Replies

I just love it when people prove my point. (Have you even read the Ten Commandments?)

I used to read them a lot before the whiny atheists and ACLU took them down from practically every public area.

I guess their consciences bothered them every time they saw them.

Please check out Exodus 34 for the real Ten Commandments, not the fake ones in Exodus 20. And Yes, I studied the Tanakha under a Rabbi, can you say the same? I don't even know why I ask, none of you Born Againers are much on reading.

LOL! Silly atheist. "Fake" indeed. You're so full of it I could fertilize my lawn by rolling you over it!

If you studied under any rabbi it was probably Michael Lerner or one of his ilk. No rabbi I know teaches Exodus 34 as the Ten Commandments; it's always Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

Again I ask, what morals does Elohim have?

Maybe you have a point. What evidence do we have that this thing called "morality" exists? Nothing you can see, touch, hear, or smell. Maybe morality is completely imaginary, an invention for the comfort of the weak and control of the masses.

Invisible, intangible inventions should be abandoned so we can be truly free men. Let us cast off the onerous burden of this unscientific, capricious superstition called "morality" and be liberated, instead of being ignorant savages who are slaves to some ancient authoritarian idea. How about it?

Question: "What evidence do we have that this thing called "morality" exists? Nothing you can see, touch, hear, or smell."

Trial Answer: Just withdraw this "Nothing you can see, touch, hear, or smell," and see what happens. We would then "see" it in its absence in the widescale reversion to the laws of the jungle.

Is a man more "free" under those laws? I do believe that was Rousseau's argument. He even proposed a fascinating re-definition of man as "the noble savage."

But then, Rousseau was an idiot: At the very same time we find him trying to undermine the very idea of God, thereby to abolish God-given moral law; and averring that "savage" man — i.e., man in his natural state — is somehow innately, naturally "good," even "noble"; we find such words are completely senseless outside of moral context and criteria.

Thus Rousseau's argument is self-defeating from the get-go, unintelligible. For there's nothing "natural" about "noble": "Noble" refers to something that you cannot see, touch, hear, or smell.

Observation: "Maybe morality is completely imaginary, an invention for the comfort of the weak and control of the masses."

A Different Observation: I've heard that rumor, too. It is one of the atheist's favorite anti-God "spitballs." It is also deeply cynical about human nature. Under the law of the jungle, the powerful prevail over the weak. In a well-ordered (i.e., moral) human society, justice forbids this. To remove all moral constraint means that "Might makes right." This sort of thing, and a buck, buys you a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler in very short order.

You wrote:

Invisible, intangible inventions should be abandoned so we can be truly free men. Let us cast off the onerous burden of this unscientific, capricious superstition called "morality" and be liberated, instead of being ignorant savages who are slaves to some ancient authoritarian idea. How about it?

I find this statement simply hilarious. What, were you just born yesterday? Have you learned nothing from your experience? From history?

Again, are you more "free" as a man in a "natural" state — where so much of your time and energy must be devoted to fleeing predators and searching for shelter and basic sustenance — or more "free" in a just social order based on the free and mutually-beneficial cooperation of the individuals composing it?

The difference between the two possible states is precisely the moral law that you and some others here seem to disparage.

Thank you for writing, angryoldfatman!