonsense. :sad_yes:

It is nonsense to say, “God can create a soul that’s immortal and not immortal at the same time.” :whacky:

It would only be nonsense if s soul is intrinsically immortal (meaning that it is impossible for it to cease existing). If it’s immortal in the sense that god always sustains it’s existence, then god could make it cease existing. The source I cited before took a position closer to the latter.

Besides all this, if one’s heart is such that if one dies, one would suffer forever, god could just keep him alive until that changes (or if he never changes, keep him alive forever).

Immortal soul and mortal soul are logical contradictions, TruthSeeker.

If one means absolutely indestructible, as opposed to meaning indestructible because god sustains it, then an immortal soul which god could take out of existence would be a logical contradiction (like asking if god can make a square circle). One has to adequately define one’s terms before saying something is a contradiction.

It seems that a lot of people neglect to define key terms they are using.

 

[PRmerger]

This isn’t an answer to my original question unless you name a specific action that is not a “natural” act of love, but is a “supernatural” act of love.

This is rather tiresome. But because I am a slave of Christ, a slave of the Truth I push on.

Atheists can do good things. Some of them are rather nice, charitable people.

However.

Atheists cannot, and have not, done any supreme, supernatural act of love, a la Maximilian Kolbe.

 

[PRmerger]

!!!
After I quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, “[Christianity is] the most … perverted system that ever shone on man,” you think he was influenced by Judeo-Christian principles! The is amazing considering that Jefferson was disagreeing with Christians in the Bible Belt who were defending slavery on the grounds that the Bible didn’t say anything against it!

Yes, TruthSeeker. Any citizen of Western Civilization is a product of the influence of Judeo-Christian values. That Jefferson recognized the inherent dignity of the individual is a tribute to his Christian upbringing. That he rejects other notions of Christianity is irrelevant. He only condemns slavery because he was taught the basic principles of Christ.

No other society ever conjured up the idea that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Except through God’s revelation to the Jews.

“Christianity made the liberty of every individual before God the bright red thread of history, and its interpretive key. Underlying the chances of democracy, then, is its faith in the immortality of the human soul, which is the foundation of the concept of human rights and universal dignity. Lose this faith, and humans become harder and harder to distinguish from the other animals, and human rights become ever more difficult to define, defend, and uphold”. source

 

[Rocinante]

Yes, TruthSeeker. Any citizen of Western Civilization is a product of the influence of Judeo-Christian values. That Jefferson recognized the inherent dignity of the individual is a tribute to his Christian upbringing. That he rejects other notions of Christianity is irrelevant. He only condemns slavery because he was taught the basic principles of Christ.

No other society ever conjured up the idea that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Except through God’s revelation to the Jews.

“Christianity made the liberty of every individual before God the bright red thread of history, and its interpretive key. Underlying the chances of democracy, then, is its faith in the immortality of the human soul, which is the foundation of the concept of human rights and universal dignity. Lose this faith, and humans become harder and harder to distinguish from the other animals, and human rights become ever more difficult to define, defend, and uphold”. source

pretty much every known culture discovered the golden rule without any help from christianity.

religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm