I am a male, almost 46 years old, raised as a Christian (Dutch Reformed church)and educated at a Christian college. I am a teacher and a psychologist. And yes, I moved away from faith. Why? In retrospect I think two factors played an important role: The readings in the Bible itself and alternative explanations for creation as proposed by science.
It was not an easy process, I was raised with a certain beliefsystem and now, I was forced to alter it completely. No father in heaven anymore, no eteral life. I lost a sense of belonging. But, on the other hand: the beliefsystem I hold now is (to me) more logically coherent. Philosophically, I probably best describe myself as an agnostic, meaning that there is in my opinion no way of knowing if God exists. There is no way to prove OR disprove His existence. But I am sure of one thing: I don't accept the Bible as the word of God.
To me, the bible is a book made by men. Its the history of a culture, it gives insight in the philosophies, morals, religious ideas of the people then living.
In a nutshell: thats my position.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-17 04:55:32
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 12:53 pm | #

Post 2:
Thanks for the background. It is quite similar to my friend's story. He, too, was raised in a church and educated at a Christian college, and then taught at a Christian high school. He describes himself as an agnostic and does not accept the Bible as the Word of God. So, the similiarities are strong. Perhaps he will join in eventually, but he is busy trying to find a new job at the moment.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a few questions to understand your journey in more detail.

First of all, as an agnostic do you believe that truth is knowable? More specifically, do you believe in any absolutes?
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-17 19:35:04
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 12:53 pm | #

Post 3:
Is truth knowable? Yes, but always relative. "The theory of knowledge teaches us that a statement, if it conveys knowledge, predicts future outcome, with the risk of being wrong, and that it fits without failure observations of the past." [W.E. Deming]
This is the way science (rationality) works. Its relative in the sense that theories in the light of new evidence need revision or even replacement. In other words: knowledge is never complete. We (humans) will never know the whole truth ( and nothing but the truth), thats beyond our powers.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-18 07:41:38
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 12:54 pm | #

Post 4:
Is truth knowable? Yes, but always relative.

This raises some rather serious moral dilemmas. So you assert that the following statement is relative and may be false at times?

It is always wrong to torture babies merely for personal pleasure.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-18 09:03:04
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 12:56 pm | #

Post 5:
I am talking about the accumulation of knowledge (knowledge theory), not about moral reasoning.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-18 10:43:57
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 12:56 pm | #

Post 6:
But if truth is always relative, that has to impact moral reasoning. Let's address that. If your position on moral reasoning asserts that it's an absolute that it is always wrong to torture babies merely for your pleasure, what is your basis for holding that to be an absolute?
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-18 13:37:09
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 12:58 pm | #

Post 7:
With the statement "truth is always relative" (as opposed to absolute) I am telling you that knowledge is never complete. Or in plain english: we never will be all-knowing. I agree though that our incomplete knowledge (as human beings) impacts moral reasoning, for the better or the worse. Its a given that we are imperfect.
Now about absolutes. The fundamental question is: are there any?
Lets jump in the deep, not about torture, but even worse: killing.
"Thou shalt not kill" ( one of the 10 commandments) states unambigously that its forbidden to kill. Sounds like an absolute value. Is it? What about the death penalty, what about having an army with weapons designed to kill? Are you, Randy, opposed to the death penalty, or against the institution known as the army? If not, why? And what is an absolute in your opinion?
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-18 17:32:36
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 12:58 pm | #

Post 8:
I'm willing to answer your questions if you'll answer mine.

I favor the death penalty because the Bible commands it. The verse you are citing states that we are not to murder (that's what the Hebrew says); breaking that commandment is grounds for capital punishment. It is not an absolute that there is never to be killing--it is an absolute that there is never to be murder that goes unpunished. As for executions and armies, Romans teaches that the state bears the sword for a purpose.

I would say that an absolute is that which is transcendent, ultimate and unchanging. An absolute truth is always true for everyone in every culture.

Now please deal with my question.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-18 18:34:04
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 12:59 pm | #

Post 9:
You just proved my point: its relative. What about pre-emptive strikes, like in Iraq? ( if I spell wrong, excuse me, english is not my native language)
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-18 19:11:59
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 12:59 pm | #

Post 10:
Darwinist, I have in no way proved your point. The Biblical commandment not to murder is absolute. There may be some gray areas that could be relative regarding how murder is defined in regards to those acting on behalf of their state, but on a personal level, the concept of murder is easily grasped and it is absolutely wrong. We can talk about state actions like Iraq later, but you have yet to answer Post 4.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-19 09:00:19
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 12:59 pm | #

Post 11:
I favor the death penalty because the Bible commands it

The Bible commands also these:
-Stone your stubborn and rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
-Stone a non-virginal bride? (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
-Eexecute active homosexuals (Leviticus 18:22-30) and (Leviticus 20:13)

If the bible is the source of absolute moral standards, why do christian denominations have different opinions, for instance about the deathpenalty?
I googled it: "Jesus does not enforce the death penalty on the woman caught in adultery (John 8) and he does challenge the "eye for an eye" mentality (Matthew 5:38" Click here
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-19 09:05:45
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:01 pm | #

Post 12:
It is always wrong to torture babies merely for personal pleasure

Its self-evident that this statement is true. Even in nihilistic moral reasoning (all is ok as long as you don't hurt anyone). No matter what culture you live in, every decent human being will agree with this statement. I can't imagine future conditions which would refute this statement. But as I already told you: our knowledge (as humans) is never complete so we are by definition imperfect. Being imperfect I can't proclaim absolutes. The best I can do is telling you that I agree with you for 99.99999%.
I hope this answered your question, now I have a similar question.
What is your opinion on the statement: "its always wrong to feel happy while killing children".

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-19 17:12:16
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:02 pm | #

Post 13:
Your Bible commands were from the law of Moses, given to the Hebrews. Christ fulfilled the law, and brought mercy. Capital punishment for murder preceded the law of Moses and was not affected by those changes.

Different denominations have different opinions because we are imperfect humans. Understanding that absolutes exist in no way gives us an exhaustive knowledge of all absolutes. We may disagree on certain absolutes while still agreeing that absolutes themselves must exist.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-19 23:07:36
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:03 pm | #

Post 14:
Its self-evident that this statement is true.

I agree, but I disagree that you can make that statement while remaining true to your proclaimed relativism. Why is the statement true?

Even nihilistic moral reasoning needs a foundation for the absolute that it is wrong to hurt someone. You write of decent human beings. Who determines decency? That's a moral judgment.

I'll be happy to address your question later, but I want to get through this one and its ramifications first.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-19 23:16:59
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:03 pm | #

Post 15:
I disagree that you can make that statement while remaining true to your proclaimed relativism

Show me, prove to me why I can't make such a statement.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-20 08:12:11
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:04 pm | #

Post 16:
You can make any statement you wish, but I don't think it is true to your stated belief that truth is always relative.

You assert that it is self-evident that it is a true statement that it's always wrong to torture babies merely for personal pleasure. At least you agree that it would be true virtually all the time, although you leave a slight possibility open that sometimes it may be okay. I don't think you really believe it's ever okay, but you're attempting to be true to your rejection of absolutes. However, your initial statement that it was self-evident is what we're addressing.

If you are truly a relativist, you have no right to impose your values on others and assert that it's wrong to torture babies. It may be right for them--you know, cultural factors and all that. How can you make yourself morally superior to baby torturers if everything is relative? So, I guess the next step is for you to more clearly define the sense in which your relativism impacts truth. Is truth relative to culture as a whole? To each individual? As an agnostic, you have no moral lawgiver to establish right and wrong, so I want to understand whether you have a grounding for your beliefs, or whether you simply borrow an essentially Christian worldview since you were raised that way.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-20 11:28:06
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:04 pm | #

Post 17:
Now we are getting somewhere! This is going to develop in a very interesting discussion. Since this is supposed to be a two way conversation, I ask you (again) to deal with my question: What is your opinion on the statement: "its always wrong to feel happy while killing children". Your answer will be dealt with in my reply to post 16.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-20 17:14:13
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:05 pm | #

Post 18 accidentally repeated Post 17.
Post 19 explained the accident.

Post 20:
This is going to develop in a very interesting discussion.

I wouldn't have started the thread if I thought it would be boring! Apparently you feel we can manage two threads at once--let's just not get three or four going.

Okay, I assume you are not playing word games, and your statement asserts that it's always wrong for humans to feel happy while killing human children. I agree.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-20 19:31:30
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:07 pm | #

Post 21:
You suggest that I am a follower of the moral relativism school of thought. I did not claim that, I merely pointed out that on the basis that we all are imperfect humans we are not able to declare absolutes. This does not mean we can't declare moral code at all, it just means that new insights can alter our moral reasoning. I am a supporter of the Human Rights movement, I am a supporter of Amnesty International. Quite absolutistic huh?
As to the groundings, I do have moral "lawgivers", I call them: humans.

The following statements are yours:
"I would say that an absolute is that which is transcendent, ultimate and unchanging. An absolute truth is always true for everyone in every culture." (post 8)

"Different denominations have different opinions because we are imperfect humans"(post 13)

"We may disagree on certain absolutes while still agreeing that absolutes themselves must exist." (post 13)

Some observations:
How can Christian denominations disagree on absolutes? An absulute is always true, for everyone as you said in post 8. Sounds more like a theoretical concept if you can't agree on these absolutes. And being imperfect, there is no way you can't be shure either that your interpretation of a supposed moral absolute is absolutely right.

You said you agreed with the statement "that it's always wrong for humans to feel happy while killing human children" First of all, I am glad you did! But, read this:
"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)

This is a verse from the Bible. Not really pro-life. And in disagreement with your statement. Ofcourse this is just an example, I can recite many more, the bible is full of it. A book that contains these sort of verses should be my ultimate moral guide? I think we humans can do better than that!

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-21 15:59:00
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:08 pm | #

Post 22:
You suggest that I am a follower of the moral relativism school of thought. I did not claim that

Perhaps the language barrier came between us, but in post 3 you insisted that truth is always relative. Please explain how that places you outside of the moral relativism school of thought.

I am a supporter of the Human Rights movement, I am a supporter of Amnesty International. Quite absolutistic huh?

Apparently. But if truth is always relative, perhaps most of the prisoners supported by Amnesty International really should be imprisoned. How can we know injustice is involved?

As to the groundings, I do have moral "lawgivers", I call them: humans.

That's woefully inadequate, as anyone from a country which endured the horrors of the Third Reich understands all too well. Would Anne Frank have been impressed by the German moral lawgivers? On what basis was Corrie ten Boom morally superior to Heinrich Himmler?

How can Christian denominations disagree on absolutes?

Now we see through a glass darkly. We don't have full knowledge, as you have pointed out. I don't think any truly Christian denominations disagree that absolutes exist.

An absulute is always true, for everyone as you said in post 8. Sounds more like a theoretical concept if you can't agree on these absolutes.

Disagreement doesn't change the truth. You can say the earth is flat, but that doesn't change it from a sphere. You don't create your own reality. Absolutes are independent of us and our individualized understanding of them.

And being imperfect, there is no way you can't be shure either that your interpretation of a supposed moral absolute is absolutely right.

Yes, it's possible that I could be wrong. However, I must use my mind to the best of my ability in the search for truth. I'm Reformed because I have reformed my views and remain open to further reformation. However, without a belief that absolutes exist, I don't think meaningful thought is possible. If truth is only relative, pursuing it is a waste of time.

However, I'm attempting here to first show that you believe in absolutes as a philosophical concept, whether you admit it or not. Specific absolutes are a large sub-topic. We first need to determine where you stand on the relativity of truth and moral relativism. We already know that I oppose the latter.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)
This is a verse from the Bible. Not really pro-life. And in disagreement with your statement.)

Not at all. I knew you had this verse in mind when you asked your question. Context must be considered in all Biblical interpretation. This is not God's command or sentiment. The verse is speaking of attackers who shall rejoice in their brutal victory. There's nothing in Psalm 137 that indicates approval for this behavior. The Bible describes many horrible deeds without appro
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:15 pm | #

Post 22 continued:
The Bible describes many horrible deeds without approving of them, or claiming that God authored them.

A book that contains these sort of verses should be my ultimate moral guide? I think we humans can do better than that!

If history and reporting misdeeds offends you, then I suppose it would be tough; but to claim that the Bible offers Psalm 137:8,9 as moral guidance completely misses the point.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-21 16:31:37
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:18 pm | #

Post 23:
Two observations:
That's woefully inadequate, as anyone from a country which endured the horrors of the Third Reich understands all too well. Would Anne Frank have been impressed by the German moral lawgivers? On what basis was Corrie ten Boom morally superior to Heinrich Himmler?

Huh? This part of your reply can't be taken as a serious comment. I don't know exactly whát you want to imply, that my morals came from Himmler? The third reich? or just that if I speak of humans, the only thing you can bring up is the third reich? You don't even know which humans I am refering to, you don't even ask, instead you already proclaim it woefully inadequate. I don't know on basis of what knowledge you already can make that statement, so I ask you to tell me.

secondly: if you quote me, quote me complete:
"Ofcourse this is just an example, I can recite many more, the bible is full of it. A book that contains these sort of verses should be my ultimate moral guide? I think we humans can do better than that!"
You only cited what was covenient for you, suggesting " but to claim that the Bible offers Psalm 137:8,9 as moral guidance completely misses the point."
Its not what I said, not even near.

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-21 20:05:21
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:19 pm | #

Post 24:
This part of your reply can't be taken as a serious comment.

I'm totally serious. You haven't provided grounds for establishing anything contrary.

I don't know exactly whát you want to imply, that my morals came from Himmler?

Not at all. My point is that claiming humans as moral lawgivers while asserting that truth is relative means that you have no grounds for asserting that Himmler's morals were any worse than the Dutch Jews killed by the Nazis. I have no doubt that your personal morality is far better than the Nazis. What you haven't established is why their morality should be construed as wrong.

You don't even know which humans I am refering to, you don't even ask, instead you already proclaim it woefully inadequate.I don't know on basis of what knowledge you already can make that statement, so I ask you to tell me.

It doesn't matter which humans you wish to use--the problem is how you deny legitimacy to the evil ones who have equal claims in a world of relative truth.

You only cited what was covenient for you, suggesting " but to claim that the Bible offers Psalm 137:8,9 as moral guidance completely misses the point."
Its not what I said, not even near.

I'm sorry, but I fail to grasp your concern. You quoted Psalm 137:8,9. Then you said the Bible was full of similar verses and challenged the idea that such a book should be an ultimate moral guide. I pointed out that Psalm 137:8,9 had nothing to do with moral guidance, therefore you were missing the point of the passage. How is that not even near to what you said? I've reread it, and I still gather that you're questioning the Bible's legitimacy as a moral guide due to verses like Psalm 137:8,9. Please explain where I've misunderstood you. I want to respond to what you're asserting.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-21 21:58:12
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:23 pm | #

Post 25:
First things first: my mother ate tulips to survive the war, my father had to hide himself from the Germans, an aunt died, and my grandfather and uncle were in the resistence. So whats your point, did I in anyway relativate the atrocities that happened? Not only Jews were killed, also gypsies, socialists, communists and atheists. But guess what: a disproportionate number of fundamentalist christians, collaborated with the Germans. Ever heard of Willem Aantjes, joining the Waffen SS?
And considering this terrible crime against the Jews, tell me who are responsible for the centuries of hate towards Jews: CHRISTIANS: The Catholic church as well as the Protestant Church ( Luther). Want some quotes?
I never brought this up, but as you did, deal with it.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-22 15:34:13
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:24 pm | #

Post 26:
"My point is that claiming humans as moral lawgivers while asserting that truth is relative means that you have no grounds for asserting that Himmler's morals were any worse than the Dutch Jews killed by the Nazis"
Hm, I give you the benefit of the doubt ( it better be a typo), as you stated it, you sound like a racist.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-22 16:54:51

---------------
Post 27:
Time for you to show me your absolutes, You obviously have them, and I only ask yours, not the absolutes of the hundreds of denominations of the Christian church that disagree with you.


Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-22 17:38:53
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:25 pm | #

Post 28:
Thanks for your info about the war. My point is that your stated belief that truth is relative works against your condemnation of the Nazis as evil. My worldview allows me to condemn their actions. How does yours?

Some Christians collaborated with the Nazis, and other Christians sacrificed to protect the Jews. The latter were following Christianity, while the former were denying their faith. Christianity is not responsible for centuries of hate toward the Jews--some so-called Christians have been, but Christianity is of Jewish origin, worships a Jewish man as God, studies Jewish writers in the Bible, and believes that Jews are God's chosen people. As my orthodox Jewish friends in New York can tell you, some of Israel's best friends are Christians. Luther quotes against Jews will have little impact on me--I respect much of what he did and wrote, but he was in favor of executing my Anabaptist forefathers, so he's not exactly my guide on everything.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-22 20:45:45
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:25 pm | #

Post 29:
Hm, I give you the benefit of the doubt ( it better be a typo), as you stated it, you sound like a racist.

No typo. I am not a racist. I have the moral grounds for asserting that Himmler was evil. My point is that if truth is relative, you can't build a case that Himmler's morals were worse than his victims' morals.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-22 20:48:13
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:26 pm | #

Post 30:
Time for you to show me your absolutes, You obviously have them, and I only ask yours, not the absolutes of the hundreds of denominations of the Christian church that disagree with you.

The subject of absolutes is broad, especially if you want some sort of list of absolutes I believe in. I don't believe that there are hundreds of denominations that disagree with me, but in any case, let me start by giving you one sample absolute along with a practical example.

Sample Absolute: It is always wrong for a doctor to torture human twins for medical research, as Mengele did with Jewish twins.

Can you assert that this is a relative truth and that there are times when this statement is false?
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-22 21:01:57
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:26 pm | #

Post 31:
This post of mine is gonna be a long one, I suppose. I am gonna answer important questions and draw some logical conclusions from the discussion so far. The only point is ( sight) where to begin....
First some remarks about your conduct (I mean your way of discussing). As I already told you, you have a tendency to misinterprete my views or statements. First of all by suggesting things I never said (for example: despite my assertion that moral absolutes exist, (although never fully knowable), and even pointing out that I support organizations with undeniable absolute values (universal, always applicable) like Amnesty International, or the International Human Rights Movement , you still try to corner me as a "moral relativist", although I never ever gave any support to that view. ( For outsiders: moral ( cultural) relativists deny the existence of absolute morals).
As I made clear in my introductory posts, its impossible to state moral absoluts as humans, because that requires complete (absolute) knowledge, I don't have it ( absolute knowledge), and neither do you, Randy.
So, actually you have no other way than to agree with my statement: we are not all-knowing, we never will know all the facts, so for us as Humans the absolute truth is unknowable/unreachable.

Conclusion: You have to admit to my conclusions: we humans we are imperfect: implying: we never know all the facts, so WE can't make absolute moral statements. As long as WE ( humans) don't posess absolute knowledge, all our truths (yours and mine) are relative. To deny this, is like denying gravity. You have no way of escaping out of this conclusion, because you admitted you are imperfect.

Nevertheless you made statements like these:

-I disagree that you can make that statement while remaining true to your proclaimed relativism. Why is the statement true? (14)
-You can make any statement you wish, but I don't think it is true to your stated belief that truth is always relative(16).
-If you are truly a relativist, you have no right to impose your values on others and assert that it's wrong to torture babies. It may be right for them--you know, cultural factors and all that. How can you make yourself morally superior to baby torturers if everything is relative? (16)

In post 21 I explain my position in even more detail::"You suggest that I am a follower of the moral relativism school of thought. I did not claim that, I merely pointed out that on the basis that we all are imperfect humans we are not able to declare absolutes. This does not mean we can't declare moral code at all, it just means that new insights can alter our moral reasoning. I am a supporter of the Human Rights movement, I am a supporter of Amnesty International. Quite absolutistic huh?" ( 21)
Even this does not help: You simply ignore it.

(cont'd)
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:30 pm | #

Post 31 continued:
Ofcourse I know what your strategy is, if I would say I was a "cultural" relativist, I would have no absolute standard to compare moral judgements to, and have no authority. Unfortunatly for you, I made clear from the start of our discussion that I do believe in moral absolutes, although our imperfectness implies that we never will be totally certain.

Now let us look at your position: You claim you have moral absolutes, but until now you fail to produce even one! So I am wondering by what authority you are speaking.
For the following part, keep your definition of absolutes in mind: "An absolute is that which is transcendent, ultimate and unchanging. An absolute truth is always true for everyone in every culture."

Now let me show you that you are logically in a very problematic situation.
My moral absolute: its always wrong to kill newborns out of anger. ( babies, infants)
I can agree with this absolute for 99.999999%, BUT YOU CAN'T
I am referring to the great flood, or Sodom and Gomorra. You have no escape, because according to you these events really happened. (the "always, unchanging" part of your definition)
If you agree with this absolute you question God's intend. The only escape open to you is admitting these events never happened.

Another example: I can say: slavery is always wrong. If you take the Bible litteral and inerrant, then you can't agree with me.As you well know the Bible regulated slavery, its not explicitly forbidden. for example Ex 21. You can't agree because once in time (the "always, unchanging" part of your definition) it obviously was allowed.
I can give numerous examples of moral absolutes that I am allowed to state, while you have no option but disagreeing with me.

In answer to your absolute: It is always wrong for a doctor to torture human twins for medical research, as Mengele did with Jewish twins.
Again, I completely agree with this statement (99.9999 %) And again, logically you can't. (Btw thats not a fault of logic)
Do you really want me to show that logically you are not allowed to agree to this statement?
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-24 09:31:14
Darwinist | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:31 pm | #

Post 32:
By the way, how did the pinguins (South Pole) get into the arc of Noah?
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-24 12:42:29

---------------

Post 33:
My absolute( 99.99999 shure): it is always wrong to drown almost every living creature on the earth. Now Randy, do you ever want to talk about absolutes again? Call Craig, call Duane Gish, call Henry Morris, YOU ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE.

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-24 15:18:19

---------------
Post 34:
Your words:"This raises some rather serious moral dilemmas" (post 4)
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-24 16:43:39
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:32 pm | #

Post 35:
"Christianity is not responsible for centuries of hate toward the Jews"(post 28) Well,as an ex-christian I have at least the decency to say that we are responsible. We all are. Not personally, but still...

"Among Martin Luther's most well known admirers were the German Nazis. His infamous writing "On the Jews and their Lies" of 1543 was used as a justification for the Holocaust - the murder of about 6 million Jews in World War II - by German Nazis in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal of 1945, who justly claimed they had done nothing more than what was suggested by Martin Luther four centuries before"
I invite all readers of this discussion to visit the url next to my name. (Darwinist)

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-25 07:31:44
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:33 pm | #

Post 36:
Randy?, Are you there? I got another absolute for you.
My statement: incest is always wrong.

(Checkout the Institute for Creation Research.

Again, You can't agree with my statement.
Thank mr J.D Morris and mr D.T Gish for me!
What wonderfull morals you must possess!
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-25 16:40:32
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:34 pm | #

Post 37:
Well, dear readers, pride goes before a fall. I think Randy Brandt is the "Amazing Randy" at least in disappearing. This discussion will probably be deleted from his website soon, Up to you to decide why. Please think out of the box! Goodluck!
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-25 17:04:19
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:34 pm | #

Post 38:
Wow, this is quite amazing. I post on Monday, Sept 22, and see that no response is forthcoming on Tuesday. I get a little busy (I do have a life outside of the web) and Darwinist posts five times on Wednesday. I come home from work Thursday hoping my family's schedule will allow for time to respond to the busy Wednesday, and find Darwinist has emailed me:

You got what you asked for, and by the way, this was my first discussion! Won it!
Even your tactics of misquoting/ misrepresenting did not work. Ask yourself why.
Don't change tactics, but be open for alternatives. For example: would I be in this denomination if I was born in India?


Jan uit Nederland

Then Post 37 gleefully claims, "I think Randy Brandt is the "Amazing Randy" at least in disappearing."

This would appear to be premature at best. Let's see, I posted on one day, and got no response the entire next day. Darwinist posts on one day and gets no response that same day, and therefore he is the winner and I'm running and hiding? By that flawed reasoning, I won an even greater victory Tuesday because he disappeared for longer than I did.

Trust me, this discussion won't be deleted any time soon, and I'm far from done. I assume that Jan the Darwinist has carefully answered my challenges in his posts. I'll get to them soon. In the meantime, it's my wife's birthday tomorrow and we have scheduling conflicts that mean I may not find time to respond tonight. I'm still here, Jan, and looking forward to continuing our dialogue, at least if you're willing to discuss and not merely pronounce yourself victorious.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-25 19:57:55
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:35 pm | #

Post 39:
First some remarks about your conduct (I mean your way of discussing). As I already told you, you have a tendency to misinterprete my views or statements.

Misunderstand, perhaps. I've made no attempt to misrepresent you--on the contrary, I've asked you to clarify certain points to ensure that I understand.

(continued)

for example: despite my assertion that moral absolutes exist (although never fully knowable)

I can't find that assertion. I see these three posts:

In post 3 you wrote: Is truth knowable? Yes, but always relative.

Post 7: Now about absolutes. The fundamental question is: are there any?

Post 21: You suggest that I am a follower of the moral relativism school of thought. I did not claim that, I merely pointed out that on the basis that we all are imperfect humans we are not able to declare absolutes.

What am I missing? If you are now stating that you believe in moral absolutes, explain post 3 and 21. Explain a partially knowable absolute and please give an example. I'm trying to understand your view, not distort it.

its impossible to state moral absoluts as humans, because that requires complete (absolute) knowledge, I don't have it ( absolute knowledge), and neither do you, Randy.

Exactly. That's why my moral lawgiver, unlike yours, isn't merely another human.

we are not all-knowing, we never will know all the facts, so for us as Humans the absolute truth is unknowable/unreachable.

We can know truth, but not exhaustively.

As long as WE ( humans) don't posess absolute knowledge, all our truths (yours and mine) are relative.

We can possess some knowledge and some truth. It doesn't have to be relative, because it may be actual truth.

Unfortunatly for you, I made clear from the start of our discussion that I do believe in moral absolutes, although our imperfectness implies that we never will be totally certain.

And sometimes it causes us to misunderstand each other. It wasn't clear to me--perhaps I was blinded by "Is truth knowable? Yes, but always relative." That's not typical for someone who believes in moral absolutes.
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:39 pm | #

Post 39 continued:

Now let us look at your position: You claim you have moral absolutes, but until now you fail to produce even one!

On what grounds do you disquality my statement in post 4? It is always wrong to torture babies merely for personal pleasure.

My moral absolute: its always wrong to kill newborns out of anger. ( babies, infants) I can agree with this absolute for 99.999999%

So therefore "always" doesn't mean "always" in your definition, because you allow for an exception .000001% of the time, or once every 10 million times.

BUT YOU CAN'T...If you agree with this absolute you question God's intend. The only escape open to you is admitting these events never happened.

First of all, we're discussing human morality, not God's. The giver of life has the right to take it for reasons we may not understand. I can assert the flood and other judgements happened without agreeing that we can never kill newborns out of anger.

Another example: I can say: slavery is always wrong. If you take the Bible litteral and inerrant, then you can't agree with me.

That's rather ironic in light of the fact that predominantly Christian opposition to slavery led to its demise in Great Britian and North America.

You can't agree because once in time (the "always, unchanging" part of your definition) it obviously was allowed.

Just because an absolute is unchanging doesn't mean that it is eternal. God can institute new absolute moral laws, as He has through history. For example, the covenant with Noah changed things. At that point He established capital punishment for murder.

In answer to your absolute: It is always wrong for a doctor to torture human twins for medical research, as Mengele did with Jewish twins.
Again, I completely agree with this statement (99.9999 %) And again, logically you can't.

I can't? Why not?

Do you really want me to show that logically you are not allowed to agree to this statement?

Yes.

By the way, how did the pinguins (South Pole) get into the arc of Noah?

What does this have to do with our topic? In any case, penguins got into the ark by waddling up the ramp after God brought them to Noah.

My absolute( 99.99999 shure): it is always wrong to drown almost every living creature on the earth. Now Randy, do you ever want to talk about absolutes again? Call Craig, call Duane Gish, call Henry Morris, YOU ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE.

I don't recognize your power to arbitrarily establish absolutes. However, perhaps God took advantage of your 1 in a million exception. How can you begrudge Him that? He said it was a one-time event, after all. Oh, and why am I in deep trouble?

You still haven't given me any reason why I should believe that your human-based morals are absolutes and not relative in light of your statement that truth is always relative. At least make a case instead of accusing me of distorting your posi
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:41 pm | #

Post 40:
"Christianity is not responsible for centuries of hate toward the Jews"(post 28) Well,as an ex-christian I have at least the decency to say that we are responsible. We all are. Not personally, but still...

Individual Christians like Luther have been part of the problem, as have individual atheists like Nietzsche. Christianity itself decries the deeds of evil perpetrated on the Jews. Atheism has a much tougher time making a credible moral case against the Nazis and similar tyrants. Darwinism influenced Hitler more than Luther did.

I invite all readers of this discussion to visit the url next to my name. (Darwinist)

It's a horrible tragedy that so many atrocities have been committed in Christ's name. Is it not equally horrible that even more have been murdered for atheistic ideals? Mao and Stalin by themselves can top that whole list. They were being true to their beliefs, whereas any so-called Christians involved in atrocities were betraying their beliefs.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-25 21:17:56
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:44 pm | #

Post 41:
re: Post 36

Again, You can't agree with my statement.

Sure I can. I can't agree that incest has always been wrong in the past, but I can agree that it is always wrong.

What wonderfull morals you must possess!

What's that supposed to mean? My morals must be corrupted because I believe that some things were different in the distant past? I've already explained that some moral absolutes had a beginning in time. Where's the grounding for your morals? I keep asking, and you keep evading.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-25 21:23:41
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:47 pm | #

Post 42:
Post 37:
Well, dear readers, pride goes before a fall. I think Randy Brandt is the "Amazing Randy" at least in disappearing. This discussion will probably be deleted from his website soon, Up to you to decide why. Please think out of the box! Goodluck!

I agree that pride goes before a fall. Our friend Jan the Darwinist seems to think I've been prideful and have fallen, yet he's the one gloating. Well, we all have too much pride, probably because we're human. I certainly haven't disappeared from my own web site.

This discussion will remain in place for the forseeable future. After all, I'd still like Jan to answer some of my questions. That was the original plan, so let's proceed!
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-25 21:46:28
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:47 pm | #

Post 43:
(*smile*) I am very glad you answered, and ofcourse I like to proceed!
But I observed (on the internet) that many discussions end suddenly when one of the "debaters" makes his point. Usually you answer very quick, but now I know that his was purely a coincedence and has nothing to do with post 31.
Please allow me some time to show you that your position is (logically) very problematic.
Btw, victories are never proclaimed based the time it takes to answer a question, but on the arguments provided.
I really appreciate the fact that you want to proceed! So will I.
I wish you all a happy birthday!

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-26 04:36:09
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:48 pm | #

Post 44:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest anything that is cruel." Thomas Paine:Age of reason.

C.S. Lewis: "The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not 'so there's no God after all,' but 'So this is what God is really like. Deceive yourself no longer.'
Knowing that the evangelical doctrine of the Bible's infallibility required him to approve of "the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua," Lewis made this surprising concession: "The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible" ( John Beversluis, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, 1985)

Both refered to the cruel and unmoral episodes that are ( mainly) part of the Old testament. Paine (a deist) distanced himself from the Bible, because of its cruelties. C.S. Lewis questioned the infallibility in light of some atrocities. My point is: there is no way to defend the atrocities, while still claiming that God is only Good.
In one of your responses you say that in fact I should leave God out of the equation. Why? Paine does not, Lewis does not, or do you mean I should leave God out when discussing the horrors He is supposed to have commanded. I don't think a Good God would have commanded them.
In another reply you say that "God may change his mind". This is a self-defeating argument, because it makes a discussion about moral absolutes worthless. When suddenly God orders adultery, it would be right? And if God can change his mind, how would you know? Maybe He did last week, or a couple of years ago. Can Andrea Yates be right, claiming God ordered her to kill her 5 kids?
As I already showed you I can produce moral absolutes that you are not permitted to agree to. And you showed it when you made an exception regarding incest. ( the always part) For me its no problem to state moral absolutes like:
(slavery, incest, genocide,burning people on the stake,polygamy) is always wrong. Just to name a view. Thats because I am free to think and to judge for myself, while in a way you are bound to the literal interpretation of The Book.
Ofcourse I know you agree with the examples I gave, but you have to exclude the past.
I only want to show you that its impossible to claim that the Bible is the source of moral absolutes.

(continued)
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:49 pm | #

Post 44 continued:

How independent is moral reasoning from religion?
Plato ( yes, a human) stated the following dilemma:

I The Dilemma

(1) Either God does not exist, or God exists.
(2) If God does not exist, then God's commands cannot make an action
moral.
(3) If God exists, then God's commands cannot make an action moral.
(4) Therefore, God's commands cannot make an action moral.

II. Defense

A. Neither (1) nor (2) requires defense: (1) is analytic, and (2) is
obvious.

B. Plato supports (3) by arguing:
(1) Suppose what is moral is commanded by God.
(2) If so, then (a) what is moral is moral because it is commanded by God
or (b) God commands what is moral because it is moral.
(3) If (2b), then what is moral is moral independently of God's
commanding it and God's commands cannot make an action moral.
(4) If (2a), then whatever is commanded by God is moral.
(5) It is not the case that whatever is commanded by God is moral (e.g.
God could command something atrocious).
(6) Therefore, (2b).
(7) Therefore, what is moral is moral independently of God's commanding
it and God's commands cannot make an action moral.
(8) Therefore, if God exists, God's commands cannot make an action
moral.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-28 09:23:16
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:50 pm | #

Post 45:
Someone else explained very nice the different meanings of relativism:

"Notice that the two meanings of "relativism" differ in important ways. The scientific method of seeking knowledge admits that its conclusions are relative to, dependent on, the (objective) evidence gathered so far, and may be changed by new evidence. In ethics, "relativism" commonly refers to a particular view, "cultural relativism", that ethics are a matter of (subjective) individual or majority opinion. These are two different uses of the word, which must be kept distinct."
Once more: I adhere to the first: not the last.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-09-28 16:28:36
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:50 pm | #

Post 46:
Thank you for the birthday wishes! We had a nice weekend, although it was very busy. I was at a football game and coached four hockey games and one practice, so I haven't taken my wife out for a nice birthday meal yet, but we attended a couple of parties (although none specifically for her).

In any case, I'll attempt to get back to you Monday, or by Wednesday at the latest. Thanks again for posting on my site. I look forward to continuing.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-09-28 20:54:05
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 1:51 pm | #

Post 47:Which moral lawgiver?

Post 40: Christianity itself decries the deeds of evil perpetrated on the Jews. Atheism has a much tougher time making a credible moral case against the Nazis and similar tyrants. Darwinism influenced Hitler more than Luther did."

Thats crap, Christendom has a history of anti-jewish sentiments, not only anti-jewish, but anti- everyone with a different opinion ( so also butchering eachother). But, knowing you belong to the fundamentalist wing of christianity I am not very suprised. You rewrite history as easy as science( as yec). Why were christians (according to you) the first to oppose slavery? First of all, the( moral?) majority was not, it were the quackers who opposed, and people like Thomas Paine, and many payed with their lives. Why almost no Atheists? Because Christians had done a good job killing them for centuries already. Ofcourse that were not the real Christians like you, the ones with a moral lawgiver that tell's his' chosen' that torturing babies for pleasure is always wrong( what a wisdom!), but takes the liberty to burn cities or drown the world or commands genocide when it pleases him. No, ofcourse they followed the wrong moral lawgiver, as told by their ministers and priests.
The word Atheist means:not believing in God. It has nothing to do with atrocities done by stalin or mao, both were male too, so all male's should feel responsible? We are talking about ideologies here. And Christendom paved the way for intolerance, as did communism and facism. To illustrate present day christian intolerance, please visit this website.

( Btw, as I understood some of these denominations felt inspired by Cornelius van Til, someone you admire , as you told in another discussion.)
on bottom of this site:: "the use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. Presumably that would be done by stoning people to death or burning them alive, as the Bible requires."
So, this could be your moral lawgiver speaking? I could be wrong ofcourse, If this one is not yours, tell me which is? You pretend to know, you are assisted by your moral lawgiver,you pretend to have fine absolutes ( like its always wrong to torture babies merely for pleasure), lead me to the light!

(continued)
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:54 pm | #

Post 48:

Post 28 Luther quotes against Jews will have little impact on me--I respect much of what he did and wrote, but he was in favor of executing my Anabaptist forefathers, so he's not exactly my guide on everything." (post 40)

Why did'nt you call this filthy little creep a "so-called christian"? I can state with 99.999% that I don't have any respect for this man.

Post 40 Darwinism influenced Hitler more than Luther did : those who assert must prove. if you are so sure about it, prove it. And, btw, The evolution theory is like gravity, wether you like it or not, you are bound to it.

Now again about my stance considering truth and absolutes. My position is nice formulated by Schermer:" in Provisional Ethics it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that an action is moral or immoral if the evidence for and the justification of the action is overwhelming. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence and justification might change."
Once more: as in science we never know all, that prohibits me to state with absolute certainty. By the way: thats you're problem too, even with your "moral lawgiver' whichever it is, considering all the denominations andall other supposed Gods people believe in on this planet.

Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-10-01 16:40:55
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 1:56 pm | #

Post 48: (last post was actually 47)

re: Post 44
Paine certainly hated the Bible and Christianity. Of course, he paid no attention to the many who have suffered in the name of Christ to help others. He makes it sound like the Bible approved of most of the horrors in it, which is not true. The one difficult area you bring up is the situation with the OT wars, primarily on the Canaanites. God commanded the Israelites to wipe out their culture due to their depravity and their opposition to His plans. Now that Christ has come, a new covenant is in place that forbids God's people from shedding blood in His name.

I haven't seen the quote by Lewis in context, but despite enjoying Narnia, I'd certainly disagree with him if you're representing him correctly.

As for "cruel and unmoral episodes" in the Bible, you haven't established your grounding for judging anything as immoral. I'm still waiting for that.

In another reply you say that "God may change his mind"

Not at all. You must be thinking of my reference to God's changes in the new covenant. He doesn't change His mind.

This is a self-defeating argument, because it makes a discussion about moral absolutes worthless. When suddenly God orders adultery, it would be right? And if God can change his mind, how would you know? Maybe He did last week, or a couple of years ago. Can Andrea Yates be right, claiming God ordered her to kill her 5 kids?

This is exactly why I believe a completed canon of Scripture is significant. I have God's unchanging Word and don't have to worry about changes. I pay no heed to personal revelations claimed by crazy people such as Andrea Yates. God won't order adultery, because opposition to it is already fixed in his word. On what grounds can you oppose adultery?

while in a way you are bound to the literal interpretation of The Book.

Willingly so. I have more confidence in it than in myself.

I only want to show you that its impossible to claim that the Bible is the source of moral absolutes.

I think I can make a lot stronger argument that you can. In fact, I'm still waiting for you to make yours. Did I miss something? All I recall is you claiming that you had human moral lawgivers.

re: Plato

Rather than waste a bunch of time typing a lengthy response, let me simply direct you to an article by Greg Koukl, someone I link to on my site and have met several times.

re: Post 45:

I believe that you do not adhere to cultural relativism. However, as an agnostic, you need to explain why. Again I ask, What is your grounding for holding to "near absolutes"? How do you avoid relativism if truth is always relative when accumulating knowledge? After all, that knowledge guides our moral reasoning, does it not?
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-10-01 20:26:58
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 3:00 pm | #

Post 49:
re: 47
Jan, you seem to be a lot angrier than someone who simply left his faith tradition due to some disagreements with the Bible. I'll discuss further later this week, but my time is up for tonight. Thanks again for dialoguing.
Originally posted by Randy Brandt on 2003-10-01 20:33:03
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 3:01 pm | #

Post 50:
No, I am (was) not angry, but I like to put my pencil in vitriol. For me, its a way to show what's important to me. ( post 49)
The rest will be a reaction to post 48:

I visited the link, but my only conclusion is that Koukl misses the poin completely. Basing morality on God's character does not overcome the problem of arbitrariness. Is something good because it is part of His character or is God's character the way it is because it is good? ( Michael Martin)

Second:by matter of definition, you turned into a moral relativist, because atrocities commited by your God are principally left out of the equation. Well, the innocent victims of Jericho, or Sodom and Gomorra, or the Deluge, certainly can take comfort in that ( compared to the victims in World War II for example)
Gregory Koukl: "How is it that God could allow the annihilation of thousands and thousands of people, whether that annihilation was through war or natural disaster? In fact, how is it that God could even command such a thing in the Old Testament if it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human being? How does it suddenly become moral because God Himself commands such a thing?"
Koukl solves this problem so" My answer is simply this: How is it that God can allow the taking of life of innocent people? The answer is that God, being the Author of life, has the absolute right to take life away whenever He wants to. Simply put, He gives life, He takes it away. Life is His to do with what He wants. He can give it, as the Author, and as the Author, He can take it away again."
Wow, and He does it bigtime (according to the scriptures). I wouldn't accept my kids destroying an Antsfarm like that. But maybe thats my lousy understanding of ethics :) Is that the way a father should be example to his children? Is he a Tiran?
Another problem is ofcourse, when humans commit atrocities with the consent of God, who is to blame? Take for example the Medianites (Num 31). I suppose that to your opinion all is justified. I just wonder, how would the survivors (only females) have judged this massacre?

(continued)
Darwinist | 10.04.03 - 3:03 pm | #

Post 50 continued:

Third, let me point you to another problem in your assertations: God has the right to take lives as He wants, you say, but according to you He promised He never would act like that again. Well, thats problematic because your God happens to change His mind alot:
-God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (Gen 2:17)
- God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise.(Ex 33:2)
- God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5 (Joshua)
-Jesus falsely predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God. 9:27 (Luke)
-Jesus says that "the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." But this never happened. 5:25 (John)
- Jesus implies that he will return to earth during the lifetime of John. 21:22 (John)
-In Genesis (13:15, 15:18, 17:8) and Exodus (32:13) God promises Abraham and his descendants "the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession." But here Paul admits that God's promise went unfulfilled. 11:9-13 (Hebrews)

Considering this lack of consistence, is it a wonder that reverends like Faldwell and Robertson must have used the same line of reasoning when they accused homosexuals etc. of being the cause of the tragedy of 9-11-01? ( the accusing part sounds familiar though, with different subjects in 1930-1945)
So, once again, given your religious" believes", you can never be certain that God did not command Andrea Yates to kill her children, He commanded it before, remember? ( Abraham for instance)

So, where do I get all my "moral" knowledge from? Apart from instinct, same as you, but plural: books. Ever read Confusius, Plato, Aristoteles, Kant, Bible, (yes you did!) , C.I Lewis, W.A. Deming, Abraham Kuyper, Thomas Paine, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins etc? And discussions with others, family, friends, and television, radio, internet, all kinds of "natural sources". And using logic ofcourse.

If the bible would have contained this sentence ( and given advise accordingly) it would have been a great book to me: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." But no, the Bible teaches that's just for some people.
Originally posted by Darwinist on 2003-10-02 14:22:20
Randy | Email | 10.04.03 - 3:03 pm | #

Post 51
my only conclusion is that Koukl misses the poin completely. Basing morality on God's character does not overcome the problem of arbitrariness. Is something good because it is part of His character or is God's character the way it is because it is good?

I think Koukl understands the point just fine. He rejects any view that asserts merely arbitrary goodness based on God's power to impose His will, as Islam teaches. Something is indeed good because it is part of a good God's character; however, He won't arbitrarily pronounce something evil to be ultimately good, because at the same time, His character is indeed the way it is because it is wholly good and grounded in His holiness.

the innocent victims of Jericho, or Sodom and Gomorra, or the Deluge, certainly can take comfort in that

There are no truly innocent victims except Jesus Christ when He died on the cross. Granted, some appear innocent to us, especially babies. However, you haven't established the right to even address this topic, since you have not given a satisfactory basis for grounding your morality.

I wouldn't accept my kids destroying an Antsfarm like that.

They aren't the creators of the ants, either.

But maybe thats my lousy understanding of ethics :)

I'm still waiting for a defensible grounding for your ethic.

Is he a Tiran?

Could be a translation thing. Do you mean "tyrant"?

when humans commit atrocities with the consent of God, who is to blame? Take for example the Medianites (Num 31). I suppose that to your opinion all is justified.

I don't consider myself an expert at judging actions in the pre-Christian era. I'm more interested in the era in which we live.

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (Gen 2:17)

Adam died spiritually the moment he ate and physically his immortality ended that instant, even though he lived for many more years (we don't know how old he was when he ate).

I don't have time to go through all of your Bible accusations at the moment (I'll try to get to them soon), but a cursory look indicates that you simply misunderstand what is being taught in most of the cases.

is it a wonder that reverends like Faldwell and Robertson must have used the same line of reasoning when they accused homosexuals etc. of being the cause of the tragedy of 9-11-01?

There's plenty of heterosexual sin to go around, so I'd say they're being absurd if they actually made a direct correlation, which I doubt.

given your religious" believes", you can never be certain that God did not command Andrea Yates to kill her children, He commanded it before, remember? ( Abraham for instance)

I can be absolutely sure. Abraham didn't kill his son, remember? He had to be willing to sacrifice
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.08.03 - 10:05 pm | #

Post 51 continued:
I can be absolutely sure. Abraham didn't kill his son, remember? He had to be willing to sacrifice him as a picture of God sacrificing Christ.

So, where do I get all my "moral" knowledge from? Apart from instinct, same as you, but plural: books.

I never said I acquired all of my moral knowledge from the Bible alone. I do claim that the grounding for my morality lies in a moral lawgiver revealed in the Bible.

Ever read Confusius, Plato, Aristoteles, Kant, Bible, (yes you did!) , C.I Lewis, W.A. Deming, Abraham Kuyper, Thomas Paine, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins etc?

I don't know W.A. Deming. I know C.S. Lewis, but not C.I. Lewis. The rest are familiar names. I'm currently reading Dawkins.

Not all of these sources agree. Some are diametrically opposed to each other, in fact. Are you the ultimate determiner of what is right and what is not in these writings?

If the bible would have contained this sentence ( and given advise accordingly) it would have been a great book to me: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." But no, the Bible teaches that's just for some people.

You'll have to explain in more detail. The Bible certainly teaches that all men are created equal, and as possessors of the imago dei, they do have certain unalienable rights including life (unless they forfeit it by murdering others, of course). Liberty has restrictions, but generally speaking, yes, that would be a Biblical concept as well. The pursuit of happiness has to be a Christian hedonism to justify it Biblically, but since the Bible teaches that ultimate happiness is found only in Christ, yes, it teaches that as well. If people flee from Christ or oppose Him, they won't find happiness, but you can't blame the Bible for that.
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.08.03 - 10:06 pm | #

Post 51: "However, you haven't established the right to even address this topic, since you have not given a satisfactory basis for grounding your morality."
Ah, you seem to have the universal right to deny me having an opinion? Dogmatics, (facists, communists) would use the same argument! You can't tell me what I am entitled to say. Shame on you.
You claim to have a moral lawgiver, is your reaction to me in line with his teachings? What does your moral lawgiver teaches you considering homosexuality, euthanesia, same sex marriages, cursing your parents, not being a virgin on wedding night, and what should be the penalties? Would you follow every command that the Lord orders you?
Darwinist | Email | 10.09.03 - 4:33 pm | #

Ah, you seem to have the universal right to deny me having an opinion?

Quite the contrary. In fact, please notice that I'm the one providing the forum for your opinions to be expressed.

However, I'm not especially interested in reading your opinions on every topic under the sun, at least not in this discussion. I'd prefer that we deal with the subject at hand a little more systematically. I want a grounding for your morality that establishes your right to make moral pronouncements. Saying that you read books is insufficient. You could read Mein Kampf or Helter Skelter for ideas, too.

Once again, you seem to prefer a shotgun attack over making a reasoned defense of your position. My Lord teaches respect for life, heterosexual marriage and so on. He offers mercy to those who offend His holiness and confess their sin.
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.09.03 - 6:11 pm | #

First Koukl, he states (Euthyphro's Dilemma):"Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness" and thinks he can escape the dilemma by this third option.
This option is easely refuted: "But if goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness, for, in that case, the definition would be circular - the concept being defined would be doing the defining - and such a definition would be uninformative. If being all-good is an essential property of God, then all the Divine Command Theory tells us is that good actions would be willed by a supremely good being. While this is certainly true, it is unenlightening. For it does not tell us what makes something good and hence does not increase our understanding of the nature of morality." ( see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html for article.
Ofcourse there are more arguments, see for example Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" This suggests that good and evil are separate, independent from God.
Ofcourse the reality of the Bible, the cruelty's, the genocide etc are the best proof that God is not perfectly good, there is no way to reconcile them to goodness.
So, once again, (euthyphro's dilemma): moral reasoning exists independent from God.

Moral Absolutes
With a certain disdain, christian fundamentalists like you always proclaim that atheists (or agnostics, and probably other religions too) lack an absolute standard to base morality on, while at the same time fundamentalists like you claim to be in possesion of these absolutes, relayed by God. (The divine command theory)
The first problem is that many religions have similar claims ( Christianity, Islam, Judaism for example). They can't be all right, so which one is?
The second problem, is ofcourse that within Christianity there are thousands of denominations, each with their own interpretation considering what's morally important. Once again, they can't be all right, maybe even all are wrong.
The third problem is, that in our discussion so far, you already proved to be a moral relativist, for example when we spoke about "old laws" that were no longer applicable ( according to you).
As I understood from you, Christ died for our sins, thereby fulfilling the law.
Nevertheless, what was considered a sin, still should be ( in my humble opinion) so I would think that while (for instance) homosexuality deserved stoning, that misbehaviours that equally deserved death in the Pentateuch (like disobedient kids), would still deserve the same treatment as the "horrible sin" of being born as homosexual (approximately 5% of the world population is born homosexual).
Strangely, the opposition against homosexuality (or atheism) seems disproportiona
Darwinist | Email | 10.11.03 - 7:55 pm | #

Strangely, the opposition against homosexuality (or atheism) seems disproportionaly more outspoken compared to other crimes as listed in the Pentateuch, another proof of relativism.
I suppose that you don't belong to the real diehards who propose changing the USA-laws to biblical laws, allowing for the stoning of homosexuals and atheists again. Examples: http://www.godhatesfags.com/ or http://www.tencommandments.org/
It shows how ambigious your Moral Lawgiver is. To me it's no suprise, the Bible is full of ambiquity, contradicts itself alot, so everybody can fit the Bible to it's own "preference" of morality.

Nevertheless, you claim to be in possession of moral absolutes while at the same time agreeing that there is no agreement between Christian denominations. And until now, you did not produce one fundamental moral absolute, apart from trivial ones that you presumably copied from Koukl's book (something with "feet in mid air"), if I am wrong then its really a coincedence that exactly the same example was dealt with in Koukl's book.

I wonder why you did not produce serious absolutes. You had a perfect opportunity to (re) convert me to Christianity, but you did't even try. I asked for just one non-trivial moral absolute (no other denominations had to agree), and all I got was the "Mengele absolute". You pretend to have absolutes, why aren't you proud of them? Why don't you defend them? You want ME to show you my line of reasoning (and I already explained more about mine then you ever did about yours), while at the same time you "hide" behind your moral lawgiver.
My conclusion: you have no moral absolutes given by your moral lawgiver, if you had, all Christians would have agreed with you, and you very well know that's impossible.
Darwinist | Email | 10.11.03 - 7:57 pm | #

Now my position
Apparently I have to justify myself, considering your reaction: "However, you haven't established the right to even address this topic, since you have not given a satisfactory basis for grounding your morality." First of all, it seems that according to you I only may produce statements when my groundings are acceptable to YOU. It is like saying in a democracy: You may vote only if you give ME a satisfactory basis for your opinion.
Democracy in the fundamentalistic way?
As maybe obvious from my last post, you are the moral relativist here, using "situational ethics" when it suits you. So, according to your proclaimed belief in moral absolutes you disqualifie yourself as authority in my opinion.

Nevertheless, despite your questionable remark I will answer you.

I am not a moral subjectivist, nor a cultural relativist.
I denounce subjectivism (that what makes an action right is that a person approves of it or believes that it's right), because it implies a sort of moral infallibility.
I denounce cultural relativism because it implies that cultures are morally infallable, (history proves otherwise). And it's impossible to solve moral dilemma's within cultural relativism because there is no way to identify one's true culture.

Although there is alot of moral disagreement, humanity seems to be making moral progress. Slavery is abolished, child labour has been abolished in many countries, women may vote, many countries instituted democracy. This constitutes progress, however, only if there are fixed moral standards against which we can judge our actions and policies. If there were no such standards, we would have no grounds for thinking that things are better now than they were before. The best explanation of the fact that we are making moral progress, then, is that there are universal moral standards. If we ever reach the ultimate (universal) standards, I don't know. It's like the progress in Science, by trial and error we develop new medicines, new cures, it seems never complete.

So whats the source of my standards?
I think that the "Golden rule" (Treat others as you wish to be treated), is the source of every moral system. There are many versions of it, the oldest goes back to Confusius (600 BCE), so its NO invention of Christ. Applying this rule forbids murder, stealing, dishonesty, cruelty etc. It is a very simple rule, but timeless and always applicable.

-Confusius: "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

-Hindoeism: "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself" Mencius Vii.A.4

-Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths.

-Buddhism: "...a state that is no
Darwinist | Email | 10.11.03 - 7:59 pm | #

-Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

-Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517

In general terms this rule is called the "Ethic of Reciprocity" and as you can see its universal. It is a secular principle that relies not on the rules of any deity, but on the basic human trait of empathy. In fact, it makes the ten commandments superfluous except for the "rules of conduct" towards God ( no graven images etc).

So where do I stand? I think a very good explanation is found in the following principles:

The first: acknowledgement of uncertainty: I don't know all, never will, but I am ready to learn, and some things will never be known
The second: All human beings are fundamentally equal.The inherent worth of one human being is no greater than that of any other human being, regardless of one’s race, gender, income, place of birth, sexual orientation, or any other genetic quality
The third: Lifeownership: I own my life as I respect anybody's life.
The fourth: The platinum rule: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
Instead of typing all over: visit this link to get more info: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/lifeownership.html

Notice the difference with for instance the 10 commandments, instead of forbidding certain behaviours ( murdering, lying etc) which are easy to comprehent but difficult to sustain, this system starts with values, not behaviours. As is obvious from the Bible the Gods people broke the ten commandments often ( Abraham lying about Sarah etc.)

Notice the fact that I acknowledge uncertainty: we are imperfect, we never know all

This system differs alot in the sense that you always have to use your rationality, think critical. Compare this to the ten commandments: they make no difference between lying and murdering, both are forbidden, but if they were absolutes they can conflict, sometimes its good to lie, to prohibit murder, like when the Nazi's ask if you are hiding Jews.

In my opinion all moral systems are manmade (biblical ethics too). The best we have is our capability to use reason. We may be imperfect, but we can learn.
Darwinist | Email | 10.11.03 - 8:00 pm | #

Well, Jan, you're certainly prolific. I've got a hectic week, so it will take me awhile to respond in any depth. I did notice that your first two posts mentioned homosexuality, including this claim:

approximately 5% of the world population is born homosexual

I don't believe that anyone is born homosexual, other than the fact that we all are born with a propensity for sin. I won't challenge you to prove your case, since you can't. What I do want you to do is to make a case for how homosexual tendencies can remain in the gene pool despite Darwinian evolution's presumed ability to favor those genes which increase survival fitness. You can't be a consistent Darwinian without pronouncing homosexuals to be defective aberrations in the gene pool.
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.14.03 - 10:14 pm | #

Prolific? hm, to be honest, it takes alot more time to write concise, and the subject is not very uncomplicated, so forgive me the length (and now the limit is 3000 characters).
Although its fine by me to discuss homosexuality, I prefer later, (I only used the example to pinpoint the double standards that are used, compared to other 'sins'deserving death, like stoning of disobedient kids, stoning nonvirginal brides etc.)
I first want to finish this "morals" debate.
I especially ask for you to explain your selectivity in following/denouncing old testamental laws.
Let me cite the late Greg L. Bahnsen, who you describe as a "tremendous debator and teacher."

Bahnsen:"I argue in Theonomy in Christian Ethics that the moral standards revealed in scripture have an absolute, unchanging character because they reveal God's character, which is unchanging. The book was directed against Dispensational ethics which sees different standards for different eras of time. My intention was to uphold the principle of Covenant Theology, which assumes continuity between the Old and New Testaments unless scripture teaches otherwise (e.g., infant baptism)" (Contra Mundum No. 2 Winter 1992)

Although I don't agree with Bahnsen, he is at least consistent, I know what his position is, and theologically his position is defensable: the "scripture have an absolute, unchanging character because they reveal God's character"
Bahnsen denies that OT laws were only for the Israelites (see Theonomy in Christian Ethics) and argues they were meant for the whole world. And I agree with him in the sense that I interpreted the Bible like him, although I drew totally different conclusions ( to be explicit: A loving God would never act like that).
So what is your position considering "the absolute unchanging character", and how do you defend yours with reference to OT biblical laws, like stoning of disobedient kids, stoning nonvirginal brides etc?

Btw, next week I will be in France, so we are heading to a little intermission.
Darwinist | Email | 10.15.03 - 11:58 am | #

Jan, I am new to the discussion. I have a question for you. Have you ever deliberately killed a mosquito, or horse fly, or any other such creature? I susspect the answer would be yes. Forgive me if I am being to presumptious. If so, would you consider this act to be inconsistent with your "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule?
Brett Scollard | 10.21.03 - 10:02 pm | #

Brent, thanks for stopping by!

Jan,

Koukl...thinks he can escape the dilemma by this third option.

This option is easely refuted: "But if goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness, for, in that case, the definition would be circular - the concept being defined would be doing the defining - and such a definition would be uninformative. If being all-good is an essential property of God, then all the Divine Command Theory tells us is that good actions would be willed by a supremely good being... http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html

I don't adhere to Divine Command Theory, and neither does Koukl. The humanist article is interesting, but attacks something I don't believe, so I don't find it particularly compelling. DCT essentially says that morality is at God's whim. We believe that morality is intrinsic to the nature of God without being external to Him and thereby subordinating Him. You are refuting DCT, not what Koukl wrote.

We are not using God to define goodness, but to ground it. God is the ultimate source of good, and a good god does what is ultimately good, even if humans don't always see the big picture and recognize that ultimate good. DCT says anything is good if God does it; we say God acts in ways that are consistent with His good and holy character.

Ofcourse there are more arguments, see for example Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" This suggests that good and evil are separate, independent from God.

Why? This passage is describing the knowledge of good and evil. God can differentiate between the goodness grounded in His character and the evil that is antithetical to it.

Ofcourse the reality of the Bible, the cruelty's, the genocide etc are the best proof that God is not perfectly good, there is no way to reconcile them to goodness.
So, once again, (euthyphro's dilemma): moral reasoning exists independent from God.

Without drifting into utilitarianism, I assert that God can punish or even destroy a nation for the ultimate good of mankind without abandoning His goodness. Moral reasoning exists apart from God, but I don't believe you can ground morality apart from God. You've never answered my question about how you can ground morality in human thinkers without giving tyrants equal validity.

With a certain disdain, christian fundamentalists like you always proclaim that atheists (or agnostics, and probably other religions too) lack an absolute standard to base morality on

Any disdain you may have perceived has been unintentional on my part. I'm honestly curious as to how you resolve the problem. I think I've asked for a detailed defense four or five times.

while at the same time fundamentalists like you

I'm curious what you mean
Randy Brandt | Email | Homepage | 10.23.03 - 12:08 pm | #

Post 63 Cont'd

I'm curious what you mean by that, since many people we would call fundamentalists in America would be opposed to my beliefs.

claim to be in possesion of these absolutes, relayed by God. (The divine command theory)

Not exactly. I'll grant you that various definitions of DCT are out there. I use it to refer to the concept that God can arbitrarily command an action to be moral. I disagree with that. If you simply mean that morality is somehow grounded in God, then I would have to accept your usage.

The first problem is that many religions have similar claims ( Christianity, Islam, Judaism for example). They can't be all right, so which one is?

Christianity. Thanks for asking. :) Since you already exchanged a Christian background for agnosticism, I doubt that Judaism or Islam would appeal to you.

The second problem, is ofcourse that within Christianity there are thousands of denominations, each with their own interpretation considering what's morally important.


That's a gross exaggeration. Denominations generally vary on relatively minor issues. I don't agree with everyone in my family, but that doesn't mean we're not a family. The same thing applies to Christianity. I'm an evangelical. That's a pretty broad term encompassing many churches, but we agree on essential doctrines and agree to disagree on others. The debates can be vigorous, but at the end of the day, we're on the same side.

Once again, they can't be all right, maybe even all are wrong.

Quite true. But it is also possible that most "Christian" groups are right on the essentials. In that case, they have the ultimate answers to life and death.

The third problem is, that in our discussion so far, you already proved to be a moral relativist, for example when we spoke about "old laws" that were no longer applicable ( according to you).

Jan, you're much too intelligent to make that charge. Saying that a law has changed does not make me a moral relativist. I claim that it would be wrong for my 9-year-old son to drive my car, but in 6 years, I will pay for his learner's permit to start driving. Is that being a relativist? Not at all. Time and situation does play a role (although not to the extent that situational ethics proclaims).

God entering the world as a man was a major enough event to change how some things worked. Christ was not a moral relativist when He said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

We all deserve death--that hasn't changed. But now Christians have an advocate before the Father, a substitute victim who paid for our sins.

I addressed your homosexuality comments in my prior post.
Randy Brandt | Email | Homepage | 10.23.03 - 12:11 pm | #

Hi Brett, to answer your question: ofcourse I did (and still do) kill mosquito's, mice, etc. and I eat the little babies of our cherrytree too!. The golden rule has in the first place to do with human moral behavior. But ofcourse intentional cruelty towards animals is wrong.
Darwinist | Email | 10.27.03 - 1:11 pm | #

Randy:
First of all: Koukl is circular reasoning, whether you like it or not.

I think I gave in my last two posts to you a pretty clear picture concerning human grounding of ethics.
But I get the impression you did not read it.
I don't need no "primitive laws of the desert" to ground my moral behaviour on. Again you showed to be a moral relativist by stating "I assert that God can punish or even destroy a nation for the ultimate good of mankind without abandoning His goodness." Yeah, well, being all powerfull God could have used less cruel ways. And remember our morals absolutes discussion, I made absolutes, you could not agree on. Once more: you are the moral relativist.

I asked you:
"So what is your position considering "the absolute unchanging character", and how do you defend yours with reference to OT biblical laws, like stoning of disobedient kids, stoning nonvirginal brides etc?"
No answer from you yet.
Please read Mathew 15 1-9, it shows that OT laws still apply, according to Jesus. ( I agree with the Pharisees)
Darwinist | Email | 10.27.03 - 2:15 pm | #

I especially ask for you to explain your selectivity in following/denouncing old testamental laws.

I don't recall denouncing OT laws. Christ offered mercy to sinners, even while raising the standard to include thoughts along with actions. Therefore we don't stone adulterers; instead we recognize that we ourselves are equally guilty if we lust after someone. The law remains, but the earthly consequence has changed.

Let me cite the late Greg L. Bahnsen, who you describe as a "tremendous debator and teacher."

Bahnsen was a tremendous debator. I've never agreed with everything he taught.

the "scripture have an absolute, unchanging character because they reveal God's character"

I agree, but I think God has not always dealt with humanity in exactly the same way. That doesn't mean morality is based on simple relativism. There is a standard based on God's character.

So what is your position considering "the absolute unchanging character", and how do you defend yours with reference to OT biblical laws, like stoning of disobedient kids, stoning nonvirginal brides etc?

As I stated, sin is still sin, and if anything, the standards of behavior are tougher now. God's character hasn't changed. There will be ultimate justice, yet He can show mercy and patience without betraying His character.

You write dramatically of "stoning of disobedient kids" as if naughty 9-year-olds were put to death. Read Deut 21 and you'll discover that the "kid" in question is a rebellious drunkard, not some little child.
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.27.03 - 9:14 pm | #

the opposition against homosexuality (or atheism) seems disproportionaly more outspoken compared to other crimes as listed in the Pentateuch, another proof of relativism.

Proof? Your standards have certainly changed.

I suppose that you don't belong to the real diehards who propose changing the USA-laws to biblical laws, allowing for the stoning of homosexuals and atheists again.

Correct. I think they're despicable diehards.

It shows how ambigious your Moral Lawgiver is.

No, it shows that the godhatesfags people are pathetic.

everybody can fit the Bible to it's own "preference" of morality.

I haven't seen you do that successfully.

agreeing that there is no agreement between Christian denominations.

I've done no such thing. There is plenty of agreement, with minor disagreement.

And until now, you did not produce one fundamental moral absolute, apart from trivial ones that you presumably copied from Koukl's book (something with "feet in mid air"), if I am wrong then its really a coincedence that exactly the same example was dealt with in Koukl's book.

You must be well-read. I don't recall what Koukl wrote. I had been thinking of digging out "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air" to see what he and Frank Beckwith had to say, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. So, no, I didn't copy from Koukl, at least not intentionally.

I wonder why you did not produce serious absolutes.

I thought my examples were serious. I was trying to start simply to see where we agreed and disagreed, but they weren't attempts at frivolity.

You had a perfect opportunity to (re) convert me to Christianity, but you did't even try.

I had no idea that you were that eager and ready to be converted. I was more focused on trying to understand your perspective. Perhaps I was too modest in my objectives. In any case, that's a work for God, not me.

I asked for just one non-trivial moral absolute (no other denominations had to agree), and all I got was the "Mengele absolute".

So the atrocities of Mengele were trivial? I don't believe you're being serious. I'll give you one that all Christian denominations agree on: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."

You pretend to have absolutes, why aren't you proud of them?

I have to admit, that line gave me a good chuckle. I enjoy your sense of humor. Honestly. Hopefully we'll have a chance to sit down and visit in person some day.

My conclusion: you have no moral absolutes given by your moral lawgiver, if you had, all Christians would have agreed with you, and you very well know that's impossible.

Impossible? It's absolutely necessary, because if you claim there are Christians who disagree with "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.27.03 - 9:57 pm | #

cont'd
with all your strength," I can confidently tell you that they are not actually Christians.
Randy | Email | Homepage | 10.27.03 - 9:58 pm | #

Why do you restrict the golden rule to humans?
Brett Scollard | 10.29.03 - 10:00 pm | #

it seems that according to you I only may produce statements when my groundings are acceptable to YOU. It is like saying in a democracy: You may vote only if you give ME a satisfactory basis for your opinion.
Democracy in the fundamentalistic way?

I'm cheerfully displaying your statements on my site without censorship, but I do want more than "I read books" for your moral grounding.

Nevertheless, despite your questionable remark I will answer you.

Thank you.

I am not a moral subjectivist, nor a cultural relativist.
I denounce subjectivism (that what makes an action right is that a person approves of it or believes that it's right), because it implies a sort of moral infallibility.
I denounce cultural relativism because it implies that cultures are morally infallable, (history proves otherwise). And it's impossible to solve moral dilemma's within cultural relativism because there is no way to identify one's true culture.

We agree on these issues.

Although there is alot of moral disagreement, humanity seems to be making moral progress. Slavery is abolished

Maybe in the West. Not in Africa. There are thousands of Christians kept as slaves by Muslims in Sudan.

So whats the source of my standards?
I think that the "Golden rule" (Treat others as you wish to be treated), is the source of every moral system. There are many versions of it, the oldest goes back to Confusius (600 BCE), so its NO invention of Christ. Applying this rule forbids murder, stealing, dishonesty, cruelty etc. It is a very simple rule, but timeless and always applicable.

Of course, I believe Christ predated Confucius ("Before Abraham was, I AM" John 8:58), but yes, it is a fine principle for those who are basically moral in their behavior. However, suicidal psychotics with a death wish are not forbidden evil deeds by it if they truly don't care if they get killed themselves, so a little more is needed.

It is a secular principle that relies not on the rules of any deity, but on the basic human trait of empathy.

Unfortunately too many humans fail to display any empathy.

The first: acknowledgement of uncertainty: I don't know all, never will, but I am ready to learn, and some things will never be known

I agree.

The second: All human beings are fundamentally equal.The inherent worth of one human being is no greater than that of any other human being, regardless of one’s race, gender, income, place of birth, sexual orientation, or any other genetic quality

I agree (except for the insinuation that sexual orientation is genetic). Homosexuals, adulterers, pedophiles and all other sexual deviants are still inherently of worth because they are created in the image of God and can be redeemed:

cont'd
Randy Brandt | Email | Homepage | 11.04.03 - 12:18 pm | #

cont'd

1 Corinthians 6:9b neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Redemption is available in Christ.

It's difficult to find a non-Christian culture that teaches your desired equality. This doesn't fit your pseudonym too well, as Darwin's magnum opus had the full title of "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Favoured Races? Not much equality in that. Why take the name of someone opposed to your ethical standard?

The third: Lifeownership: I own my life as I respect anybody's life.

Since you're not self-created, when did you acquire ownership?

The fourth: The platinum rule: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
Instead of typing all over: visit this link to get more info: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/lifeownership.html

He makes some very good points, and is quite confused on others. I may try to find time to respond in more detail later.

As is obvious from the Bible the Gods people broke the ten commandments often ( Abraham lying about Sarah etc.)

The Law was given to show people they could not attain righteousness on their own. It proves our need for a Savior.

Notice the fact that I acknowledge uncertainty: we are imperfect, we never know all

As do I. As does 1 Corinthians 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

This system differs alot in the sense that you always have to use your rationality, think critical. Compare this to the ten commandments: they make no difference between lying and murdering, both are forbidden, but if they were absolutes they can conflict, sometimes its good to lie, to prohibit murder, like when the Nazi's ask if you are hiding Jews.

This doesn't conflict with the Ten Commandments at all. They say not to bear false witness against your neighbor, which insinuates lying in court and that sort of thing. It doesn't address lying to enemy troops. I'm not saying that lying is good, or that it's okay to covet your enemy's wife instead of your neighbor's, but you are oversimplifying what the Bible actually says and then attacking that oversimplification.

I've gone over my lunch break, but I'll return another day. I hope you had a fine trip to France.
Randy Brandt | Email | Homepage | 11.04.03 - 12:21 pm | #

Randy,
let me first refer to you former post, especially to: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".
The problem is that Christians don't agree on how to do this. Loving God means tryin to follow His word, but Christians differ greatly on all kinds of important actual moral dilemma's like abortion, sexuality, stemcell research, physician assisted suicide etc. All have there own explanations why they take a pro- or contra stance on each of the subjects. And all can be sincere, but their positions differ greatly and so this "Love" rule is not enlighting.

A second observation: the morality of the Bible is not timeless, in the OT people can be stoned to death for picking up straws on Sabbath, being disobedient and (yes!) drunk etc.
Again, something that was VERY wrong then, can't be right now, as there is no distinction between the sins of picking up straws or murder in the OT. I think its an insult to God to attribute these OT laws to Him, or its a very wicked lawgiver.
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 8:22 am | #

Now let me adress Darwin.
"Race", as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations which occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all. (http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CA/CA005_2.html)
Darwin ( and Wallace) just showed by which mechanisms species developed in time, and he did so in a way that can be tested and/or refuted, contrary to the creation position.
Now lets contrast Darwin with George McCready Price:
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans. [Numbers, 1992]
Or Henry Morris: "Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites." [Morris, 1976]
Thats racism, Randy.
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 8:35 am | #

Brett, do animals and plants have to follow the moral rules of God?
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 9:45 am | #

Man, being created in God's image, is inherantly worth more than plants or animals. It is on this basis that a distinction can be made between man and animals from a Christian worldview.
Quid pro quo. Why do you restrict the golden rule to humans?
Brett Scollard | Email | 11.05.03 - 10:36 am | #

Jan,

Welcome back.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".

The problem is that Christians don't agree on how to do this.

True. There are disagreements, although not so severe as you seem to think. Still, man's failures don't change the absolute nature of this moral imperative.

so this "Love" rule is not enlighting.

Actually it's very enlightening to those who seek to obey it.

A second observation: the morality of the Bible is not timeless

The fundamental morality--obeying the Lord God--is indeed timeless, although some details of practice change after the most significant post-creation event, the Incarnation. We don't have to worry about future arbitrary changes in how God deals with man, because we have a fixed canon of Scripture to guide us. This is a problem for groups like Mormons who expect continued revelations.
Randy Brandt | Email | Homepage | 11.05.03 - 12:19 pm | #

Jan,

"Race", as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations which occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.

Would you please supply a reference in OOS where race is used of non-humans? I was unable to find one. In any case, "The Descent of Man" provides a clear statement of Darwin's beliefs:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin ( and Wallace) just showed by which mechanisms species developed in time, and he did so in a way that can be tested and/or refuted, contrary to the creation position.

Evolution can't be refuted because it is so amorphous. Poke a hole in one part and another theory will ooze into replacement. It's much more of a worldview than a testable scientific hypothesis. (If you want to get into a discussion on that, I'll start another topic thread.)

Now lets contrast Darwin with George McCready Price...Or Henry Morris...Thats racism, Randy.

I agree (with you, not with them). What's your point? Because I've read some of Morris's books and agree with some aspects of them, I must back everything he's written? Not at all. I disagree with him on other things as well, such as his excessive defense of the King James Bible. Notice, however, that I don't sign my name as "Morrisist." You wear the name of Darwin proudly--how then do you deal with my quote from "The Descent of Man"?
Randy Brandt | Email | Homepage | 11.05.03 - 12:36 pm | #

Hi Randy, its nice to be back!

I called myself Darwinist, to oppose your young earth creationism stance. And, as far as I know Darwin was not a racist ( he was opposed to slavery for instance, in a time when most of his contemporaries were not) . I haven't read the Decent of Man, but I will look for your quote. I am not so much interested in the man, as in the theory he offered. Nevertheless, evolution theory is as much an ideology as gravity theory. Don't shoot the messenger (Darwin in this case), as was done with Galileo or Copernicus.
Can evolution theory be refuted? Yes, because you can make predictions out of it. If you can't make a verifiable (refutable) prediction, a theory is worthless and explains nothing at all.
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 2:52 pm | #

Brett,
I have no clue where your are heading to, but in my opinion the golden rule does not apply to animals and plants the way it does to humans. If I would have asserted to it, I would have starved to death already, because I can't live on pebbles or sand. We eat meat, we eat lettuce, but in my opinion when we harvest lettuce or pick the fruit, we should inflict no unnecessary pain :)
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 3:07 pm | #

Randy,
Look here for more insights on Darwins position:
http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 3:35 pm | #

"It's difficult to find a non-Christian culture that teaches your desired equality"

As far as I know the native Indians of north America fit that description pretty good, unfortunatly they were mass murdered by some Christian culture.
Darwinist | Email | 11.05.03 - 3:51 pm | #

At this point I am just trying to understand your position. Specifically I am trying to understand in what you are basing your absolute morals. It is helpful for me to understand using examples rather than just abstract philosophical concepts. To that end, why do you restrict the golden rule to humans? On what basis did you make that moral decision?
Brett Scollard | 11.06.03 - 6:25 am | #

"Evolution can't be refuted because it is so amorphous. Poke a hole in one part and another theory will ooze into replacement. It's much more of a worldview than a testable scientific hypothesis."

Hehehe, you can't be serious. Although after reading this quote you might really be serious;
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable." ... "Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil."
(Theology Today, October 1982, 39(3):249-59)

Your opposition to evolution theory, is as ideological based as was Lysenkoism to the sovjets after Worldwar II. ( Lysenkoism set back the agricultural development in the Sovjet Union for years to come, because it denied Mendelian genetics). Lysenkoism was taught in schools, just like creation pseudoscience is forced into the American schoolsystem. The Sovjet Union paid a very high prize for being so dogmatic and stupid.
Evolutionary theory is the most powerfull integrating idea in all of biology, and essential for other sciences ranging from astronomy to anthropology. (Carl Sagan)
"Poke a hole.." Yep, Randy, thats how science works, because of science's passion to frame testable hypotheses that confirm or deny ideas. And guess what: that's exactly what scientists studying evolution do to themselves (poking holes), because science is the quest for truth, independent of wether you like the results or not.
Worldview instead of testable hypothesis? Well my dear biblical literalist, that's bullshit. Evolution has lots of evidence:
geological, astronomical, biological, archeological etc. I guess its the overwhelming evidence for evolution why creationists feel threatened in the first place!
Darwinist | Email | 11.06.03 - 8:04 am | #

Brett,
Applying the golden rule to humans is a 'logical' decision. The ethics of reciprocity don't apply to animals: Can I blame a dog for peeing in my garden, or a cat for catching and killing a birdie, or a big brown bear for killing a human being? Nope, its only natural behaviour. Had you done it, I would have blamed you. No doubt about it!
Darwinist | Email | 11.06.03 - 8:52 am | #

Randy,
(my words):"so this "Love" rule is not enlighting."

(Your words): "Actually it's very enlightening to those who seek to obey it."

My comment: I think every sincere Christian is seeking to obey it, but, considering the huge differences of opinion on all kinds of moral dilemma's (abortion, euthanesia, sexuality etc.) reality shows that its not enlightening at all.
Darwinist | Email | 11.06.03 - 3:22 pm | #

Randy:
(Your words):"I enjoy your sense of humor. Honestly. Hopefully we'll have a chance to sit down and visit in person some day."

Well I considered flying to Philipsburg ( St Maarten) to welcome you and the rest of the 2003 Apologetics Cruise to this little Dutch territory on 12-9-2003, but I don't want to spoil the cruise, and I do have some pecunial problems which (until now) even the devil obviously won't solve for me :) (just joking)
Darwinist | Email | 11.06.03 - 4:23 pm | #

The discussion on Darwinism has been spun off to Darwinism.

I expect to post both there and here this weekend.
Randy | Email | Homepage | 11.07.03 - 12:28 am | #

But why don't we hold animals responsible? Why wouldn't my actions be natural behavior?
Brett Scollard | Email | 11.07.03 - 8:00 am | #

Because YOU have the ability to think, YOU have choices. So I don't consider YOU peeing in my garden natural behaviour.
Darwinist | Email | 11.07.03 - 12:21 pm | #

Why not? When I go camping, I go where I can. Is it simply because I have been taught not to go in the garden? I can teach my dog the same thing. Animals also have the ability to choose. My dog is not forced to go where he goes by the laws of nature. He goes where he wants to go.
Brett Scollard | 11.07.03 - 8:31 pm | #

"Animals also have the ability to choose. My dog is not forced to go where he goes by the laws of nature. He goes where he wants to go."

You must have a very special dog!
Darwinist | Email | 11.08.03 - 2:36 pm | #