The Moral Argument: Evidence of a creator God in the creation and existence of moral absolutes
This next evidence for the existence of a creator God such as the Bible portrays I had was reminded of when I recently read Tim Chaffey's book, "God and Cancer." Again, he wrote this book about his own life to document his own death struggle with Leukemia, and how that the Lord sustained him through that struggle. In the back of the book, he has included some of his Christian apologetic work in which he attempts to show evidence for a creator God and create a theodicy from which to understand how a good God could allow evil to exist in our world. To explain the argument for this thread, and because Tim did such a good job with this, I will simply quote the chapter on this theme from his book mentioned above, beginning on page 151:
I said at the top, that this chapter from Tim Chaffey's book had reminded me of this evidence for a creator God, and this because over thirty years ago, I twice read C.S. Lewis' book, Mere Christianity, from which Tim quotes, and I remembered this argument. One of the things that Lewis did in that book is show how that men reveal that they really do understand and agree with God's Moral Law, and that this Law has been placed into man's hearts by the creator God. Lewis points this out by saying that a person might claim that he does not believe or agree with God's Moral Law (think the Ten Commandments here), and that say, for instance, that adultery is perfectly acceptable morally to practice, even though God's Law says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That man will not think the same however if someone commits adultery with his wife. Or, a person might think that it is perfectly acceptable to steal, even though God's Law says, "Thou shalt not steal." That man will not think the same however if someone steals from him. You could take any of the Laws and make a similar case.The final argument that I want to cover in this chapter is known as the Moral
Argument. So far I have been able to narrow the identity of the Beginner and Designer to a monotheistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, and eternal. The Moral Argument can take us a step further in our attempt to uncover the true identity of the Beginner.The Moral Argument can be simply stated in four steps?
1) There is a universal moral law
2) A universal law requires a universal Moral Law Giver.3) The Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good.
4) Therefore, a universal Moral Law Giver exists.
There are some objections to these statements, but they can be answered easily.
The most common objection is to the first point. Many will argue that there is not a universal moral law. However, when they do this, they are arguing that their view of morality (or immorality or amorality) is better. Thus, they are essentially using the moral law in an attempt to refute the moral law. Consider the following account from a discussion I had with one of my youth group students:A few years ago, we were discussing ethics and morality in youth group. We had a new girl in the group that night that began to debate me
on every subject. She was arguing that all morality is relative (i.e. what is right for me may not be right for someone else, and what is wrong for me might not be wrong for someone else). We discussed several controversial subjects, and each topic elicited a similar response from the
girl, "That might be true for you but not for somebody else." She argued with me on every topic. She even debated whether or not there were really three chairs next to me in front of the room (for the record --
there really were three chairs). She said, "Well, it might be three
for you, but someone else might have a different reality." After debating about reality and morality for a while, I thought of taking a different approach. Rather than debate the peripheral subjects at hand, I wanted to get to the heart of her argumentation. She believed all morality and all truth is relative. I needed to show her that this is impossible. I stated, "Look, I KNOW there is a right and a wrong for every single person on this Earth." She instantly replied, "You can't know that!" To which I simply reponded, "What did you say?" She started, "You can't know..." As she said the words, she slowed down and stopped because she realized that she was doing the very thing that she said cannot be done. You see, in order to deny that moral absolutes exist, you have to propose a moral absolute -- that moral absolutes are absolutely wrong. Everyone has a standard of right and wrong. It is true that some people view certain actions being right whereas others see the same actions as being wrong. This is true even among Christians. Some believe my alcoholic use is sinful while others believe it can be done in moderation under certain circumstances. These types of examples are essentially dealing with one's convictions, not necessarily the moral law. Once, a man was visiting a Sunday night Bible study at the church I was pastoring, and he started debating with me about the Ten Commandments. I said that they are
the standards that God expects people to live up to. Like the young lady in the previous example, he tried arguing that the Ten Commandments were relative. Other people might have other standards that are completely different. I wanted to get to the heart of the issue again, so I told him that they are absolutes from the Moral Law Giver and that my view of morality was better than his. He said that everyone gets to decide morality for himself. So once again I said that my morality was
absolute and was better than his. He said morality cannot be absolute
and that all moral views are equally valid. I asked him if my view was equally valid, and he said that it was. So I reiterated that my equally valid view of morality is that the biblical position on morality was superior to all others. He continued to argue that this was impossible because all
morality is relative. Finally, I asked him if his position on this subject
was better than mine. He said that it was. I pointed out that by making this claim, he was confirming the Moral Law and was saying that his
answer contradicted his claim that all morality is relative and equally
valid.You see, he was claiming that his relativistic view of morality was better than an absolute view. By claiming this, he was contradicting his belief that all views are equally valid, and he was setting his view up as morally superior. Rather than refuting the Moral Law, this man actually used it in an attempt to refute it. C.S. Lewis promoted the most popular version of this argument. In Mere Christianity, he wrote at length concerning this argument and stated the following about his time as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -- for the argument depended on saying that the universe was really unjust,
not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in
the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -- in other words,
that the whole of reality was senseless -- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense.Just like the two examples that I cited, Lewis' story demonstrates that one cannot attempt to refute the Moral Argument without using it. This means that the Moral Argument is undeniably true. So, what does all of this tell us about the Moral Law Giver, whom we call God? First, since He is the standard of what is morally good, then He must be absolutely good. Second, this argument does away with the Islamic god. They believe that Allah is unknowable and unlimited. The fact that the Moral
Argument reveals some of God's morality reveals that He is not entirely unknowable. Also, the fact that He serves as the absolute standard of morality shows that His morality does not change. Muslims believe it is possible for their god to change his mind about things. He could send someone to hell simply because he did not like them -- even if that person was faithful to follow all of Islam's teachings. They believe that he cannot be held to a certain standard because he is unlimited. However, the Moral Argument reveals a knowable god whose standards do not change.
The Moral Law of God is an evidence for the creator God of the Bible who gave it. You cannot escape that fact, and arguing against the existence of moral absolutes simply requires that you accept the existence of them. The God who created all things is essentially good, holy, righteous, and perfect in all of His ways. It only makes sense that the Old Covenant which was a covenant based upon the revelation of His Moral Code in the Law of Moses, would be given first before the New Covenant that is based upon grace and mercy, and the shed blood of Jesus Christ to pay for all of the transgressions of God's Law made by men.
posted by Jim Bomkamp at
6:51 AM
73 Comments:
Craig writes:
Using abstractions and various word games does not prove the legitimacy of the Christian Fundamentalist's view of "God." And it does not deny the legitimacy of the Islamic "God" - Allah (or any other brand of god for that matter).
In fact - the minute one tries to define or even label Something as infinite, eternal, all-powerful, omni-present etc. etc. as "God" then one does nothing but seek to limit the Limitless. This is impossible.
If you try to put this Entity you refer to as "God" in a box and label that box - "God" or "My God," then what have you done?
Certainly you have accomplished nothing but to prove thyself some sort of a fool.
The Ten Commandments are just ten of many commandments "God" gives in the Bible.
Other commandments include:
Not cursing one's parents - punishable only by death.
Killing people who practice other religions.
Killing people who work on the Sabbath.
Killing those who engage on homosexual acts.
Not eating pork.
Not eating shellfish.
And oodles and oodles of other various and sundry commandments.
Oh - but then you will tell me your god has changed his rules since "Old Testament days."
But wait!
You have also told me that your god is unchangeable.
hmmmm?
What kind of morals has a god who insists his people kill their own children if they swear at them (their parents)?
What kind of a god commands his people to kill those who practice any other religion than the one they prefer? ) (or the one they believe "He' has ordered them to believe in.)
And you posit that you can prove that your god is the real and only god because of some argument based on morals???
Craig writes:
About the girl, the three chairs and the Moral Absolute -
The girl could have just as easily responded " you believe or not believe as you wilt and I will believe or not believe as I wilt" instead of "You can't know that!"
Then what direction would your argument have taken?
Hint – a very different direction.
But let us move on to the very question of the Moral Absolute:
And let me begin by stating that the Moral Absolute Argument is absurd.
Yod-Hey-Vau-Hey/Yahweh/Jehovah/the Lord – commands His people (the Hebrews) not to kill (human beings).
Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13
Yet in Exodus II – verses 11 through 14 – we find this little tidbit about Moses (God’s Lawgiver)
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?
And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.
Now – if Jehovah’s laws are so absolute – then why did Jehovah apparently let this little transgression slip by?
If you say that Jehovah hadn’t given His commandments to Moses yet – I will say – it doesn’t matter.
And why doesn’t it matter?
Because Absolute (in the sense we are discussing it here) means:
Not dependent on, or without reference to, anything else; not relative
(Webster’s New World Dictionary)
This means that “Absolute” means that the commandment is not dependent on a time frame of any kind.
Also – Moses had no right under Egyptian law to do this – as your Bible points out in verse fifteen:
Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
And nowhere is it written that Jehovah gave Moses the right to murder the Egyptian.
So yes – Moses knew better; he knew very well that it was wrong and that it was against the law – yet he did it anyway.
And so, again, I must ask: if Jehovah’s law to not kill (murder) was (or is) so ABSOLUTE – then why did Moses not only get away with murdering someone but become the appointed leader of Jehovah’s Chosen People (after he had murdered someone)?
Hence – even based upon your scriptures of choice Jim - The Moral Absolute Argument is completely absurd!
Craig,
>>In fact - the minute one tries to define or even label Something as infinite, eternal, all-powerful, omni-present etc. etc. as "God" then one does nothing but seek to limit the Limitless. This is impossible.
Craig, all of the terms I used are terms that are "limitless." BTW, by your logic, your labeling of God as "limitless" is illogical and causes Him to have limits.
I think the question to ask is how could a person know anything about God? Just about everyone has opinions about God, and how could you sort out the ones that are accurate from the ones that are not? If mankind is to know God, then somehow God had to "reveal" Himself in His character, purposes, and substance to mankind. There has to be a revelation in order for us to know God. I believe that the Bible is the record of that revelation that God made of Himself to mankind so that we might know who He is. We are not ready to discuss the Bible yet because we need to first finish our discussion about the Moral Argument. But, that shall be our next stop.
Craig,
>>The Ten Commandments are just ten of many commandments "God" gives in the Bible.
All of the laws of the Old Testament, as given to Moses by God, add up to 613, so I am told. I have not verified the total. I will refer to this whole law as the Mosaic Law since that it is a common designation used.
The Mosaic law was broken up into three sets of laws: 1) Moral Laws (10 commandments), 2) Civil Laws (regulating the administration of justice within the nation of Israel), and 3) Ceremonial Laws (defines what activities and states would cause a person to become ceremonially unclean and thus unable to participate in relgious and community activities until a period of cleansing were performed).
The Moral Laws were given first to Moses by God because of its importance and because it defined the essential holy character of God Himself.
The Civil Laws pertained only to that nation of Israel when it was called by God for a time to be His people. God raised up a nation so that He could send a Savior to mankind through the lineage of that people, and redeem mankind from sin. Though these laws do reveal an application of justice that is worthy of consideration by any nation for its standard of justice. Strictly, there is no nation that is expected to adhere to every statute of that law, even in regard to murder.
The Ceremonial Laws pertained only to the nation of Israel as called by God to be His people.
After Christ was raised from the dead, the Old Covenant between the nation of Israel and God that was based upon their keeping of all of the 613 laws, was nullified. The Jews had broken the terms of that covenant (transgressed the law) over and over anyway, and this led to the Lord not being required to keep His promises in that covenant. The Old Covenant was meant by God to be only a temporary covenant anyway, as even the prophet Jeremiah revealed hundreds of years before when he prophesied of the new covenant that would one day be effected (see Jeremiah 31). Paul wrote that the Old Covenant was meant to be our "tutor" to lead us to Christ because we were never able to keep that covenant. Therefore, our only hope of being accepted by God was through the New Covenant based upon the mercy and grace of God (and procured by Christ's sacrifice upon the cross).
This past weekend I taught on Galatians 2:1-10 in which I discussed at length the events of Acts 15 and Acts 10 when the Lord revealed to both Paul and Peter the fact that the Christian was not required to be circumcised or to keep the Old Testament Law in order to be saved, but that salvation came by faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing. If you are interested, you can read my notes here: http://calvarychapelgb.com/Galatians/Gal2p1.htm and/or listen to the message here: http://calvarychapelgb.com/Galatians/audio/Gal2p1.mp3 .
The Moral Laws of God however are never nullified because they reveal the holy character of God, and were never meant to be of a temporary nature, as was the case with the rest of the 613.
Craig,
>>The girl could have just as easily responded " you believe or not believe as you wilt and I will believe or not believe as I wilt" instead of "You can't know that!"
>>Then what direction would your argument have taken?
>>Hint – a very different direction.
True enough. I tell people that they are free to believe whatever they want, but if they choose not to believe there is a God, or more specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for their sins, then they better hope that they are right...
Craig,
>>Yet in Exodus II – verses 11 through 14 – we find this little tidbit about Moses (God’s Lawgiver)...Now – if Jehovah’s laws are so absolute – then why did Jehovah apparently let this little transgression slip by?
This is a good question, and it brings up really a host of issues that are worthy of being discussed. Perhaps the most significant issue that you raise is whether or not the standards of law that God gave to Moses are absolutes, or does God change His mind some days and not consider them so?
The question of the conduct of Moses on the day that he slew the Egyptian soldier is one regarding what we refer to as "moral dilemmas." What should I do in a situation when faced with difficult choices that will affect people's lives significantly? In Moses' day, there was no system of justice for the Hebrew people who had been enslaved by the Egyptians. As was usually the case in ancient history, a slave had no rights and could be abused in any manner, and even put to death, by his master, with no consequences. The Egyptians were horribly cruel to the Hebrews on a daily basis and this unjust beating was just a daily example of this. Moses chose to perform some of what we sometimes might hear called "curb-side justice" and ends up killing an Egyptian soldier who was beating up a Hebrew slave. He thought there was no other recourse since there was no legal path for the Hebrews.
Continued...
Have you ever heard of Deitrich Bonhoeffer? He was a renown Lutheran pastor and theologian who was German and living in Germany during the time of Hitler's attempted conquest of Europe and extermination of the Jews. Bonhoeffer was a pacifist, yet he opposed Hitler's tactics from the very beginning. Finally, when Bonhoeffer realized how evil Hitler was he was faced with a "moral dilemma," a choice between two evils. Does he hold to his pacifist views and watch Hitler kill millions of Jews, or does he try to stop him. Bonhoeffer then set aside his pacifism and became directly involved in one of the assination attempts on Hitler's life. Bonhoeffer was eventually killed by the Gestapo because of his opposition to Hitler. There is a movie made about Bonhoeffer's life that details these events called "Agent of Grace." Its very good, and very disturbing. When faced with the challenge of choosing between the lesser of two evils, he too chose to murder in order to attempt to stop Hitler.
Another example of "moral dillemma" involves the founding fathers of our country. The Bible teaches us in a few places that we are to obey those who are in authority and rule over us (see Romans 13, for example). Yet, these men felt that there was such injustice in our country by the English who ruled over us, that they decided to rebel and began a revolutionary war in order to set up a government that was based upon the righteousness found in the scriptures, to set up a Christian nation. We could argue about this as their motive, but its not necessary because I'm just citing their actions as being a "moral dilemma," not stating that they were right or wrong, and you may even disagree that this was the motive of all of them.
Now, in regard to Moses specifically... God did not tell Moses to kill the Egyptian, Moses took matters into his own hands. He tried to carry out justice for his people, the Jews, and yet he had misguided zeal and made a very poor decision. The result was that he had to run for his life, and he lost all of his rights as an Egyptian, much less his right one day to the throne to rule over Egypt as an adopted son.
You say that God overlooked what Moses did, but I don't think that you can conclude that. Moses next spent 40 years in total isolation in the desert, where he was a herder of sheep. Perhaps this was his punishment, it certainly was the consequences of his actions. I believe he had had a sense that God had placed him where he was to enact justice for his people, the Jews, but this led him to make the poor decision to take out justice on his own rather than look to God in how God wanted to deliver the Jews. Moses' actions were never sanctioned nor approved by God.
You cannot conclude that God thought that murder was OK on the day that Moses killed the Egyptian, and I defer to the law-giver Himself (God) as to how He wants to dole out justice for the breaking of His laws, and for what He determined to do in Moses' case.
Continued...
Our own country has a justice system (as every country does), but our country does not always make a punishment truly fit the crime. The scriptures also tell us that though we may escape the prosecution of a crime here on earth, that one day we will give account to the Lord of the things that we have done, and justice is eventually executed fully and completely. As a believer, I am happy and blessed to know that Jesus Christ came to die upon the cross as the penalty for all of my sins (and all of those of the whole world), and that the full fury of God's wrath of justice was poured out upon Jesus, rather than upon me who deserved my portion of it. God never sets aside justice for the breaking of His laws.
BTW, the Bible does not teach that it is wrong to kill when a soldier fighting for your country, and many Christians therefore are not pacifists. However, I agree with what you said about the Moral Law as always being absolute, and the breaking of it being wrong in all eras of time. Murder is wrong.
God did lead the Israelites when they were sent to take possession of their land, to kill all of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, but this is looked at as being a carrying out of justice since those peoples were extremely evil, as seen for instance in the fact that they all performed human sacrifice to appease their gods. Plus, if the Israelites had not attempted to exterminate those peoples, they would have assimilated their religious practices and not been able to complete that which God had called them to accomplish, and Jesus could not have come and completed His mission, and we would all be in our sins today. The Lord did not call His people to wipe out people's outside of the land, nor has He ever commanded His people since to kill in His Name. This was an isolated period of time, and came about because of God's sovereign plans for mankind, and for the greatest good of having Jesus Christ come and do the things that the New Testament records that He did.
Craig,
I want to make a further comment about the fact that the scriptures tell us that God does not change. This is a fact. But, you must realize that the Bible contains a "progressive revelation" of God to mankind. Over time, the Lord revealed more and more about Himself because we could not take it all in if He had not done so. But, don't confuse this "progressive" nature with His having changed.
Craig writes:
I am sorry to say this Jim but you are skirting the (Absolute) issue.
Your term – “Progressive Revelation” does not assuage the unmovable, unchangeable and intrepid character of the term (or concept of) ABSOLUTE.
Not in the slightest does such a theological concoction as “Progressive Revelation” diminish or expand (in any way) the absolute-ness of ABSOLUTE.
As far as your argument that “murder” is sometimes ok according to your Bible – as in the case of war – this notion (or fact) just happens to completely fortify the fact that Jehovah (your god) is as changeable as the wind.
Exodus 20 verse thirteen states:
Thou shalt not kill. (in the King James version).
In Hebrew – Loh Ratsach
“Loh” means Not.
“Ratsach” means – to dash in pieces or to kill a human being (to murder).
Put the two (Hebrew) words together and you get - Not murder.
Or a better English translation: Murder not.
Now – what part of “Murder Not” do you not understand?
And where does it (in Exodus Twenty) say, read, imply, infer… - except when or except sometimes or except if?
And don’t tell me how your God approves of killing (murdering) in other parts of the Bible – because I already (of course) know this. And this is just part of what paints your God Jehovah as an undeniably wishy-washy Entity and not the Unchangeable One you claim Him to be.
Craig writes:
In the interest of clarification: let me say that when I say that “God” is Limitless – I am merely saying that I put no limits on an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (concept of an) Entity (such as “God”).
Yet to define “God” in any way is to limit “God”. And as you have so shrewdly pointed out – even to describe “God” as limitless is to (in some way) put some sort of limit on the limitless. (As if that were really possible - hmmmm?)
So you see – when we pursue this particular topic – we are, indeed, in trouble from the start!
For instance - how can an Entity that is Limitless/Eternal/ Infinite/Omniscient/Omnipotent and Omnipresent be All and only Good. Does this mean that there is really no such thing as Evil (or Good)? Or does it merely mean that all “evil” is but an illusion? – as the Hindus would have us believe.
The “God” of Isaiah tells us that He is indeed not limited to being a good god.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
But wait! The “God’ of Isaiah is one-in-the-same as your “God” – right Jim?
However - the “God” you describe to me (as in the one you worship/believe in) is (at least so far) limited in every way, shape and form.
(Except, of course, when it comes to making absolute laws that only He or some political leader or general or soldier or odd circumstance etc. etc. can alter, modify,vary etc. I.e. - it would seem that your god can, indeed, make a rock so large that even he can’t even lift it.)
And so as far as I can tell – your “God” has, more-or-less, been reduced to “a god” or (at best) “the god.”
A “God” completely definable – even within such terms as to be easily comprehended by the average human-ape.
I am not sure if this went through - so I will send again.
Craig writes:
“True enough. I tell people that they are free to believe whatever they want, but if they choose not to believe there is a God, or more specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for their sins, then they better hope that they are right...”
So – in essense – people should believe exactly as you do Jim – because if they don’t – they just may end up burning in Hell forever and ever. Is that what you are really saying Jim? Is that what your religion and your “relationship with God” is all about? Is fear really the center point of your philosophy, theology and your life Jim?
Craig,
>>Your term – “Progressive Revelation” does not assuage the unmovable, unchangeable and intrepid character of the term (or concept of) ABSOLUTE.
No, it does not, and I did not intend to say that it does. But, from the beginning of the writing of the Old Testament until the completion of the New Testament there is a gradual revealing more of the character of God. Yet, the same God is revealed in both. If you look carefully at the Old Testament you will find that you see glimpses of that which is more fully revealed in the New Testament. Actually, there is virtually nothing in the New Testament that is not anticipated somewhere in the Old Testament.
>>As far as your argument that “murder” is sometimes ok according to your Bible – as in the case of war – this notion (or fact) just happens to completely fortify the fact that Jehovah (your god) is as changeable as the wind.
There are some Christians who believe that the taking of any life in any situation is murder, and they consider themselves Christian pacifists. However, if this were the case then it would be murder to carry out the death penalty on those who commit murder, as the Old Testament commands for the nation of Israel. I do not believe that every taking of life is murder. Likewise, not only our nation but most nations in the world likewise follow me in this because they have a justice system that includes capital punishment.
If I someone were to be about to take the life of a family member of mine, or even some other innocent person, and to stop that person I wouldhave to kill them, I would kill them, and, I don't believe that it would be murder. It was likewise not considered murder under the Old Testament law. I believe that the commandment is not, "Thou shalt not kill," it is "Thou shall not murder."
Craig,
To clarify further, the commandment to not commit murder is interpreted to be to not commit premeditated murder. There was provision for accidental taking of a life in the Old Testament via the city of refuge that one could flee to and be free from the manslayer (family member who might search you out to take your life for a murder you had committed).
Craig,
>>In the interest of clarification: let me say that when I say that “God” is Limitless – I am merely saying that I put no limits on an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (concept of an) Entity (such as “God”).
Yet to define “God” in any way is to limit “God”. And as you have so shrewdly pointed out – even to describe “God” as limitless is to (in some way) put some sort of limit on the limitless. (As if that were really possible - hmmmm?)
>>So you see – when we pursue this particular topic – we are, indeed, in trouble from the start!
>>For instance - how can an Entity that is Limitless/Eternal/ Infinite/Omniscient/Omnipotent and Omnipresent be All and only Good.
Craig, you are trying to define a creator god based upon the limits of your imagination, experience, and education. However, my defintions are based upon my study of the Bible and the revelations that God has made there about Himself. I wasn't agreeing with you that calling God limitless would be to limit Him. I was saying that by your logic, you would be saying that. Using the word limitless to define something that is limitless does limit what you have defined.
All of the terms you mentioned "Limitless/Eternal/ Infinite/Omniscient/Omnipotent and Omnipresent" are limitless terms and logically this can't mean that they are limiting when you use them. With the exception only of 'Eternal', I don't believe any of these terms are found in the scripture. Rather, they are created to define what the scripture tells us about God. That is a logical step to take in my opinion.
Continued...
God reveals Himself in all of these ways. For instance, God’s omniscience is seen in the word of God and the numerous declarations in it concerning the greatness and infinite aspect of God’s wisdom and knowledge, for instance:
1 Chronicles 28:9: ““As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever. “
2 Chronicles 16:9: “For the eyes of the LORD move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His.”
Job 21:22: “Can anyone teach God knowledge, In that He judges those on high?”
Job 28:24: ““For He looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.”
Job 34:21-22: “For His eyes are upon the ways of a man, And He sees all his steps. “There is no darkness or deep shadow where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.””
Psalm 94:9-11: “He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? The LORD knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath.”
Psalm 139:1-4: “O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.”
Psalm 147:4-5: “He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them. Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.”
Isaiah 40:28: “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.”
Jeremiah 23:24: ““Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?” declares the LORD. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the LORD.”
Jeremiah 51:15: “It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.”
Daniel 2:22: “It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him.”
Amos 4:13: “For behold, He who forms mountains and creates the wind And declares to man what are His thoughts, He who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD God of hosts is His name.”
Matthew 6:8: “So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.”
Matthew 10:29-30: “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”
Acts 2:23: “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
Romans 11:33-34: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?”
Craig,
>>“True enough. I tell people that they are free to believe whatever they want, but if they choose not to believe there is a God, or more specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for their sins, then they better hope that they are right...”
So – in essense – people should believe exactly as you do Jim – because if they don’t – they just may end up burning in Hell forever and ever. Is that what you are really saying Jim? Is that what your religion and your “relationship with God” is all about? Is fear really the center point of your philosophy, theology and your life Jim?
Craig, God is not just like us, as humans. He is loving ("God is love"), but He is also holy and just. He gave us His law first, before He revealed His grace, so that we could understand that He is holy. But, mankind, every person that has ever lived, has broken God's laws. John wrote in his epistle that "he that sins transgresses the law." Sin is transgressing God's law, either in our actions or in our thought life (lusting after a woman is to commit adultery Jesus taught; hating your brother is committing murder). Because we have broken God's law, His justice determines that we should be punished (every nation that has ever existed has had a justice system for law breakers). We could not atone or pay for our sins ourselves because they were too offensive. Only God Himself could pay such a debt. God could have and should have condemned us after we sinned, and we would all go to hell. But, because He loved mankind, He sent His Son to pay the full payment of our debt of sins that we owe, for sins we have committed. That is why Jesus came. But, if we choose not to believe in God, and not to trust in Jesus and His work on the cross to be the payment for our sins, then we cannot receive what Jesus did for us. If a person goes to hell, he will take the full responsibility for that. Jesus is available to all, eternal life is available to all, but you have to choose to receive the free gift of eternal life by faith. God will force no one to believe, He will force no one to submit to His rule in their lives, He will force no one to worship Him. If they do not choose Him, it is their fault not His.
Oh, and if you are concerned about the native who has never heard, and how God could be just and send such a one to hell who chooses not to believe, God tells us that every person is without excuse if they choose not to believe. Romans 1:20 and following tells us that God has revealed Himself to every person through creation, revealed His power, revealed enough of Himself so that if they do not seek Him out, do not pray, do not desire to know Him, then it will be their own fault, not his ("the are without excuse" is what it says in Romans 1). I didn't write this Craig, but it is what is recorded in the Bible.
You are probably somewhat familiar with John 3:16. But, how about 3:17? "For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Salvation is available to all, it was God's intention in sending Jesus to save all who are willing to be saved. Are you willing to be saved Craig?
Craig writes:
“Yet, these men felt that there was such injustice in our country by the English who ruled over us, that they decided to rebel and began a revolutionary war in order to set up a government that was based upon the righteousness found in the scriptures, to set up a Christian nation.”
- Jim Bomkamp
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." – George Washington
"this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it"— John Adams
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." - The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" -Art. VI – The U.S. Constitution
"Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because the never were."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
"When the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice....he never did say a word of it in any of his public papers...Governor Morris has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that (Christian) system than he himself did.
-Thomas Jefferson, diary entry, 2/1/1799
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible...Some books on Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist."
-Benjamin Franklin, "Toward the Mystery" (autobiography)
"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length,...that Christianity is part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed...What a conspiracy this, between Church and State. Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all. Sing Tantarara, rogues all!"
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, 6/5/1824
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson
"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
And you posit that the United States of America was set up to be a “Christian Nation?”
Or that it is a “Christian Nation?”
Go back and read the following quotes by our Founding Fathers Jim. And then if you still think that the Founding Fathers sought to set the United States of America up as a “Christian Nation” – go back and read them again…
Craig writes:
“Are you willing to be saved Craig?”
- Jim Bomkamp
Saved from what Jim?
Saved from something I already told you (in no uncertain terms) I do not believe in?
Craig,
Ok, I didn't (and don't) want to debate whether our founding fathers tried to create a Christian nation, and whether they sought to implement Biblical principles in every part of the creation of our form of government. But, since you have posted quotes that go against my assertion (and I don't know where all of yours come from nor have I verified any of them), I will simply give you a link to a document with numerous quotes that back up what I said originally about this:
http://calvarychapelgb.com/ReligiousQuotesOfAmericasFoundingFathers.htm
The point I was making has gotten lost in this. I was simply stating the fact that there was a moral dilemma for all who were involved in the civil disobedience that was the revolt of Amercan succeeding from England. That statement should be straight forward enough, right Craig?
The fact that there even exists such a thing as a "moral dilemma" in the
Christian mind only strengthens the argument against "The Moral Absolute"
argument. In other words: how can an issue be either and only black or white when there
are countless shades of gray that one must weigh into the situation? And how
can there be only black & white if there is only one shade of gray to
consider? During our nation's great Civil War - there were times when brother
fought against brother and father against son and, granted, most of these
brothers and fathers and sons… proclaimed Christianity as there religion of
choice.
Yet they stood on the battlefield and shot mini-balls and cannon balls at
each other on a daily basis for almost half a decade. And to top that off
- they boldly sang Christian hymns like "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory of
the Coming of the Lord" as they marched into one horrid battle after the
other.
The Bible says "Murder not" (Hebrew translation) in Exodus 20.
Yet brothers willfully killed brothers and father's willfully killed their
own sons over national political ideals…?
And yet (again) many of these "brothers" and "sons" and "fathers" believed
the Bible and the Ten Commandments (as found in Exodus 20) to be the very
word of God.
I find no "Moral Absolute" in this sort of behavior. I find no "Moral
Absolute" in Moses' murdering of an Egyptian (in conjunction with the events that followed). And I find no evidence of any "Moral Absolute" between the covers of the Bible or in the behaviors of mankind
as a whole.
Also Jim - can you tell me which side "God" was on during the American Civil War?
Craig writes:
And please consider the following as regarding the concept of “The Moral Absolute:”
“What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church… a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie. Such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”
~ Martin Luther founder of the Lutheran Religion
Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
In other words: to the Devil with the truth! Who cares if deception reigns, just so long as “the Christian Church” prevails.
Yet Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
John XIII:32
And yet (again) in the tradition of the founder of Protestantism: contemporary Protestant and highly acclaimed Evangelical – David Barton – fabricates statements he ascribes to our Founding Fathers. And he does this in an effort to break down the existing wall between Church and State within the United States of America.
(The following hyperlinks shall render verification.)
http://candst.tripod.com/boston1.htm
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=report_david_barton
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=DBarton
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9606/barton.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Barton
So how does one come to ”know the truth” by believing even one lie?
Perhaps part of the answer can be found in the following lyrics:
Who’s to say who’s right or wrong
In a world that never ceases to amaze?
Where opinions fly like buzzards
Seeking prey within the cold and crimson haze.
Everything’s been turned around, inverted and
Thrown upside down – but that’s ok
‘Cause my twisted thoughts grow clearer
As your Technicolor slowly turns to gray.
Laughter fell like rain inside my head
Until they took it all away (and now)
It’s just another Addams Family Day.
From “Another Addams Family Day” by Crag Jensen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImMD-eBFGbo&feature=channel_page
And perhaps another part in the following verse:
So many people rotting in their graves;
The winners and the losers; the heroes and the knaves.
And some so precipitately transformed into naught and at last,
But little clouds of forgotten, barren and gray ash.
That blow in the wind and then dissolve,
So silently, so helplessly into the dark and final and everlasting resolve.
Into the Earth - from whence these pioneers of life & death once so reluctantly began.
One and then another and again another consumed by Her – the Earth, the Earth, the Earth is their tomb and their last stand.
Their passing but a hapless by-product of someone’s wanton deception.
So quickly they have passed - into life’s great and morose and final reception.
Sacrificed for a “truth” they so vehemently believed,
A “truth” they so joyously received.
And a “truth” that was really naught but one more all-too-successful prevarication.
A finely spun fable; a bum steer and a total and unabashed fabrication.
So let his name be called – Deception
He who has devoured the heart of poor truth from its most humble inception.
He - who is so finely adorned, so wealthy and blessed and so fiercely adored.
A prince! Who from the beginning has walked the ends of the Earth.
A prince - who hast beguiled the beggar, the king, the very best and the very worst.
And let this be an alarum unto both the strong and the wise:
That his yearning and his hunger shall forever provide –
The wine and the meat and the joy of He who is called –
The very Father of Lies; the very shame (or pride) of us all.
By Zehm Alohim
Craig,
You wrote:
>>The Bible says "Murder not" (Hebrew translation) in Exodus 20.
Yet brothers willfully killed brothers and father's willfully killed their
own sons over national political ideals…?
And yet (again) many of these "brothers" and "sons" and "fathers" believed
the Bible and the Ten Commandments (as found in Exodus 20) to be the very
word of God.
>>I find no "Moral Absolute" in this sort of behavior. I find no "Moral
Absolute" in Moses' murdering of an Egyptian (in conjunction with the events that followed). And I find no evidence of any "Moral Absolute" between the covers of the Bible or in the behaviors of mankind
as a whole.
My response:
Your arguments here actually prove my point. You are arguing that in the Civil War that men "WERE" committing murder, and that when Moses killed the Egyptian he "WAS" committing murder. And, I can't argue with you about either situation because I know that some Christians are pacifists and I respect their position, though I am not personally convinced.
But your argument is "NOT" to say that it is "OK" to just go out and kill people, and therefore you have agreed to murder as being wrong, a moral absolute. If you believed that it is perfectly acceptable to murder people at will, then you would be arguing against murder being a moral absolute. The fact that you disagree with some people's actions (those who fought in the civil war and Moses) when they killed someone else indicates that you accept murder as being a moral absolute, and your argument then is really in the consequences of their actions in how or if punishment was meted out to them because of what they did.
Craig,
You wrote:
>>Also Jim - can you tell me which side "God" was on during the American Civil War?
I would defer final judgment to the "Law Maker" Himself to determine who was and was not in the wrong in each and every situation that has or will ever occur on this earth. The fact that I defer judgment to Him on issues that are beyond my ability to accurately weigh does not negate the moral absolutes that God gave us in His moral Law.
Craig,
You wrote:
>>“What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church… a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie. Such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”
~ Martin Luther founder of the Lutheran Religion
Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
>>In other words: to the Devil with the truth! Who cares if deception reigns, just so long as “the Christian Church” prevails.
My response:
Again, your argument proves my point about moral absolutes. Now, you are condemning Martin Luther for stating that lying is an acceptable behavior, when you believe that it is not. Thus, in effect, you are merely saying that Martin Luther ought to be judged for his lying and because he stated that lying is acceptable. Had you said that Martin Luther was correct in his statement and that it is perfectly acceptable to lie whenever and to whomever you want, then you would be making an argument that lying is not a moral absolute.
You go on to mention David Barton, whom you believe has concocted false quotes from the founding fathers, and if you were to be presenting a good case that lying is not a moral absolute, then you should have been saying that what he did was perfectly acceptable. The fact that you are condemning him means that you do in fact accept lying as a moral absolute.
Every single one of your arguments in your posts I have responded to today (with the exception of the lyrics to that song-it is stating that morals are all relative) have really been to point out hypocrisy in men who should have been held accountable to a moral absolute. None have really been arguments that disprove that these moral absolutes exist.
Craig,
I thought I was done, but here is one last point. You decry hypocrisy by those who claim to be Christians and doing what they do in the Name of God, and hypocrisy is a form of lying. It is to deceive others by appearing to be something that you in fact are not. And, I agree with you that it stinks wherever it is found. Condemning hypocrisy though is to affirm lying as a moral absolute.
Craig,
Ok, one more thing. I'll bet Crag Jensen who wrote the lyrics to “Another Addams Family Day,” which proclaim moral relativity, would be singing a different tune if his son were murdered or a used car dealer took his money and sold him a lemon as he lied to him saying it was a great car in perfect shape.
Once again Jim you are quite simply – missing the point because of your premature assumptions and/or your incomplete digestion of what I have written. For example: notice how I phrased the following statement.
“The fact that there even exists such a thing as a "moral dilemma" in the Christian mind only strengthens the argument against "The Moral Absolute" argument.”
The key words here are – “Christian mind.”
You see – I have pointed out to you that whether one looks into the “Christian mind” or within the pages of the Bible or at humanity as a whole – one finds cases where killing other people is considered to be ok and cases where it is not.
Also – what I wrote pointed out that Christians and their leaders seem to have no problem lying or murdering under certain circumstances.
Whether I think lying or murdering is right or wrong is a mute point here.
In fact my personal paradigm of morality differs quite distinctly from the Christian paradigm.
I will now attempt to explain my personal moral paradigm:
My own personal spiritual (or life) mentor – the late Dr. Christopher S. Hyatt would humorously quip from time to time – “Ah, - if only I could kill (another human-being) again.”
Of course – the only humans he had (perhaps) ever killed were on the battlefield in Vietnam.
He also introduced me to the only two morals I abide by to this day.
I will not initiate violence against other human beings and I will not steal.
And even these two morals are subject to change. And why is that? It is simply because THERE IS NO MORAL ABSOLUTE!
If a person seeks to kill me or someone I love – if I have the means at my disposal – I will seek to kill them first. And that is in accordance with my Two Morals.
However – if someone seeks to rob me of my freedoms or rights as a US citizen – I might (at some point) seek to kill that person as well. This is not in accordance with my Two Morals. I.e. in an extreme an unusual case – I might have to improvise a set of new morals.
And why do I possess these Two Morals? Simple – because they are (most usually) simple and easy to follow and I know that if others would adhere to these Two Morals – everyone’s lives would be much more simple, safe, secure and satisfying overall.
So in essence - I do not need to follow the Ten Commandments to be a good, decent and moral person. And I don’t need any set of Absolute Morals to be a happy, humane, loving, kind, strong, intelligent, prosperous, enlightened, creative, reasonable and descent person.
Also – the most probable reason people generally feel that killing other people is wrong is because Mother Nature endowed us with certain instincts and that is, more-than-likely one of them. And why is that one of them?
More than likely – so as to help secure a future for our species.
We also have killer instincts within us that Mother Nature has given us.
Again - no black and white but many, many shades of gray.
There are species of animals that practice cannibalism. One of these would be the Wood Frog. To most humans – such actions seem abominable. Yet it is the frog’s (or tadpole’s) basis instinct to eat its own kind in order to survive.
There are cases in human history where people have practiced cannibalism just in order to survive. And yes – even Christian people (as in the Donner Pass case) have done this.
Mother Nature has programmed us, as well as all other animals and as well as all plants and all other life-forms in general with an instinct for survival.
Sometimes we do not kill in order to survive and sometimes we do kill in order to survive.
And sometimes we even do things that are normally quite offensive to our better senses – in order to survive.
The ultimate instinct is to survive and then continue our bloodlines.
Yet an instinct to survive and perpetuate our species is not a Moral Absolute. It just isn’t.
It is just The Nature of the Beast.
Craig,
Usually, when someone contends with a Christian or Jew about moral absolutes, they contend based upon the fact that the first four commandments are directed to one's relationship to God directly, as you can see from this list of those commandments:
10 Commandments:
1) You shall have no other gods before Me.
{ Commandments 1-4are summed up in, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, might, and strength” - (Deut. 6:5). Likewise, the rest of the commandments are summed up in, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself” - (Lev. 19:18). }
(2) You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
(3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
(4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
(5) Honor your father and mother.
(6) You shall not murder.
(7) You shall not commit adultery.
(8) You shall not steal.
(9) You shall not bear false witness.
(10) You shall not covet.
I can understand someone's reluctance of accepting those commands if they do not believe in God, nor have read the Bible where they are found. However, usually it is the case that people who reject the Bible recognize that the remaining six laws in their life, home, and government.
In fact, I could give you lots of quotes from people about how the Law of Moses when received was far superior to any codes that previously existed and that most civilized nations have used that base of law as a foundation for the laws that they have legislated. For instance, I will quote David Josiah Brewer (June 20, 1837–March 28, 1910), was a Justice of the United State Supreme Court, 1889–1910. He had been appointed by President Chester A. Arthur as a circuit court judge, 1884; and served as Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, 1870–84. His uncle was Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field, with whom he serve 9 years on the bench. In his work, The United States—A Christian Nation, published in Philadelphia by the John C. Winston Company, 1905, he wrote a lot about this subject, including this statement, "I could show how largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ; how constantly the Bible is appealed to as the guide of life and the authority in question of morals."
The constitutions of virtually every one of the original American colonies as well as those of most of the states stated things very similarly about our laws being derived initially from the Law of Moses. Continuing...
Craig,
You wrote:
>>My own personal spiritual (or life) mentor – the late Dr. Christopher S. Hyatt would humorously quip from time to time – “Ah, - if only I could kill (another human-being) again.”
>>Of course – the only humans he had (perhaps) ever killed were on the battlefield in Vietnam.
With that statement from Hyatt, I would encourage you to find another spiritual "mentor" for your life. To even consider lightly the taking of another life for any purposes is appalling to me.
You wrote:
>>So in essence - I do not need to follow the Ten Commandments to be a good, decent and moral person.
The fact that you use these words "good, decent, and moral person" implies that you accept moral absolutes, because apart from some standard to measure there is no such way to quantify in any intelligible way a "good, decent, and moral person."
Also, the fact that people even in America have at times resorted to "cannibalism," as you mention, does not relinquish the rule of law in their case. Even in cases of survival a person is not let off of the hook for committing murder. This is because murder is considered wrong in the collective conscience of virtually all of humanity.
Continued...
Craig,
You wrote:
>>And I don’t need any set of Absolute Morals to be a happy, humane, loving, kind, strong, intelligent, prosperous, enlightened, creative, reasonable and descent person.
So, looking at what you have defined about morality the only guide for you then is whatever you want to do to please yourself. That type of attitude basically defines what a "sociopath" is: "a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.-dictionary.com" Adolph Hitler was a typical sociopath. But, I don't really think you are a sociopath Craig; I sure hope this isn't the case.
BTW, when you were raising your kids, did you discipline them when they did not show respect to you as their parent (5th commandment)? Was adultery considered by you a perfectly legitimate behavior for your wife to do behind your back? The same sort of questions could be asked about murder, lying, and even coveting. The reason why you would have been upset had someone committed these acts against you is because these are moral absolutes.
Oh, and lest we both lose sight of this Craig, the Moral Argument is only one evidence that we have considered for the existence of a creator God as the Bible describes. It this were the only evidence I could point to I would not have a strong argument, but we have already looked at the Cosmological Argument and the Intelligent Design argument, and the sum of all of these three provides a very strong case for the existence of this creator God.
Craig writes:
My point about Dr. Hyatt was to point out the dichotomy in my own mentor’s teachings. He did not approve of initiating violence yet to kill someone who needed killing was, perhaps, something he could find some degree of pleasure in. When I watch a movie where the bad guy gets blown to pieces in the end – I get a good feeling and so do many others. And this is basically what the good Doctor was pointing out to me.
Personally – I am against the death penalty but I would be willing to bet that Jim Bomkamp is definitely for it. And I’d be willing to bet that Jim gets a certain amount of pleasure when a convicted murderer is executed.
As far as proving that our Constitution or our laws are based upon the Ten Commandments or the Bible – the case you make is surprisingly weak.
Consider the following quotes:
"Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because the never were."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length,...that Christianity is part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed...What a conspiracy this, between Church and State. Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all. Sing Tantarara, rogues all!"
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, 6/5/1824
As far as adultery is concerned, Karen and I both considered “swinging” whilst we were still married. Moralistically – we really had no problem with the concept (at that time – we both considered ourselves to be adherents to the Pagan/Wiccan religion). The problem was in finding suitable people to swing with – and no one we knew seemed to quite cut the mustard.
And in case you didn’t know – the Wiccan Rede is – “An it harm none, do as thou wilt.”
(The word “An” here is an archaic word that means “so long as.”)
So in essence – as far as we were concerned - we were breaking no rules according to the religion we followed at that time. However if we had been Christians (at that time) – just to harbor wishes or thoughts about doing such a thing would have been a sin.
And incidentally – at the time a Satanist friend of mine told me that the Wiccan Rede (or plan or rule of thumb) was of questionable value because - even if one tries their best not harm others – inevitably one will end up doing so – even if just by accident.
Perhaps he was correct and perhaps he was inadvertently pointing out one more reason not to believe in some “Moral Absolute.” Like the old saying goes; “Rules were made to be broken.”
In regards to your following statement:
So, looking at what you have defined about morality the only guide for you then is whatever you want to do to please yourself. That type of attitude basically defines what a "sociopath" is: "a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.-dictionary.com" Adolph Hitler was a typical sociopath. But, I don't really think you are a sociopath Craig; I sure hope this isn't the case.
While I do adhere to the two morals I pointed out to you before (to not initiate violence and to not steal) – I also follow the Law of Thelema as best I can (being a Thelemite myself).
That law being – “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” And – “Love is the law, love under will.”
So I guess what you are saying is that all Thelemites are psychopaths. Also and fortunately or unfortunately – I am not a psychopath because I have a conscience and feeling of sympathy and empathy for others. I do, however, study Dr. Hyatt’s book “The Psychopath’s Bible.” And I do this in order to not be eaten alive by all the psychopath’s I run into all too frequently in my life.
Funny thing though: I did contribute some art work to that book. Also – I recorded an album a few years back called – “Dr. Hyatt presents “The Psychopath’s Lullaby” by Crag Jensen.”
(If you go to my FaceBook page you will find that I sometimes go by the name Crag Jensen. Also, for future reference – Zehm Alohim just happens to be Crag Jensen’s alter-ego.)
Here are some words from the title song of said album:
Yeah there’s a place, way down deep in your soul.
It’s a dark and empty cavern, an endless gaping hole.
Some, they go there – while other’s just cringe and deny.
Some they dwell there – so very, very deep down inside.
Sleep well baby while I sing you:
A Psychopath’s lullaby.
Dream well honey, while I tell you
How psychopaths do it or die.
With absolutely no need to wonder why.
No there's no need - to wonder why
Words and Music by - Zehm Alohim, Dr Christopher S. Hyatt and Marc Jackson
To listen to this song and/or read all the lyrics go to:
http://www.originalfalcon.com/l-psychopaths_lullaby_12.php
(The sound quality at the preceding link is not so good – if you would like better sound quality the CD is available for sale at:
http://www.originalfalcon.com/l-psychopaths_lullaby_12.php
Jim – I have no moral absolute and society has no moral absolute and you have no moral absolute.
You believe in the Bible and the Ten Commandments and the Christ myth because you want to believe in them and because you fear the great “Other” as the good Doctor would put it.
No Jim – I am, indeed, no slave to any such concept as a “Moral Absolute” or to the god you worship or the book or the religion you imagine you follow.
And the further this conversation goes the more I realize how happy that makes me!
Craig,
The article below is by by Dr. Phil Fernandes and is a chapter in his doctrinal dissertation, and it is called: "The Moral Argument." He presents the argument for my thread in a very convincing manner, and sheds further light on the subject. Let me know what you think of it:
http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/moral_argument.htm
You'll have to cut and paste that link into your browser...
Craig,
You are winning the argument by redefining the terms. Besides that and more importantly...What would you say to God on behalf of your soul? How is it with God and your soul, Craig? Craig?
Craig:
As I read your posts I don't sense a person who wants to disprove there is a God, but a man who rejects religion. Without doing a Dr. Phil thing (OK I guess I am) I find all your arguments basically reject one thing and that is anyone or thing which would impede your ability to do anything you want with your life.
The fact is no-one is a free-agent but only fools themselves if they think they are. Whether you like it or not you are tied to moral/civic authority from the simplest forms such as traffic control to the more complex things such as killing another.
Now does the universal need for this authority prove there is a God? I think Jim B. has done a good job of establishing the answer as yes. However, the issue you must decide is what responsibility do you have to this God and can it be found in Christianity or another faith system.
Craig writes:
Drew - if you want to believe in Jim's make believe god or whether you have a god of your own to worship - that is your prerogative. In fact it sounds like you already have decided it is in your best interest to worship the great “Other,” I. e. – the government and all authority figures (real or imagined) that you can find in your little universe.
Craig writes:
Dear Puzzletop,
I am winning the argument because there is no such thing as a “moral absolute.” And what “terms” are you accusing me of redefining?
And while I’m at it – let me show you how Jim tries to win an argument:
I ask Jim if he believes everything in the Bible.
Jim says yes.
I ask Jim if he then believes in a “talking snake” (as we find in Genesis).
Jim replies that the Bible says that it was a “serpent” (and not a snake) that talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden.
I respond to Jim with the fact that according to Webster’s dictionary – a serpent is nothing more than a large snake.
And how does Jim reply to this?
He doesn’t. And why doesn’t he respond?
Probably because he doesn’t know how to.
Puzzletop: One cannot set up a scientific experiment that proves or disproves the existence of God. And hence – no one can prove (nor disprove) the existence of “God.” All Jim is doing here is using an abstraction called “the moral absolute argument” to try to prove his point. And he is doing this because he has been taught to do this by a group of religious fanatics called “Christian Apologists.” However, if Jim could think for himself then he wouldn’t have to rely on these cookie-cut-outs kind of arguments.
Also – Jim apparently thinks that anybody (including me evidently) who doesn’t “think” like he does is an idiot. The problem being (as I have so far noticed) is that Jim doesn’t actually know how to truly “think.” He just parrots others (such as the apologists) and then tries to pass that off as “thinking.” This type of behavior gets him into trouble in a case such as the "talking snake" incident - because he can't find the answer to that one in a book. Yet this type of behavior, this memorizing and regurgitating that which he has memorized can, at times, impress the gullible as well as provide Jim with some sort of comfort. And why is that – simple – because Jim is dreadfully afraid of and/or just simply hates who he really is. So – in order to impress others and escape or hide from himself (as well as the great OTHER – whom he also dreadfully fears) he fills himself with the ideas, notions and “thoughts” of others. This way Jim doesn’t have to expose his true identity to others or even to himself.
And also again – Jim is not just attempting to prove the existence of “God” or some Universal Force or Intelligence etc. here. Rather - Jim has learned a system by which he can (step-by-step) hypothetically lead the “non-believer” to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus Christ is God and if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ with all your heart and mind and soul you will eventually suffer eternal torment in the eternal Bar-B-Q Pit called Hell. The “Moral Absolute” argument is just one step along the way.
And also once again – can you show me one instance where Jim has made a convincing argument that there is indeed such a thing as a “Moral Absolute” and if you can then please show me how that proves that there is a “God.”
Hint – I have already proven that not everybody believes that murdering people, or lying or committing adultery is always wrong.
Craig,
You wrote:
>>Jim replies that the Bible says that it was a “serpent” (and not a snake) that talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden.
I respond to Jim with the fact that according to Webster’s dictionary – a serpent is nothing more than a large snake.
And how does Jim reply to this?
He doesn’t. And why doesn’t he respond?
Probably because he doesn’t know how to.
Craig, read back to my comments on the previous thread. I said that this could not be a snake that was talking because its curse was to now crawl on its belly, iow it wouldn't have any legs any more. It is called a "snake" or a "serpent" because that is the closest word to define what the creature is.
Oh, and I also mentioned before that if an angel, such as Lucifer the Devil, possessed the snake, it could cause it to talk. You know, just like in the Exorcist movie, you've seen that right? Demons speaking through people are recorded by four different gospel writers in the New Testament, and yes I consider them to be historians.
So, are ready to start paying attention now Craig? :-)
Craig,
You wrote:
>>However, if Jim could think for himself then he wouldn’t have to rely on these cookie-cut-outs kind of arguments.
Also – Jim apparently thinks that anybody (including me evidently) who doesn’t “think” like he does is an idiot. The problem being (as I have so far noticed) is that Jim doesn’t actually know how to truly “think.” He just parrots others (such as the apologists) and then tries to pass that off as “thinking.” This type of behavior gets him into trouble in a case such as the "talking snake" incident - because he can't find the answer to that one in a book.
Hmmmm. I don't think I have referred to what I have read in books any more than you have done so. What's wrong can't you think for yourself? Oh, and I don't think that others who disagree with me are "idiots," I just think that they are wrong. I think though that you are projecting your own thinking and attitude onto me, you believe I am an "idiot," not the other way around, right?
Oh, and reading books is what educated people do Craig, it doesn't belie not thinking for yourself. It is how you learn things.
You know, the thing is, your demeaning and belittling tone in this last post is really evidencing the fact that evidently something that has been said on these threads has damaged your armor. You're becoming desperate, and it is not I who am losing this debate, but you.
Oh, and I didn't ask for this debate either Craig, you cornered me and challenged me to debate you. When I tried to walk away you persisted on badgering me. So, I finally agreed to do so, even though I didn't really have the time to do it, and I have graciously set up this blog and format, and you ought to be a little more gracious and appreciative of what I have done in providing you a forum to debate these issues.
And by the way, there have been several good arguments made for the existence of a creator God based upon this Moral Argument. But, I'm afraid that the fact is coming out that you really were never interested in considering another viewpoint, never really interested in knowing the truth. You said you were not an athiest in our first thread, and I challenged you that your arguments sounded like you had made up your mind and that you were not truly an agnostic, but an athiest posing as one. That observation appears to be correct, right Craig? What is it Craig? Have you truly already made up your mind so that you really aren't interested in considering another viewpoint? If that is so, then this debate is pointless and a waste of your time, right? Why is it then that you insist on continuing? Honestly, why?
Craig,
In John 7:17, Jesus said, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." What holds back people from believing in Christ for salvation is not their intellect, it is not that they have not yet heard the convincing argument that leads them to believe. God will give anyone what they need intellectually to believe in Christ, if they are simply "willing" to do His will. The arguments that non-believers such as yourself make about how they could never believe in the Bible because..., or they could never believe in a God whom the Bible records did..., these arguments are all just smoke screens to keep people from knowing the real reason they do not believe. The real reason why people do not believe is because they "will not" believe, they are not willing to believe, not willing to do His will.
The day that you say to the Lord, "I am willing to do your will, reveal Yourself to me," that will be the day that the clouds clear away, the sky becomes clear, and you suddenly understand that there is a God who created all, and you will see that this fact has been staring you in the face in the most obvious way that it could every single day of your life. Oh, what a day that will be for you Craig, if it ever comes, that is...
Craig writes:
Jim – I read the article by Dr. Fernandes and am not impressed. First off – he uses the perfection argument of Thomas Aquinas. This argument is just a bunch of rhetoric and nothing more. There does not have to be a “Perfect Thing.” Can you find me a “Perfect Thing” Jim?” “Perfect” is just a perception and/or idea and although it seems to take place in mathematics – in reality- it does not exist. The funny thing here I find about Thomas Aquinas is that he wrote in Summa Theologica that one of the greatest pleasures in Heaven for the redeemed will be to look down and see how the “lost” are punished in Hell. This being said – let me ask you this Jim – How is Dr. Hyatt any worse than Thomas Aquinas?
Kant couldn’t figure why anybody would want to live a “moral life” if they didn’t believe in God or an afterlife. This, again, proves nothing. People inject their own meaning into life and do not need some notion of an afterlife or a religion or some Bearded Law Giver in the Sky to derive meaning from life or to treat other people with respect. Any idiot knows that if you treat others well they will tend to treat you well and if you treat other badly that will come back on you as well. “What goes around comes around” as they say.
As far as C.S. Lewis – much of the same applies and he should have read some Nietzsche before he started throwing out philosophies that had more holes in them than an old rusty pail. There are as many takes on what constitutes morality and/or what is right or wrong or good or evil as there are people on the planet. There is no ultimate moral standard. Sometimes it all boils down to geography. For instance: if you are in possession of a hollow-point bullet in New Jersey you are a criminal – however – if you are in possession of a hollow point bullet in Texas – you are not a criminal. And - if you were to stone someone to death for committing adultery in the US of A – you would be imprisoned for murder. However - if you stoned someone to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery - you would be following the law. And also – (let’s not forget) under Biblical law- if you stoned someone to death in Israel 2,000 years ago – you would be following the law. Where is the moral standard or moral absolute here?
Both the idea of the “Moral Standard” and/or the concept of the “Moral Absolute” are naught more than someone’s idea, notion, posit, concept or misconception. They are relative to the particular person and/or the society he/she lives in. They are products of imagination, social programming, the desire to feel comfortable and the instinct to survive.
Craig writes:
Jim previously wrote:
“Craig, read back to my comments on the previous thread. I said that this could not be a snake that was talking because its curse was to now crawl on its belly, iow it wouldn't have any legs any more. It is called a "snake" or a "serpent" because that is the closest word to define what the creature is.
Oh, and I also mentioned before that if an angel, such as Lucifer the Devil, possessed the snake, it could cause it to talk. You know, just like in the Exorcist movie, you've seen that right? Demons speaking through people are recorded by four different gospel writers in the New Testament, and yes I consider them to be historians.”
Fair enough – so you did respond a tiny bit more elaborately than I had initially recalled. But respond how? Let’s look at the preceding twofold response as well as what you actually and initially posted:
First – I will post your post your initial response(s) – the I will discuss your answers:
”I don't understand how you can think that it is a big stretch for me to consider that God could create a serpent (actually not a snake, btw) that would have the ability to speak. The creature wasn't a snake because the curse God gave the creature was to crawl on his belly and eat dust the rest of his days. It is possible before the fall of man though that other animals talked as well and that part of the curse on the earth involved them losing the capability for speech.
The other possibility that could bring about this speech by the serpent is the fact that the creature was possessed by the Devil. Creatures as powerful as the cherubs described in the Bible have the ability to do such a thing, I believe. In the book of Revelation there is an angel that has power over the winds on the earth, so causing a serpent to speak would be a simple task. Demons also speak through those who were possessed by them in the gospels and the book Acts, so they have the ability to animate creatures.”
So I was right – you did indicate that a serpent was not a snake, evidently however, you have changed your mind on that one. And you are right – you didn't just stop there – you did elaborate a bit more. You indicated that the creature was not a snake to begin with because God took away its legs when He cursed the poor creature to “crawl on his belly and eat dust the rest of his days.” And then you went on to say that it was possible that the creature (Nahash - the creature’s name in the original Hebrew) as well as “the other animals” could talk before “the fall of mankind.”
Craig continues:
Jim – the Bible says nothing about other animals being able to speak before Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden and Modern Science certainly would not back up such a ludicrous claim. In fact there is only one other incident of a talking animal in the Bible and that is in the book of Numbers - chapter XXII:21 – 33. This is when Balaam (a non-Israelite prophet) angers “the Lord” because he rose up and mounted his ass and rode off with the princes of Moab in order to curse the Israelites. In any event “the Lord” eventually causes Balaam’s ass to speak. This however would relate to your second notion that gods and demons can possess people and even animals and then cause them to speak.
I have discussed the possibility of demon possession with other bishops (in my own religion) especially a case in Bishop Lon Milo DuQuette’s book – “My Life with the Spirits” and have come to no solid conclusion as to whether the woman and her family involved in this particular case were possessed or simply mentally disturbed. In fact bishop DuQuette (the acting exorcist) as well as David Wilson, his assistant (in the exorcism), and I have discussed this incident at length. Also – the “exorcism” was performed at the request of Dr. Francis Regardie (who was the head of our religious order at that time) because he thought it might at least do some psychological good as all other options or treatments regarding this woman’s mental health had been attempted.
Here is a link to Lon’s book:
http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Spirits-Adventures-Magician/dp/1578631203/ref=sr_1_12/177-3098054-9781016?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250964680&sr=8-12
However – I have never heard of animals being possessed and then being able to talk except in the Bible or other ancient and mythological sources or cartoons or fairytales or Witch’s familiars etc. In reality - the only animals (besides humans) that can talk in a human language are a few species of birds. And they really aren’t that aware of exactly what they are saying. And with the (possible) exception of Gibbons – all apes can learn and use human language using nonverbal means (such as sign language…). Reptiles, however, do not possess either vocal cords (or advanced enough vocal cords) or sufficient intelligence to talk or intelligently communicate. They also do not have nearly the required brainpower to talk. Oh – and the Hebrew word “Nahash” which is the word used in Genesis to refer to the infamous Serpent – comes from a root word meaning “to hiss.” (The word “nahash” simply means snake in Hebrew.) So even the original Hebrew name for the Serpent in Genesis implies that it was a hisser and not a talker.
Now if you want to believe that God just changes His creatures’ intelligence quotients and/or their physical make-ups by waving His hand or His magic wand or by possessing them or whatever – go ahead. Just don’t blame me if intelligent and educated people think you are little out there.
Craig,
You wrote:
>>I read the article by Dr. Fernandes and am not impressed. First off – he uses the "Perfection" argument of Thomas Aquinas. This argument is just a bunch of rhetoric and nothing more. There does not have to be a “Perfect Thing.” Can you find me a “Perfect Thing” Jim?” “Perfect” is just a perception and/or idea and although it seems to take place in mathematics – in reality- it does not exist.
The fact is that we all do compare people and nations to some sort of standards. Let me give you a test here to prove this... Do you think that Hitler and Nazi Germany were "wrong" (evil or whatever) for practicing genocide on millions of people? Well, if you say, 'Yes', then you have just proven Thomas Aquinas' argument, as well as what C.S. Lewis wrote about the Moral Argument. I quote Dr. Fernandes here about this:
"If the moral law is merely subjective, then no one can declare the actions of another to be wrong. If the moral law is produced by nations, then no nation can condemn the actions of another nation. The moral law could not even be the product of world consensus. The world consensus of the twentieth century could not condemn the slavery of the nineteenth, first, or any other century since world consensus favored the practice of slavery during those times."
You wrote:
>>As far as C.S. Lewis – much of the same applies and he should have read some Nietzsche before he started throwing out philosophies that had more holes in them than an old rusty pail. There are as many takes on what constitutes morality and/or what is right or wrong or good or evil as there are people on the planet. There is no ultimate moral standard. Sometimes it all boils down to geography. For instance: if you are in possession of a hollow-point bullet in New Jersey you are a criminal – however – if you are in possession of a hollow point bullet in Texas – you are not a criminal.
First of all, what makes you think that C.S. Lewis had never read Nietzsche? I'll bet he had read Nietzsche, he was very well read, especially anything pertaining to philosophy.
Secondly, I never stated that all laws created by all countries are Moral Absolutes. That would be a foolish thing to claim, and I certainly do not agree with every law that has ever been created... I will say though that the Moral (as given to Moses) has become a foundation upon which nations have built the bulk of their laws and statutes.
You wrote:
>>And - if you were to stone someone to death for committing adultery in the US of A – you would be imprisoned for murder. However - if you stoned someone to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery - you would be following the law. And also – (let’s not forget) under Biblical law- if you stoned someone to death in Israel 2,000 years ago – you would be following the law. Where is the moral standard or moral absolute here?
You keep getting confused about what the Moral Law teaches about the taking of life. The commandment is against committing "murder," specifically "premeditated murder." The command given to stone one who had committed murder is the execution of justice for a crime committed. Every government on the face of the earth has a justice system and provides for the punishment of crimes. I hope you believe that there should be such a thing as justice carried out for crimes committed that harm people?! You may disagree with the method of capital punishment for carrying out a crime, but then if you do that will mean that you actually are claiming that some people's actions are actually wrong, and in that case you would be affirming the "Perfection" argument of Thomas Aquinas and appealing to a moral absolute as a standard.
Craig,
You still have not replied to my questions to you about why you are pursuing this debate in the first place, and also whether you are willing to even consider a different view point in this debate... The reason I was hesitant to debate you in the first place is because you seemed to not be open to considering another viewpoint. So, please respond to these questions.
Craig writes;
Jim:
Asking me why I like to debate is like asking a bird why it likes to sing.
Craig Writes:
I suppose one could say it is just the Nature of the Beast.
Jim,
Craig posted the following:
"And - if you were to stone someone to death for committing adultery in the US of A – you would be imprisoned for murder. However - if you stoned someone to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery - you would be following the law. And also – (let’s not forget) under Biblical law- if you stoned someone to death in Israel 2,000 years ago – you would be following the law. Where is the moral standard or moral absolute here?"
It appears that people in different countries and different periods of time agree that adultery is wrong. It doesn't matter if the government gets involved or not; the fact that people here or in Saudia Arabia, now or 2,000 years ago, agree that adultery is wrong shows a moral law.
Am I missing something here? Does Craig believe adultery is wrong?
Craig writes:
If you will remember Jim – it was you who initially contacted me on FaceBook and it was you who twice posted advertisements for your literary releases on my Facebook site. Now – when I questioned you about some very questionable ideas you put forth in the second literary work of yours you sent my way – you chose to stand your ground and challenge me. That’s fine – I admire that.
So when you ask me why I started this debate and/or why I insist on continuing it – well – I think then that your memory or perception of events is a bit foggy; a bit off the mark.
That is, of course, unless asking a question of someone who touts their ideas in your face(book), is considered to be an aggressive sort of debate starting tactic in your world.
Now – if you want me to go back through every post that you and I have exchanged – then I will do that. That is if you have a different recollection than I.
Yet – moving along…
I confronted you with a question about Job and the story that surrounds him and your interpretation of said story. I did not ask you to start a blog in which you are totally in control of; a blog that seeks to prove the existence of a God; perhaps the existence of your god et. al. (I really have little or no interest in proving the existence or non-existence of any given god.)
Also – Jim, you know full well I was a student at a Southern Baptist University for several years, which means I went to Chapel twice a week. I also went to a Southern Baptist Church twice on Sundays etc. etc. Do you really imagine that I have never considered the point or points of view you are advocating?
So given all of that – all I can say is: how that translates into the following quote and sentiment – I really don’t know.
“You still have not replied to my questions to you about why you are pursuing this debate in the first place, and also whether you are willing to even consider a different view point in this debate... The reason I was hesitant to debate you in the first place is because you seemed to not be open to considering another viewpoint. So, please respond to these questions.”
Perhaps you could, at some time in the future explain that to me.
Craig continues:
And here’s something else you said that I find interesting:
“The fact is that we all do compare people and nations to some sort of standards. Let me give you a test here to prove this... Do you think that Hitler and Nazi Germany were "wrong" (evil or whatever) for practicing genocide on millions of people? Well, if you say, 'Yes', then you have just proven Thomas Aquinas' argument, as well as what C.S. Lewis wrote about the Moral Argument.”
First off – Germany created Hitler and Nazi Germany much more than Hitler created Nazi Germany. The conditions of abject poverty and the malicious sentiment towards the Jews as well as the fact that the German people (in general) felt that they were God’s chosen people (to a great degree) at that time - all combined to give rise and make way for a dictator such as Adolf Hitler. Jim – there are people who live in the United States today that still believe Hitler was right. What I think or feel about Hitler is really naught more than a moot point.
And where were you when thousands of Americans were out on the street protesting an uncalled for invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Before you reply to this - please consider that most of the German people during and just previous to WWII more than likely voiced similar sentiments as the ones you might like to throw my way regarding this issue. Remember - they too feared other peoples with other religions and they too felt a need for vengeance against those they deemed as Evil-doers.
However - if you were out on the street protesting then I would find that interesting as well.
But again - let's move on.
As far as I am concerned – most of humanity is nothing more a bunch of sophisticated monkeys running around in silly looking outfits and nesting, digesting and congesting.
And why is that – simple – because that is what we monkeys love to do – nest, digest and congest.
And – even though I don’t believe for a second that there is such a thing as a “moral absolute” or a Universal Standard of some sort.- I do see evidence that there may be one universal law when it comes to human beings. And what is that? It’s all contained in one little four letter word – OBEY!
And although I and several others I know certainly do not feel a need or desire for some dictator or god or priest or president or government or great “Other” to rule over us – most human beings seem to crave it.
You seem to crave it.
And if you don’t then tell me – if you do then please tell me why that it is.
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
It really doesn’t matter what I think of adultery. Study the traditions of the people in the Norwegian countries. They still celebrate a holiday called Beltane every year in the Spring. (Also – many British and American Pagans celebrate this holiday still.)
And why is this significant? – it is significant because when people celebrate Beltane – they quite often indulge in sexual acts with someone other than their betrothed. And this behavior is endorsed and encouraged in one or more Norwegian countries to this day.
And also – let me ask you this – why is it such a wonderful thing for people to cruelly kill other people because they shared affections with someone besides their betrothed?
Who said it was a wonderful thing? And why wouldn't it be a wonderful thing?
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
Isn’t following God’s laws a wonderful thing?
Craig, personally, I can't keep any of them, so to me, it's a wonderful thing to be free from having to follow them.
Do you find something wrong with "cruelly killing other people because they shared affections with someone besides their betrothed?" I want to know how a monkey views this.
Regardless of whether you think it matters or not, I would still like to know what you think of adultery. Following that thought, it doesn't matter what any one of us thinks of anything. We can think whatever we want to, but we can't change the truth.
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
Personally - I find it disgusting that people are beheaded or stoned to death because they shared affections with the "wrong" person. But to those who choose to follow certain religions that require this sort of behavior - to them - it mus be a wonderful thing - as it is a way to express their undying obedience to their chosen god.
I do not even entertiain the idea of adultry as being a relevant concept in my life. At least not the Christian concept that is. For example - if my wife asked me to attend an orgy - I would not view her as a "sinner" or think of myself as a "sinner" if I did attend an orgy with her.
However, I would hope that my wife and myself would try to observe some kind of loyalty to one another. At least as long as we love each other as man and wife.
So here's what I don't understand, Craig. Where does your disgust come from? Where do affections come from? Where does wonderful come from? Where do ideas come from? Where do concepts come from? Where does your desire for loyalty come from? Where does love come from?
It really amazes me that you can type on your keyboard, looking at the monitor, using your computer and say that these were all thought of, designed and created by someone. Yet your hands that type because you simply want to, your mind, your body just evolved. Just happened. No one thought of it, no one designed it, no one created it.
Christians are accused of having blind faith with no intellect, but I think that atheists and evolutionists take the prize in this category. The evidence we have all points to a designer and creator. You have to be in denial to say it isn't so. And I think you should ask yourself why you are in denial.
Do I believe something is true because the Bible says it is, or does the Bible say something is true because it is true? I think that both statements are correct. You may think that things in the Bible are not fair or good or right in your opinion (I would be cautious in holding my view as the standard); but the question is not is it fair. The question is, Is it True? Is it true? There are plenty of things that are true, but they are not fair.
Jesus said, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
If you want to debate and argue, carry on. If you want to know the truth, see the verse above. :)
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
He said - "And the truth will make you free," not "set" you free.
But what I say (or ask really) is: what truth and what freedom?
Craig, please answer my questions first.
Craig writes:
Fair enough – I will answer your questions.
Where do the following concepts come from:
Affections – are many times sexual in derivation. Also – people, just like cats and dogs and monkeys – like tactile stimulation. Mother Nature has instilled this in we mammals because we mammals need to keep warm.
Love – love is directly related to the above stated concept of affection. We also have functions that are bioelectrical or energy based. These functions are functions of the mind – and the mind goes beyond the brain and the body. It is not at all (of course) completely understood. However, love uses pheromone releases, some form of (as I indicated) bioelectrical force and the subsequent telepathic manifestations that occur naturally between two or more people. Mother Nature needs us to reproduce and protect each other as well as our offspring. Hence – we enjoy the benefits of this concept we call ‘love” or “romantic love” to be more specific.
Wonderful – When something make a person wonder or makes them curious and/or amazed – that thing fills a person ‘s mind with “wonder.” Hence the word and concept – “wonderful.”
Disgust – Disgust comes from our social conditioning and sometimes Nature. Feces, for instance, are disgusting because the Great Evolutioner put those feelings of disgust in us so that we would stay away from bacteria ridden and hence – harmful waste.
Loyalty – Part of a need for loyalty comes from our social conditioning and (again) partly from Nature. Most animals survive better in groups or packs. And in order for groups or packs to exist – there must exist a sense of loyalty.
All of the above stated concepts can be understood as a result of millions (if not billions) of years of evolution.
Also – just so you will know – I am not an Atheist. In fact – I suspect that some Force, or Intelligence or Whatever It Is (I do not know) constantly and continuously moves through and influences the universe. I suspect that It lives in us, flows through us, is a part of us and is Us. I suspect but I do not know and neither do you!
Jim would like to prove that God exists because of something that truly doesn’t exist – The Moral Absolute. It is naught more than a figment of his (and your, evidently) imagination(s).
And also again - just because I find certain violent and hateful acts disgusting – doesn’t mean that some god instilled that notion, idea and/or feeling in me. It is probably part of my United Methodist upbringing and consequent social conditioning to be disgusted by such violent behavior. It is also (again) most likely due Nature’s desire that we proliferate instead of annihilate (one another). One must also consider that many people in the Middle East take great pride and pleasure in a young woman having her head cut off because she didn’t follow their brand of god’s laws. So there is certainly no proof of everyone in the world harboring the notion that beheading people because they slept with the “wrong” person is wrong and/or disgusting. To the contrary my zealous friend – there is oodles & oodles of evidence that supports the exact opposite conclusion – that there is no worldwide and general consensus on this issue or many other issues of (so-called) right or wrong.
So will you be able to define “truth” and/or “freedom” (or being “free”) now?
Or was there a question or two I missed? Hmmmm…
Well, thanks for answering my questions - but I'm finding them so far out there that I don't even know how to respond without being insulting. Mother Nature? The Great Evolutioner? Nature's desire? You have certainly talked yourself into your own way of thinking - the figments of your imagination seem to be running wild. Do you have any idea where that is leading you?
Did your computer evolve?
Did your house evolve?
Did the chair you are sitting in evolve?
To answer your question:
"But what I say (or ask really) is: what truth and what freedom?"
See part A of the verse for the answer.
A: Jesus said, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,
B: and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
If you really, really want to know, and not just to argue and state your case, you must honestly and authentically follow part A - and you will know.
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
You wrote – “You have certainly talked yourself into your own way of thinking…”
Well at least you noticed that I am “thinking.” Are you “thinking Bobbie?” And is there something wrong with thinking for one’s self (or in one’s own “way”) or is that not allowed in your world?
And did you ever try “thinking” Bobbie? Did you ever have a single thought in your life that was not dictated by the words someone else spoke or wrote?
Craig writes,
Hey Jim,
I just posted my latest video on YouTube and I wanted to thank you for the inspiration you sent my way for it. Watch it all the way through and you will see what I mean.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD2pFVxiSmo
Craig,
You asked:
"And did you ever try “thinking” Bobbie? Did you ever have a single thought in your life that was not dictated by the words someone else spoke or wrote?"
That would be a yes - it's what I am known for. I am very analytical and do think for myself, thank you very much. I challenge everything and come to my own conclusions, and when I find something to be true, I go with it.
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
You wrote: "You have certainly talked yourself into your own way of thinking..."
Then you wrote, when I asked you if you ever thought for yourself: " it's what I am known for. I am very analytical and do think for myself, thank you very much."
So in essence: you can criticize me for thinking for myself but when it comes to you - that's a completely different story - because you are extremely proud of the way you think for yourself.
Do you have mental facilities that
I simply don't possess?
Or do you just believe that you are smarter than me or anybody else who might disagree with you?
Or perhaps you "think" that because you believe in Jesus and are "saved" then you have been divinely imbued with the RIGHT THOUGHTS.
Which of the above categories do you fall into Bobbie? Hmmmmm?
Craig, I didn't criticize you for thinking for yourself. Don't be so sensitive.
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
This is what you wrote:
"Well, thanks for answering my questions - but I'm finding them so far out there that I don't even know how to respond without being insulting. Mother Nature? The Great Evolutioner? Nature's desire? You have certainly talked yourself into your own way of thinking - the figments of your imagination seem to be running wild. Do you have any idea where that is leading you?"
Now if that's not being critical (as well as a little more than vaguely insulting) - then I don't know what is?
And how did the conversation go from one about a "Moral Absolute" to you trying to shove "Jesus is the truth" down my throat?
It was not I who took a giant and digressive, non-sequitur leap from one topic to the other - it was you. And why did you do this - could it possibly be because you cannot and/or will not answer any of my questions?
Craig,
Every once in a while as we journey through life, we run into people that are on such different wave lengths, different ways of communicating and coming to conclusions, that there is absolutely no common ground whatsoever. I realize that you, for me, are one of those people.
I'm not trying to shove anything down your throat, and it seems you are taking my words and twisting them and accusing me of things that are not my intention. So I must not be doing a very good job at expressing myself since you are so offended.
By the way, Mother Nature, etc. are not your original thoughts either. When I said you talked yourself into your way of thinking, it's because I believe the evidence doesn't support it. You would have to examine the evidence, draw conclusions that aren't consistent with what is known, and talk yourself into your own beliefs about what is know. But that's just my opinion.
So it's been nice "blogging" with you. I have never done this before, so it's been a learning experience, and I thank you for that.
You can draw your own conclusions about why I am "quitting"; I will let you have the last words and you can say whatever you want, as you have always done. I won't be returning to the blog anymore, as I do have many other things that need my attention. I wish you the best as you continue on your journey. I hope your world view continues to work for you at every stage of life.
Farewell!!
Craig writes:
Bobbie,
And if you are wondering what questions I am referring to - here they are(again):
Do you have mental facilities that I simply don't possess?
Or do you just believe that you are smarter than me or anybody else who might disagree with you?
Or perhaps you "think" that because you believe in Jesus and are "saved" then you have been divinely imbued with the RIGHT THOUGHTS?
Also - when you tell me that Jesus is "truth" and "freedom" and then I ask you what "truth" and "freedom" are and you tell me truth and freedom are Jesus - I have to consider that a non-answer. I.e. please elaborate. As in - Jesus is truth and freedom in what way? Or how do you determine "truth." And what is it to be truly free? Can you define these terms without parroting some bible passage? Can you possibly show me how you actually can think for yourself?
Craig writes:
Goodbye Bobbie and good luck to you. Also - just so that all will know - I posted my last segment before Bobbie's Farewell Address was posted ( so I was unable to read his last response before posting mine)- it is just too bad though that Bobbie just could not come up with any better answer(s) than that.
On the brighter side, however, author and film producer Joseph Matheny will be interviewing me at http://www.alterati.com/ this coming Monday at 7:00 pm Eastern Time. The name of the show is GSpot.
(For all you Art Bell fans - Joe was interviewed on Art's Coast to Coast show in 2000.)
Perhaps I will bring up the issue of "The Moral Absolute" on the show (or maybe not - who knows). In any event though - I will be talking about things related to God and spirituality more-than-likely. So if you've nothing to do then join Joe & I at seven o'clock this coming Monday.
Craig,
I have not been interacting with you on this thread for a while for a few reasons. One is that I have been really busy for a few weeks. I have a few different jobs that I have been working simultaneously and so I haven't had much free time. Secondly, I realized a while back that you and I were never going to agree about the exitence of Moral Absolutes, no matter how we may argue it. Third, Bobbie was interacting with you in my absence.
When I created the new thread and posted it, I was just about to say, "Let's agree to disagree on this and move on to talk about the integrity and credibility of the Bible itself." But then, Bobbie began interacting with you so I just let that play out.
I could reply to several things that you have posted on this thread in your arguments with Bobbie, but I would rather just move on to discuss the new thread. Both of our arguments would just be circular at this point in time anyway. So, have you read the new thread? Can we agree to disagree and move on in our debate to the next thread? I'm not conceding defeat I'm just trying to be pragmatic about what to do continue to make this debate interesting and worthwhile...
What are your thoughts Craig?
BTW, I watched your video. Its very creative. I like the way you caused the pieces of art to recite the words you wrote. I'm not really sure what point you are really trying to make in the video except maybe to recount your own experience and beliefs. Are you saying in it that within you is a Doctor, a Demon, and yourself, and that this explains why you do what you do and believe what you believe???
Anyway, lets discuss it on the next thread, not here, OK?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home