Hobbs

There's another way to deal with this issue if you don't mind relaxing your requirement that you don't want to hear about god or religion. You can try to figure out what reasons god had for giving us the moral rules he did. He did have reasons, didn't he? If so, once you know those reasons, you can just bypass god and appeal directly to the reasons he appealed to in making his rules.

Or, if god didn't have any reasons for his rules, if they are just arbibrary and groundless, then why would his rules be better than anyone else's? Just because he has the power to enforce them? Well, if you accept the principle that might makes right, then I guess you could go along with that. But if you think that might does not make right, then you should think that god has some reasons for the rules he allegedly gave. If so, just appeal directly to the reasons to shape your new morality.

Sojourner553

Haran -- seems to me you have the "sin" of pride here; especially for someone that doesn't have a leg to stand on.


Let's go over some of the Christian laws and let me know if you and your friends have followed them literally. I think it will demonstrate that you and your types "pick and choose" more than anyone.

(For you liberal, tolerant Christians out there -- this post doesn't apply to you)

I. In the Old Testament, God sanctioned the death penalty for:

(1) Working on the Sabbath day. (Exodus 31:15)

That's Saturday not Sunday. Most Christian sects CHOSE to worship on Sunday (co-incidentally the same day the Mystery Religions worshipped).

Seventh Day Adventists agree Sunday is pagan and therefore worship on Saturday.

A choice (?) my, my...

Here are some other death penalties:

(2) Anyone who strikes or curses his father or mother. (Exodus 21:15,17)

(3) Children who are gluttons or drunks, and are so proclaimed to the elders by their parents. (Deuteronomy 21:18-23)

Do you "choose" to follow these laws? Or do you "choose" to believe Jesus commandments override the old Jewish laws?


(4) All witches (Exodus 22:18); also mediums and wizards (Leviticus 20:27) (Note these verses were used to justify the witch trials in Europe and
Salem, Massachusetts).

Do you "choose" not to believe in witches? The Bible clearly says they exist. If you believe, must all Christians believe in witches; or is this a CHOICE?

(5) Any man who conducted homosexual activity was to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13)

I've seen conservative Christians rail against gays using this verse -- with one preacher even hinting at this penalty. But more liberal Christians disagree and have even "CHOSEN" to believe good religious gays can teach in Churches. What have you CHOSEN to believe?

(6) Adultery. Leviticus 20:10-16 proscribes the death penalty for the following liaisons:

--a man and his neighbor's wife (death for both)
--a man and his mother-in-law (death for both)
--a man and his daughter-in-law (death for both)
--a man and a beast (death for both)
--a woman and a beast (death for both)

Notice a man and a non-married woman is not on the list. Do you CHOOSE to believe this is excluded in the definition of adultery?
Afterall the patriarchs did have multiple wives.
The Mormons "choose" to believe polygamy is acceptable -- ie not adultery.

(7) A husband who found that his bride was not a virgin on her wedding day was to have her stoned to death at her father's door (Deut 22:21).

Most Christians have apparently not "CHOSEN" to take this verse seriously.


(8) A man who rapes a betrothed (married or engaged) woman, is to be put to
death (Deut 22:25). However if the woman is a virgin and NOT betrothed
to any man, then the rapist shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver,
and he shall marry the woman. (However, because he has "humbled" her in
this way, he is not allowed to divorce her.)

Truly times were different then. But hey, if the Bible is eternal in its wisdom, some fundie Christians could "choose" to believe this verse.

II. Medicene


The gospels present the common ancient view that various displays of
mental illness (ie what would be today diagnosed as schizophrenia, epilepsy,
etc) were ALWAYS cases of demonic possession. That is, ALL of Jesus' cures were
described as freeing the victim from the demons possessing them (and
NEVER refer to a mental, or natural illness). Historians can show that the
general beliefs in faith healings and demonic possession of the early
Christians were essentially identical to those of the Jews and pagans of
the ancient world

Do you "choose" to view the world along natural or supernatural causes? Don't cop out by saying God invoked supernatural causes through natural means (plagues and the like). I want to know if you "choose" to believe there were intermediaries like demons and witches.

III. Astronomy


(3) A literal reading of some verses in the bible imply the earth is stationary in space, the center of the universe, and flat.

* I Chronicles 16:30 (RSV) states, "Worship the Lord in holy array; tremble
before him, all the earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved".

* Joshua ordered the sun and moon to stand still in order to give his
hebrew troops more light to kill the inhabitants of Gibeon, saying:
"Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon; and thou, Moon in the valley of
Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the [hebrew]
nation took vengeance on their enemies..." (Joshua 10:12-3)

* In Psalms 93:1, one reads, "The Lord reigneth, he is robed in
majesty; the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the
world is established; it shall never be moved... (see also Psalms 96:10,
and 104:5).

* The earth was viewed as supported by giant pillars below it:
"...For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set
the world" (1 Samuel 2:8, see also Micah 6:2)

Biblical passages in the Old and New Testament also implied that the earth
was flat, but this was less direct:

* The prophet Daniel described a vision of a giant tree situated in the
middle of the earth, whose "top reached heaven and was visible to the end of the
whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11). Daniel is clearly envisioning a flat earth,
since this giant tree was visible throughout the entire world. Likewise, Matthew
viewed the earth as flat when he stated that "the devil took him [Jesus] to a
very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory
of them." (see Matthew 4:8) [He would have had to have X-ray vision to see all
the kingdoms on a round earth - why would he need to be on a very high mountain
for this?]

So do you "choose" to believe the earth is not the center of the universe.

Why, I think Eusebius probably believed the earth was the center of the universe -- have you "chosen" not to follow Eusebius' interpretation on this one???

Sojourner

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Haran

Thanks RD, you're very perceptive and yes, what you infer is mostly correct. However, I'd like to do a little schizophrenic role-playing in this thread in order to challenge beliefs and hopefully bring out some points later down the road (this may take several days as I do not have much time). Please bear with me as I'm not trying to make anyone mad. I just want to make people think a little harder about their beliefs. Happens to me all the time here.

Thanks,
Haran

Haran

Interesting ideas Hobbs.

However, as I am now hypothetically considering Atheism, I'd like to only look at how to shape my values/morals/whatevers without respect to God.

Thanks,
Haran

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Sojourner,

As you know, this thread is very much for you as it pertains to our previous exchange, however, please stick to the rules...

I am becoming an Atheist and want to know how I should go about shaping my new morals. I don't want to hear about God, Christians, and religion because they don't mean anything to me now. I don't want someone else's theories. I want a practical answer (relatively brief if possible) that means something to me as the others are doing.

Thanks,
Haran

Haran

I've gotten good answers so far. Thanks all for playing along.

I'd like to continue with a few more questions over the next few days and try to wrap things up if I can figure out where I'm headed...

Ok, I'm a fairly adventurous person, like to experiment and try new things, and enjoy living "on the edge".

With my newly found freedom from my previous "stuffy" values, I'd like to try something new.

If I think I can get away with it, should I try smoking some "Pot", even though I know it is against the law?

Thanks,
Haran

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Sandy

In some states there are STILL laws proclaiming oral sex to be a criminal offense, no matter who's performing it on whom. Although the law is rarely inforced, it's still there and still considered criminal.

If you lived in these states that proclaim oral sex to be against the law, if you thought you could get away with it and not be "caught", would you allow your wife or yourself to perform oral sex? After all, it's against the law.

A little common sense goes a long way.

Sojourner553

You ignore all the data that doesn't conform to what you want the answer to be If you don't get the right answer, you claim it goes against the rules!


Well let me spell out your thesis for you!

You seem to believe it impossible for a person to want to act good when they won't be rewarded for it.

As I asked on another post: If the Devil won out over God. Would you begin worshiping the Devil if you were promised a happy eternal life in heaven (a real one, no tricks.) Obeying God and goodness for your lifetime on earth would only get you to hell in my example?

Some Christians would switch happily over to the devil-- Arguing that worship is deserved by one's power and authority as Master of the Universe.

Others might choose goodness -- even though they were not rewarded for it; or even punished for it.

I do not know whether you would chose goodness/punishment over evil/rewards. I do know that SOME Christians would choose goodness even though they would not be rewarded.

It is the same with atheists. Goodness comes from within -- first. Truth comes first!

You seem incapable of believing an individual can't make the decision to be good on their own.
Perhaps that reveals how you would vote!

Sojourner

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

BLoggins02

Haran, I realize the point of your hypothetical, but I'd like to warn you that you're verging on a strawman here whenever you decide to pull out whatever argumentative rabbit you're keeping in your hat.

In reality, morals and ethics in the individual are subject to past experience. No sane person would throw out his entire moral or ethical code just because he or she deconverted from theism. It would be easy to defeat the position of someone who did this, because you could argue that they had literally nothing upon which to base their morals. However, since this type of thing almost never occurs, it's a moot point.

Other than the fundy crap about gays and women and anybody else who isn't a WASP, what part of your presumably Christian moral code would you need to change?

- Maybe the rule against pre-marital sex?

But why? If you take out the "holiness of marriage" and "God said so" stuff, Christians do have many good points as to why this is a good idea, including less worrying about STDs, no risk of unwanted pregnancy outside of a committed relationship, less emotional hassles, etc...

- Smoking, drinking, drugs, etc?

Same issue here, take out all the 1 Corinthians stuff about your body being part of the body of Christ and all that, and there are still good perfectly rational reasons (the first of which being that these things can get very expensive and are pretty bad for you).

- As for things like masturbation, homosexuality, etc.. I would argue that these have nothing to do with ethics and are instead social taboos inflicted upon the public by a religion that spends way too much time worrying about it's adherents' sex lives. That's just my personal opinion though.

Again, why would you assume that atheists simply format their ethical hard drives when they deconvert? You may just be posing a hypothetical for curiosity's sake, but I seriously doubt it. So, if you're trying to argue a position, you might want to start by not making a straw man out of your opponent's.

Jayhawker Soule

I'm certainly not mad, and thanks for the compliment. I find it curious, however, that you did not refer to the second half of my remarks, specifically: "And, if we are to join you and dismiss them as having nothing to offer when it comes to "shaping [a] new morality", what are we to say about the rest? Is one brand of theism better at 'morality building', or are all theists somehow equally blessed with the necessary tools? Is Christianity useful but Hinduism deficient? Or perhaps, as Joseph sings in the musical, any dream will do."

In any event, if "what [I] infer is mostly correct", I'm at a loss as to what points you hope to "bring out ... later down the road"., since what I infer is that your hypothetical implies a dismissive contempt for a large percentage of the world's population.

If I find apples in red boxes, green boxes, and no boxes, we can have extensive discussions on the most effective way to package apples, but it seems absolutely clear that the viability of apples is wholly independent of the packaging.