you're reading...
Christianity

Five Year Old Killed for Being Gay.

District Attorney Tracey Cline said Friday 27-year-old Peter Lucas Moses shot 5-year-old Jadon Higganbothan because he thought the boy was gay. (LINK)

This story is appalling because it’s a five year old.  It’s appalling because Moses also shot a 28 year old woman, suspecting she would go to the police.  It’s appalling because the child’s mother and Moses’ brother and sister also appear to be accessories.  The facts are horrifying.

The implications are much worse.  All the participants were members of a religious sect known as the Black Hebrews.  They believe they are direct descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel.  Their beliefs are based on the Bible.

Yes… I know… they’re not part of the “mainstream,” and their beliefs are not sanctioned by the “official” religious powers that be — at least in America.  But good American Christians should not sit too smugly in condemnation of such “obvious” perversion of the “true will of God.”  There are plenty of American religious leaders whose comments skirt the edge of inciting violence against gays, much closer to home:

“Blaming “homophobia” for any bad thing that happens to homosexuals is to hide under the bed of self-delusion. It denies the homosexual’s need for God’s grace and mercy, and tricks him or her into persisting in rebellion. It ignores the medical problems that this behavior naturally incurs; and it denies the wider societal problems – the decline of the family, the loss of faith in God and in the future, and the erosion of democratic institutions.” (LINK)

That’s Atlanta’s own Rev. D. L. Foster.  He’s a more “mainstream” Christian.  Does that sound to you like the good reverend is offering a “loophole” for people who wish to harm gays?  Perhaps he is, and perhaps he is not, but he certainly isn’t going out of his way to condemn such violence.  And he’s explicitly telling us that gays are a problem for society.

Then there’s the now-infamous Bishop Eddie Long, who is planning on expanding his Atlanta area mega-church in spite of the fact that he’s pretty much been exposed as a homosexual himself — after years of preaching anti-gay hate from the pulpit and running “pray the gay away” camps for vulnerable teen boys (some of which he apparently victimized.)  Hate can be directed inwards as well as outwards.

 

READ THE REST ON EXAMINER.COM:  http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/five-year-old-killed-for-being-gay

Advertisements

Discussion

83 thoughts on “Five Year Old Killed for Being Gay.

  1. WAT IN THE HELL IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE WORLD A GUY SHOOTS A FIVE YR OLD BOY TO DEATH CUZ HE THOUGHT HE WAS GAY THE MAN IS CLEARLY LOONEY TUNES TO ASSUME THT SHIT THAT IS SO SAD THAT A CHILD HAD TO DIE BEHIND BULLSHIT OMMFG

    Posted by NIKKI BOLLAR | July 9, 2011, 5:17 pm
  2. You’re probably expecting me to demand a psych analysis and then we can get into some tangents. While that may be true [for the record, I would like to see a psych analysis, hopefully from somebody not too comfy in their armchair. It’s kinda required for a cause and effect argument in regards to this.] I want to address another point.

    I think one “meme” we need to spread is that it’s impossible to know what god wants, even if he/she exists. This was one of Hitchen’s [only] good points from his debate with Sharpton. It’s impossible to determine if MLK or Foster, or some philanthropist has the right interputation of Christianity.

    Christians simply can’t go saying this or that person has the right or wrong scripture just because they like or don’t like the action. To be fair, atheists can’t do the same [once again, we need to set the example here].

    What they need to do is admit they get their morals from themselves, not religion [whether they do good or ill] and that god’s wants his desires to be addressed, he can be a little more clear.

    As a side about your comment about Casey Anthony and OJ, sorry, Will, but innocent until proven guilty. Mob mentality does not determine guilt.

    Posted by cptpineapple | July 9, 2011, 11:23 pm
  3. What? I didn’t say either one was guilty or innocent. I said we need to talk about them.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | July 10, 2011, 2:29 am
  4. Hmm,
    I wonder what the consequences of State Atheism in China as it relates to the infanticide of girls, as compared to the religious United States.

    Posted by PG | July 10, 2011, 1:30 pm
  5. Good luck getting youth to talk about anything besides Jersey Shore

    Posted by cptpineapple | July 10, 2011, 5:21 pm
  6. Why are you guys whining and wringing your hands over “Christians”? The guys were members of the “Black Hebews”, as you yourself point out. “Black Hebews”. As in Jews. As in not Christians. Yet you still manage to find a way to throw spit balls at Christians…

    Your hatred is palpable.

    Posted by CB | July 11, 2011, 6:11 pm
  7. CB, I’m outraged that your concern here is to excuse your religious group from responsibility, despite the fact that you and the Black Hebrews both follow the same book.

    A five-year old was shot in order to uphold a moral judgment from that book. Your book. The one you believe is the infallible word of God, which states that the penalty for homosexuality is death (in the old testament) and that homosexuals deserve endless torment in hell (new testament).

    This isn’t throwing spit balls at Christians. This is just pointing out that your religion is evil.

    Posted by Ian | July 11, 2011, 7:14 pm
  8. You know, I was skeptical at first, but the more I read about Sam Harris’s approach to morality, the more persuasive it is. Pointing out how insane religious morality is is certainly part of the solution, but we’ve also got to come up with a better system of morality to replace it.

    Posted by Ian | July 11, 2011, 7:20 pm
  9. Guys, I think Alex Jones has cracked the reason why homosexualty exists

    Posted by cptpineapple | July 11, 2011, 11:22 pm
  10. Your book.

    My book? MY book, Ian? You insufferable, hateful ignoramus, my book tells us that Christians are no longer under the yoke of the Levitcal Law, that we are saved by grace, not by works of the Law. Unfortunately, a “Hebrew” doesn’t accept that part of “my” book, because it’s New Testament, and Hebrews/Jews only accept what Christians call the Old Testament. A Hebrew/Jew IS still bound by the Law of the Levites, but like I said, you ignoramuses still manage to find a way to throw spit balls at Christians.

    “My” book tells me that all of us fall short of the Levitcal standard, and therefore deserve death but “my” book also states that Jesus bled to death nailed to a tree so that anyone could come to God, including homosexuals. One only has to be willing to turn away from their old life. If someone would rather indulge in their carnal lifestyle, whether straight or gay, instead of coming to God, well, that is their choice.

    This is just pointing out that your religion is evil.

    Like I said, your hatred is palpable. When you ignore major tenets of a religion in order to pigeon-hole it, you are being hateful as well as intellectually bankrupt.

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 8:55 am
  11. When you ignore major tenets of a religion in order to pigeon-hole it, you are being hateful as well as intellectually bankrupt.

    “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

    Matthew 5:18

    Posted by Ian | July 12, 2011, 9:23 am
  12. Quote mine, much, Ian? Jesus did exactly that, He FULFILLED every “jot and tittle” of the Law. He ACCOMPLISHED it.

    THAT is why Paul was able to write that we are no longer under that yoke. JESUS took it off our backs.

    Hate-filled ignoramus…

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 9:35 am
  13. Jesus did exactly that, He FULFILLED every “jot and tittle” of the Law. He ACCOMPLISHED it.

    “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

    Matthew 5:18

    Posted by Ian | July 12, 2011, 9:49 am
  14. What part of “He ACCOMPLISHED it” do you utterly fail to comprehend?

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 10:01 am
  15. “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    Matthew 5:19-20

    Posted by Ian | July 12, 2011, 10:06 am
  16. You keep quoting Jesus as if you had a clue. When He was preaching, mankind was indeed still under the Law. BUT THAT CHANGED WHEN JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED.

    Again, Jesus ACCOMPLISHED every jot and tittle of the Law, which includes paying the price as outlined in the Law.

    And again, that is what allowed Paul to write that we are NO LONGER under that yoke, but that only applies to Christians.

    Why do you think the veil which led into the Holy of Holies was torn when Jesus died?

    Get a clue, sometime.

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 10:30 am
  17. That’s your interpretation, which is the problem with your religion, CB. Whether homosexuals deserve to die or not comes down to which hermeneutical approach you take to understanding authoritarian pronouncements recorded by mostly anonymous authors two thousand years ago. Whether homosexuality is really immoral should be determined objectively, by a method which is proven to produce non-arbitrary results.

    Posted by Ian | July 12, 2011, 11:21 am
  18. So now you’re falling back to “interpretation”…??? That’s pretty weak, even for you. Words do have meanings, and events do have their consequences. Your attempt to pretend that Christians are to blame for this tragedy has deservedly failed, so you want to whine about “interpretations”??

    Like I said, your hatred is palpable.

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 12:12 pm
  19. Here is a challenge for you Ian — kindly point out in the New Testament where the Apostles or Jesus or ANY Christians instructed us to kill anybody for any reason.

    Let’s see how loose you get with “interpretations” — that should be entertaining.

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 12:16 pm
  20. Is the old testament not the word of God? Do you not believe that God instructed his followers to kill homosexuals, as per Leviticus 20:13? Haven’t Christians killed homosexuals and “witches” in the past because they believed that God’s commands in the old testament are still binding?

    What about the ten commandments? Don’t orthodox Christians believe that they’re obligated to follow those?

    I sympathize with your attempts to wriggle out from under the “yoke” of that barbaric ethical system, I just don’t think your attempts to hammer it into something acceptable to a post-enlightenment society are very convincing.

    Posted by Ian | July 12, 2011, 9:21 pm
  21. I see you utterly failed my challenge, as I expected you would, and have little recourse but to attempt diversion and distraction, and move goal posts to boot.

    Paul wrote what he wrote — it is what it is. If misguided fools ignore it, that only reflects on the misguided fools. Yes, people are evil and will use whatever means necessary to justify said evil, whether it’s a few out-of-context Bible verses or the writings of Marx or the lyrics to a Beatles “acid” rock song. Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that it was pointless to modify one’s behavior to appease a non-existant God. And so on. And so on.

    Haven’t Christians killed (blah blah blah)…?

    Haven’t atheists systematically mass-murdered by the tens of millions??? Oh, right, those guys are off-limits because they didn’t mass-murder “in the name of” atheism, as if that actually means something, Face it, in terms of raw numbers, your lot easily wins this particular pissing match…

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 11:40 pm
  22. Paul wrote what he wrote — it is what it is. If misguided fools ignore it, that only reflects on the misguided fools.

    So Christians who believe they’re obligated to follow the ten commandments are misguided fools? Thanks for clearing that up.

    Whether it’s morally good to execute a human being for engaging in homosexuality shouldn’t be determined what Paul wrote two thousand years ago, or what some priest wrote three thousand years ago. That’s insane.

    Haven’t atheists systematically mass-murdered by the tens of millions???

    The difference is that I believe those atheists were evil, with no excuse for their depravity whatsoever, and I condemn their actions. Whereas you believe that the very source of your morality, God, commanded people to execute homosexuals. You believe that he commanded people to commit genocide–kill men, women, and children–and take their land, and you cannot condemn that. You are hostage to a morality which can permit anything.

    Posted by Ian | July 13, 2011, 8:35 am
  23. So Christians who believe they’re obligated to follow the ten commandments are misguided fools?

    That isn’t what I said — it’s merely what you stupidly infer after shifting goal posts. The context of this discussion is the killing of people for allegedly being gay or whatever, which is more specific than simply following rules, and when I said “misguided fools”, I was referring to those who saw a need to kill people. After all, that was my challenge to you, Ian, to show us where we are instructed by the NT to kill people. You simply brought up the Ten Commandments after the fact in an idiotic attempt to misdirect.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Don’t mention it.

    The difference is that I believe those atheists were evil, with no excuse for their depravity whatsoever, and I condemn their actions.

    Well good for you,Ian, but I did likewise when I stated:

    Yes, people are evil and will use whatever means necessary to justify said evil, whether it’s a few out-of-context Bible verses or the writings of Marx or the lyrics to a Beatles “acid” rock song.

    Posted by CB | July 12, 2011, 11:40 pm

    So yeah, I acknowledged that people calling themselves Christians can indeed be evil and use God’s word to justify it, but the fact that I refer to such people as “misguided fools” should indicate that I do not condone their actions. Quite the contrary.

    Whereas you believe (blah blah blah)…

    Whereas you believe that the very source of your morality, God, commanded people to execute homosexuals. You believe that he commanded people to commit genocide–kill men, women, and children–and take their land, and you cannot condemn that.

    Well, sure, why not? The difference is that I am aware of this little thing called context. Although the penalty for many transgressions, including homosexual behavior, was death, the Law also provided a method to avoid those penalties by sacrificing animals. Now sure, you will scream and holler over the death of innocent animals, which means you completely miss the point. The Old Testament exists to illustrate Man’s depraved state, and how the price of that depravity is blood, plain and simple. The OT is meant to be a vivid illustration, which is why it’s so harsh.

    But the real point, which you utterly ignore, is that God Himself ultimately paid that price, by taking human form and shedding His own blood to pay the price for Man’s depraved state.

    That is the Christian narrative, and that is why Paul wrote what he wrote. That you utterly refuse to get it is inconsequential.

    As far as the genocide of Jericho is concerned, well yeah, again, the inhabitants of Jericho were practicing child sacrifice, so children were being killed anyway. When the Israelites killed them, that death was arguably more humane.

    Now, of course, you don’t have to like any of this, and you don’t have to buy any of it, but it is the narrative, and again, your rejection is ultimately inconsequential to anything or anybody but yourself.

    You are hostage to a morality which can permit anything.

    Your ignorance is as palpable as your hate. It is atheism which permits anything. If there is no afterlife and no Supreme Judge to judge your actions, you can do anything you want with no eternal consequences whatsoever. Atheist serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer said as much himself, and Dostoyevsky also said as much in his novel The Brothers Karamazov.

    Speaking of the Ten Commandments, one of them is a commandment not to kill…

    Posted by CB | July 13, 2011, 10:34 am
  24. If there is no afterlife and no Supreme Judge to judge your actions, you can do anything you want with no eternal consequences whatsoever. Atheist serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer said as much himself, and Dostoyevsky also said as much in his novel The Brothers Karamazov.

    Neither of them are experts on morality, so their claims are irrelevant.

    As for all the atheists out there who insist that there is no evidence for an afterlife, and that belief in it is absurd–I would argue that they have no epistemic right to assert that. They have the right to believe that there is no afterlife if they don’t find the arguments for it persuasive, but they don’t have the right to declare that belief in it is irrational.

    It is atheism which permits anything.

    How are the statements “I do not believe in God” and “I believe there are objective facts about morality” incompatible? Where’s the contradiction?

    As far as the genocide of Jericho is concerned, well yeah, again, the inhabitants of Jericho were practicing child sacrifice, so children were being killed anyway. When the Israelites killed them, that death was arguably more humane.

    Now there’s an example of a belief which nobody has any right to hold. Suppose I come across a man slowly and sadistically murdering a child. Is the appropriate response to say, “Here, let me show you how to do that,” and then kill the child humanely?

    You said that one of the commandments is “Thou shalt not kill” (the word “kill” there meaning “murder”). So which was the word of God? The commandment not to murder innocent people or the commandment to murder innocent people?

    I acknowledged that people calling themselves Christians can indeed be evil and use God’s word to justify it, but the fact that I refer to such people as “misguided fools” should indicate that I do not condone their actions.

    Yet they justify their actions using the very same beliefs that you share with them. You’re just inconsistent in applying those beliefs.

    Although the penalty for many transgressions, including homosexual behavior, was death, the Law also provided a method to avoid those penalties by sacrificing animals.

    Did it? Where’s your support for that?

    But the real point, which you utterly ignore, is that God Himself ultimately paid that price, by taking human form and shedding His own blood to pay the price for Man’s depraved state.

    The real points are:

    1. There’s no objective evidence that homosexuality is immoral in the first place.
    2. The fact that under God’s law in the old testament, the penalty for homosexuality is death.
    3. Jesus himself provides support for the doctrine that old testament law was not abolished.
    4. The new testament states that homosexuality is immoral, that homosexuals cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, and that they deserve endless torment in hell

    Posted by Ian | July 13, 2011, 11:24 am
  25. Neither of them are experts on morality…

    Oh, and you are??!?! Don’t make me laugh.

    Neither of them are experts on morality, so their claims are irrelevant.

    You are no expert on morality, so your claims are likewise irrelevant.

    I could just end here, since the rest of your rant has been deemed irrelevant by your own argument, but let’s press on…

    How are the statements “I do not believe in God” and “I believe there are objective facts about morality” incompatible?

    How can you have “objective facts about morality” without an outside agent? If there is no God, then morality is necessarily subjective. Explain how it could be otherwise when “morality” is, as far as we know, a purely human concept.

    Now there’s an example of a belief which nobody has any right to hold.

    Everyone has every right to hold any belief, no matter how much you may personally object to it. Who are you to dictate what beliefs someone may or may not hold?

    Yet they justify their actions using the very same beliefs that you share with them.

    Prove it. I have just indicated to you that my beliefs include not killing people, but you obviously ignore that.

    The real points are:

    1. You cherry pick the Bible.
    2. You ignore what I tell you.
    3. You cherry pick the Bible.
    4. You ignore what I tell you.

    And last but not least…

    5. You still try to pin this tragedy on Christianity, even though Christians had nothing to do with it.

    Your irrational hatred is palpable.

    Posted by CB | July 13, 2011, 4:29 pm
  26. Oh, and you are??!?! Don’t make me laugh.

    CB, you cited Dahmer and Dostoyevsky’s assertions that without God, there is no objective morality, in order to support your claim. But as neither of them are experts on morality, their assertions regarding morality carry no weight.

    To illustrate this point, I could say, “Hey, some guy I know named Chuck said that if you believe in God, you’re evil.” Would Chuck’s statement carry any weight?

    By contrast, if Dostoyevsky or Dahmer had actually made arguments or provided evidence in support of their claim, that could carry weight. But their opinions alone, without any support, mean nothing and in no way advance your argument.

    You are no expert on morality, so your claims are likewise irrelevant.

    I’m not claiming to be an expert, am I? You don’t need to be an expert to argue morality. You do need to be an expert in order for a bare assertion of yours to carry weight.

    How can you have “objective facts about morality” without an outside agent?

    How can you have objective facts about physics without an outside agent?

    Everyone has every right to hold any belief, no matter how much you may personally object to it. Who are you to dictate what beliefs someone may or may not hold?

    People don’t have the right to do whatever they like, do they? They can do whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to, or that other people can’t dictate what actions are moral and which aren’t.

    Beliefs are the same way. People can believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to believe whatever they want. Some beliefs are objectively wrong.

    I have just indicated to you that my beliefs include not killing people

    So if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn’t do it?

    Your irrational hatred is palpable.

    I’m not the one defending infanticide, chief.

    Posted by Ian | July 13, 2011, 8:58 pm
  27. CB, you cited Dahmer and Dostoyevsky’s assertions that without God, there is no objective morality, in order to support your claim

    Let’s revisit what I actually said:

    Your ignorance is as palpable as your hate. It is atheism which permits anything. If there is no afterlife and no Supreme Judge to judge your actions, you can do anything you want with no eternal consequences whatsoever. Atheist serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer said as much himself, and Dostoyevsky also said as much in his novel The Brothers Karamazov.

    Posted by CB | July 13, 2011, 10:34 am

    So what I actually claimed is that atheism permits anything, and I made that claim in response to YOUR claim:

    You are hostage to a morality which can permit anything.

    Posted by Ian | July 13, 2011, 8:35 am

    So who’s pretending to be the expert, Ian? YOU made a claim that completely contradicts my argument. It doesn’t refute it. It merely contradicts it. And your raw assertion is based on .the complete ignorance of what I have been telling you over and over, that Christians are not bound by the Levitical Law, per the writings of Paul, and it’s this Levitical Law that you are trying to use as a club to beat Christians over the head with.

    Furthermore, according to your own assertion, “permit anything” is not the same as “no objective morality”, since you made the assertion that I was allegedly “hostage” to a “morality that can permit anything”.

    How can you have objective facts about physics without an outside agent?

    Physics and morality are not comparable on this level. The physical universe, along with the physical laws under which it apparently operates, would exist regardless of whether humanity exists. In fact, it did precisely that for billions of years before man came onto the scene. Morality, on the other hand, only exists as a human concept, to the best of our knowledge. We don’t speak of moral codes in nature, only in human societies and human interactions. By all appearances, morality is indeed exclusive to humanity, which means it cannot exist without humanity, unlike the physical universe and its laws.

    Still batting zero with your inappropriate analogies, I see…

    People can believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to believe whatever they want.

    Where do “rights” come from, and how does that govern what a person may choose to believe?

    Some beliefs are objectively wrong.

    Perhaps, but how do we subjective humans make the determination as to which beliefs are “objectively” wrong? Why do you believe that some beliefs are “objectively wrong”?

    So if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn’t do it?

    The fact that you pose this stupid hypothetical clearly illustrates the depths of your apparently willful ignorance. Why would God tell me to kill someone? Let me remind you of that challenge you spectacularly failed earlier, the one about finding a New Testament passage instructing us to kill for any reason whatsoever.

    And herein lies the crux. You are so obsessed over the bloodshed of the Old Testament that you cannot bother to absorb the message of Christianity. You completely ignore what the crucifixion signifies — it is completely and utterly lost on you.

    I’m not the one defending infanticide, chief.

    Nor am I, but the mere fact that you would implicitly accuse me of such illustrates the depths of your hatred…

    I merely accept that the Old Testament says what it says, and while you fixate on homosexuals, what I read in the OT is that we all fall short of God’s standard, and all deserve death and hell. All of us.

    The fact that under God’s law in the old testament, the penalty for homosexuality is death.

    The penalty for many things is death.

    Jesus himself provides support for the doctrine that old testament law was not abolished.

    Like I said before, and you obviously ignored, when Jesus was preaching, it was prior to the crucifixion, and Paul’s writings are after the crucifixion. Also like I have said before, I fully expect the significance of that to be utterly lost on a blunt instrument such as yourself.

    Posted by CB | July 13, 2011, 11:18 pm
  28. Talk about dodging the issue. Your beliefs and the beliefs of the idiot on trial are based on a varied interpretation of the same material. If it were the word of some god as powerful as you claim yours is I would expect it to be a little simpler to understand.

    Perhaps spend less time trying to get out of holding some of the blame here and instead maybe spend more figuring out how to stop this kind of idiocy… That is, unless you’re ok with it…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 14, 2011, 1:47 am
  29. Your beliefs and the beliefs of the idiot on trial are based on a varied interpretation of the same material.

    Categorically incorrect. The idiot who caused this tragedy rejects the New Testament entirely, something you boneheads seem utterly unable to grasp in your hate-filled rush to assign blame.

    Perhaps spend less time trying to get out of holding some of the blame here and instead maybe spend more figuring out how to stop this kind of idiocy…That is, unless you’re ok with it…

    Perhaps spend less time trying to assign blame here and instead maybe spend more figuring out how to stop this kind of idiocy…That is, unless you’re ok with it…

    Posted by CB | July 14, 2011, 8:00 am
  30. Furthermore, according to your own assertion, “permit anything” is not the same as “no objective morality”, since you made the assertion that I was allegedly “hostage” to a “morality that can permit anything”.

    CB–you are hostage to a morality which can permit anything because you are obligated to believe it was morally good for the Israelites to kill men, women, and children, and take their land, if God said they could. Your response to that is “Well sure, why not?” You think the context justifies it. But your “justifying context” is a purely speculative theory of morality which boils down to voluntarism. Anything at all can be good so long as you believe you have God’s approval to do it. Since you also insist that “anyone has the right to hold any belief,” essentially, anyone has the right to do anything they like.

    It’s obvious that you would prefer not to come up with rationalizations to convince yourself that the murder of babies can be morally good, but here you are actually doing it, in order to defend your broken morality–hence you are hostage to it.

    YOU made a claim that completely contradicts my argument. It doesn’t refute it.

    CB, I asked you whether baby-murdering was morally good, as per the Levitical law, and you said that you believe it was. So I’m not even contradicting your argument. I’m pointing out that you believe baby-murdering can be good.

    Christians are not bound by the Levitical Law, per the writings of Paul, and it’s this Levitical Law that you are trying to use as a club to beat Christians over the head with.

    I’m just pointing out that Christians believe the Levitical Law is the inerrant word of God. So you believe:

    (1) The ultimate moral authority in the universe commanded people to execute homosexuals
    (2) The ultimate moral authority in the universe commanded people to murder babies

    How is that beating you over the head? Nobody forced you to believe those statements are true. You’re a hostage to your own choice to believe it. Now you may think that the new testament supersedes the old testament, but you still believe that morality is determined by authority, and that that authority has condoned executing homosexuals and murdering babies.

    Morality, on the other hand, only exists as a human concept, to the best of our knowledge.

    It’s possible to take actions which move one away from misery toward truly worthwhile happiness; toward a situation of supreme value. Actions which can accomplish this are non-arbitrary. This is the context that defines morality. To say that objective facts about morality wouldn’t exist if humans didn’t exist is like saying that objective facts about physics wouldn’t exist if physical phenomena didn’t exist. It’s true, but it doesn’t follow from that that there are no objective facts about morality.

    Where do “rights” come from, and how does that govern what a person may choose to believe?

    Rights are self-evident. That beliefs may be factual or false is self-evident. There’s no authority that governs this–beliefs just are true, or just are false.

    how do we subjective humans make the determination as to which beliefs are “objectively” wrong?

    The scientific method. Logic.

    It’s really not surprising if you–being a proponent of intelligent design–don’t understand how the scientific method and logic can discover objective truth. If you’re so confused that you think people are entitled to believe whatever they want, then it’s not surprising at all that you don’t understand how logic works.

    what I read in the OT is that we all fall short of God’s standard, and all deserve death and hell. All of us…The penalty for many things is death.

    As Alex said, you’re dodging the issue. Does a man who has sex with his wife fall short of God’s standard? Does he deserve death and hell for that? This is about what the bible says about homosexuality and murdering children. That’s the issue.

    Nor am I [defending infanticide], but the mere fact that you would implicitly accuse me of such illustrates the depths of your hatred…I merely accept that the Old Testament says what it says

    I also accept that the old testament says what it says. I just don’t believe for a second that it’s the inerrant word of God. And I’m not accusing you of defending infanticide. I asked whether you would defend infanticide or not, and you said “Well sure, why not,” then went on to explain that the context of the specific incident justified it.

    So I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just noting what you said.

    You are so obsessed over the bloodshed of the Old Testament that you cannot bother to absorb the message of Christianity.

    Having to believe that all that bloodshed was morally good and commanded by a morally perfect God is kind of a deal-breaker for me.

    Posted by Ian | July 14, 2011, 9:54 am
  31. Perhaps spend less time trying to assign blame here and instead maybe spend more figuring out how to stop this kind of idiocy…That is, unless you’re ok with it…

    Since your beliefs justify this type of behavior, but pointing that out we are trying to stop it.

    Categorically incorrect. The idiot who caused this tragedy rejects the New Testament entirely, something you boneheads seem utterly unable to grasp in your hate-filled rush to assign blame.

    In my hate-filled rush to stop people who think it is acceptable (was ever acceptable) to murder children for any reason I’m unable to grasp the difference between someone who uses the second half of a multi-authored thousand+ year old book instead of the first. Difference noted and ignored. That is still just interpretation variance.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 15, 2011, 8:42 am
  32. Alex says:
    “In my hate-filled rush to stop people who think it is acceptable (was ever acceptable) to murder children for any reason I’m unable to grasp the difference between someone who uses the second half of a multi-authored thousand+ year old book instead of the first. Difference noted and ignored. That is still just interpretation variance”

    PG says:

    Gee Alex,
    Apparently your hate-filled rush to stop people who think its unacceptable to murder children doesn’t extend to the State Atheist nation called China that is condoning the killing of children by the countless thousands every day for the simple crime of being born a girl. You are an willing accomplice preaching the Atheist religion beyond the borders of China to the whole world in spite of its known continual pattern of genocide…

    Why?. Interpretation variance!

    Posted by PG | July 15, 2011, 10:29 am
  33. PG, the following is what atheism claims:

    ” ”

    How do you interpret that as offering support for genocide?

    Posted by Ian | July 15, 2011, 11:36 am
  34. Apparently your hate-filled rush to stop people who think its unacceptable to murder children doesn’t extend to the State Atheist nation called China that is condoning the killing of children by the countless thousands every day for the simple crime of being born a girl. You are an willing accomplice preaching the Atheist religion beyond the borders of China to the whole world in spite of its known continual pattern of genocide…

    Please explain how my disbelief of your god implies or leads to an acceptance of infanticide?

    Good luck with that…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 15, 2011, 2:45 pm
  35. Since your beliefs justify this type of behavior, but pointing that out we are trying to stop it.

    Piffle. Ingorant piffle. My beliefs simply do not justify this kind of behavior. Every time you claim it does, you simply display hateful ignorance.

    Posted by CB | July 15, 2011, 5:58 pm
  36. Difference noted and ignored.

    So you admit to willful ignorance. Thanks for this admission.

    Posted by CB | July 15, 2011, 6:00 pm
  37. I’m unable to grasp …

    Exactly. Your inability is your problem.

    Posted by CB | July 15, 2011, 6:01 pm
  38. PG, the following is what atheism claims:

    ” ”

    Posted by Ian | July 15, 2011, 11:36 am

    Pg say:

    So you are basically implying that Athesim is bankrupt…

    Posted by PG | July 16, 2011, 12:10 pm
  39. PG, the cash value of atheism for justifying atrocities would be 0, yes. In that way atheism is bankrupt.

    Posted by Ian | July 16, 2011, 3:46 pm
  40. What atrocities Ian? The ugly underbelly of Atheism is that we are simply chemical reations, so in your world the atrocity in the end, its justified as natural selection. Taken out to its empirical observed social impact on a closed society and you have atheist chinese farmers slamming infant girls heads against the wall just like they would do to any unwanted runt of a litter. Funny when one thinks about Athesim’s effect on a society int the 21st century, its always to cite it as an exaple of human rights abuse, not a utopia.

    In that respect, Atheism is the atrocity..

    Posted by PG | July 16, 2011, 5:48 pm
  41. The ugly underbelly of Atheism is that we are simply chemical reations

    That’s reductive materialism, not atheism.

    Posted by Ian | July 16, 2011, 6:59 pm
  42. CB–you are hostage to a morality which can permit anything because you are obligated to believe it was morally good for the Israelites to kill men, women, and children, and take their land,

    Every time you spout such drivel you display your unyielding and apparently willful ignorance. I keep telling you that circumstances were different in the Old Testament, but you persistently ignore that. The purpose of the OT is to illustrate how man falls short of God’s standard. It has nothing to do with being “morally good”, because that rhetoric is ultimately meaningless drivel. According to Isaiah, the most righteous persons on Earth, by our standards of “good”, look like “filthy rags” to God (Isaiah 64:6).

    I realize that you get some kind of woody from telling me what I am “obligated” to believe, but such mental masturbation is meaningless. The whole point is that all people deserve to die because we all fall short of God’s standard. Period.

    Has nothing to do with being “morally good”, because that phrase doesn’t really mean anything.

    Since you also get some kind of woody from quoting Jesus, remember that He said not to judge others, lest we be judged ourselves (Matthew 7:1-3). Again, we all fall short, so none of us has the right to pass judgement on another, and killing someone certainly qualifies as passing judgement on them.

    That is Christian teaching straight from Jesus’s mouth. Has nothing to do with “interpretation” and everything to do with seeing the whole message (as opposed to the cherry picking you atheists do).

    Again, it is atheism that permits anything, simply because there is nothing forbidding anything. If there is no God, then there is no hell, no eternal punishment. If there is no punishment, then nothing is forbidden.

    It doesn’t take an “expert in morality” to recognize this simple reality.

    Your response to that is “Well sure, why not?” You think the context justifies it.

    Wrong. My point is that “justification” is irrelevant. God is God, and needs no “justification”. Whether you personally approve of God’s methods is utterly irrelevant.

    But your “justifying context” is a purely speculative theory of morality which boils down to voluntarism.

    Wrong. My point is that “justification” is irrelevant. God is God, and needs no “justification”. Whether you personally approve of God’s methods is utterly irrelevant.

    Anything at all can be good so long as you believe you have God’s approval to do it.

    Wrong. This isn’t about “being good”, because “being good” is utterly impossible, according to Isaiah. And it isn’t a question of “God’s ‘approval'”. It’s more a question of simply obeying God.

    You keep barfing up this whole “killing babies” nonsense, pretending that God “approves” of it. If such is the case, then explain Deuteronomy 12:31:

    You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

    Or Deuteronomy 18:9-12:

    “When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. THERE SHALL NOT BE FOUND AMONG YOU ANYONE WHO MAKES HIS SON OR HIS DAUGHTER PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. FOR ALL WHO DO THESE THINGS ARE AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you.

    So it should be obvious that God doesn’t approve of “killing babies” like you so stupidly insist over and over, ad nauseam. Indeed, you are simply filtering ancient events through your own post-modern biases. When you study ancient warfare, you come to realize that the complete sacking of cities, including the killing of all inhabitants, was common practice in the ancient world. It had nothing to do with “being morally good”. It was just the way wars were fought.

    Is this an attempt on my part at “justification”? No. It’s just another example of your ignorance being brought to light.

    Since you also insist that “anyone has the right to hold any belief,” essentially, anyone has the right to do anything they like.

    I sometimes have a hard time believing someone can be this stupid and still actually function in society. Believing something and acting on that belief are two separate and distinct things, but it isn’t surprising that you would conflate them in this manner. The simple fact is that anyone does indeed have the right to hold any belief they want, because simply holding a belief doesn’t cause harm to anyone else. The only time harm may come is when someone tries to act on a belief, and that’s why the two are separate and distinct things. So no, it simply doesn’t follow that “anyone has the right to DO anything they like” just because “anyone has the right to hold any BELIEF”.

    It’s truly absurd that I have to spell these things out for you.

    It’s obvious that you would prefer not to come up with rationalizations to convince yourself that the murder of babies can be morally good, but here you are actually doing it, in order to defend your broken morality–hence you are hostage to it.

    What is obvious is your blinding stupidity. Like I said, this isn’t about “justification”,and it isn’t about being “morally good”. It’s simply about the harsh realities of the ancient world, and your own post-modern biases.

    It’s painfully obvious that you haven’t a clue as to the basis of my morality, but it has nothing to do with the ancient practice of warfare.

    CB, I asked you whether baby-murdering was morally good, as per the Levitical law, and you said that you believe it was.

    And where did I ever say anything was ‘morally good”, Ian? Kindly point that out for us.

    I’m just pointing out that Christians believe the Levitical Law is the inerrant word of God. So you believe:

    (1) The ultimate moral authority in the universe commanded people to execute homosexuals
    (2) The ultimate moral authority in the universe commanded people to murder babies

    How is that beating you over the head?

    For starters, it is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts, but it is tragically comical how you seem to insist on equating “murdering babies” with “execute homosexuals”. “Executing homosexuals”, as you insist on putting it, was indeed part of the Levitical Law, as was “executing adulterers”, “executing the incestuous”, “executing the bestial”, even “executing anyone who curses their parents” and other such items (Leviticus 20:9-16). But the issue here is not “execution”, per se, but the simple fact that we all deserve to die because we all fall short of the Levitical standard.

    That being said, “murdering babies”, as you so charmingly phrase it, was NOT part of the Levitical Law, but merely a part of ancient warfare as was commonly practiced. So right off the bat you practice flagrant intellectual dishonesty by trying to pretend the two items are equatable at any level.

    But beyond the intellectual bankruptcy you display, you try to use that to blame this current tragedy on Christianity, when Christians had nothing to do it. The way I see it, you don’t give a tinker’s damn about this little boy’s tragic death. You simply see it as an opportunity to rag on Christians, which is why I keep saying that your hatred is palpable.

    Now you may think that the new testament supersedes the old testament, but you still believe that morality is determined by authority, and that that authority has condoned executing homosexuals and murdering babies.

    Again with the flagrant intellectual dishonesty, and with taking events out of context. If God’s Law demanded death only for homosexuality and randomly commanmded death for being a baby, which is pretty much what you are implying with your intellectually bankrupt rhetoric, then maybe you’d have something resembling a point. Since such isn’t the case, you’re just pissing into the wind and pretending it means something.

    It’s possible to take actions which move one away from misery toward truly worthwhile happiness; toward a situation of supreme value.

    Which is presumably what Pol Pot was doing with his agrarian paradise, and what Stalin was doing with his purges and what Zedong was doing with his Great Leap Forward…

    To say that objective facts about morality wouldn’t exist if humans didn’t exist is like saying that objective facts about physics wouldn’t exist if physical phenomena didn’t exist. It’s true, but it doesn’t follow from that that there are no objective facts about morality.

    Contradict yourself much? The fact that morality wouldn’t exist if humanity didn’t exist means morality is internal to humanity, and for something to be “objective”,it would have to be external, which means morality would have to exist independent of humanity (just as the physical universe does) in order for there to be objective facts about it. Now, if God is the source of morality, then yes indeed, there would be objective facts about morality because, in such a case, morality would indeed exist apart from humanity, and it doesn’t matter a whit how much you may disapprove of that source.

    Rights are self-evident.

    According to whom? Stalin? Dahmer? Perhaps Dahmer thought it was “self-evident” that he had the “right” to kill repeatedly. Perhaps the criminal mind in general considers it “self-evident” that its victims have it coming.

    How is it “self-evident” that two males have the “right” to marry? How is it even “self-evident” for a male and female to legally obligate themselves to each other for an entire lifetime, when we keep anecdotally hearing how “unnatural” it is for two people to be monogamous, and how divorce statistics are so often invoked to substantiate said claim?

    Since “rights” are rather intangible, anyone can claim any “right” to be “self-evident”, and proceed to create “rights” out of whole cloth.

    It’s really not surprising if you–being a proponent of intelligent design–don’t understand how the scientific method and logic can discover objective truth.

    The operative word is “if”, chief, and the simple fact is that I do realize that the scientific enterprise is biased toward materialist explanations, and so if the “objective truth” requires a non-materialist explanation, the scientific method, as currently practiced, will be utterly unable to make that determination. Reductionism does have its limits.

    Does a man who has sex with his wife fall short of God’s standard?

    No, but a man whio has sex with someone else’s wife certainly does.

    Does he deserve death and hell for that?

    According to the LeviticalLaw, yes. In fact, according to Jesus, Whom you love to quote, even wanting to commit adultery is the same as actually comitting it (Matthew 5:27-28)

    Speaking of (mis)quoting Jesus, I see that you were intellectually bankrupt when you quoted Him earlier:

    “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

    Matthew 5:18

    Posted by Ian | July 12, 2011, 9:23 am

    Of course, you left out what Jesus said immediately before that (all caps emphasis added):

    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but TO FULFILL. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

    Matthew 5:17-18

    So, by all appearances, you deliberately ignore the part where Jesus even says He will fulfill the Law — talk about intellectual cowardice and bankruptcy.

    Now, when Jesus set out to fulfill the Law of the Levites, was he planning to systematically “execute homosexuals”? You’d have to be a true bonehead to say “yes”…

    I asked whether you would defend infanticide or not, and you said “Well sure, why not,”

    Now you’re just lying through your teeth. My “Sure, why not” was NOT in response to any “questions”, but to these assertions:

    Whereas you believe that the very source of your morality, God, commanded people to execute homosexuals. You believe that he commanded people to commit genocide–kill men, women, and children–and take their land, and you cannot condemn that.

    So I was agreeing that the Bible says what it says, nothing more. And no, I am not in a position to condemn God’s actions, but recognize that God, being God, holds all the cards since He created life in the first place, assuming the Bible is true. I am awe-struck by the depraved depths of your intellectual dishonesty..

    Posted by CB | July 16, 2011, 9:35 pm
  43. You keep barfing up this whole “killing babies” nonsense, pretending that God “approves” of it. If such is the case, then explain Deuteronomy 12:31

    Easy. That book doesn’t reflect what some ultimate authority in the universe approves of. It reflects what different men over time have approved of, and is internally inconsistent.

    I was agreeing that the Bible says what it says, nothing more.

    Who’s being dishonest now? We both believe the bible says what it says. You believe that what the bible says is true.

    Has nothing to do with being “morally good”, because that phrase doesn’t really mean anything.

    Amoral much, CB?

    Since “rights” are rather intangible, anyone can claim any “right” to be “self-evident”, and proceed to create “rights” out of whole cloth.

    They can also claim that 2+2=5, but all that shows is how confused and deluded they are. If you want a proof that 2+2=4, see Giuseppe Peano’s work. If you want a proof of rights, see Alan Gewirth’s Principle of General Consistency.

    According to the LeviticalLaw, yes. In fact, according to Jesus, Whom you love to quote, even wanting to commit adultery is the same as actually comitting it (Matthew 5:27-28)

    What are you talking about? This was my question: “Does a man who has sex with his wife fall short of God’s standard? Does he deserve death and hell for that?”

    What I’m pointing out is that the old testament is not some nihilistic judgment upon humans condemning us to death for anything and everything we might do. Homosexuality is condemned, punishable by death, whereas heterosexuality is not.

    for something to be “objective”,it would have to be external

    Why? Is consciousness external? Is the question of whether you’re conscious or not subjective?

    morality would have to exist independent of humanity (just as the physical universe does)

    Do facts about the physical universe exist independent of the physical universe? If there were no physical universe, could there be facts about it?

    And where did I ever say anything was ‘morally good”, Ian? Kindly point that out for us …. Now, if God is the source of morality

    If you mean to say that’s “morality,” but not good morality, then I agree. Which is the problem. You can make God say whatever you want him to.

    So, by all appearances, you deliberately ignore the part where Jesus even says He will fulfill the Law

    No. You’re interpreting “fulfill the Law” to mean “abolish the Law,” and I’m calling bullshit on that.

    it simply doesn’t follow that “anyone has the right to DO anything they like” just because “anyone has the right to hold any BELIEF”

    This is what I’m saying: If God’s commands determine what is moral and what isn’t, and you have the right to believe anything you want, then you have the right to believe that God commanded you to do whatever you want to do. Thus, from believing you have the right to believe anything you want, it follows that you have the right to do whatever you want.

    Beliefs do affect actions. Isn’t that what you’re arguing when you claim: “it is atheism that permits anything, simply because there is nothing forbidding anything. If there is no God, then there is no hell, no eternal punishment. If there is no punishment, then nothing is forbidden.”

    Actions have consequences, whether God exists or not. The relationship between the two is not arbitrary; there are objective facts about the way your actions affect other people, and yourself, and this is true whether God exists or not.

    Which is presumably what Pol Pot was doing with his agrarian paradise, and what Stalin was doing with his purges and what Zedong was doing with his Great Leap Forward

    Actually, no. All of them were totalitarians; in the end, it was about the selfish acquisition ofpower, and trampling everyone who stood in the way of getting it, not honestly trying to improve their circumstances. Egotistical stupidity, unaccountable to reason, evidence, and political disagreement, lay at the heart of their policies, from denying genetics to their delusional agricultural projects.This is what I mean when I say there are objective facts about morality, and that the truth of beliefs does matter.

    Posted by Ian | July 17, 2011, 8:49 am
  44. You’re interpreting “fulfill the Law” to mean “abolish the Law, and I’m calling bullshit on that.

    Well, I never used the word “abolish”, so you’re again attempting to put words in my mouth. That being said, let’s see what the Bible actually says on the matter…

    The OLD TESTAMENT prophet Jeremiah prophesied:

    “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

    Jeremiah 31:31-34

    So a future age where the people are not yoked to the Levitical Law was foretold in the Old Testament, and this has nothing to do with “interpretation”. It talks about a NEW COVENANT which supercedes the old covenant, and that could not take place UNTIL THE LAW WAS FULFILLED.

    Since you’re apparently into quoting Jesus, we will quote Jesus, starting with your own choice of quotes:

    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but TO FULFILL. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

    Matthew 5:17-18

    So, if you can be bothered to connect a couple of dots, what Jesus was saying that until the universe burns out, no part of the Law could be “abolished” until and unless it was completely fulfilled, and Jesus did fulfill it.

    So, since He did fulfill it, it is therefore okay for it to pass away, which means the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah could come into being, superceding the old covenant Three of the four Gospels quote Jesus as bringing in the new covenant:

    Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins…”

    Matthew 26:27-28

    And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many…”

    Mark 14:24

    Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you…”

    Luke 22:20

    This new covenant is mentioned by Paul in his letters to the church in Corinth and it’s mentioned in Hebrews.

    So like it or lump it, believers are not bound by the Levitical Law, it is not part of our “morality”, your hare-brained “analysis” is beyond pathetic, which is what I’ve come to expect from those driven by hate. And even your asinine “execute homosexuals” rhetoric is wrong, because the purpose of the Law was not to “execute” those who fell short, but simply to illustrate what the penalty is. The Law also spelled out how sin offerings were to be made, for committing any sins, not just homosexual behavior. Also there was the peace offering made for sins that were committed unintentionally. But the bottom line is that there was provision so that people wouldn’t need to be “executed”.

    And speaking of homosexual behavior, it was the behavior that was considered to be a sin, not the fact of being a homosexual, but your hate-filled rhetoric sounded like the ancient Israelites went around systematically rounding up and executing homosexuals like Nazis executing Jews. Such was simply not the case.

    All of that was to fisk just one single idiotic statement in your whole rant. I may fisk the rest of your ignorant rant, maybe, if I have the time and energy. It could take volumes to do a proper job, but I do have a life beyond this blog. Time will tell whether I decide to bother with it.
    .

    Posted by CB | July 18, 2011, 10:12 pm
  45. Easy. That book doesn’t reflect what some ultimate authority in the universe approves of. It reflects what different men over time have approved of, and is internally inconsistent.

    Correction: The book does “reflect what some ultimate authority in the universe approves of” when you think it means He “approves” of “murdering babies” and “executing homosexuals”, but when shown that such is not the case, the book magically becomes a reflection of “what different men over time have approved of”. Some would call that a double standard.

    Besides, your belief that the Bible merely “reflects what different men over time have approved of” is just that — your personal belief and opinion. It may or may not be objectively true, but you have yet to demonstrate that it is objectively true. As it stands, it’s just your personal opinion being masqueraded as an “objective fact”. In addition, you were trying to use the fact that I do believe the Bible is true as a way to club me over the head by falsely accusing me of “defending infanticide”, but my point is that your hateful, and damned-near libelous accusation is groundless.

    Who’s being dishonest now?

    The one hurling false and potentially libelous accusations, that’s who.

    Amoral much, CB?

    If there is no God, then “morality” doesn’t really mean much, given that it’s based on man’s collective and changing whim. What one group, whether a religious group or a complete society, might think moral another group might consider immoral. And vice-versa, of course.

    So yes, from that perspective, I am amoral, since I consider morality, from that perspective, to be ultimately meaningless.

    They can also claim that 2+2=5, but all that shows is how confused and deluded they are.

    But you are the one trying to claim that rights are “self-evident”, chief, so if someone who thinks it’s “self-evident” that 2+2=5 is “delusional”, then who is to say that the same cannot hold for someone who thinks it’s “self-evident” that two men have the “right” to marry each other?

    If you want a proof that 2+2=4, see Giuseppe Peano’s work. If you want a proof of rights, see Alan Gewirth’s Principle of General Consistency.

    Well, for starters, Gewirth’s Principle is not a “proof”, but a theory of philosophy, which, by the way, isn’t science. However, that isn’t even really the issue. No, the real issue is that you’re trying to pretend that, for example, the “right” for two men to marry each other is as rigorously “self-evident” as the fact that 2+2=4, but again, you have provided little by way of actual evidence or support.

    What I’m pointing out is that the old testament is not some nihilistic judgment upon humans condemning us to death for anything and everything we might do. Homosexuality is condemned, punishable by death, whereas heterosexuality is not.

    And what I am pointing out is that you obviously don’t know jack about what the Old Testament is or isn’t, and your inane cherry-picking is evidence of that, as is your flagrantly incorrect assessment above. Heterosexual behavior is punishable by death if it involves adultery, or is between immediate family members, for example. The only kind of sexual behavior that isn’t punishable by death is that between a husband and wife. There is absolutely nothing exclusive about homosexual behavior — it’s just one of many sins punishable by death. Like it or lump it, the whole point of the OT is to graphically illustrate that all fall short and commit sins (Isaiah 53:6). Period.

    Why? Is consciousness external? Is the question of whether you’re conscious or not subjective?

    You’re moving goalposts (again). The question of morality refers to humanity and is subjective to humanity, whereas the question of whether an individual is conscious only refers to that individual, which means a second (objective) individual can make an appraisal regarding the first individual’s consciousness. Since the analogous situation cannot hold for humanity (i.e. there is no “second humanity” to make an appraisal about the “first humanity’s” morality or moralities), your comparison is simply invalid.

    Do facts about the physical universe exist independent of the physical universe?

    No, and I never said they did, but they do exist independent of humanity, which morality doesn’t. That’s the point you keep trying to dodge.

    Posted by CB | July 20, 2011, 6:18 pm
  46. Wow. How about the actual point, that some idiot believed he should kill this kid, and he nominally refers to himself as a member of your religion. And you have zero evidence that he’s not right about what your god wants.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 21, 2011, 6:24 am
  47. What, no “tl;dr” (Too Lazy;Didn’t Read) declaration, Alex? You’re slipping…

    Wow.

    Indeed…

    How about the actual point, that some idiot believed he should kill this kid, and he nominally refers to himself as a member of your religion.

    …you manage to out-stupid yourself yet again.

    I guess your “shield” word is “nominally”, because the simple fact is that you’re wrong. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion, they just have a common root. The ones involved in this tragedy call themselves “Black Hebrews”, apparently believe themselves to be under the Levitical Law, and as I have been explaining (and you have obviously been ignoring), Christians are not bound by the old covenant Levitical Law.

    So no, they aren’t members of “my” religion, “nominally” or otherwise. To persist in lumping Christianity and Judaism in the same bucket is to continue being intellectually bankrupt.

    And you have zero evidence that he’s not right about what your god wants.

    Yeah, “zero evidence zero evidence blah blah blah”. You’re a broken record, Alex, and it’s obvious that you haven’t been listening/reading. I guess that’s because you’re “tl;dr” — Too Lazt;Don’t Read.

    I have been using the Bible to explain exactly how and why Christians are not under the Levitical Law, but since you’re too lazy to read, you missed it. But the bottom line is that your “zero evidence” mantra is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to make noise.

    Posted by CB | July 21, 2011, 7:20 am
  48. Peter Lucas Moses shot 5-year-old Jadon Higganbothan because he thought the boy was gay.

    Okay, all you militant atheist anti-religion fascists, kindly point out in Leviticus where parents are instructed to kill their children because they think their kids are gay. Leviticus 20:13 clearly refers to two males in the actual act of “relating”. It doesn’t say anything about suspecting someone of merely wanting to “relate” in that fashion.

    “What’s your point?”, you may ask in your incredulous stupor. Well, my point is that if you bother to think about this incident (instead of merely reacting to it with raw emotion like you seem programmed to do), it becomes apparent that shooter wasn’t “adhering to the Levitical Law” — he was merely using it as an excuse to kill a 5-year-old boy he apparently didn’t want around.

    I say this in response to Alex’s mind-numbingly idiotic claim that I allegedly have “zero evidence that he’s not right about what [my] god wants.” Well, I have spelled out why it’s clear that he’s not right, based on what the Bible actually says. And you guys have utterly failed to show that the God of the Bible does “want” 5-year-olds killed on the mere suspicion of being gay.

    For all of the collective whining I see coming from the atheist camp as to how cruel scapegoating was in the Old Testament, you guys practice the craft quite adeptly when it comes to scapegoating religion.

    Posted by CB | July 21, 2011, 9:30 am
  49. PG, the following is what atheism claims:

    ” ”

    Posted by Ian | July 15, 2011, 11:36 am

    PG says:
    Im assuming those asterisks represent the multi-millions of murdered people who died because Atheism claims life as just an asterisk. The bottom line is that when it comes to killing Human life, religion is no match for state sponsored Atheism.

    Posted by PG | July 22, 2011, 2:25 pm
  50. Let me get this clear. You both believe the bible. You both believe in the same god.

    To me that’s the same religion, since the difference is in how you interpret things. By your logic Baptist and Lutheran aren’t the same religion. Sorry, but no true scotsman doesn’t work for me.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 22, 2011, 2:38 pm
  51. Pg, that makes no sense. Please explain how not accepting theistic claims requires mass murder? And are you also saying every religion but yours requires it as well? How has humanity survived these many thousands of years?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 22, 2011, 2:45 pm
  52. Pg, that makes no sense. Please explain how not accepting theistic claims requires mass murder? And are you also saying every religion but yours requires it as well? How has humanity survived these many thousands of years?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 22, 2011, 2:45 pm

    Alex, do you believe that we are just chemical reactions?

    Posted by PG | July 22, 2011, 3:06 pm
  53. Don’t know, I’m not a biologist.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 22, 2011, 5:32 pm
  54. See how that works? Atheism has no bearing on any thing other than acceptance of the existence of supernatural brings of a theistic nature.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 22, 2011, 5:34 pm
  55. PG, atheism is just a lack of belief in a certain metaphysical claim. So to say, “I lack belief in god/gods” doesn’t assert anything. It’s you and CB who are making the claim–that without a non-human authority figure to obey, morality doesn’t exist.

    For the life of me, I can’t understand why you’re so credulous when it comes to believing in the existence of an all-powerful immaterial mind, yet so relentlessly skeptical when it comes to the claim that killing five-year-olds is immoral. Just by itself immoral, whether an immaterial person with supernatural powers exists or not.

    Posted by Ian | July 23, 2011, 8:59 am
  56. Let me get this clear.

    That would be a nice change of pace, but I have my doubts as to your capability.

    You both believe the bible.

    Wrong. My doubts were apparently well-founded.

    If you bother to actually read the article under discussion, you may notice that the Bible was never mentioned. All the article stated was that this sect was a polygamist group that believe themselves to descend “directly from the ancient tribes of Israel”, and that they call themselves the “Black Hebrews”. In relating this article in his column, Hamby claimed that their beliefs were “based on the Bible”, but again, the original article never mentions the Bible, so obviously, Hamby made that bit up from whole cloth, and lemmings like you fall for it hook, line and sinker, obviously without consulting the original article and obviously without thinking.

    Their beliefs and customs are more in line with Judaism in that they apparently believe that they must keep the Levitical Law to be saved and reject the Divinity of Jesus. By all appearances, they reject the New Testament beyond the Gospels themselves, so basically, they cherry-pick the Bible just as you guys do, so saying that their beliefs are “based on the Bible” may be technically correct, but it’s like saying that the movie “300” “is based on” the actual Battle of Thermopylae — it’s is misleading, perhaps deliberately so, because the movie creators clearly took many “artistic” liberties, just as the Black Hebrews take liberties with what “the Bible” actually says. Their beliefs appear to be based on the Old Testament only, which is not “the Bible”, at least not from a Christian perspective.

    To me that’s the same religion…

    Well, to you, I’m sure it is, but that is neither surprising nor consequential…

    You apparently want it to be “the same religion”, because you’re apparently more interested in pigeon-holing and assigning blame than in discerning truth. Apparently, you wish to promote the idea that anyone who is a Christian is potentially a violent, murderous homophobe — it’s just a matter of “interpretation”. Now you may actually believe that to be true, but it’s hardly an established fact and there is really no evidence to support such a sweeping generalization. In fact, some might call that bigotry.

    By your logic Baptist and Lutheran aren’t the same religion.

    You must enjoy displaying your flagrant ignorance on the ‘net, and being consistently wrong must be some kind of turn-on for you…

    Baptists and Lutherans do accept the Divinity of Jesus and do accept the New Testament as Scripture. The Black Hebrews do not. That’s a fairly fundamental difference, chief. By your “logic”, on the other hand, Jews and Muslims are the same, since they likewise both believe the Old Testament to be true and both reject the Divinity of Jesus.

    Sorry, but no true scotsman doesn’t work for me.

    So then, if someone were to say, “no true atheist would mass-murder by the tens of millions”, you would object and say they’re wrong?

    Posted by CB | July 23, 2011, 10:50 am
  57. So like it or lump it, believers are not bound by the Levitical Law, it is not part of our “morality”, your hare-brained “analysis” is beyond pathetic, which is what I’ve come to expect from those driven by hate.

    Listen to this podcast: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/West_Wing_Homosexuality_Episode.mp3

    Dr. Craig states there that the old testament contains both moral laws and ritual laws, and that the ritual laws were abolished, whereas the moral laws were not. He states that the ten commandments, as well as the law prohibiting homosexual behavior, are moral laws. So they’re still binding.

    He skirted the issue of the drastic punishments the old testament called for, so I don’t know whether he agrees with your interpretation there, or not. But that’s not really the point–I’m not trying to argue that you believe Christians are obligated to execute homosexuals. Obviously, you don’t. What I’m pointing out is that you do believe that it was morally obligatory to execute people for engaging in homosexuality, and that whether it still is is contingent on the meaning of certain ancient texts.

    And speaking of homosexual behavior, it was the behavior that was considered to be a sin, not the fact of being a homosexual, but your hate-filled rhetoric sounded like the ancient Israelites went around systematically rounding up and executing homosexuals like Nazis executing Jews. Such was simply not the case.

    You’re questioning whether by “homosexuality” I mean “homosexual behavior” or “homosexual orientation.” I do mean the former, and I agree that the Levitical law didn’t impose the death penalty on anybody because of their orientation. The fact is, though, that having a homosexual orientation is hardly the fault of the person, and it’s very unfair to execute them for acting on their desires, when they, unlike heterosexuals, have no God-sanctioned way to do so.

    Now, many Christians do miss the distinction there, and they persecute gays just for being what they are. I wish you success in helping them to see the error of their ways. In the case of Jadon, though, his stepfather had apparently caught him doing something with another kid, and killed him because of that, not just because he thought the boy seemed gay.

    Correction: The book does “reflect what some ultimate authority in the universe approves of” when you think it means He “approves” of “murdering babies” and “executing homosexuals”, but when shown that such is not the case, the book magically becomes a reflection of “what different men over time have approved of”. Some would call that a double standard.

    The book reflects what the author/authors approved of. So, if you believe the author was God, then God approved of genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals. If you believe it was written by an assortment of unknown human authors, then you believe those unknown human authors approved of genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals. That’s not a double standard.

    Besides, your belief that the Bible merely “reflects what different men over time have approved of” is just that — your personal belief and opinion.

    Until I see evidence that this book is different than every other ancient mythical history, I will assume it isn’t.

    you were trying to use the fact that I do believe the Bible is true as a way to club me over the head by falsely accusing me of “defending infanticide”

    Let’s try this one more time:

    (1) You believe the Bible is true
    (2) You believe God is the ultimate moral authority
    (3) According to the Bible, God commanded people to kill men, women, and children and take their land
    (4) Therefore, you believe those people were morally obligated to follow God’s command, which included committing infanticide

    How am I “clubbing you over the head?” That’s what you told me you believe.

    What one group, whether a religious group or a complete society, might think moral another group might consider immoral.

    Yes, different religious groups and societies disagree about what is moral and immoral. They also disagree about which religion is true. Does that mean there are no objective facts about religion?

    who is to say that the same cannot hold for someone who thinks it’s “self-evident” that two men have the “right” to marry each other?

    Gay marriage is a completely different argument–what I’m arguing here is that it’s self-evident that shooting a five-year-old is morally reprehensible, and would be immoral whether God exists or not.

    Well, for starters, Gewirth’s Principle is not a “proof”, but a theory of philosophy, which, by the way, isn’t science.

    Let me clarify–I’m not saying that we currently have a science of morality. What I’m arguing is that it is objective (Gewirth’s Principle being evidence of that). Thus, the scientific method can determine objective facts about morality. There is a caveat–science can’t tell us that we should value the flourishing of conscious beings, or that we should care whether we’re irrational hypocrites who apply a double standard to the way we treat others and the treatment we believe ourselves entitled to.

    But neither can science tell us that we shouldn’t believe it’s healthy to vomit constantly, or that we shouldn’t create a physics based on Genesis. It’s simply self-evident that vomiting constantly isn’t healthy, that the truth of physics is determined by observation and experimentation, and that human life has inherent value.

    you’re trying to pretend that, for example, the “right” for two men to marry each other is as rigorously “self-evident” as the fact that 2+2=4

    When did I say that?

    the question of whether an individual is conscious only refers to that individual, which means a second (objective) individual can make an appraisal regarding the first individual’s consciousness.

    Are you saying that an individual can’t make an objective appraisal as to whether he himself is conscious or not?

    Since the analogous situation cannot hold for humanity (i.e. there is no “second humanity” to make an appraisal about the “first humanity’s” morality or moralities), your comparison is simply invalid.

    There’s no “second humanity” to make an appraisal about the “first humanity’s” beliefs about the truth of science or Christianity, either. Does that mean these are entirely subjective?

    And I’m not moving the goalposts by bringing up consciousness. That’s Harris’s argument–if conscious beings exists, and there are objective facts about the flourishing of conscious beings, then objective morality exists.

    No, and I never said they did, but they do exist independent of humanity, which morality doesn’t. That’s the point you keep trying to dodge.

    I’m not trying do dodge that point–I agree with you there. Morality doesn’t exist independent of humanity. There have to be conscious beings in the first place in order for morality to exist. What I’m saying is that the fact that humanity is a necessary condition for the existence of morality doesn’t make morality subject to the whims of opinion and personal preference.

    Posted by Ian | July 23, 2011, 4:44 pm
  58. What I’m saying is that the fact that humanity is a necessary condition for the existence of morality doesn’t make morality subject to the whims of opinion and personal preference.
    Posted by Ian | July 23, 2011, 4:44 pm

    PG says:

    Ian,
    What Authority do you claim should dictate “Objective” morality ensuring that it is not subject to the whims of opionion and personal preferences?

    Posted by PG | July 24, 2011, 1:26 pm
  59. PG, you’re assuming that either morality is dictated by an authority, or it’s subject to the whims of opinion and personal preference. That’s a false dichotomy.

    The laws of nature are neither dictated by an authority, nor are they subject to the whims of opinion and personal preference. Whether we value discovering the truth about the laws of nature is a choice–nobody has commanded us to do that–but one might argue that we owe it to ourselves to value this truth, and in any case, it’s obvious that someone who doesn’t value knowing the truth about the universe we live in is pretty irrational.

    Likewise with morality. The more we learn about ourselves (via psychology, neurology, philosophy, etc.), the more we learn that misery and happiness are anything but subjective. There are objective facts about what makes us miserable and what we can do to improve our well-being, and these facts don’t depend on an authority figure to be true.

    Posted by Ian | July 24, 2011, 3:46 pm
  60. No Thanks Ian, I dont want to drink your kool-aid. You see Ian, as we speak, there are governments allowing genocide on those who they consider “irrational” because they fail to adhere to their learned “Truths”, one of which is that those in power decides what is truth…

    Posted by PG | July 24, 2011, 7:42 pm
  61. “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings”
    – Anders Behring (Responsible for the Norway massacre)

    Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by PG | July 24, 2011, 11:25 pm
  62. I highly recommend that you, prior to the operation, visit a Church and perform the Eucharist (Holy Communion/The Lord’s Supper ). As we know, this ritual represents the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion. You should also solve any issues you might have with God and ask for forgiveness for past sins. Finally, ask him to prepare for the arrival of a martyr for the Church.

    – Anders Behring (Responsible for the Norway massacre)

    Nuff said.

    Posted by Ian | July 25, 2011, 5:38 am
  63. I dont want to drink your kool-aid…there are governments allowing genocide on those who they consider “irrational” because they fail to adhere to their learned “Truths”, one of which is that those in power decides what is truth

    How is that my kool-aid, PG? I’ve been arguing that morality is NOT determined by authority.

    Think about it. If the only way you can criticize my argument is to attack a straw man which is the exact opposite of my argument, what does that tell you? Do you think that, perhaps, the fact that you reject a morality in which those in power decide what is true, and that I also reject a morality in which those in power decide what is true, might indicate that we agree with each other?

    Posted by Ian | July 25, 2011, 6:02 am
  64. Ian,

    The Kool-aid is regarding your unrealistic expectations regarding the powerful ever relinquishing or pursuing power, however Now lets review, you reject morality based on:

    1) Any power or authority
    2) Whims and Personal Preferences

    What framework are you proposing as a basis of morality? Science? Observations of nature?

    Posted by PG | July 25, 2011, 1:26 pm
  65. Dr. Craig states there that the old testament contains both moral laws and ritual laws, and that the ritual laws were abolished, whereas the moral laws were not. He states that the ten commandments, as well as the law prohibiting homosexual behavior, are moral laws. So they’re still binding.

    They are binding in that sins are still sins, but they are not binding in that believers don’t need to pay the price for committing sins, since Jesus already paid the price for those who believe. Non-believers are still bound by the Levitical Law and will be judged accordingly when the time comes.

    …it’s very unfair to execute them for acting on their desires…

    Again, you indulge in intellectual dishonesty by obsessing over “execution” — I have told you that the Law makes provisions for the people to offer sin offerings to pay for the sins they commit, including homosexual behavior, so it would be refreshing if you would quit pretending that the Israelites routinely rounded up and “executed” their own people.

    The book reflects what the author/authors approved of

    That is not an established fact.It is merely your personal opinion, which may or may not be objectively true. You are again merely attempting to pass off your personal opinion as an “objective fact”.

    So, if you believe the author was God, then God approved of genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals. If you believe it was written by an assortment of unknown human authors, then you believe those unknown human authors approved of genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals.

    This grotesque misrepresentation is based on a faulty premise — that “the book reflects what the author/authors approved of” — and is therefore dismissed as meaningless piffle.

    I have already quoted OT Scriptures which clearly show God’s disapproval of child sacrifice, which is a form of “baby killing” to use your deliberately inflammatory rhetoric.

    Until I see evidence that this book is different than every other ancient mythical history, I will assume it isn’t.

    Good for you, but try to keep in mind that your assumption is still just your personal opinion and not an “objective fact”, so kindly quit pretending that it is an “objective fact”.

    Let’s try this one more time:

    Why? So you can get it wrong again?

    (1) You believe the Bible is true
    (2) You believe God is the ultimate moral authority
    (3) According to the Bible, God commanded people to kill men, women, and children and take their land
    (4) Therefore, you believe those people were morally obligated to follow God’s command, which included committing infanticide

    How am I “clubbing you over the head?

    I have already answered this question, but will add that you are dishonestly trying to inject the word “morally” into the mix. I keep telling you that “morality” has nothing to do with this scenario any more than it does when a commanding officer give orders to his troops and they follow them, and that this was typically how wars were fought in ancient times, but you keep trying to claim that I personally consider it “morally good to commit infanticide” based on your intellectually dishonest reading of the above events.

    That’s what you told me you believe.

    I suppose you truly think you’re being clever with your libelous accusations, but again, I never claimed anything in the OT was “morally good” or “morally” anything — that is your inflammatory rhetoric which you are simply trying to stuff into my mouth, and I will keep spitting it back in your face each and every time.

    Let’s revisit your original assertion:

    Whereas you believe that the very source of your morality, God, commanded people to execute homosexuals. You believe that he commanded people to commit genocide–kill men, women, and children–and take their land, and you cannot condemn that.

    So yes I consider God to be the source of morality, not just mine, but yours as well, since I consider God to be the source of everything ultimately, and your denial that God is the source of your morality is simply a reflection of your misguided arrogance. Having said that, nothing in those assertions indicate that by saying, “Well, sure, why not?”, I consider anything about it to be “morally good” — I just accept that it is the truth, nothing more. The only one trying to make moral judgements about it is you, Ian, not me. I simply try to tell you that the object lesson of the OT is that all of humanity deserves death because all of humanity falls short of God’s standard, but you stubbornly refuse to get it.

    Gay marriage is a completely different argument–what I’m arguing here is that it’s self-evident that shooting a five-year-old is morally reprehensible…

    What you said was:

    Rights are self-evident.

    Posted by Ian | July 14, 2011, 9:54 am

    That is the assertion I am challenging, and I am using the example of gay marriage as that challenge. If rights are “self-evident”, then show us that it’s “self-evident” that two men have the “right” to marry each other. Your “arguing…that it’s self-evident that shooting a five-year-old is morally reprehensible” is simply shifting the goal posts. Again.

    There’s no “second humanity” to make an appraisal about the “first humanity’s” beliefs about the truth of science or Christianity, either. Does that mean these are entirely subjective?

    It depends. Does some agent outside of humanity exist? Is that agent capable of discerning objective truths about science or Christianity?

    Posted by CB | July 25, 2011, 1:39 pm
  66. Ian, point out in the Bible where God commands the Israelites to “execute homosexuas”. Put up or shut up.

    Posted by CB | July 25, 2011, 3:45 pm
  67. CB, time to put up or shut up. You and this idiot believe in the same god, based on the same book. Prove he isn’t correct in his interpretation of what your god wanted him to do.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 25, 2011, 5:54 pm
  68. I’ve already done that, Alex. Learn to pay attention. Try to keep up. Learn to comprehend written English.

    Posted by CB | July 25, 2011, 6:18 pm
  69. Now you put up or shut up — prove that this idiot is “correct” using New Testament scripture. After all, you are the one(s) trying to claim that “Black Hebrews” and “Christians” are the “same”.

    So prove it.

    Posted by CB | July 25, 2011, 6:21 pm
  70. I have told you that the Law makes provisions for the people to offer sin offerings to pay for the sins they commit, including homosexual behavior

    Here’s what Leviticus 20:13 says: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

    Animal sacrifice only covered chatta’ah sins. Sins which carry the death penalty (Avon and Pesha offenses) could not be atoned by any means.

    Jesus already paid the price for those who believe. Non-believers are still bound by the Levitical Law

    What about the penalties for sins that are still binding? Were those abolished or not? Can you answer that?

    I have already quoted OT Scriptures which clearly show God’s disapproval of child sacrifice

    Yes. Except when he was the one ordering the murder of children. He didn’t seem to disapprove so much then, did he?

    The book reflects what the author/authors approved of

    That is not an established fact.It is merely your personal opinion, which may or may not be objectively true.

    Um, hello? You’re saying that if God was the author, then it’s just my personal opinion that he approved of the contents of the book he authored? If that’s the case, then how do you know whether he approved of the ten commandments or not?

    “morality” has nothing to do with this scenario any more than it does when a commanding officer give orders to his troops and they follow them, and that this was typically how wars were fought in ancient times, but you keep trying to claim that I personally consider it “morally good to commit infanticide” based on your intellectually dishonest reading of the above events.

    So now you’re arguing that God’s command to kill women, children, and babies was unobjectionable because it was like an order a commanding officer might give to his troops? If a commanding officer gave his troops an order like that, would it matter whether they were in a war or not, or whether the calender date was B.C. or A.D.?

    I never claimed anything in the OT was “morally good” or “morally” anything … yes I consider God to be the source of morality, not just mine, but yours as well

    So God is the source of morality. Would that be the same God featured in the old testament?

    I simply try to tell you that the object lesson of the OT is that all of humanity deserves death because all of humanity falls short of God’s standard

    So you disavow the OT as being historically true?

    It depends. Does some agent outside of humanity exist? Is that agent capable of discerning objective truths about science or Christianity?

    No.

    Posted by Ian | July 26, 2011, 5:24 am
  71. Now you put up or shut up — prove that this idiot is “correct” using New Testament scripture. After all, you are the one(s) trying to claim that “Black Hebrews” and “Christians” are the “same”.

    So prove it.

    POSTED BY CB | JULY 25, 2011, 6:21 PM

    I can’t (and have no desire to even attempt) prove him correct, because he isn’t. You however are just as wrong and just as unable to prove anything you claim is correct. You both use the same book, and have the same level of evidence for what you believe. That you dismiss certain parts and he dismisses certain parts have no bearing on this matter. That you dismiss differing parts is also immaterial. In the question of what god you believe in, you are both the same. In the question of what responsibility you both bear for things done in the name of that god and which leverage your beliefs as partial justification, you are both the same.

    You differ only in the level of depravity you are individually willing to engage in.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | July 27, 2011, 10:30 am
  72. Alex, your irrational hatred is palpable, as is your utter lack of reason. I am glad you admit that you cannot prove your case, but then that was obvious from the beginning. Using your twisted “logic”, you and Stalin “differ only in the level of depravity you are individually willing to engage in”, since your disbelief is the same. Using your “logic”, I should fear and loath all atheists because they are all potential mass-murderers, and your line of argument is proof of that. If you are so willing and eager to pigeon-hole the religious just as atheist mss-murderers have done, then you are the same as they, and just as dangerous.

    Posted by CB | July 27, 2011, 3:03 pm
  73. Animal sacrifice only covered chatta’ah sins. Sins which carry the death penalty (Avon and Pesha offenses) could not be atoned by any means.

    They “could not be atoned by any means”, eh?

    The 16th chapter of Leviticus spells out the rituals that took place on the Day of Atonement, when the transgressions (pesha) and iniquities (avon) of the Israelites are atoned (forgiven).

    Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their TRANSGRESSIONS, for ALL THEIR SINS; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness. There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel. And he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD, and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around. Then he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, cleanse it, and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

    And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it ALL THE INIQUITIES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. The goat shall bear on itself ALL THEIR INIQUITIES to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

    Leviticus 16:15-22

    So you’re wrong again, but even if you were correct, the point is that Jesus ultimately paid the price for all transgressions and iniquities:

    Who has believed our report?
    And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
    For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
    And as a root out of dry ground.
    He has no form or comeliness;
    And when we see Him,
    There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
    He is despised and rejected by men,
    A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
    And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
    He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
    Surely He has borne our griefs
    And carried our sorrows;
    Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
    Smitten by God, and afflicted.
    But He was wounded for our TRANSGRESSIONS,
    He was bruised for our INIQUITIES;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.
    All we like sheep have gone astray;
    We have turned, every one, to his own way;
    And the LORD has laid on Him the INIQUITY of us all.

    Isaiah 53:1-6

    So, again, Christians are not bound by the Levitical Law because they are covered by the blood of Jesus. But you will again ignore this.

    What about the penalties for sins that are still binding? Were those abolished or not? Can you answer that?

    I never said anything was “abolished”, and I always use scare quotes when writing that word. I said Christians were not BOUND by the Law, but the Law IS still in effect, and you WILL be judged by it.

    So yes, I can and did answer that, and you will again ignore that.

    He didn’t seem to disapprove so much then, did he?

    What “seems” to you is irrelevant. What you can substantiate is what’s relevant.

    Um, hello? You’re saying that if God was the author, then it’s just my personal opinion that he approved of the contents of the book he authored? If that’s the case, then how do you know whether he approved of the ten commandments or not?

    By understanding written English, by comprehending context. Many events take place in the Bible that God doesn’t approve of, but He saw fit to record the events anyway. Like I keep telling you (and you obviously keep ignoring), the Old Testament is meant to illustrate man’s depravity. As such, to claim that it represents what God “approves of” is absurd. But such idiocy is what I have come to expect from you guys.

    So now you’re arguing that God’s command to kill women, children, and babies was unobjectionable …

    There you go again, trying to put words in my mouth. I never said is was “unobjectionable”, just as I never claimed that it was “morally good”.That is just your rhetoric, Ian, and I am rather impressed by how utterly dishonest you are in your method of argument. Like I said, each time you try to stuff words in my mouth, I will spit them back in your face, and I’ll keep doing so until one of us dies, or you manage to wise up.

    So you disavow the OT as being historically true?

    Does your absurdity have no limit?

    No.

    Your unfounded opinion is noted.

    Posted by CB | July 27, 2011, 3:53 pm
  74. The 16th chapter of Leviticus spells out the rituals that took place on the Day of Atonement, when the transgressions (pesha) and iniquities (avon) of the Israelites are atoned (forgiven).

    Yom Kippur had nothing to do with providing atonement in lieu of the punishments set forth in Leviticus 20. Under Jewish law, an offense like that would require a trial by the Sanhedrin, and the death penalty would be enforced if the offender were found guilty.

    In actual practice, the death penalty was rarely enforced, due to condemnation of the capital punishment in the oral law, which eventually became the Mishnah. Since the Mishnah was not canonized by Christians, the moderating effect of it cannot apply to the Torah.

    Jesus ultimately paid the price for all transgressions and iniquities…Christians were not BOUND by the Law, but the Law IS still in effect, and you WILL be judged by it.

    You’re appealing to the authority of an ancient text to determine what is lawful. So are the Black Hebrews. You have no evidence that your book has any authority for determining what is lawful. Neither do the Black Hebrews.

    What “seems” to you is irrelevant. What you can substantiate is what’s relevant.

    Here’s my claim: if a morally perfect being orders some action, then he approves of that action. You’re claiming that a morally perfect being may order an action that he does not approve of. You’re the one who needs to substantiate your claim; that looks pretty incoherent to me.

    Many events take place in the Bible that God doesn’t approve of, but He saw fit to record the events anyway.

    So God didn’t approve of the event in which God commanded people to commit genocide, but he recorded it anyway? And you call me intellectually dishonest?

    The lengths you and other Christians go to to defend genocide boggles the mind. I’m sorry, but if I have to believe logically impossible things in order to be a Christian, then I think I’ll just have to stay an atheist.

    Your unfounded opinion is noted.

    Nice try there, chief, but the question is whether science requires an observer outside of humanity in order to be objective. Watching you flounder around in a foolish attempt to avoid admitting the obvious, while it’s quite typical of you, is getting tedious.

    Posted by Ian | July 27, 2011, 7:48 pm
  75. Under Jewish law, an offense like that would require a trial by the Sanhedrin, and the death penalty would be enforced if the offender were found guilty.

    Where is that spelled out in Leviticus? I am not interested in “Jewish law” but in the “Levitical Law”, which is actually part of “the same book” you keep droning on about. Appealing to “Jewish law” is just another example of your moving goal posts.

    You’re appealing to the authority of an ancient text to determine what is lawful.

    No, I am explaining why it is intellectually bankrupt to persist in pigeon-holing Christians with “Black Hebrews”.

    You’re the one who needs to substantiate your claim; that looks pretty incoherent to me.

    Wrong, chief. As you admit, YOU are making a claim, so YOU have to back it up. I am under no obligation to substantiate my challenge to YOUR claim…

    Me: Ian regularly masturbates in public.

    You: No, I do NOT! Prove that I do!

    Me: You’re the one who needs to substantiate your claim; that looks pretty incoherent to me.

    See how that works?

    And you call me intellectually dishonest?

    Yes, and here is an example of why:

    The lengths you and other Christians go to defend genocide boggles the mind.

    I am not “defending genocide”. YOU are the one trying to claim that God, and therefore by some weird extension I, “approve” of genocide and infanticide.

    The only thing I am defending is myself, against your absurd, false, libelous and intellectually dishonest charges.

    YOU are the one making absurd claims, therefore the onus is on YOU to back them up, and you have been doing a piss-poor job so far. Repeating intellectually vacuous claims is not substantiating them. It’s merely repeating them.

    But this brings up an interesting point. I assume you’re a typical atheist . If a typical atheist INSISTS ON seeing and PERSISTS TO see anyone who is “religious” as “approving of genocide and infanticide”, then all that atheist is doing is engaging in fear-mongering, and is not at all interested in “objective truth”, no matter how much he may drone on about “objective truth”. No, that typical atheist is driven by fear and hate, and has no desire to understand religious motivation. If the atheist acquires power, and continues to see all religious people as “approving of genocide and infanticide”, then that atheist may see it as his “moral duty” to “do something” about all those evil people who “approve of genocide and infanticide”.

    I hope that even a dim, blunt instrument such as yourself can see where that is leading.

    Nice try there, chief…

    Hey, YOU are the one who gave an absolute answer to a question you simply cannot answer, at least not honestly. My question was whether an outside, objective agent exists, and you replied with a firm and absolute “No”. There was no “trying” on my part, chief. Your answer is only your opinion, like it or lump it.

    Watching you flounder around in a foolish attempt to avoid admitting the obvious, while it’s quite typical of you, is getting tedious.

    What is the “obvious” thing I am “avoiding admitting”, Ian? That you are an intellectually dishonest tool?

    That you find your intellectually dishonest crusade to be “tedious” is somewhat encouraging. Maybe you’ll wise up and quit.

    Posted by CB | July 28, 2011, 9:31 am
  76. It’s funny what utter hypocrites you guys can be. You guys go on and on about how it’s “impossible to know what god wants” or “what god thinks”, yet Ian seems quite comfortable droning on about what God “approves of”. So I guess it’s only “impossible” when it’s religious people. Atheists obviously do have the power to read God’s mind.

    Even tho God doesn’t really exist.

    Talk about incoherence.

    Posted by CB | July 28, 2011, 10:45 am
  77. Under Jewish law…

    Christians are not Jews, Ian. The fact that you have to appeal to “Jewish law” in your attempt to demonize Christianity pretty much proves that your case has no merit whatsoever.

    Posted by CB | July 29, 2011, 9:23 am
  78. Blah blah blah, Christians aren’t wrong, and those who are, aren’t real christians. We believe in the same “god”, but differently so we’re not responsible for what they do in its name…

    Same song, different century.

    p.s. I wonder how long a response this will get…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | August 2, 2011, 1:10 am
  79. Well, Alex, you again prove that you are intellectually dishonest. “Black Hebrews” simply are not Christians, and Christians simply are not “Black Hebrews”. I am sorry that you are having such a hard time dealing with this simple reality, Alex, but you are insisting on comparing apples to oranges. By your example, it appears that atheism makes one hateful AND stupid…

    Posted by CB | August 2, 2011, 9:13 am
  80. YOU are making a claim, so YOU have to back it up.

    Done and done, many times over. One more time:

    (1) You believe the Bible is true
    (2) You believe God is the ultimate moral authority
    (3) According to the Bible, God commanded people to kill men, women, and children and take their land
    (4) Therefore, you believe those people were morally obligated to follow God’s command, which included committing infanticide

    Your response to that was:

    you are dishonestly trying to inject the word “morally” into the mix

    Yet you went on to say:

    yes I consider God to be the source of morality

    So what we have is a morally perfect creator, whose command all of his creatures are obligated to obey, ordering the murder of women and children. You believe this–that a morally perfect being did order genocide, and that the humans he gave the command to were obligated to obey it–yet you’re refusing to apply moral categories to those actions.

    Peter Lucas Moses could pull the same stunt to excuse himself from moral responsibility for the murder of Jadon. He could say, “Yes, I did kill him, but anyone who tries to inject ‘morally’ into the mix is being intellectually dishonest.”

    You guys go on and on about how it’s “impossible to know what god wants” or “what god thinks”, yet Ian seems quite comfortable droning on about what God “approves of”.

    I don’t claim to know what God approves of. You do. The Bible claims to explain what God approves of, and you believe the Bible is true. According to the Bible, God ordered his followers to kill women and children. So either he approved of the command his issued, or a morally perfect being may issue commands that he does not approve of.

    What you’re doing is trying to pretend that the above argument I’ve made doesn’t exist. In doing this, you’re tacitly acknowledging that you have no answer to it.

    If a typical atheist INSISTS ON seeing and PERSISTS TO see anyone who is “religious” as “approving of genocide and infanticide”, then all that atheist is doing is engaging in fear-mongering

    Again, by changing my argument from “people who believe that the ultimate moral authority in the universe commanded genocide believe that genocide may be morally acceptable” to “a typical atheist believes anyone who is religious approves of genocide and infanticide,” you are tacitly acknowledging that you cannot deny my argument.

    Christians are not Jews, Ian.

    You both appeal to the authority of an ancient text to determine what is lawful.

    No, I am explaining why it is intellectually bankrupt to persist in pigeon-holing Christians with “Black Hebrews”.

    …by appealing to the authority of an ancient text. You’re just giving it a different interpretation. And under your interpretation, there could be no rule of law in Hebrew society, because the penalty for every offense would be commuted.

    I wonder which interpretation is correct: yours, or the one that was practiced by the context group?

    YOU are the one who gave an absolute answer to a question you simply cannot answer, at least not honestly. My question was whether an outside, objective agent exists, and you replied with a firm and absolute “No”.

    The question is whether we need an agent outside of humanity to exist in order for science to be objective. I don’t believe one exists (and this is not an absolute position based on opinion, but a debate on the evidence for the existence of God isn’t pertinent to the present issue). So answer the question: do we need an agent outside of humanity to exist in order for science to be objective?

    Posted by Ian | August 2, 2011, 9:24 am
  81. One more time:

    So you can get it wrong, one more time…

    (1) You believe the Bible is true
    (2) You believe God is the ultimate moral authority
    (3) According to the Bible, God commanded people to kill men, women, and children and take their land

    So far, so good…

    (4) Therefore…

    Uh-oh, here it comes…

    …you believe…

    And here is the blunder in all of its glory, Ian trying to tell me what I am “supposed” to believe, based on his utterly screwed up “analysis”.

    …those people were morally obligated to follow God’s command, which included committing infanticide

    The only one calling it a “moral” obligation is you, Ian. Not me. YOU.

    Since you:

    (1) DON’T believe the Bible is true
    (2) DON’T believe God is the ultimate moral authority

    You have NO BUSINESS trying to tell me what the Bible means, or what God approves of. None.

    You have NO BUSINESS trying to dictate how scripture should be taken. NONE.

    I have patiently explained this incident to you, and all you have done is stuck your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes real tight, and screamed “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU! LALALALA”.

    From your perspective, the Jericho incident never happened, so again, you have no business telling me how I should see the event that you don’t even think happened.

    Like I keep saying, this incident is not meant to be an example of “moral goodness”. It’s meant to be an illustration of man’s depravity and why man deserves death. The inhabitants of Jericho were the ones practicing infanticide, and God saw fit to remove them from the face of the earth in an attempt to end the practice of infanticide, or at least end it in the land God promised to Abraham.

    You insist on taking this incident completely out of context, an incident which you don’t even believe happened, and using it to leap to a completely unwarranted sweeping generalization that completely misses the mark.

    You insist on shallow, superficial “analysis” which only serves your preconceptions.

    So what we have is a morally perfect creator, whose command all of his creatures are obligated to obey, ordering the murder of women and children. You believe this–that a morally perfect being did order genocide, and that the humans he gave the command to were obligated to obey it–yet you’re refusing to apply moral categories to those actions.

    You are doing it again. You are using an emotionally charged word, “murder”. That is your problem, Ian. You do not argue logic. You ignore logic and argue emotion.

    Are you pro-choice? If so, then you approve of murdering the unborn, using your own argument.

    The removal of Jericho was not about “morality” per se, because not even the Israelites themselves couldn’t live up to God’s standard. But Jericho was removed simply because the practices therein were so depraved that complete removal was deemed a necessity by God. You see, some of those practices were tempting the Israelites themselves, and the Israelites themselves were in danger of being corrupted by those depraved acts. The actions God commanded the Israelites to commit were not “morally good” — they were simply necessary.

    I don’t expect you to understand this, Ian. You obviously don’t want to understand anything unless it fits your preconceptions.

    I don’t claim to know what God approves of.

    Wrong. Again. As usual.

    The book reflects what the author/authors approved of. So, if you believe the author was God, then God approved of genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals. If you believe it was written by an assortment of unknown human authors, then you believe those unknown human authors approved of genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals.

    Posted by Ian | July 23, 2011, 4:44 PM

    Now sure, you can squirm and wriggle by again proclaiming that you don’t believe in God, but what you wrote is clear; you are claiming that a God you consider to be fictional approves of “genocide, baby killing, and executing homosexuals”.

    And you are being even more of an intellectual coward by trying to shift that back on to me.

    I believe that, due to its depraved state, God considered it a necessary evil to sterilize the city of Jericho before He could allow His chosen people to enter into the land. I do NOT therefore believe that God “approves of” genocide or “baby killing” or anything else you cough up. THAT IS JUST YOUR IGNORANT AND SUPERFICIAL READING of the event.

    Jericho had been practicing “baby-killing” for who knows how long? And prior to God’s ENDING it, who knows how long it may have continued? If God truly “approved of baby-killing” as you persist in telling me He does, would it not have made sense to allow Jericho to continue the practice indefinitely?

    No, God commanded the Israelites to end the practice by doing a one-time sterilization event for that city. A necessary evil.

    And again, God was MAKING IT CLEAR TO ANYONE, WHO MIGHT BE TEMPTED BY JERICHO’S PRACTICES INCLUDING THE ISRAELITES THEMSELVES, what the price would be for such depravity.

    I don’t expect you to honestly consider any of this. No, your agenda apparently depends on preaching that God IN GENERAL “approves of baby-killing”, and therefore Christians are “morally obligated to approve of baby-killing”. Did I miss anything, chief?

    According to the Bible, God ordered his followers to kill women and children. So either he approved of the command his issued, or a morally perfect being may issue commands that he does not approve of.

    What you are doing is the intellectually dishonest exercise of making an unwarranted generalization from a specific event, and utterly ignoring the circumstances surrounding the event. Obviously God “approved of the command his (sic) issued”, but you are, again, indulging in the intellectually dishonest exercise of making an unwarranted generalization from that.

    Again, it was the Old Testament, and the old covenant. Christians today live under the New Testament and NEW COVENANT. And you will again ignore that.

    What you’re doing is trying to pretend that the above argument I’ve made doesn’t exist.

    Wrong again, chief. I acknowledge that the argument exists, but I also acknowledge that it is intellectually vacuous to make an unwarranted generalization from it, which is precisely what you’re attempting.

    “people who believe that the ultimate moral authority in the universe commanded genocide believe that genocide may be morally acceptable”

    But that argument doesn’t fly, because GOD NEVER COMMANDED GENOCIDE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, and that you persist in ignoring the significance of that only illustrates your intellectual dishonesty.

    …you are tacitly acknowledging that you cannot deny my argument.

    Nonsense. Your argument is vacuous and intellectually dishonest, because it ignores vast areas of what the Bible says and obsesses over specific, cherry-picked events taken completely out of context.

    You both appeal to the authority of an ancient text to determine what is lawful.

    Incorrect. Jews/”Black Hebrews” do not recognize the New Testament or the new covenant. Christians do recognize both.

    You’re just giving it a different interpretation. And under your interpretation, there could be no rule of law in Hebrew society, because the penalty for every offense would be commuted.

    Your ignorance is as palpable as your hatred. Under “my interpretation”, there was an old covenant and a new covenant, something you persist in ignoring.

    The question is whether we need an agent outside of humanity to exist in order for science to be objective.

    According to Lewontin, science is prejudicially biased to produce materialist explanations, ergo, it simply cannot be objective, by definition. If materialism is presupposed, objectivity is ruled out.

    Posted by CB | August 2, 2011, 1:05 pm
  82. Reblogged this on teesepowell and commented:
    No words

    Posted by tesspowell | May 9, 2012, 10:58 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: The Depravity of Peter Lucas Moses | Unsettled Christianity - July 10, 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: