-
Website
http://atheists-and-christians.com/ -
Original page
http://atheists-and-christians.blogspot.com/2008/09/ill-never-forget-weeping-in-front-of-tv.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
What if we would educate them about another religion, say, for example, the one taught by Jesus Christ, which says that mankind was created in the image of God? One that teaches that the life of every man, woman, and child is at God's disposal not our own? One that teaches us to turn the other cheek when offended? One that teaches us that the only way to convert the unbeliever by exhibiting the love of Christ? What if everybody believed that? Would that ward off another 9/11?
Even if all in the world claimed Christ as their savior, sadly, not all who claim Christ are peaceful.
The key is not uniformity of belief (regardless of what's believed), but believing in the reality of the value of human life, diversity, and purpose, which is most fully realized in a proper (humble, trusting, seeking) understanding of the Christian Triune God.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a good place to start
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
So if the articles are founded on the preamble what is the preamble founded on? Science? Subjective experience? Wishful thinking?
Perhaps the drafters of this document should revisit the US Declaration of Independence—from which, it seems, they lifted basic ideas—and consider what the (decidely un-Christian) Founding Fathers saw as the foundational premise.
Do we really have inherent dignity simply because we say we do? Does mud have inherent dignity but lack the means to communicate it to us? I've been told that I should not believe things without sufficient evidence, so I'm going to have withhold agreement until I can determine where this 'inherent dignity' comes from and why I could claim it for myself while denying it to even one other bit of matter.
Matterists unite! Down with the Humanist tyranny!
:-)
Some in Islam have chosen to take the positive from the Koran and live that way, just as many in Christianity have chosen to take the positive things from the Bible and live that way.
You speak of Allah as if he were a real entity. Do you believe he exists?
"a proper (humble, trusting, seeking) understanding of the Christian Triune God."
That's a wonderful idea, but which is the proper one? I know of many who are humble, trust in God, and seek him daily, as the Christian Triune God and yet, I think you would not like their theology.
Yes, one who *truly* claimed Christ would *try* to live as he did. But given the fallen state of humanity and the natural world, and that even those who truly claim Christ retain, for now, their sinful nature, I have very little confidence that universal peace and love is attainable until we have been fully and finally redeemed.
Do you believe [Allah] exists?
Good question. No. 'He' is a concept (like Aristotle's god) and the *concept* is a real one, and in some ways it aligns with the truth, i.e., sovereign, personal, etc. I called Allah 'He' by convention. I probably shouldn't.
I think you would not like their theology.
If their theology includes the idea that they are God's agents in the persecution of unbelievers then they don't have a proper understanding of the Christian God or of themselves. Humble, trusting seekers find (Matt 7:7-8). If God is love has the unrepentant hater found Him?
Forgive me, Laughing Boy, I mixed you up with someone else with decidedly different theology. I think I need to take a sabbatical from the internet, for me that would be like a crack addict taking a sabbatical from crack. ;-)
Actually, the people I was thinking of would include you. People with a desire to put on the servant hood of Christ, and not see enemies in all unbelievers.
Sorry for the mix-up! :-)
Assumptions and aspirations.
LB said: Perhaps the drafters of this document should revisit the US Declaration of Independence—from which, it seems, they lifted basic ideas—and consider what the (decidely un-Christian) Founding Fathers saw as the foundational premise.
That 'We Hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' etc...?
They didn't say or state as a fact that the truths of equality etc *are* self evident - which they clearly are not - but that they *hold* them to be self-evident! There is a WORLD of difference between the two positions.
LB said: Do we really have inherent dignity simply because we say we do?
No. But we can claim it, promote it and try to live up to the ideal. Its a clearly utopian idea - but not a bad one nor an unobtainable one because of that.
LB said: Does mud have inherent dignity but lack the means to communicate it to us?
No. Its a amusing question though!
LB said: I've been told that I should not believe things without sufficient evidence, so I'm going to have withhold agreement until I can determine where this 'inherent dignity' comes from and why I could claim it for myself while denying it to even one other bit of matter.
The idea of 'inherent dignity' doesn't come from anywhere other than the minds of men & women - in exactly the same way as every other cultural invention. We can claim it for ourselves and on the behalf of creatures incapable of claiming it. We make these things real by making Declarations about them, enschrining them in our laws and teaching them to our children. Just because they do not come from any mythical supreme being does not mean that they are without value.
LB said: Matterists unite! Down with the Humanist tyranny!
Sometimes you're just too funny for words.......
So what does "self-evident" mean?
My point is that, for Jefferson, et al, equality was grounded in a common Creator, and, since the deist's Deity was fair, He endowed dignity upon all equally. Jefferson didn't say, as UN committee did, all people have dignity because, well, no reason really, but wouldn't it be nice to think so.
No. But we can claim it....Its a clearly utopian idea - but not a bad one...
I'm surprised to hear you say that beliefs without a rational foundation are fine and dandy as long as they make us feel better and give us something to aspire to.
The idea of 'inherent dignity' doesn't come from anywhere other than the minds of men & women...
Well, then, it's not inherent, but accidental (in Aristotelian terms). Inherent means, "Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic." Do you really think a person's dignity is determined by other people making declarations about them? Yikes! What if the people of a culture declared that, say, Jews, had no share of inherent dignity? What recourse does your way of thinking provide?
The Founding Fathers of America used the language of the time. If such a document was produced today in a Secular country they might use similar words - but without reference to God. They could still hold these truths to be 'self-evident' but without using Gods authority to back it up.
As with dignity so with equality. I, for instance, do not considered that everyone is equal. It is self-evident (to me at least) that this is an obvious statement. Yet I think that people should be treated *as if* they are equal because this is a much better and fairer attitude to take.
Beliefs - especially socially advantageous beliefs - can be judged rationally on their utility. Not just that some of them might make us 'feel better' about ourselves but if they work and help produce a better society for everyone. The ideas of human dignity and equality are two examples of this.
Just because something is not inherent doesn't mean that its accidental or even random. Humans have inherent qualities because of what we are - but we do not have, for example, inalienable rights endowed by our 'Creator'. Any rights that we do have are those devised and invented by our fellow men/women. It is neither inevitable nor is it necessary that we have those rights. They are purely human inventions. Various groups have been denied such rights throughout our history and, no doubt, will be denied them again in the future. Such denial is cultural in nature. What recourse do we have in those circumstances? Whatever recourse we are capable of.....
CK: I cannot think of much in the world that [is self-evident].
How about your sense perceptions?
CK: Yet I think that people should be treated *as if* they are equal because this is a much better and fairer attitude to take.
How is it better or fairer to act falsely? Is it fair to give everybody an 'A' on a test if only a quarter of the people who took it deserved the grade? Is fairness a more fundamental value than justice? In the classic example, is it really better to tell your wife that that dress does not make her butt look big, when in fact it does? Then she goes out in that dress, everybody of course thinks her butt looks big and she is humiliated. She realizes that you lied to "spare her feelings" and hates you for it. This can be avoided in one of two ways. 1) You tell the truth up front (and she goes on a diet or wears another dress), or 2) everybody lies and the poor wardrobe choices are ingrained—and passed on the the next generation, inevitably causing suffering for millions :-)
Are you an advocate of Noble Lies?
CK: Various groups have been denied such rights throughout our history and, no doubt, will be denied them again in the future. Such denial is cultural in nature.
Denial (and acceptance) may be cultural, but is the truth of the matter cultural as well? Does a group truly not possess inherent dignity (and therefore deserve equal rights) if society denies it of them? Again, yikes! If that's true then society might decide to "treat all people equally anyway" or not, and be justified in either case. In fact more justified in selective denial since it accords with reality (if inequality is the reality).
I think we should face the world as it is, make our decisions accordingly, and let the chips fall where they may. One can't ultimately win a fight against the natural order. I'm being completely serious.
Sometimes it is indeed better to act falsely. Honesty is not always the best policy.
It is not fair to give everyone an A in a test. Though sometimes this happens for so-called politically correct reasons.
There are no 'fundamental' values - but there are competing ones. Sometimes fairness, justice and honesty clash. We have to take each case on its merits and act accordingly.
People can be difficult to deal with - especially where their feelings are involved. Sometimes you can never say the right thing and no matter what you say or do you upset people. Such is life. But I do try to be honest about things as much as I can.
Sometimes lies can indeed be noble - just not always. Sometimes we need to know things and sometimes its better that people don't know things. It is theoretically possible to have a totally open and honest society - but it wouldn't look anything like *this* one!
No one or no group possesses 'inherent' dignity. It is something bestowed on them by our ideals. If we spoke to a 10th Century farmer in terms of inherent dignity he's either think we were mad or simply would not understand us. Human Rights are a modern invention. We have not always had them. They have not been uncovered or discovered but invented.
Treating people equally is an aspiration based on an unfounded assumption. Such an assumption is not necessary for a society to exist and prosper. Inequality is the natural way of things - but this doesn't mean that we should casually accept a society based on inequality.
None of us accepts the world as it is. Its not the human way. We fight against the 'natural order' of things on a daily basis and win too. If we hadn't done that we'd have gone extinct along with our ancestors when the climate changed and the trees we lived in died under us.
Yet if you spoke to a 30th Century B.C. Jewish prophet he would understand. Or a first century Jewish tentmaker, or a 3rd Century Christian theologian, or a 10th Century Catholic monk, or a 15th Century ex-monk. People spoke in terms of inherent human dignity long before modern times, at least those who had a reason to think it was true. Their reason was the revelation from God that humans were created in His Image. It took secular society a few extra millennia to try out the concept and even then (now) it can't come up with a reason. And this morally retarded secularism is supposed to be the way to utopia? Highly unlikely, and it would be a unnecessarily long path if it did.
Inequality is the natural way of things - but this doesn't mean that we should casually accept a society based on inequality.
According to your understanding, maybe, but not according to mine.
My understanding of the natural order is that God created men and women of every race in His Image and I have been commanded to show the utmost concern to the poorest and weakest of them. I don't have to pretend people are equal, because I know for a fact they are. I don't have to wait for a majority opinion to determine who has dignity because I know the Source of dignity.
You say people "should be" treated as if they are equal and this is a "fairer" and "better" attitude. How do you determine what "should be" and what is "better" without an infinite reference point of good by which to judge?
If denial of human rights is cultural how do you know that acceptance of them isn't cultural? How do you know they really exist in reality? Who is to say a society that denies them to all people is wrong and a society that grants rights to all people is right?
I don't know either, but they would have found some other excuse - probably having to do with economics. I do notice, however, that you are still paralyzed by it, and I would just say get up and walk, man. Time for a new post.
How indeed does one educate people who won't listen? Some will never listen. But others will see truth in a person and listen and hear for the first time. We can carry that truth and that Spirit can witness to others in ways we cannot alone. I'm speaking to you as if you are still following the Lord because I think you have known Him and the truth is still in you.
What gives life more meaning, loving people because if you don't you will go to hell or loving people because you feel that it is the right thing to do, regardless of consequences?
You can do amazing things in this world without tapping into a god who may or may not exist. Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on good contributions to the world. One of the things that helped in my deconversion process was removing the many layers of lies about non-Christians and their supposed evil ways.
Perhaps you would see the world without hope if there were no God, but I do not. Why would I? That's one of the problems with Christianity, Christians seem to feel that without God things would fall apart, they would run off and become murderers, thieves and rapists. That's a pretty scary thing to think that some feel they are capable of those things and all that's stopping them is an invisible being.
However, who said anything about hell?
My love for people has nothing to do with the existence of hell. I love because God has placed His love inside me for others. Not because I have to love others, or because I'm compelled by morality to love others. But because I am compelled by God's compassion working through me.
I am not saying only Christians can love. That's absurd. We all live in the same world with the same human nature whether we accept we were created by God or not. So we will share common practice of morality and love and knowing that good is preferable over evil.
Some believe good and evil to be an illusion and do not see suffering as a reality nor do they feel they have a responsibility to aid the suffering because it's all an illusion anyway. The religions of the orient are this way. Still they live in the real world and experience suffering.
I don't think any man can claim to be all good and loving and have no evil in his heart. G.K. Chesterton once answered an editorial question "what is wrong with the world?" with two words, "I am." Each of us bring evil to the world. It's like a cancer in our nature, that only God can heal and restore our hearts. We needed to live in Him to begin with but we chose to live our way and even still He is waits to bring justice to the world being patient with us for He wants us to be justified by Christ when He comes. He wants us to be safe in His mercy. But He does not force us against our will.
We want the evil in this world to end. So does God. But what we don't realize is if it did who would be left? God's patience is to our benefit. But God is holy and one day evil will be eradicated. We have the choice not to let it be found in us by being under the blood of Christ and having Him heal our souls.
Without God, where does good come from? Where does love originate? Is it only an emotion in the hearts of man? What makes love good and hatred bad?
I'd say most people would agree that I'm a slightly better person than Hitler.
So yes, while I was a Christian I also did not follow the will of Christ for fear of hell, but that is still basically what it comes down to. Christians go to heaven and non-Christians go to hell. It certainly has nothing to do with being good because I guarantee there have been millions of non-Christians who are every bit as "good" as an equal amount of Christians.
Where does good come from? The same place it has always come from. Society dictates it. Yes, you can cite many societies past and present who find what we would both agree are evil practices, perfectly acceptable. Morals change even within Christianity, each new generation interprets things differently. I know, the Bible doesn't change, but that doesn't mean the way people interpret it doesn't.
I do not buy total depravity, far too much good has been done by supposed wicked unbelievers.
Society dictates good? So when slavery was legal it was good and then it became bad when society stopped accepting it as good?
Or was it always an injustice and a bad thing?
Slavery was acceptable, yes, it is not now, at least not out in the open in western societies, but it still goes on in other parts of the world.
If Hell is not a deterrent, then what is it for?
If my parents said they loved me and wanted me to love them, but also said that if I did not love them they would throw me in a pit of fire we would call that murder and child abuse. If God does it, it's ok because he made us and can do with as he wishes. Sounds very loving to me.
In the natural if a child could feel no pain they would touch a stove and burn their hand off instead of pull back and learn from the heat they felt.
Also I didn't ask if societies found slavery acceptable, I asked if it was an injustice or a wrong despite what is socially acceptable.
The reason the Bible speaks of slavery in such a manner is because Jesus didn't come to establish His Kingdom by force by overturning the culture in a day. He came to change hearts which would create the stability for change. As you know from history laws didn't change the way people were treated even when slavery ended men's hearts were still cruel to the African American people and injustice was still done. Jesus came to change the source of the problem. When hearts change first such things are much better accomplished than doing it by a matter of law or force.
Certainly you and I would say slavery is an injustice or a wrong, and perhaps some others do in times and places where slavery is societally acceptable.
Jesus speaking against slavery would not require him to change peoples views by force, certainly he taught equally world changing views.
"...laws didn't change the way people were treated..."
Just because some defied the laws does not mean that all did. Are you really making an argument that laws are not a deterrent? And yes, I know that in Christianity the law is there to prove that it can't be kept perfectly by anyone and show our need for God. Then again, Job was blameless and look at the tragedy he went through, not to mention how his family must have felt about being slaughtered to win a bet. Many, including C.S. Lewis would argue that the repeated actions bring about the change of heart.
"Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him." -- C.S. Lewis -- Mere Christianity Book 3, Chapter 9.
Why should a natural life be a valueless life? Why should one *naturally* follow on from the other - because you have already assumed that value comes from God, therefore no God means no value.
You are simply stating your point of view. Nothing more.
Does a hermit in the mountains have the same value as a doctor in a city? Where does his value come from? What makes humans more valuable than ants?
The same place everything else comes from - our Culture.
Karla asked: What makes humans more valuable than ants?
*Are* humans more valuable than ants? Probably not from the ants point of view - just from ours.... We place value on what is valuable to us. Gold has little intrinsic value but people want it so its value increases. Value is something we bestow on things - including human life.
Nothing "gives life meaning"; we give it meaning.
continues....being created valuable by a God who loves man and created man in His image[emphasis added]
"Created valuable"? That's funny(in an odd way)....because according to the Christian philosophy that I've seen and been exposed to, one only has "value" when/if they accept the Christian biblegod as their "Savior", otherwise, they retain the status of worthless "sinner", which is purportedly an intrinsic attribute to the entire human race, this, due to the choice of two other people, no less.("Just"???)
My love for people has nothing to do with the existence of hell.
That's comforting news, and quite admirable, at that.
So then, why can't the Christian philosophy have nothing to do with "hell"? Why must a presumably "Omnipotent" being punish(torture) its supposed "creation" with fire for not reciprocating its supposed "Love"? Bearing in mind, too---if "God" simply appeared - just like "He" allegedly appeared to the "Twelve", and the five-hundred on-lookers in the Bible - we still have the "free will" to reject "Him", and/or, "His" supposed "Love". Thus, "free will" is no excuse, and neither is the idea that "God has no choice" but to have a place that's designated for the expressed purpose of "teaching nonchristians a lesson".
Many people at that time didn't value the Jews - including the US and UK who refused them entry into their countries prior to WW2. Persecution of Jews has been a feature throughout history - so yes, it is cultural. Jews certainly do *not* have lower intrinsic value than non-Jews!
karla said: Did African American's become valuable after slavery ended and after all the troubles of the south and segregation?
Clearly not if you read your history!
karla said: Or are all people of all ethnicities valuable and what was done to those valuable people was wrong even though it was culturally accepted?
The value of other so-called races is culturally determined. Again read the history of slavery or any other oppressive regime. Various groups have been determined as having lass value than the group doing the defining so whatever happened to them - usually bad - was often OK or even not considered worth thinking about by the majority of the people involved. But values change over time and groups gain in value (mostly) and are treated better because of it. It has nothing to do with any kind of 'intrinsic' value.
karla said: The early Americans also drove off the Indians and slaughtered many and robbed them of their land. Was that okay because the English culture didn't value them or was it wrong regardless of cultural values?
See my earlier responses: The wholesale slaughter of native peoples throughout the would by invading colonial powers was considered pretty normal and I'm sure that few people at the time lost much sleep over the ethical dimension....
You appear to be thinking in non-cultural absolutes here. I'm saying that morality is defined by the culture - not by something outside of it. If a culture decides that something is good then it *is* good for that culture at that time. If, over time, views change on the issue then it becomes bad for that culture at that time. Good and Evil are cultural constructs. They are not Platonic Ideals which exist in some perfect realm. The reason we see moral issues in other cultures as good or bad is because we are judging them from our perspective.
karla said: So if every person in a culture thought it right to euthenize their parents when they turned a certain age would that make it right?
I doubt if everyone in any culture could agree on anything but you are essentially right. If it was the accepted cultural norm that adults are euthenized at a certain age then that would be completely acceptable - in that culture at that time. Those who did not follow the norm would be considered strange and probably wrong or at least misguided. This is simply cultural history.....
You seem to be having a problem with that - probably because you're thinking in moral absolutes which do not actually exist.