Response to video called "Context!!!!!"

Image via Wikipedia

godlessgirl tweeted this video on March 1, 2010 and I have to admit it does make a couple of important points. One, context is important and two, Christians are guilty of crying foul when Atheists brings up verses in which events and actions that moral people today think are repugnant but do not apply the same level criticism to the nice and happy verses that makes us feel good. But I think the video's author also inadvertently makes some points that he did not intend to make. Watch the video below.






Notice how the Christian tries to give the context of some of the verses and it all seems like Blah, Blah, a cacophony of sound without any context or real meaning? Well that is what an atheist hears when we answer his/her questions if they are not really interested in knowing why we don't see it the way they do. "My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts." is the attitude. I also think that the author shows that sometime Christians misapply the context defense by saying that God didn't say something that the scripture did say because they aren't familiar with the scriptures as they should be. Notice the slick editing? When the Christian was tripped up you could hear the exchange just fine, but when the atheist was not listening you could hear nothing. The video also showcases that many atheists and Christians are biased and bring their own presuppositions. Christians must guard against this. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of setting our own notions of what God should be just because we believe Him to be somethings He is not or won't do things that He really did. The goal is to be in relationship with the real God not our idea of God. This is what the atheist has. That is why they reject God. When they hear an argument like the imagined Christian in the video makes that if something sounds evil, immoral, ridiculous, silly, ect then it's out of context, they see that as being dishonest and it is. The atheist that dismisses a passage as such without trying to understand what is happening is guilty of the same sin. The video is just another mirror of reality. Unless both sides are willing to listen in no way can we reason together! I thank the author for making this video because it's instructive. All the Bible verses used in the video were either given without context and some in the wrong context. Let's take each verse one-by-one and see what the context is. This time let's use sound exegesis. Ask who is talking? Who is the Audience? When? Where? Why? Here is a table listing each passage discussed, the context, and the reasoning.

John 13:34
Passage Context:: John 13
Speaker: Jesus
Audience: The twelve apostles
Where: After the last supper, just before He was arrested and crucified.
Why: Jesus is delivering his last instructions before everything profoundly changes
The point: In context this passage is not to the world but those who count themselves Jesus' followers.  In verse 35, Jesus tells us that if we love one another we show ourselves His disciples. In context we got to love one another if you are a Christian but the command means nothing to nonbelievers. Not saying that we are told not to love non-Christians but that has nothing to do with this passage.

Joshua 1:9

Passage Context:: Joshua 1
Speaker: God
Audience Audience
Where: Just east of the Jordon River
Why: God was encouraging Joshua for the work he was getting ready to undertake.
The point: Many Christians take this verse out of context, applying this promise to Joshua to themselves for something they want to do. This is a problem. If God did not tell you to do something and you go out on the limb, then  you are not like Joshua. God told him to go. This is why Joshua got that promise. I learned this lesson extremely well, but it cost me a lot.

Psalm 23:4
Passage Context: Psalm 23
Speaker: David
Audience: God
Where: Israel
Why:: David uses the imagery of God as a shepherd to praise God.
The point: David recognized that God shepherds us through life just like he used to shepherd sheep.

Matthew 7:7
Passage Context: Matthew 5,6,7,
Speaker: Jesus
Audience: A multitude and disciples
Where: Mountainside
Why: The sermon on the mount
The point: Many folks have tried to say that Jesus was saying that you can have what ever you want, but in context Jesus was talking about what you need; look at Matt 7: 7-12. It's in the context of our needs and not necessarily our material desires.

Proverbs 30:5
Passage Context: Proverbs 30
Speaker: Agur
Audience:
Where: Israel
Why:  Agur tells us why we should trust the word of God and what it means to life
The point: Good advice

1st John 4:7;1 John 4:8
Passage Context: 1 John 4:7-21
Speaker: Apostle John
Audience: Church
Where: A letter
Why: Passing on what He learned from Jesus
The point: We cannot expect to be true followers of Christ without loving one another. This is in context of the church holding us to a standard that those outside of the church are not being held to.

Lev 21:9
Passage Context: Leviticus 21
Speaker: God
Audience:The Priests of Ancient, theocratic Israel
Where: Mt Sinai
Why: It's not just the priest himself who is called to be set apart for God but his entire family.
The point: The verse is raised as an example to show that God is silly because of the presupposition that prostitution is not a crime worthy of death.  God's standards happen to higher than ours. The priests' daughters had responsibilities and laws that they were obligated to follow.

Lev 24:16
Passage Context: Lev 24
Speaker: God
Audience: Ancient, Theocratic Israel
Where: Sinai
Why: A person was caught blaspheming God
The point: It was against the law to blaspheme God! What is wrong with that? It's not the Bible's fault that our standards are lower.

Lev 26:21-22
Passage Context: Lev 26
Speaker:God
Audience:Ancient, Theocratic Israel
Where:Sinai
Why:God was explicit vs 1-13: This is what happens if you obey;the rest of the chapter: This is what happens if you disobey
The point: Yes, no one would want these results....but given disobedience it is a just result. If you don't want these things to befall you, obey God.

Nahum 1:7
Passage Context: Nahum 1
Speaker: Nahum
Audience: Ancient Israel before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria
Where: Israel
Why: For Tells the destruction  of Ninevah, Assyria's capital which was unthinkable at the time this prophecy was given.
The point: Nahum in verses 1-7  give great insight into who God is and verse 8 begins to tell us will happen to Assyria. Anyone who is a student of History and knows anything of the kinds of regime the Assyrians had and the way they treated others would have to agree that they had it coming...just we do.

Joshua 10:39-40 
Passage Context: The Book of Joshua
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: This is a historical narrative
Where: Canaan
Why: God commanded Joshua in how he carried out the war of conquest..
The point: The people that had lived in the land before Israel returned from Egypt were corrupt...evil...and had it coming. God had given them 400 years to repent and stop child sacrifice and worshipping idols and they didn't, It's fascinating to me that people who support abortion balk and get angry charging God with genocide and murder of children while not seeing that abortion is no different and that those societies were killing some of their children anyway and sacrificing them to idols.\

Philippians 4:13
Passage Context: Philippians 4
Speaker: Paul
Audience:The church at Philippi and all Christians
Where: Philippi
Why: Paul is thanking them for the gifts they sent to the church in Jerusalem
The point: Paul said he could do all things in the context of learning how to be content no matter how much material things he has and does not have.

2 Sam 7:28
Passage Context: 2 Sam 7
Speaker: David
Audience: God
Where :Jersusalem; David is established as King over all Israel
Why: David said he wanted to build God a temple, but God said that wasn't for him, but instead gives David a Messianic prophecy foreshadowing Jesus (vs 16)
The point: David is told what is going to happen after he dies, immediately and 1000 yrs later.

Jer 20:7
Passage Context: The Book of Jeremiah
Speaker: Jeremiah
Audience: God
Where: Judah
Why: Jeremiah is telling God how he feels about his present situation. All he did was tell the people what God told him to tell them and has gotten nothing but stiff opposition and persecution. So he feels like "I didn't sign up for this!" And he was right look at chapter 1, God called him from before birth. No where is it recorded that God promised Jeremiah or us a problem free, unopposed life if we follow and serve Him. No, it's the opposite. We are promised trials and tribulation.
The point: It's okay to question God and cast all your fears, anxiety, and frustration on God. God can take it, support you and protect you just like God did for Jeremiah.

Deut 28:53
Passage Context: Deut 28
Speaker: Moses speaking for God
Audience: Israel just before Moses dies and turns over leadership to Joshua; Moses Farewell address
Where: Just outside Canaan
Why: The whole chapter tells what happens if the people follow God and what happens if they don't.
The point: Deut 28:53 is about what happens if they reject God. And we see this fulfilled historically: When the Babylonians and Romans laid siege to Jerusalem we hear stories of these things happened. Is it moral? Yes! They brought it on themselves. This is what happens when you reject God...ultimately nothing good can come of that.

Deut 32:41-42
Passage Context: Deuteronomy 32
Speaker: God through Moses
Audience: Israel
Where:  Oustide of Canaan, before Joshua takes them in; Moses Farewell address
Why: More insight into who God is.
The point: God does not play and you don't want him as an enemy. How could anyone read this and assume that it's all going to be okay if you try to oppose God?

2 Kings 1:10-12
Passage Context: 2 Kings 1
Speaker: Elijah
Audience: Soldiers sent to arrest him.
Where: Judah
Why: King Ahaziah tried to arrest Elijah because he didn't like the prophecy God sent through him - a rebuke because he tried to consult an idol instead of seeking God
The point: This shows how much God hates idolatry and that you can't just mess with God's servants with impunity. I also see how Elijah depended on God. He moved when God told him to move and trusted him. Is it moral? The two companies who tried to arrest Elijah were wrong. Elijah did no crime. The third group had the good sense to humbly request Elijah to come with them that is why they didn't die.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
Passage Context: Deut 13
Speaker: God
Audience: Ancient Israel
Where: Outside of Canaan
Why: Our society is so different from theocratic Israel. Worship and belief in a single deitiy is not the basis of our society today like it was back then.
The point: Apostasy and inciting apostasy was a capital offense legitimately because God was ruler of Israel at the time. It would and does today erode society and splits it up. This passage was also in the context of false prophets...people who claimed to speak for God or a deity and then try to teach the people to break the law.

1 Samuel 17:57
Passage Context: 1 Samuel 17
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical Narrative
Where:Ancient Israel about 3000 years ago
Why:  David just won his battle with Goliath...this was a war. David took his head as proof that he did indeed win.
The point: I don't understand what is objectionable. So what if David carried around David's head for several hours. A lot of folks throughout history would have displayed it on a pike.
Isaiah 37:36
Passage Context: Isaiah 37
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical Narrative
Where: Judah
Why: Assyria (the most powerful nation on the planet at the time) attacked Judah during the time of King Hezekiah and God sent an angel to fight for them.
The point: I fail to see why this is bad. Assyria had come to destroy Judah, and God protected them.

2 Kings 2:23-24
Passage Context: 2 Kings 2
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical
Where:  Israel
Why: Modern sensibilities are ruffled because young people were killed by 2 bears who had been making fun of prophet  (Elisha).
The point: Often times people think that these were children but it were young adults. We would have used the words juvenile delinquents who drained society. We aren't talking about children who did not know what they were doing.

Num 25:6-9
Passage Context: Numbers 25
Speaker: Narrative
Audience: Historical
Where: Israel in the lands of Moab/Midian
Why: The man outright defied God. He knew that it was unlawful to bring the Midianite woman who did not believe what Israel did and worshiped idols.
The point: Must point out that sex was used as a weapon against Israel to get their attention from God and to women who enticed them to worship other Gods. They were told stay away from foreign women so that kind of thing would not happen not because God is racist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

Response to Hammock Highlights: In Defense of Rational Thought

My prayers have finally been answered. Someone has taken me up on my challenge on Twitter to take something I have written and deal with it. @Beechbum has undertaken to do such a thing. He has posted a response on his own blog! God be praised! Here is my response to what he has posted. My responses will be in red.

Sometimes it is worth noting the confusing contradiction of religious fundamentalists for posterity. Some time back I sent the following tweet to @mmcelaney: http://tinyurl.com/yf9hyz8 and part 1 http://tinyurl.com/ydhd8po Watch and grow wiser. To which he wrote the blog here. This is a response to that blog and I fear he didn't grow at all.

I'm not sure why he constantly misspells my name and Twitter username but I will just assume that he simple had typo problems and means no insult.






Marcus McElaney Tries his hand at Bible BS again. The most obvious point is that he does not confront Matt directly but instead addresses yours truly, in this blog.

Actually, I responded to Matt's points in the videos not to Beechbum. What I did was give him credit for sending me the tweet.

As to your first point, @mmcelaney, I would like to bring to your attention that the bible is a work that was canonized 1,685 years ago, when it was transliterated, edited, then rewritten into a form markedly different than the book now being discussed. But, due to the advances of science, the book has been completely discredited as a collection of lies, myths and allegories. The story that has not changed, is the fundamentalist diatribe of apologetics that continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse. That is the consistent part of this never ending story that you so arrogantly portray as an ecclesiastical point, when all it points to is typical apologetics are the greased pig of revelatory interpretation. In other words, it is next to impossible to nail down the facts when they are moving around in a sea of ignoramuses. This is why most theologians no longer hold to the interpretations of 100 years ago and many would even disagree with yours today. Every time science advances your ecclesiastics take a step back with apologies and several 'but's'. And with that:

A whole lot of assertions are made as to how the English Bible came down to us. I disagree. Beechbum gives no evidence. No references and no proof. Let me provide a reference that completely kills his hand-waving. Read the King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White. I also would recommend the work of  Dr Daniel Wallace on textual criticism.

1. God of having bad moral standards: (KJV)

a. Slavery:
How about the rules for owning Hebrew slaves or a family of slaves, see Exodus 21:2-6. What should happen to an aggressive master Exodus 21:20-21 and on. These are in the list of commandments - some 613 of them. How about the rules for selling your daughter in Exodus 21:7-9. Maybe 1 Cor. 7:21 where it is said that one should be content as a slave and not seek freedom or Eph. 6:5-6 on slaves being obedient to their masters.

How about showing that the slavery guidelines in the Bible are immoral. You are arguing that any kind of slavery is immoral under any circumstance at any time. Does that really make sense? I also notice that you seem to conveniently forget the scriptures that tells slave masters that they should respect and not mistreat their slaves. Slave masters were not to think of their slaves as mere property to treat how ever they saw fit.  You brought up Eph 6:5-6 but why didn't you bring up the rest of the passage? Simple it denies what you are lying....um insinuating.

 ⁵Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. ⁶Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. ⁷Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, ⁸because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

 ⁹And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. - Ephesians 6:5-9

 b. Genocide:
Genesis 8:21 The book of your religion says he killed every living thing. Then in Exodus 12:12 he supposedly kills all first born or how about Judges 6:16 where he is said to have killed all Midianites or 1 Sam. 15:3 in which it is written that he commanded the deaths of all those poor Amalekites.

I've written about this in several places on my blog. So I will refer you to one of  those article:

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/02/youtube-morality-without-god-response.html

c. Human Sacrifice:
First of all, the sacrifice of the daughter of Jeph'thah, your god(s) was complicit in the act for there were many chances for an omniscient entity to change the outcome and nothing was done in that regard. Second Molech was also a god, which was what bothered your version - for he is a jealous god(s). And last but definitely not least, he sacrificed his own son, remember the crucifixion.

He raised his son from the dead. and God was not complicit for Jephthah's actions at all. Where did God tell him to do that? As for why did God not stop him, that's weak because God just allowed Jephthah to live the consequences of his actions.  God has that right.  The Bible says God is a jealous god because He has the right. If your wife was paying more attention to another man, wouldn't you have the right to be jealous because you belong to each other? It's the same thing with God. We belong to Him. It's not any more immoral than it would be for a person to be jealous because of the actions of a cheating spouse.

In 2- 4 Marcus, you insinuate that Matt was incorrect or corrected himself, I'm sure you need to listen to it again for he does not correct himself but his interlocutor, because slaves are mentioned in the ten commandments (the tenth one about coveting maidservants or menservants) and are more explicitly discussed in those verses I mentioned above, Matt did not misspeak.

I made no such insinuation...I called him on it outright.  Matt said, at about the 4 min mark on the first video that he was not referring to the 10 commandments but the totality of the law. He didn't remember about the 10th commandment coveting another's maidservants or menservants. He did misspeak,. Nice try to save him though.

5. People that are so arrogant as to presume to know the unknowable, are also those that are so arrogant as to presume to know without learning by reading what is knowable.

I agree but I fail to see how that applies to the Bible. In my many conversation with Beechbum he failed disprove anything that the Bible says. Therefore God is knowable because the Bible reveal Him to us. God is knowable. If you choose to stay ignorant of Him that is your own fault.

 ²⁴"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. ²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'  - Acts 17:24-28

6. The bible or god(s) character is an observers opinion, and personally, I think Matt was being quite generous, for in my opinion, your god(s) is a contemptible war monger.

Beechbum's and Matt's opinions of the character of God is unsupportable. You can cry and wail against God all you want and call His ways and character into question but that doesn't make it true.

7. Accuses God of not caring about what you do but only what you believe.

Titus 3:4-6 (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Titus 3:4-6 does not say that God does not care about what we do. It's saying that what we do is not the basis of our salvation. Therefore no one can take credit. We are riding Jesus' coat tails. When I have said that Beechbum can't exegete scripture this is a great example. There is no conflict. Read what Paul said in Ephesians 2: 1-10 and it's about believers. So is Titus. Neither Beechbum or Matt can apply these passages to themselves.

¹As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, ²in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ³All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature^[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. ⁴But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, ⁵made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. ⁶And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. ⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

And there are many more on both sides of that argument but, the main thing is the first 5 commandments are about worshipping that sadistic artifice of the deluded.

First 5? Does Beechbum  mean the commandment about honoring father and mother? How does that figure with the first 4 dealing with relating with God? Oops. Same sort mistake as Matt's. Will Beechbum admit it? Most likely not.

8. Our morality is the result of millions of years of evolution, cooperation, and cohabitation within an extended family. All the morals in the bible are the expected ethics of a bronze age tribe of desert goat herders, so yes, none of us need that book for the apprehension of ethics useful in today's societal interactions. Especially when that book also holds up some of the most heinous acts ever committed by humanity as testament of a leader's good works.

And Beechbum accuses me of preaching?! No evidence is given. Just more accusation. If our morality came from  "he result of millions of years of evolution, cooperation, and cohabitation within an extended family." where did Hitler's morality come from? And why is ours better than his such that we had the right to stop him from killing Jews and conquering the world?

9. He said "infinite punishment for finite deeds" and the theology you follow preaches that your deity is infinitely good therefore what he does or sanctions is purported to be good, i.e. the many crimes perpetrated in the bible. And we all know that's BS, no matter how 'mysterious his ways,' as apologists put it.

"Our sins are so bad that it equals the need of an innocent man to be tortured to death to balance the debt. Our sins are not finite."

This quote is an example of a "scapegoat," quite typical in Bronze age cultures, just as the many animal sacrifices asked for and sanctioned by your mythical patriarchal deity who shares this blood lust with many of the mythical patriarchal deities of Mt. Olympus. This is an example of how absolutely damaged ones perspective can be due to these delusions. No one can take your responsibility away from you, no one can pay for sins that were never perpetrated or may never be committed in the future, and why do we owe someone other than the victim of our transgressions anything? One shouldn't base their perspective on the narrative of bronze age myths without expecting their morality to be crippled in this way. The manufactured self-loathing of Christians as a product of their origin myths, doctrines and dogmas is in part, part of a mechanism that subordinates the ordinary human being to ideologies and the purveyors of those ideologies. The genius of our Founding Fathers in this regard was the realization that any authority supported by these ideologies was actually in the hands of those interpreting origin myths, doctrines, and dogmas which have never been supported by evidence of any kind. In attempting to fit this preposterously insane concept into the reality of the 21st century, one needs to chisel out room for the absurdities, thus creating the vacuum easily filled by these types of ethical atrocities. Of course every Christian I know starts making excuses at this point, for what boils down to a total lack of character and fortitude in the face of questions of morality.
To all the fundamentalists out there, the crucifixion narrative - never happened and that's the good news. No one should carry the guilt of such an obligation on their shoulders. I can't believe anyone would try to justify the torture of an innocent human - that's just sick/ religion.

More preaching?! More philosophizing. Zero interaction with what the Bible says is the character of God. God is so Holy so other...so beyond us that just the mere existence of sin is an afront to the existence of God. By definition, if you agree that certain acts are good and should be done and others are bad and ought not to be done you have admitted that sin exists. I agree that it's an out. I deserve to die and be eternally separated from God, yet God chose to save those who believe Him. You can't do enough "good" to ever balance what you owe God. To lie on someone is to lie on God. To steal from your neighbor is to steal from God. To cheat on your spouse is to cheat on God. Yes, we all deserve to die - eternal separation for God and eternal torment...we earned it.  

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

10. The problem is that humans, according to your theology, are purportedly being tortured for not living up to the unattainable standards set by the mythical creator in this bronze age story, the point being that our short comings are this characters responsibility, he, in this origin narrative, supposedly created everything. The tests are his to set and judge, this is distorted superstitious irrationality and very bad writing, so why not cut to the chase in this fictional story - eliminate the games and torture humans outright. It's all a script for a sick 'B' movie.

Jesus lived that life and we can be judge by his righteousness or your own. take your pick. God has a purpose that everyone live and die during certain times in certain places. That preclude torturing us out right. I'm glad for that. If you end up in hell, it's your own choices that put you there. Read Paul's letter to the Romans.

The trinity is a load of irrationality created by starting with the conclusion and reverse engineering an explanation that actually never made sense. But in effect god was himself and JC and the holy spirit, monotheism if one closes one eye and the brain when looking into the apologetics. Do you feel stupid yet? Really, it's not good news if you don't. The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Yeah, Beechbum's problem is that he does not understand the Trinity. He even admits it that he doesn't get it. Just because it's beyond him doesn't make it false. "Being" and :"person" are not the same thing, "Who" you are - "person" - is not the same thing as "what" you are  - "ontological being." For humans we tend to treat them as synonymous but they ain't. God is one being. But three persons. No one completely gets what that looks like but scripture bears that out.

This god character is, without a doubt, extremely evil for not protecting his creation from another of his creations. In every story in which someone is responsible for creating something harmful, their immediate goal is to correct the problem except in the Christian myth. What's the excuse for that one again? And as for moral superiority, there are few people alive today that are not far more ethical than the characters in that canonized myth, especially the main character. And, it has been my observation that those perpetrating the most heinous crimes against humanity, have done so using the instruments of religious inculcation, indoctrination, subjugation and the same dogmatic adherence to totalitarian revelations without any evidence to support their claims.

Oh Beechbum must be referring to macro evolution. Satan has a purpose. God has been playing him like a harp. One day, when God is done with him Satan will be going to hell. I don't know why Beechbum wants to join Satan...but each to their own.

The child analogy to which Matt refers is quite accurate actually, for our father who art in heaven blah blah blah... Some apologetics are so lame as to be embarrassing even to the likes of that jail bird Kent Hovind - or maybe not. This sky fairy of yours is the one claiming to love his creation, humans, and torture in any form is wrong. This is how the evolution of morality works in reality, as we become wiser we also become much more ethical, understanding and tolerant eg. abolition of slavery, women's equality & suffrage, human rights, democracy - none of these things are advocated by biblical Christianity. The child being tortured in the basement for misbehaving is symbolic, simplistic, but accurate when one considers that smarting off to ones parents is a capital crime in the ten commandments, punishable by death.

Does Beechbum really think that a boy would just have to sass his parents one time and he would be stoned? He and Matt have a lot in common. Throwing out a law and calling it part of the 10 commandment when it really is part of the whole law. I'm disappointed that Beechbum did not respond to my modification of Matt's analogy. How is his better than mine, given that all are evil and fall short of God's standard.

The problem with Christians is that they don't even know that they are using religion in place of actually thinking. The sins that Matt is talking about are not in the bible they are the tools used by those brain washing, inculcating, and indoctrinating children to the point that they can't see anything except through their god(s) goggles. Matt is talking about what fearful people do to feel good like a child sucking their thumb, holding on to that security blanket of eternal life or espousing comforting, but ludicrous, claims in the face of evidence to the contrary. When many logical conclusions have presented themselves and many having been confirmed by multiple sources; hence, I think this lying for Jesus is a sin.

The only lying I see is from  Beechbum and Matt. I have seen no contrary evidence presented here. No proof that there is no transcendant, all powerful God who made us and therefore has a right to do anything with us  that He wants. Instead they reject the thought and his revelations and call Christians crazy because we understand what they reject.

In light of the evidence from cosmology, holding on to the Genesis myth like it is the last thread of a security blanket should make anyone question their stand. Evolution is so damning to religion because without Adam and Eve there is no original sin i.e. the Tree of Knowledge narrative, or more accurately, the rest of Genesis is a confirmed myth. Instead of moving forward with knowledge that can help humanity we are stuck defending the freedoms of people from the tyranny of theocracy. Christianity has never given humanity anything substantive, science has progressed in spite of religion which is only the organization of primitive superstitions into a force for totalitarianism.

Didn't you get the memo, Beechbum? All of reality snapped into existence from a singularity that itself popped into existence out of nothing - empty space. Which works with what Genesis 1:1 says - all there is was created out of nothing. Beechbum makes a lot  of assertions like evolution disproves the Bible. Don't believe the hype. Not all scientists agree. I would suggest Beechbum consult the works of Jay Richard, Hugh Ross, and David Heddle before he goes on expressing error like these. I would also suggest he and everyone look at the following links if you really think  Christianity has contributed nothing substantive.

http://tawapologetics.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-there-god-evidence-of-cosmology.html

http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/what-theology-has-done-for-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CloudOfWitnesses+%28Cloud+of+Witnesses%29


Hammock Highlights: In Defense of Rational Thought

Answering An Atheist on Morality via Twitter

Image by topicagnostic via Flickr

While I was  um...in deliberation with Golmer on Twitter yesterday, another person calling himself  _7654_ wanted to throw his hat into the ring.

_7654_

@mmcelhaney the bible is wrong even if it guesses sum stuff rt,its still guessing& is devoid of knowledge #atheist http://bit.ly/aVs8Qq

My Tweet

@_7654_ Another baselss accusattion. What do u guys do...tag team...but with nothing new

_7654_

@mmcelhaney the only baseless stuff if what you dig up from the bible, what i say has basis and can be proved. #atheist

My Tweet

@_7654_ Then prove it

_7654_

@mmcelhaney prove what ? i guess you where no listening either..what do you want me to prove? #atheist so others can enjoy the conversation

_7654_

@mmcelhaney http://bit.ly/b6Kod7 the truth is out. the only question left is: cn U handle it? #atheist so others cn enjoy the conversation

_7654_

 @mmcelhaney so, no argument, nothing to prove or disprove, you can't come up with a single item that you can be sure i won't shred #atheist

My Tweet

@_7654_ I'm inviting u to take your best shot. Do u want me go first?

_7654_

@mmcelhenay Go first

My Tweet

@_7654_ Without an objective standard of morality u haven't a leg to stand on to punish crime or uphold justice (cont) http://tl.gd/73bmg

_7654_

@mmcelhaney ok, i just exhausted the subject of morality some time ago, here is a link: http://tl.gd/2u543 #atheist #atheism #morality

 

What follows is what he wrote.  From here my comments are in red. A pparently, this was actually also directed to someone else.

@zaloomination #atheist #theist
Well, this looks like a booklet rather than a question, but never mind that,
i will try to answer your concerns, after i sort them out :-)
----------------------

That is right nice of him

-1a- You find my moral standing regarding questions of morality to be good and correct.
But you can't see how Atheism can lead to a good coherent set of moral values.
-----------------------

question -1a- is very similar to the last question -1g- but i will address them each.
A good set of morals, as opposed to a not so good set of morals will inevitable lead to a
more prosperous, stable and peaceful society. As a direct consequence, the individuals in this society
would enjoy the benefits of compliance. There is also the matter of the golden rule, with a bit of
atheist twist to it :-) "Do NOT do onto others, what you DO NOT want done onto yourself" ... merely to
negate the negative effects of bad taste :-)

I've heard this argument  used before. The problem is that this twist is 1.) was not first  coined by an atheist -   can trace it  back to a Jewish Medieval Rabbi (I can find his name later if anyone is interested). However it does not match what Jesus taught. Jesus' scope was broader! "DO unto others as  you would have Done unto you." See the difference? WE are not merely to avoid doing harm  because we don't want harm done to us. Jesus commanded that we do the good to others - even if they hate us and are our enemies - that we want done to us.  See completely against human natural tendencies that is? I' ve got problems doing that. That is a high standard not easily met.

ok, so those interesting immoral activities that seem to beneficial but are considered immoral never the less due,
according to you, to heavenly guidance.

Since I was privy to the conversation being referred to, I'll ignore this part

rape: sure it potentially leads to more offspring, but that offspring will lack a full family, will
likely need more care from society to become a normally functioning member, and even then, runs the
risk of becoming a weak member of that society. So rape may NOT be beneficial, not even in the medium run.
Never mind the harm done to the raped female, being hurt by the experience and may never rear another child as a result.
rape is not beneficial. therefore it is not moral ...

So because rape  is not beneficial, it's not moral. Agreed it's not beneficial to the person being raped. Or any children resulting that don't have loving parents to raise them. So what? What about the need of the rapist? Why can't he have what he wants? He sees a man or woman who incites his lust, what does it matter if it's not consentual, if he can force them? Let's take children out of the picture and say that a male rapist only rapes men and small children - therefoe there is no danger of producing children. Further let's say the rapist pays for his victims therapy so they can get past the drama and still benefits society. The two reason he gave for establishing the immorality of rape has just been lifted and no longer a concern - everyone benefits.  No harm. No foul. Is rape okay now? Why not? Without an objective moral standard, how do u know the rights of the victim are just as valid as the rapist? You have nothing in your world view to tell the rapist he is wrong or have the right to punish him if there is no one around willing and in a position to stop him. He would say it's not wrong. No moral standard. So how do you tell him that your standard of morals are greater and trumps his. He is a man just like you. (Just so you know, rape is immoral because it is wrong not because it does not benefit someone; but I can say that...you can't)

murder: Well, this one is a no brainer, a society that allows murder will likely dwindle in size very quickly,
so there would be none left ... it is immoral to murder.

What happened to "Survival of the fittest"? What? No "Natural Selection"? Why not apply it now and be consistent. Maybe a person who isn't smart enough to avoid being killed or strong enough to fend off an opponent doesn't have the right to propogate his/her weaker genes? Riddle me this: Why not? If I can kill you just because I think you are ugly or disgust me and you can't stop me because I outsmarted you or overpowered you why shouldn't? Who can I appeal to if the rest of society agrees with me? Hitler and the Nazis come to mind? They should. Because under your argument we had no reason or right to go into Germany and stop their genocide programs. But see, my world view does not have this problem. Murder is wrong because it is wrong not because it has a negative impact on society.

theft: it is important to note, that the most successful societies are the once that allow and facilitate the
amicable and fair distribution of resources between it's members. Theft in general disrupts this distribution,
and that is what makes it immoral to do.

And what country do you live in? Because that does not describe the capitalistic world market we live in now.

And for the sake of fairness, I am aware of societies, mostly nomadic in nature, where theft is part of the wealth
redistribution mechanism of the society, and these societies do not consider it immoral .

They consider it immoral to steal from other memeber of the same tribe. And according to your worldview you have nothing to stand on to tell anyone that theft is wrong or to in force it.  Theft is wrong because it is wrong not because it disrupts the distribution of wealth. Socail Darwinism is the logical conclusion of your position.

lying: it is quite disruptive to the functions of society and even the individuals of a society when truth is
not propagated properly on the transaction and dealings. It is an obvious one, you didn't bring it up, but
never the less.

How do you definte Truth? I agree it's an obvious point, but you just invoked it without explaining what truth is. You argue that morality is subjective but here you argue assuming the existence of objective truth?  I don't think you can one without the other. You said in a tweet that you can have hamburger without relish but it is still a hamburger, but in this case it's like trying to have a hamburger without the beef patty. All you end up with is an empty bun not a hamburger. Empty just like your point.

adultery:This is actually linked to human nature, having an extra marital affair is not desirable, and mostly
by the other participant of the marital relationship. And it end up undermining the stability and viability
of this relationship, children also suffer the side effects, in a negative way, and it is not difficult to
why this one is also immoral.

What happened to what the wife don't know don't hurt me? No harm no foul. Or Richard Dawkins' contention that it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do with their bodies sexuallty  in prvate? This would mean that the spouse  and children would not know so how would the stability and viability of the relationships be in jeopardy. So why is it wrong again? Wha about the situation where the husband and wife are legally married but they openly swing or have sex with other people? Is that still adultery?  I'd argue "Yes" because the words "marriage" and "adultery" have meanings that we can't just redefine to legitimate something we want to do.  There is a standard, but you have nothing to tell the adulterer that he is wrong and hurting himself, family, and society. If there is no standard what make you right and him wrong.  Is there even rightness or wrongness? His ideas are just different. Shouldn't they be respected? God Forbid! Adultery is wrong but not just becuase of the evil it perpetuates in society.

child[abuse][rape][etc]: Society requires, needs, would like to have mentally, psychologically and physically
healthy and strong individuals. These heinous acts damage and or reduce these and many more aspects of the
individual when they grow up. It is an obvious negative for a society that allows this, and needless to
point out that it is immoral.

Who defines what "mentally, psychologically and physically healthy and strong individuals" means? You? Me? What criteria do you use? In American slavery it was okay to keep a slave illiterate, nourished just enough to work  backbreaking labor in the cotton fields all the while being told that they didn't even deserve the little they did get. Is that what "mentally, psychologically and physically healthy and strong individuals" means? To many white southern slave holders it did. How would you tell such a man that he was wrong? He might say "The ##$#$%@#% is breathing isn't he?" What do you say? Or to the rapes in Africa being used as a weapon of war or a thought-to-be cure for aids? How do you tell them that they are wrong? If there is no objectvie moral standard their morality and definitions are just as valid as yours.

-1b- You grapple with individual moral values, testing their validity from the theist and the atheist view point,
that is great. But you cant see how a godless system would function.
-----------------------

Me neitther

Well I guess by individually detailing many major immoral acts in section -1a- I would have derived the reasoning as
to why there is no need for a god to dictate morals to people. it looks very much to be a innate capability in humans.

Innate? Then everyone would agree that rape and murder were wrong and would not do it.

We humans are capable of moral behaviour as an individual, a family, a small group, and a society. And can make and live
and prosper under natural moral systems.

Agreed!  I would never suggest otherwise. I am saying that without an objective moral standard no one can dentify what that behavior should be without challenge. and majority rules. That's fine as long as you are in the majority. Being an African American means that I come from a people who know all about what happens when the majority's morality decide that ensuring their prosperity means denying you yours. And without a moral standard defined about them and us, my people would still be chains or dead in stead of a Barack Obama sitting in the Oval Office.

The golden rule, being a rule, also comes in handy when we want to judge an unknown situation "Do NOT do onto others,
what you DO NOT want done onto yourself".

I already handled this. Please stop misquoting Jesus.

-1c- You wonder how an Atheist would discern right from wrong, "Indeed, "Justice", Right & Wrong" don't really mean
anything on atheism, it's an evolved, man-made idea to manipulate people to do what only some with power or influence may want."
-----------------------
Indeed, right and wrong are words... but they do carry meaning, specially in regard to what I have answered so far.
it is right if it falls under "moral" and acceptable by the known moral rules of society ... it is wrong if it does not.
The moral standard accepted by society supersedes the application of the golden rule. Needless to say if society
has no previous exposure to the event or the deed, we need to apply the golden rule.

Um have you really considered the statement above. If "right" and "wrong" are determined by society then what is right is subject to change. Seventy years ago it was "right" to pick a black man at random  and at random times and lynch him to keep all the others in . Today we balk at the very thought. Was it always wrong or is it only wrong now that the majority of Americans now agree that it's wrong? It has always been wrong but you can't prove that without an objective moral standard.

Lets apply it to bone marrow transplant.
- It is a good case to apply, because, let's say, we don't have a moral/immoral society level rule. because it is new,
and we have not addressed it before. This is for the sake of argument here.

- would I like to get a bone marrow transplant if I needed it, say, to save my life? :: yes I would.

- would I be willing to donate bone marrow, to save someone else's life. Knowing that the procedure would be a bit
painful, but would have no lasting effects?

# at this point we have applied the golden rule with
positive outcome.

- Is the performance of this procedure a net positive to society in general? :: I think, the answer here is a yes,
since the sick individual will be cured, and I won't be harmed in any meaningful way. And thus we can add this to the
"moral" side of society rules ... to make future decisions simpler.

Finally something I can agree with but you have got to realize that the Golden Rule does not stand without objective morality. What do you do about someone who says...I don't want to experience the pain, and it's my bone marrow - you can't have any? If a person needs  bone marrow they should not survive because a natural disease is  going forth. Relatively speaking a person has every right to that decision. Stupid, yes, but without a moral standard on what basis can you tell them they are being selfish and stupid?

# obviously you have noticed that we have added the bone marrow transplant to the moral rules of society based on our example.
This is to demonstrate why the atheist moral system evolves and adapts along time and space. and how that is a good thing.

-1d- The issue of the lack of afterlife , heaven and hell, grave torment (Islam), karma etc... and how would that
influence the Atheist regarding the leading of a morally acceptable lifestyle.
-----------------------

Since we Atheists, and all non theists for that matter are very fact and evidence (scientifically verifiable and testable
facts and observations that is) based. And as a consequence of there being no evidence of these afterlife events what so ever.
We correctly arrive at the conclusion that these events and places do not exist :-) Pure and very simple isn't it.
As a consequence of this and the other factors regarding moral behaviour, we only have this life to do good to our
society and to ourselves.

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.  Without an objective morality how do you define doing "good to our society and to ourselves." I mean Hitler really thought that he was doing good for Germany and himself. Napoleon really thought that he was doing good for France and himself. Gengis Khan thought he was doing good for the Mongols and himself. I could go on, but in each of the cited cases most of us would disagree with them and if you had have walked up to either one of them and told them you disagreed they would have just killed you moved on. Your answer strikes me as hollow as a meatless hamburger.

If some of us end up doing bad,immoral deeds, then we duly expect our punishment to happen here in this life, severely
reducing our ability to fully enjoy it. And believe me, that is a very big deterrent for an Atheist :-)

Good, I agree. The Bible says that is part of God's judgement. But just wait worse is coming.

-1e- "its is wrong to force your morality on others" , "Might Makes Right." & And this is exactly what we see (& would expect to see)
in the animal kingdom.... How to set moral values in a society, and how to make that work.
-----------------------

Moral behaviour, or what we call moral behaviour in Humans, is in fact remarkably wide spread among animals in nature.

# many animals do mate for life ...
# cannibalism is very rare. And when it happens, it is mostly directed against the members of a different group or pride.
# Most animals take care of their offspring, for varying length of time and to varying degrees. Very few species leave their
offspring to the elements. And even those would have millions of offspring from one copulation.
# Many animals do compassionately care about each other and their offspring in times of crises.

If you do take away our complex human behaviour, and interactivity, we do have a lot in common with the moral behaviour
of animal, and to be specific mammals in particular.

Would that not be an argument for an objective morality - one that extends to even the animal kingdom? Why, yes, I think it does. Yay!

You can not force a morality of one group (society) living in one environmental and temporal setting onto another society
living in a different environmental and temporal setting. For one, the sets of moral rules would not be appropriate or
adequate for the other society, but most importantly, morality is inane, and moral rule sets need to be arrived at with
consensus to be effective.'

I'm confused you said earlier that morality is innate. IF that were true then why would we need a consensus we would all automatically know how to treat each other. The good of the society would be worked towards by everyone.


Many Non theists ( Atheists ) do find a multitude of the bible moral guidelines to be unacceptable for this environment and time.
And the stunning thing is, most Christians will find them equally repugnant too.

Oh you mean some of the Old Testament laws? You mean for an ancient, theocratic kingdom surrounded by people and countries bent on their annihilation? (wow, some things never change!).what happened to:

You can not force a morality of one group (society) living in one environmental and temporal setting onto another society
living in a different environmental and temporal setting. For one, the sets of moral rules would not be appropriate or
adequate for the other society, but most importantly, morality is inane, and moral rule sets need to be arrived at with
consensus to be effective.'

 So it's okay to judge Israel's laws immoral from 4000 years later from behind a keyboad but not any other society? The sad thing is that many Christians don't know what's in the Bible and we should.

for example we don't consider stoning our children practical when they curse us.

Refer to Tekton for the asnwer to this point. I'll note the number to pay close attention to - read #4

We do not advocate the stoning to death of those who work on Saturday.

Look carefully at the law. It was not a capricious thing. People equate this with executing someone for a minor offense. The law in Israel was that the Sabbath was a holy day....not a personal day when you get to do what you want to do. It was a day of rest from your daily grind, not a day of lounging. The idea was to honor God that day.  It ws such a great offense because here is God giving you a day or rest and they have spit it back into God's face saying I will take this day and spend it as I see fit. In later centuries this law was added upon and conditioned so much that Jesus' critics wanted to criticize him for healing people on the Sabbath. I'll end this section with Jesus' answer.

 ²³One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. ²⁴The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
 ²⁵He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? ²⁶In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
 ²⁷Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. ²⁸So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." - Mark 2:23-28

And also we would not like to our newly wed spouse killed, just for finding her v-card stamped.

And what would your reaction be if you married a woman and she lied to you that she was a virgin? I would not kill her but some men even today would. In that culture, marriages had economic value. When a man married a woman, he had to pay a dowery to her father. If the girl and her father claim she is a virgin when she wasn't - that's fraud and it was taken way more seriously in ancient Israel than it is today. This showed how important God views chasity and honesty. You could loose your life if you renounced eiither. I should also point out that if a man or  a woman was caught in adultery the couple was executed. If a man lied on his wife for not being a virgin he was punished.Deuteronomy 22:13-25 covers all of this.



nor do we find it acceptable to offer up our daughters for rape to strangers.

The Bible describes such a thing twice, and neither time is it portrayed as the thing to do! It was descriptive not prescriptive.

We also find slavery to be, you know, unacceptable.

I dealt with one at length. Read it here.

And religion has this caveat that you have to take all or be damned , you can't cherry pick... not a very flexible approach :-)

I can tell from above that you don't really know the context and reasons why those laws were put in place. You can't cherry pick if you don't understand what you are rejecting. 

-1f- "It might not be socially acceptable or it might be taboo for humans to rape another, but there's nothing really objectively wrong with it. Naturalistic evolution is divorced from any concern with or sense of truly objective morality." The question of objective / subjective morality ... relative / absolute morality ... ok, will address it that way.
-----------------------

Well I guess I exhausted that one. Rape is immoral, and i have explained why. I have also delved into relative and
absolute / subjective and objective morality. I think i have provided plenty of examples for both, and how this works out.

Sorry....but I'm still left with "Wheres the beef?!" You basicelly said that all those things were wrong because they are not beneficial for society, but if they were good for society than they would be moral. I stated situation where the objections you raised would no longer be bad for society. Are those things still wrong?

-1g- "See, you have the good moral values, but you don't have any objective basis for those values. You should consider
a belief in God so that when you're fighting the "evil" & promoting the "good", you have an objective transcendent
basis on which to make your moral claims, which I as a theist can believe are really "good"." ... to wonder if you
need a god to have moral values ...
-----------------------
In my answers, you will find that reason , knowledge , rationality and human ingenuity are quite potent tools to guarantee a
morally and humanly acceptable answer without the invocation of supernatural and or mythical powers.

Actually the tweeter made a valiant attempt to answer the question, but I don't think he made it. Human reason, knowledge, and ingenuity is not something I want to entrust my well-being to. He doesn't address why people have propensity to harm others while protecting themselve and those they "love". - Sin. My biggest objection to atheism is that if offers no remedy for my faults and no protection from the faults of others.  We all know how we find ourselves doing things that we know are not good for us but we can't stop. Yes, some people quit drugs or alcohol on will-power alone, but there are those who need to be delivered from lying or cheating and they can't stop any more than the addict that requires intervention. so. Eveyone is bound by something or multiple things - some character flaws standing in the way of being a better person. How does a godless system help one with those things. How does a subjective morality give you the measuring stick to know what that means? It doesn't.