Posted on 11/30/2002 7:42:38 AM PST by A. Pole
Well, well... Let's take a look at these "pre-judaic" peoples...
Genesis "6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them," ... 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Wow, looks like we have a bunch of natural born "do-gooders". LOL!
It couldn't have anything to do with evolution of morality in conjunction with civilization could it?
So by your reasoning, infanticide is a byproduct of atheism (and other "false theisms"). So every atrocity tolerated by Christians 1-2 thousand years ago's a result of morality from the real God?
Normally I'd have expected better reasoning from someone who uses the word "inimical" up in #9, by that claim was just as poorly developed.
Jesus has been around since eternity past. A lot of people knew Him: Moses, the prophets, etc. He didn't just show up 2000 years ago. To know Jesus is to know God.
Even atheists should take comfort in that, whereby their rights to the contrary are forever so guaranteed.
It is the same with a human being. Until a person is connected to the Holy Spirit, his will to selfishness cannot be overcome with the need to do things pleasing to God. He cannot see things from God's point of view, he cannot be communicated with, or communicate himself with perfection of thought, choice, and action.
Christians believe "all things in moderation", it is the same with Capitalism. There is a perfect balance between honest profit and greed that is rarely attained, much less maintained. Speaking only for myself as a Christian, I believe that truth should be sought after like miners seeking after gold. Once truth is attained it should be the basis for fairness, and justice afforded to each individual in the most perfect way possible.
Government should be bound with the fear of terrible punishment should justice not be afforded it's citizens by enemies of justice and freedom no matter the source. People should be bound with fear of terrible punishment for injustice, and so should Corporations and those who run them.
Truth, justice, and fairness should be the goal, the terrible teeth of laws that insure punishment, should mankind's basic nature of selfishness and corruption trample on the justice, fairness, and freedom that is the due of the individual, should bite down with remembered pain.
We attempted this with the Constitution of the United States, but not enough punishing teeth and chains of justice were placed on those that would govern us. Those that would run for office should do so full of fear and trembling of the awful price of abusing the Constitution. It may be too late to add those chains and that punishment given that no agency, court, or arm of the government fulfills it's mandate to punish and guard against the abuse by the other branches of government.
The Constutition left that event open to armed revolution by the people. The Founders did not forsee our conditions today, how could they? A time when revolution is pretty much precluded by enemies who will not sit back and wait for an internal squabble to be settled, and a population of people that have no moral compass, and whose personal life styles have not suffered enough to enrage them to revolt.
At least half of the country's population has turned it's back on government, the man on the street can't identify a picture of VP Cheney, most understand there is corruption in D.C. but feel distanced from it's effects. That will not be the case eventually as more people are feeling the heavy hand of the abuse of their property rights, privacy rights, and abuse of their children by government schools.
That leaves it to those of us who are watchful and vote to attempt to keep this corrupt monster in line, to try to be a force for good and to cast our votes wisely, rewarding and punishing those that would govern us. I don't see how that can be successfully accomplished without God's guiding hand.
Why not?
Not only is the answer "no," but more importantly... without God, the concept of "good" is meaningless.
Those not familiar with reality, no such flood occurred, and humanity was not wiped off the face of the earth.
There was not a world-wide flood? Good God, all of that over-whelming physical evidence must be a figure of anyone's (even atheist and agnostic scientists) imaginations.
Well, err, there is no such evidence. Furthermore there is only enough water to fill the oceans, in case you haven't noticed. To flood the lands would require a huge increase in terrestrial water. It would have to come from somewhere and go somewhere, not of this earth.
There is no scientific evidence of a great worldwide flood, and there is no scientific explanation for such a thing either. Therefore no serious scientist accepts the hokey myths of the bible. Those stories are for children.
Hmmm. I thought this might be coming. If you would, in reading my answer please understand that this is just a thumbnail sketch of what ought to take a serious philosopher at least a thick volume to closely reason and explore. My reasoning is as follows:
In a cosmology that includes God, human beings are creations, and therefore presumably have a purpose. Ethics are principles laid down by an incontrovertible ultimate authority, and while individuals may disagree on what those absolute ethical principles are, all agree that an absolute ethical standard exists. "Good" is that which is in obedience to God.
In a cosmology without God, human beings are unable to evaluate their existence in any way other than subjectively. Human beings are not creations, but merely extraordinarily complicated electrochemical processes. Ethics have no ultimate authority for their foundation and, therefore, are considered to be based on subjective considerations (in the case of the individual) or consensus (in the case of the group). Ultimately, ethics are judged pragmatically; what is "ethical" is whatever is judged best for humanity, or a localized subset of humanity, collectively.
So, in a cosmology without God, "good" is whatever is conducive to the best interests of the collective. By this reasoning, it becomes "good" for Nazis to exterminate the "undesirables" in their population, thereby supposedly strengthening future generations. Yet such an idea is plainly in violent conflict with a God-framed idea of "good"... in such violent conflict that I propose to you that the two concepts ought not be called the same thing. Let us use "good" for the God-framed idea, because without God what we're really discussing is "efficacity" at best... and "expediency" at worst.
This is a fascinating concept, which raises several interesting questions. For one, if the source of morals and ethics is our biological nature, then is it therefore reasonable to manipulate them chemically or surgically, as we manipulate our other biological processes?
It would be very liberating if we could surgically excise guilt, say for example, or negate it with a pill. It would greatly empower individuals to freely do what is patently in their best interest... and with no more thought given to it than to, say, regulating fertility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.