flimsy moral standards? Lets see here.
If I were to shoot your wife, would you have a problem with that?
-michael martin
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
OK, I’m back again, we back on nic again?
there ya go
saucy - do you fancy a transatlantic chat?
@Alchemist - I am thoroughly confused at this point and technologically challenged besides. I’m also tired and need to collapse into bed. I’ll catch you on the flip side!
Penne,
I have apologized, retracted my statements, and admitted my potential to be wrong numerous times on this website.
Gill,
I can’t really say much to your post. First, because you are a theist and I am arguing that the atheistic presuppostions are insufficient. I could try to convince you that Jesus (the actual Jesus, not the traditional portrait of Jesus) is the God of all creation, but I will not force anything across your computer screen. I came to this website originally out of curiosity. I stayed because I saw it as a place to trade insights, learn new ideas, and even to strengthen my faith. I began my posts on this thread because I thought it was a running debate/idea forum on the essence of morality. Second, you claim to be completely at peace with relative morality. Maybe you are. But this means that if your family were murdered you could not logically condemn the murderer. We have laws, and as so many have pointed out those laws would condemn the murderer because murder is not currently considered advantageous for society (Unless you count the radical Muslim desire to eradicate Israel and the West.). But considering the subjective nature of morality that you accept, the murderer is just doing what they feel is right. It’s just their misfortune that they were born in a time and place where murder is considered bad. Right? Please read the comment to One Eyed Jack that follows, as I believe it will more accurately state my position and hopefully even convince you that I have been reading the posts.
One Eyed Jack,
You wrote, “You (me) said there is no basis for a naturalist evolution of morality.” - Let me clarify. Murray Eden, a statistician at MIT once used high-speed computers to ask a question: Beginning with chaos at any acceptable amount of time up to eight billion years ago, could the present complexity come by chance? The answer was absolutely not. However, that experiment was a long time ago. Many argue that it is out dated. Here’s my perspective: Charles Darwin said he couldn’t fathom the formation of the human eye by natural selection, yet he believed that reason convinced him that it was possible. And I agree. I think that it can be argued very persuasively that natural selection is capable of creating the human eye, and even an extremely complicated system of laws based on morality. I do not think that atheistic evolution is the best explanation for the observable cosmos and all of its particulars, but nonetheless, it is a somewhat viable explanation. Here is my point: Natural selection applied socially can account for our “considering” murder to be wrong; however, it cannot account for it’s actually being inherently wrong.
Fr. Corpus Callosum,
You wrote, “Imagine God as a parent who says he ‘loves his children unconditionally’. One of his children does something that is absolutely against the rules of the household; something that the parent considers to be an abomination. The parent is sad, because he loves his child, but the infraction must be punished. So he kills the child. He didn’t want to do it, but the child drove him to it by breaking the rules, and breaking the rules must be punished.”
/
There are a few realities that I would like to share with you:
1.) It is very possible that God is, as it were, allergic to sin. This is a concept that is hard to grasp. However, the Bible seems to teach this to be true. Sin is more than just disobedience to some arbitrary standard. It is something, which is inherently other than God, who is life, and thus, sin is death. I believe sin literally separated God from all creation. It closed the system. We observe the effects of this separation and call it the second law of thermodynamics. However, God’s death (Jesus on the cross) enables Him to re-enter and be immanent in the cosmos. How that works exactly I do not know.
2.) Hell is extremely relative. That is, each person will experience “hell” differently. Hell is not a place of literal fire. Fire was simply the best thing God could compare it to so that we could reference the absolute terror of the place. Hell is going to be worse than eternal burning. How? I do not know, but it is eternal death, which is eternal separation from God, who is Life.
3.) No one has to go to hell. God made a way for every one to escape death and re-enter life. Sin is someone saying, “Go away God!” Hell is God granting their wish. C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
4.) God is a gentleman. He did not want robots that were forced to love Him so He created men with freewill. I love my wife. I hope that she never leaves me, but I don’t want to chain her up in our home so that she can’t leave. I want her to love me with an authentic love, and be with me because she desires to do so. It’s the same with God.
Think about this: It grieves God for His creations to perish. However, He was willing to endure that kind of heartache just to enjoy authentic fellowship with people who would allow Him to save them. Imagine a man who knows that in order for him to experience the joys of having children his wife will have to endure horrible pain and they will have to lose many children. Imagine that somehow he knew those children that would be lost, and I mean really knew them intimately. Know this: God loves everyone and desires for everyone to be saved. He was willing to endure the tremendous heartache of losing some of His beloved creations for the joys of having an authentic relationship with the others. God doesn’t want anyone to perish. People choose to go to hell, because they choose to remain separated from God.
/
Let me give you a court illustration (It’s a true story.):
A young women was ticketed for speeding. On her day in court she was brought before the judge and asked if she was guilty. She pled guilty. The judge brought down the gavel and fined her $100 or 10 days in jail. Then something amazing happened. The judge got up, took off his robe, walked down around in front, took out his billfold, and paid the fine. What’s the explanation? The young woman was the judge’s daughter. He loved his daughter, but he was a just judge. His daughter had broken the law and no matter how much he loved her he had to punish her crime.
/
It’s the same way with God. He is the perfect Judge. He has to punish our sins. The penalty for sin is death. So He came down here to earth and He paid our penalty. He died our death.
Alchemist,
You wrote, “How do you reconcile the wholesale destruction of human life in the name of God?†– I don’t!
/
You wrote, “You have god upon your side. Don’t the Muslims, the Jews, the Zoroastrians. You all believe in the same god!†– No we don’t. Christians and Jews worship the same God; however, the Christians have a more complete revelation of that God. That’s not an egotistical statement. First, note that Christians are not a race of people. The first Christians were Jews and there are still many Jewish Christians a.k.a. Messianic Jews. Secondly, this more complete revelation was first foretold to the Jews (333 prophecies, which Jewish and Christian scholars agree are references to the Messiah; these prophecies were written 500+ years before Jesus was born. Dr. Peter Stoner has shown the fulfillment of these prophecies to be practically impossible statistically (The odds of one man fulfilling just 8 of those 333 are 1 in 10 to the seventeenth power.). The American Scientific Association backed his findings. Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, all 333. As for Muslims, etc. they worship an entirely different God.
/
You wrote, “Why do you kill each other?†– Ignorance. Religion is a human construct. The Bible rarely uses the word religion. It defines religion as, “Helping widows and orphans.†The Bible is a guide to relating to God and people. People made religion what it is not God!
/
You wrote, “Why must people suffer for your beliefs - those with multiple sclerosis and other illness that could be cured through stem-cell research?†– I should probably let gill, jingles or One Eyed Jack answer this question for you since they are all so skilled in illustrating why the majority has the right to determine what is moral.
/
You answered you own question about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
/
Earlier some one made a rather extensive list of passages, which “prove†God is evil. If any one wants to choose a couple for me to interpret I will be glad to give it a shot. I invited that person to do so, but they never took me up on the offer.
I hope you all have a good night.
Peace
Nic,
.
It appears we are not as different in our views as I first thought.
.
I still contend that your question is flawed. Murder cannot be discussed as a moral absolute. Murder by definition is immoral. Killing is a specific action that you can discuss in those terms, but not murder.
.
OEJ
Hmmm… I don’t know whether to be happy or sad that Nic just ignored my comment. Oh well, back to the beer for me.
.
In other news, damn, i didn’t realise you guys were all so old… I feel rather amazed to admit I am one of the younger posters (I’ll give you a hint; older than 18, younger than 22, still at uni).
.
Still, you guys manage to keep the youthful enthusiam flowing greater than many my own age (maybe there is something in pastafarianism that keeps you eternally young?)
Gill,
I was lying in bed and I thought of an illustration that MIGHT be more capable of convincing you that an absolute moral standard exists. I had to get up and post it. Here it goes:
Imagine you are in pre 9/11 Afghanistan. A group of men kidnap you and kill you. Why? 1.) You are unwilling to bow to Allah. 2.) You let some one see your pretty little nose. 3.) You are a Jew. 4.) It is the moral thing for these men, who are faithful Muslims, living in a society of faithful Muslims to do.
/
Is wrong for them to murder you? Or to please One Eyed Jack let me rephrase the question: Is it wrong for them to “kill†you?
‘
One Eyed Jack,
I like you. I really do. You think through things, you’re polite, and you name implies you are a pirate. Wow! Now that’s what I call a good personality.
/
You wrote, “Murder by definition is immoral. ” - Who wrote the definition? Where were they standing? How old were they? I could go asking these qualifying questions, but my point is that definition is arbitrary (within the atheistic framework).
/
You wrote, “Killing is a specific action that you can discuss in those terms, but not murder.” - Why not?
Good night to you both!
@Nic
Murder is inherently wrong because we, as humans, believe it to be inherently wrong. Almost everyone of every faith or lack thereof considers murder to be wrong. Even religions far older than the Judeo-Christian religion believe muder to be wrong. However, our attitudes to murder have changed. Many crimes that were previously punished by death are no longer, because many people now condsider the death penalty to be a form of murder.
-
Murder is an extreme example. If you look at many other behaviours that were considered amoral 200 years ago they are not even blinked at by most people today. Take bathing suits as an example, 100 years ago (less probably) bathing suits covered almost every square centimetre of the body. These days women sunbathe topless.
-
Another example is rape. A few hundred years ago rape was considered the womans fault. Women could be charged with the crime of seduction if they were raped. Now, fortunatley, the laws in most western countries have changed to reflect current moral standards.
-
Another example is corporal punishment in schools. 50 years ago it would have been standard practice to give misbehaving children the strap or the cane. Today it is considered grossly inappropriate for a teacher to physically punish a child in any way.
-
I could go on and on with other behaviours where our belief in what was right and wrong has changed. Morality is fluid and for this reason cannot be granted by a deity. Humans decide what is right and wrong not gods. That is why you will find that morals are more closely tied to culture than religion.
Jingles,
You wrote, “…While the forcing of society’s norm upon an individual may sound cruel, it pales in comparison to forcing an individual’s views upon all of society.” - Please read my most recent post to Gill. Do you still feel the same way?
/
Oh, and way back you wrote, “One last thing… where did this no free will bit come from? As far as I can tell, in the religion v atheism debate, if any side stifles free will, it is the religious one.” Only the Calvinistic Theologians (Basically John Calvin’s Theology is like Newtonian Physics, i.e. God is to Calvinism what the laws of Physics are to the Newtonian Model.) - How do atheists account for freewill? I thought it was all just cause and effect. We’re all a bunch of simple chemical reactions, right? The cause and effect machine predetermines our choices, right? Or are our choices random swerves in our quantum particles. Seems like it would take an awful lot of those random swerves, after all, we are talking about subatomic particle causing macro organisms to make complicated decisions. What’ s you answer. I am very interested.
/
That Wenchy Character,
You wrote, “nic, where is the Christian morality in purposely traveling to, and preaching against the use of condoms in countries where lack of information makes AIDS rife? I consider that dissemination of misinformation akin to murder of innocents!!!!†- I answered you, but probably not very well. My wife is a nurse. She and I have had the opportunity to give lectures on Sex & STD’s to High School students. She and I discussed our paradigm with God and with each other. Here is what we did: We told the students condoms could help protect them against pregnancy, and STD’s, but they are not full proof. The only way to be absolutely sure that they will not get pregnant before they are ready, or that they will not get these horrific diseases was for them to follow God’s plan of one man and one woman being married and having sex with no one except each other. – What do you think about the way we handled that topic?
nic, I think christianity has very little morality when you think about it. Increasingly scientific evidence is showing that the way people behave is directly affected by mental illnesses and genetic deformities. Because of these deformities people can do evil things either undeliberatelty or with incredibly poor judgement. Yet these people, because of these evil things would be sent to hell. Does that seem fair and ethical to you?
“We told the students condoms could help protect them against pregnancy, and STD’s, but they are not full proof. The only way to be absolutely sure that they will not get pregnant before they are ready, or that they will not get these horrific diseases was for them to follow God’s plan of one man and one woman being married and having sex with no one except each other.”
.
this is a point many christians make, but it ultimately proves to be unworkable in a society which values freedom. the statistics speak for themselves on this - in europe and america, teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections are less rife where contraception is available and sex education is taught to a good standard, than in areas where abstinance is taught almost exclusively. you can say that the best way for everyone to live is by the christian standard, but many, many people will disagree, for a great number of reasons (not least of all that god may well be non-existant and christianity is nothing but a lie). once again, it comes down to the few attempting to force their views upon the many.
And besides, on your last post, you wrote “Gods plan of one man and one woman being married nad having sex with no-one but each other”
Please explain, why would god be so interested in making a grand plan like this? Wouldn’t it make a hell of a lot more sense to make it that he just created a person whenever he felt like it? And the idea of birth from two partners, love, attraction and etc fits in PERFECTLY with evolution.
Which makes more sense to you?
sorry about the spelling mistake. thats and, not nad.
Jingles - old? As soon as someone invents the cryostasis tube it’ll be called erm older!