Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[PJM]

2 reasons we need to subscribe to an “unprovable” supernatural law:

 

[MegaTherion]

natural law that we can figure out on our own is good, but not the entire law …]because He exists. Truth trumps everything.

But you have to demonstrate that the “transcendent” exists before you can assert that it dictates “law.”

Things that exist manifest in some way. Things that manifest can be independently confirmed and repeatedly verified.

Wouldn’t your point be better made by stating that my God today, as I type this, has taken about 6 lives?

No. You god doesn’t exist. The six people who have died during your post (and this post) died of various causes that actually do exist.

And I’m fine with that. I’m fine with accepting suffering and death as natural parts of the world.

What I’m not fine with is an evil dictator who commands genocide and slavery. Your “holy” book depicts a mythological character who is an evil dictator who commands genocide and slavery.

I don’t approve of believing in mythological characters, but if you’re going to do so – at least pick one that isn’t outright evil.

This gets us right back to the thread topic. We can figure out certain moral guidelines of human decency…and your mythological friend is wicked by any standard. So even if there was any evidence that he existed, why would anyone bother listening to what he has to say about “morality”?

 

[PRmerger]

But you have to demonstrate that the “transcendent” exists before you can assert that it dictates “law.”

Why do I have to demonstrate that the transcendent exists? Why can’t I take your assertion that “we just don’t know” for some things. IF it exists, then this transcendent entity could dictate law.

Things that exist manifest in some way. Things that manifest can be independently confirmed and repeatedly verified.

Do feelings exist? Can you independently and repeatedly confirm those feelings?

No. You god doesn’t exist. The six people who have died during your post (and this post) died of various causes that actually do exist.

Ok. I accept that this is your premise.

What I’m not fine with is an evil dictator who commands genocide and slavery. Your “holy” book depicts a mythological character who is an evil dictator who commands genocide and slavery.

If you refer to the truth of the Old Testament God in a Catholic Forum, you ought take the entire Truth of our faith, not just one revelation.

Again, as I mentioned on another thread, trying to discuss our God with you is like your being in a Calculus class and you’re still stuck on 2 + 2 = 4. Get past that and then we can discuss advanced concepts.

I don’t approve of believing in mythological characters, but if you’re going to do so – at least pick one that isn’t outright evil.

The fact that you can identify that genocide and slavery are evil is a testament to the influence of Christian thought.

 

[MegaTherion]

Why do I have to demonstrate that the transcendent exists? Why can’t I take your assertion that “we just don’t know” for some things. IF it exists, then this transcendent entity could dictate law.

Because people who make claims have to justify those claims. If you are just saying that you “don’t know” if there’s a transcendent reality, then that’s cool – you’re in the same position that I am. I don’t know either. I don’t see any reason to believe in one, so I don’t accept it.

But you’re not saying you don’t know. You’re saying that you believe that such a reality in fact exists and that we ought to follow its moral dictates.

So yes, you need to demonstrate that in some way.

Do feelings exist? Can you independently and repeatedly confirm those feelings?

I should have been more explicit – I was talking about demonstrating things that objectively exist (for everybody, not just me). My feelings are subjective – they exist for me and me alone. My computer is objective – anyone who cares to look at the evidence can conclude that my computer exists.

I assume you think this “transcendental reality” exists for everybody. If it’s just some subjective idea that only you have, then its “morals” wouldn’t apply to everyone.

If you refer to the truth of the Old Testament God in a Catholic Forum, you ought take the entire Truth of our faith, not just one revelation.

Well, here’s the thing. You claim that a being exists and that we all should follow the moral dictates of this being.

If that’s the case, I would want to investigate the character of this being. Unfortunately, since there’s no evidence that this being exists, the closest we can get to learning anything about his character are a bunch of myths and stories passed down from long, long ago.

[edited]

The fact that you can identify that genocide and slavery are evil is a testament to the influence of Christian thought.

Did you miss the entire thread? We have been talking this entire time about how it is possible for humans to rationally determine those actions that are detrimental to society, self, and others. This so-called “natural law” means that we can figure out the universal moral wrongs on our own.

I’m not calling genocide and slavery evil because a god tells me that. I’m calling them evil because I’m a decent and rational human being who is capable of evaluating reality and determining (just as any other rational person would) that these thing are wrong.

It’s your god apparently who doesn’t agree. According to your stories, he seems to think that genocide, slavery, cruel & unusual punishments, etc. were a-okay at a certain time in history.

If that’s the best your “transcendental values” can do, then you’re welcome to keep them. I’ll pass, thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

Because people who make claims have to justify those claims. If you are just saying that you “don’t know” if there’s a transcendent reality, then that’s cool --** you’re in the same position that I am. I don’t know eith**er. I don’t see any reason to believe in one, so I don’t accept it.

But you’re not saying you don’t know. You’re saying that you believe that such a reality in fact exists and that we ought to follow its moral dictates.

Yes, indeed, I’m in the same boat as you. I don’t know, either. I accept, like Pascal, that God’s existence is ambiguous. He concludes that if God exists, He must have hidden himself from human knowledge.

Yet, to paraphrase Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft: God gives us just enough light that those who seek Him, will indeed find. But not light enough that those who do not care to find will find against their will.

Well, here’s the thing. You claim that a being exists and that we all should follow the moral dictates of this being.

If that’s the case, I would want to investigate the character of this being. Unfortunately, since there’s no evidence that this being exists, the closest we can get to learning anything about his character are a bunch of myths and stories passed down from long, long ago.

Ok, Mega, you had me until you used “myths and stories”. If you’re presupposing that they’re myths, then you’ll never get any farther.

And what these myths reveal is that at several points in ancient history, this “god” of yours commanded evil.

If there were a person who commanded multiple instances of genocide, slavery, etc., I really wouldn’t care what that person has to say about any other “moral” questions. The ability to order such atrocities indicates a twisted, evil character.

So even if you one day are able to produce evidence that your god actually exists, it won’t make a difference. He’s a monster, and I can safely ignore what he has to say about morality.

Then you’re getting stuck on 2 + 2 = 4. You can’t discuss any higher math concepts, or you can continue to talk at a first grader’s level.

Did you miss the entire thread?

Er, yes…

I enjoy reading and responding to your posts, and I’ve skimmed the other atheists’ posts, but I admit, I have not read every single word from every single poster.

We have been talking this entire time about how it is possible for humans to rationally determine those actions that are detrimental to society, self, and others. This so-called “natural law” means that we can figure out the universal moral wrongs on our own.

Indeed. I think we’ve had this conversation already–Atheists can be moral people. In fact, some atheists are more viruous than some Christians.

What’s your point?

 

[MegaTherion]

Indeed. I think we’ve had this conversation already–Atheists can be moral people. In fact, some atheists are more viruous than some Christians.

What’s your point?

Ok, let me skip all the other stuff and hone in on this one point.

We can all figure out certain things that are “wrong.” You prefer to call this “natural law”; I prefer to call it “common sense.” Whatever…we all can figure out a basic, humane morality through reason.

Let’s take an example: genocide is evil. It doesn’t take any special revelation to come to that conclusion. It takes our natural empathy tempered by a rational evaluation of our experience in the world.

Now, I tend to use my judgment of what is right or wrong to judge the character of others. If I encountered a person who commanded genocide and slavery, I would judge that person to be evil. And I would not give a moment’s attention to anything that this hypothetical evil person has to say about morality. In fact, I think I’d have good reason to mistrust anything that such an individual says about morality.

You claim that a divine source of morality exists, and that we should all follow its supernatural law in addition to the natural law that we can all figure out on our own.

So let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there is a divine source of morality and that it is in fact the god spoken of in your holy book. According to that holy book, your god commanded genocide and slavery. You haven’t contested that point, and you can’t because it’s written in black and white.

The logical conclusion is that if your divine source of morality commanded genocide and slavery – just like that hypothetical person above – then I am justified in ignoring what this divine source thinks about morality. In fact, I think I have a pretty good reason to distrust it.

You keep saying I’m “simplifying” the Catholic teaching. Ok. Well complicate it for me. Is the Old Testament merely symbolic? I mean, those laws (that include slavery) were actually practiced by the historic Hebrews, even if the genocides are exaggerated and/or fabricated.

I’m confused as to why a transcendent divine source of Moral Absolutes would forget to tell the ancient Hebrews that slavery and genocide are wrong (and in fact urge them to do those very things).

Unless, of course, there is no divine source of Moral Absolutes and the Old Testament simply represents a primitive human construction of morality…one that we have improved upon a thousandfold since the bronze age.

My money’s on the latter option.

(My apologies to Leela for derailing her thread…maybe I’ll start a new one dedicated to this topic)

 

[PRmerger]

You claim that a divine source of morality exists, and that we should all follow its supernatural law in addition to the natural law that we can all figure out on our own.

Not exactly. I don’t believe that a supernatural law exists *in addition *to the natural law. The natural law “contains many truths naturally accessible to reason, but God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.” (CCC)

So let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there is a divine source of morality and that it is in fact the god spoken of in your holy book. According to that holy book, your god commanded genocide and slavery. You haven’t contested that point, and you can’t because it’s written in black and white.

Ok. I don’t contest it. But could you give me specific verses so I know exactly what we’re talking about?

You keep saying I’m “simplifying” the Catholic teaching. Ok. Well complicate it for me.

Again, not exactly. I didn’t say you’re “simplifying” Catholic teaching. I’m saying you’re stuck on one function.

Is the Old Testament merely symbolic? I mean, those laws (that include slavery) were actually practiced by the historic Hebrews, even if the genocides are exaggerated and/or fabricated.

Is it symbolic? I don’t know. (I understand that you’re comfortable with not knowing things, as you’ve said so in other posts, and assume you’ll extend the courtesy to me). I do know that it is a preparation for the Gospel. Our Faith teaches that the New Covenant fulfills and surpasses the old law; it is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok, let me skip all the other stuff and hone in on this one point.

We can all figure out certain things that are “wrong.” You prefer to call this “natural law”; I prefer to call it “common sense.” Whatever…we all can figure out a basic, humane morality through reason.

Let’s take an example: genocide is evil. It doesn’t take any special revelation to come to that conclusion. It takes our natural empathy tempered by a rational evaluation of our experience in the world.

natural empathy? common sense? humane?

seems you are claiming some agreed upon qualities that people simply dont share

yes we can agree genocide is wrong, and yet presumably rational, moral groups of people have found reason to commit it many times.

surely you arent saying that those people were less empathic, humane, or had less common sense than average?

frankly your argument relies on qualities that we already know have failed to prevent what we can allagree is evil, genocide.

Now, I tend to use my judgment of what is right or wrong to judge the character of others. If I encountered a person who commanded genocide and slavery, I would judge that person to be evil. And I would not give a moment’s attention to anything that this hypothetical evil person has to say about morality. In fact, I think I’d have good reason to mistrust anything that such an individual says about morality.

You claim that a divine source of morality exists, and that we should all follow its supernatural law in addition to the natural law that we can all figure out on our own.

assuming that the people involved in genocide believed they were acting morally, how could you dismiss anything they had to say on morals?

point being that no one says to himself, let me do something evil for the sheer joy of it, they justify the act in their mind first, and all people are capable of it.

So let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there is a divine source of morality and that it is in fact the god spoken of in your holy book. According to that holy book, your god commanded genocide and slavery. You haven’t contested that point, and you can’t because it’s written in black and white.

The logical conclusion is that if your divine source of morality commanded genocide and slavery – just like that hypothetical person above – then I am justified in ignoring what this divine source thinks about morality. In fact, I think I have a pretty good reason to distrust it.

what? there is no point to contest, the Bible uses the relationship of a shepherd and sheep as an anology for the relationship between G-d and man quite often.

we are the property of G-d in the same manner that a sheep belongs to the shepherd.

a shepherd cannot ‘murder’ his sheep,

G-d is entirely with in His rights to treat his property in any manner He pleases.

dont confuse our lack of understanding with some restriction on G-ds rights.

a sheep doesnt understand when it is sheared, it doesnt understand when it gets shots or, gets a contagious disease that results in its being put down.

it only knows that it suffers.

in the same way, it doesnt thank the shepherd for the green grass it eats, or the medical treatment it recieves, or the protection from wolves it gets. in its little mind, all these things are its due. what it naturally deserves.

how are we any different, when suffering or scared we dont understand the reason, we cry out understanding only that it is unpleasant.

when we have a roof over our heads, food on our plates, and a car in the garage, most dont thank G-d, they think it is their due.

so you seem willing to accept the good in life and not the bad.

one is your due, the other is a mean bad deity.

You keep saying I’m “simplifying” the Catholic teaching. Ok. Well complicate it for me. Is the Old Testament merely symbolic? I mean, those laws (that include slavery) were actually practiced by the historic Hebrews, even if the genocides are exaggerated and/or fabricated.

I’m confused as to why a transcendent divine source of Moral Absolutes would forget to tell the ancient Hebrews that slavery and genocide are wrong (and in fact urge them to do those very things).

we assume because of our culture that slavery is intrinsically evil, yet that is a view relative to our history, and not one held until relativiely recently.

people that had slaves were not any less moral than you or i, it was an accepted practice that the OT laid out moral guidelines to.

unlike genocide, slavery, is not an absolute moral evil, that is an ethnocentric view reliant on the recent american experience.

slaverys morality is in large part affected by the manner in which it is practiced, thats why the OT laid out guidelines for it.

therefore slavery is not an absolute

Unless, of course, there is no divine source of Moral Absolutes and the Old Testament simply represents a primitive human construction of morality…one that we have improved upon a thousandfold since the bronze age.

please tell me exactly how we have improved on it, hundreds of millions dead in genocides occuring even now. rwanda, serbia, darfur…and the list goes on

tell a suburban sex slave in san diego, bangkok, london, or moscow. how we no longer practice slavery.

so what improvement are you talking about?

it seems now, we are more effecient at evil than ever before.

 

[Dameedna]

In other words, Aquinas and Kant are a lot closer to each other than either is to Pragmatism. But I would still hold that simple “rational consistency in the willing of an action” is not enough to avoid my stealing, killing, lying if I have to, etc., position.

I think what you are saying(and I noted this on another thread as well), that it isn’t so much that rational thinking cannot lead to good rules of behaviour for society.

It is that rational thinking is not actually a reason to CARE about the about those rules.

What is the motivation, to think rationally and/or to support rational ideas in the first place?

Does this explain your concerns it to a degree?

 

[Dameedna]

So we the people can determine what actions are right, which are immoral, good and bad? Very conveinent:blush: Simply because a great many agree with your personal opinion, does not make it either right or true.

I’m afraid to say that’s all we’ve ever done, and the argument works both ways.

Every person who believes in a God to a degree that they will follow a religious rule, has * as a person determined what religion is right*.

This is no different than what you are saying about the people determining right or wrong. They are determining the right and wrong religion.(hence so many religions)

They * the people* have decided it. You * a person* has decided it.

Now unless you are willing to admit that your free will has been stripped from you and you are being forced to accept your religion as the right one, you would then logically conclude that all of human moral behaviour comes fundamentally from human choice and what they have decided is correct, either the religion they have picked, or the ethical /rational code they have chosen to embrace.

I don’t think there is really any way around this one, unless you deny free will in the first place.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Here’s an easy example: From the fact that I am posting here, you can infer certain things about me; for example, that I am human, that I know English, and so on. But you could never infer that I have two kids. To know that, you need a special revelation from me (which I just obligingly gave).

This really does come back to the same problem however.

Revelation, is just as irrelevant when it comes to making decisions for humanity as claims to truth.

Jeff Warrens of the FDLS(my particularly un-favourite denomination atm), has recieved many revelations from God. They include handing over for marriage 12 yr old children to 50 yr old men with 8 wives, and 80 children.

The point is, no claims to truth, no claims to revelations, no claims to fullfilled prophecies can ever be used to determine rules, conditions and precepts for human life.

Why? Because you have no way of verifying them. You can simply believe it. And IF you are willing to manage a society on simply what people believe, then how can you ever oppose another’s beliefs if you think they are wrong?

Which revelation should society support?

I cannot prove, Jeff Warrens did not recieve a revelation from God, and neither can you.

But, both you and I, can probably rationally determine that his behaviour is bad for society and for the individuals involved. We need another way to determine wether our behaviour is in our best interest and that of others. We need a way, to determine wether or not “caring” about others is important in the first place.

The big one…we need a reason to decide that rational thinking, is the best way to go forward in the first place. THAT is the one I’m not sure I can answer(although I can answer it for myself, just not all people).

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Before the “Big Bang” theory, where did the “stuff that went BANG!” come from? And where did that come from, and where did that come from, so on and so forth?

We don’t know. Like your God hypothesis, it may have alway’s been there

At some point there was Nothing but “God” who then began the works of His Created Universe. “To Create” means to make out of nothing.

Saying the universe is a creation, automatically implies a creator.

The universe may not be a “creation”. It may be, just like God. Something that has alway’s existed( in one form or another.) This is another example of God of the Gaps.

We do not know. That is an example of honesty.

 

[cpayne]

This really does come back to the same problem however.

Revelation, is just as irrelevant when it comes to making decisions for humanity as claims to truth.

Jeff Warrens of the FDLS(my particularly un-favourite denomination atm), has recieved many revelations from God. They include handing over for marriage 12 yr old children to 50 yr old men with 8 wives, and 80 children.

The point is, no claims to truth, no claims to revelations, no claims to fullfilled prophecies can ever be used to determine rules, conditions and precepts for human life.

Why? Because you have no way of verifying them. You can simply believe it. And IF you are willing to manage a society on simply what people believe, then how can you ever oppose another’s beliefs if you think they are wrong?

Which revelation should society support?

I cannot prove, Jeff Warrens did not recieve a revelation from God, and neither can you.

But, both you and I, can probably rationally determine that his behaviour is bad for society and for the individuals involved. We need another way to determine wether our behaviour is in our best interest and that of others. We need a way, to determine wether or not “caring” about others is important in the first place.

The big one…we need a reason to decide that rational thinking, is the best way to go forward in the first place. THAT is the one I’m not sure I can answer(although I can answer it for myself, just not all people).

Cheers

Your point here is true enough. In order to ascertain validity for a “special revelation,” sometimes you would need other evidence. You would need, for example, a historical background of God’s working with a people or persons. Having this history culminate in a Resurrection from the dead would be the clincher for me. (And no, everybody, I’m not trying to derail the thread into a discussion of the Resurrection; I’m just pointing out that not all claims to special revelation have the same warrant or validity.)

 

[cpayne]

I think what you are saying(and I noted this on another thread as well), that it isn’t so much that rational thinking cannot lead to good rules of behaviour for society.

It is that rational thinking is not actually a reason to CARE about the about those rules.

What is the motivation, to think rationally and/or to support rational ideas in the first place?

Does this explain your concerns it to a degree?

Good point. Yes–in order to function morally, not only do we need the capacity to determine moral rules, but we also need a reason to live morally. The Aristotelian/Thomistic/natural law tradition does provide this reason–moral life (following the human function of rational virtue which is “written in our hearts”) leads to a total human flourishing or happiness. Aquinas points out that the final human flourishing or happiness is the Beatific Vision, which incorporates our supernatural end in with our natural ends.

Simply knowing logically what is right or wrong doesn’t provide the reasons (or the strength, I might add) to actually live in such a way. Even Kant, who promoted such a philosophy, was also a devout believer.

 

[Dameedna]

Your point here is true enough. In order to ascertain validity for a “special revelation,” sometimes you would need other evidence. You would need, for example, a historical background of God’s working with a people or persons. Having this history culminate in a Resurrection from the dead would be the clincher for me.

You need a claim that another makes about the historical background of Gods working? You need the claim by people 2000 years ago, that they actually made a prophecy that it came true?

Are you saying, you believe everything you read? This can be your clincher if you want it to be, but I think you are confusing fact with belief.

To another individual(probably not raised christian) the reality of re-incarnation would be the clincher. Since buddha(who they believe in) said it happened, it must be true. Since the Israelites(who you believe in) said it happened, it must be true.

You see the problem the OP is stating?

Any human, can make any claim and say we don’t care what another say’s. Are we really willing to do that? Even if it destroy’s us , with our collection of absolute truths that disagree?

If we are to survive and thrive, we need to recognize this. We need to understand the strength of anothers convictions instead of focusing on our own. We need to understand where they are coming from and how to talk to them.

I am pushing the boundary I know, but that is because I want to understand why you believe what you do. Claiming God told you so, is not enough. God tells lots of people lots of truths. All make claims to Holy spirits. All make claims to prophecies and all make claims to logic based on assumptions of their faith.

All make claims to others being wrong.

How can the world possibly survive like this?

Cheers

 

[fhansen]

If we are to survive and thrive, we need to recognize this. We need to understand the strength of anothers convictions instead of focusing on our own. We need to understand where they are coming from and how to talk to them.

I am pushing the boundary I know, but that is because I want to understand why you believe what you do. Claiming God told you so, is not enough. God tells lots of people lots of truths. All make claims to Holy spirits. All make claims to prophecies and all make claims to logic based on assumptions of their faith.

All make claims to others being wrong.

How can the world possibly survive like this?

Cheers

In Catholic thought, humans must come to a point where they recognize objective goodness, embrace its value, and consciously seek to live their lives according to it. Otherwise, reason doesn’t necessarily hold sway in real world practice-selfishness more often does.

The Church doesn’t resist people who’re directed towards this good but rather confirms the direction as being one that has the backing of the universe behind it at a foundational level. This gives impetus to- reason for- ones good proclivities, rather than leaving it as a personal option. “Doing the right thing” remains a personal option w/without the impetus but the impetus inserts reason into place behind the motivation for doing it.

 

[cpayne]

You need a claim that another makes about the historical background of Gods working? You need the claim by people 2000 years ago, that they actually made a prophecy that it came true?

Are you saying, you believe everything you read? This can be your clincher if you want it to be, but I think you are confusing fact with belief.

To another individual(probably not raised christian) the reality of re-incarnation would be the clincher. Since buddha(who they believe in) said it happened, it must be true. Since the Israelites(who you believe in) said it happened, it must be true.

You see the problem the OP is stating?

Any human, can make any claim and say we don’t care what another say’s. Are we really willing to do that? Even if it destroy’s us , with our collection of absolute truths that disagree?

If we are to survive and thrive, we need to recognize this. We need to understand the strength of anothers convictions instead of focusing on our own. We need to understand where they are coming from and how to talk to them.

I am pushing the boundary I know, but that is because I want to understand why you believe what you do. Claiming God told you so, is not enough. God tells lots of people lots of truths. All make claims to Holy spirits. All make claims to prophecies and all make claims to logic based on assumptions of their faith.

All make claims to others being wrong.

How can the world possibly survive like this?

Cheers

Well, as I said, I don’t really want to derail the thread into a discussion of the historical nature of the Resurrection. But there are already a bunch of threads on that particular topic, some of which I have contributed to.

 

[PJM]

Every person who believes in a God to a degree that they will follow a religious rule, has * as a person determined what religion is right*

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… that advocates slaughter

Didn’t the U.S. “slaughter” many in WWII? If God calls upon me to slaughter, why shouldn’t I slaughter? Why should God have less authority than the President of the U.S.?

“…slavery …”

Actually, not all forms of slavery are immoral. For example, “penal servitude” for criminals is a form of “just-title servitude” and is still practiced even in the U.S. The 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows for just-title servitude to punish criminals.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Prisoners are often required to pick up litter along the interstates and highways, accompanied by armed guards. Furthermore, the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under certain circumstances. These are just forms of slavery, acceptable even by today’s standards. Just capital punishment and just forms of slavery do exists, according to sovereign nations, according to an even more Sovereign God.

Life itself is a gift from God. It is undeserved, unearned. Similarly, while my teenager may THINK that he deserves the allowance I give him every week, it is a gratuitous gift from me. I am not “unjust” if for my own reasons, I suddenly stop giving the gift. Likewise with the gift of “life.” Because it is a gift from God, it can be never “unjust” for the Gift-Giver to stop giving the gift.

A person who doesn’t accept the Sovereign authority of God will not likely understand this. However, there were many atheists who slaughtered other by the order of their sovereign national authority. So, appearantly it isn’t “slaughter” which is frowned upon by atheists, just a matter of picking and choosing who is the “authority” to which we owe our obedience. I put my trust in God far more than I trust the President, or any other sovereign authority on earth.

“Thou shalt not kill” is a moral norm for human being. Why? Everybody dies, right? What is killing immoral? When one delves deeper into it, not all killining is immoral. Killing as a just punishment, for example. “Thou shalt not kill” is only immoral because it cannot be up to man alone to deside when killing is moral or immoral. God is the giver of life. Only he has the absolute authority to end the life that He and He alone gives as a gratuitous gift. So, the moral standard has an origin, a reference point, as all true standards must. That reference point is the will of God.

 

[MegaTherion]

PRMerger:

But could you give me specific verses so I know exactly what we’re talking about?

Unfortunately, I don’t have too much time tonight to do much Biblical digging. But here are three quick gems from the transcendental source of Absolute Morality.

www.catholic.org/bible]

Numbers 31: 7, 14-18 – Killing all Midianite men and keeping virgin Midianite women as sex slaves (none of which is ever condemned by God):

7 They made war on Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and put every male to death. 14 Moses was enraged with the officers of the army, the commanders of the thousands and commanders of the hundreds, who had come back from this military expedition. 15 He said, 'Why have you spared the life of all the women? 16 They were the very ones who, on Balaam’s advice, caused the Israelites to be unfaithful to Yahweh in the affair at Peor: hence the plague which struck Yahweh’s community. 17 So kill all the male children and kill all the women who have ever slept with a man; 18 but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves.

1 Samuel 15:3 – Instructions to kill all Amalekites: men, women, children, and even animals.

(The speaker is identified as God):
3 Now, go and crush Amalek; put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." '

Psalms 137:8-9 – I realize that this is just figurative language, but it’s odd that this poem was inspired by the same entity who supposedly holds all life to be sacred. It’s an interesting passage for the pro-life community (along with all the baby-killing above that God seems ok with):

8 Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us, 9 a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!

Well, I think that any rational, humane person would consider those actions evil.

Yet you all seem to consider the entity who commanded these actions to be the absolute authority on goodness. Why?

I’m not trying to offend – I’m just pointing out what’s written in your holy book.