RE: Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.
June 17, 2023 at 3:14 pm
"...the quote circulating on social media has been taken out of context from a letter in which she was describing a perception she wanted to avoid."
LOL. Is that the best leftist "fact-checkers" can do? Yes, she was "describing a perception she wanted to avoid", the perception that she was a Racist Eugenicist. Her support for both racism and eugenics is well documented and well known, as that very article you cited notes. Read it in context and it's just the same: she does not want word to go out that she wants to exterminate the N/Black Population and she wants leftist/liberal "ministers" of hers to "straighten them out" if "ever that idea" occurs "to the more rebellious members" of Black People. So much for her enlightened, non-racist views. In blunt language, she wanted to (1) exterminate the Black population (2) didn't want word to go out that she did ("describing a perception she wanted to avoid") (3) wanted (false) "ministers" of hers to spread these fake/evil/sinful/immoral racial and eugenic theories, and (4) "straighten out" all those who might oppose her, whom she deemed (5) more rebellious members of Black People?
Heard of the saying, 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (who watches the watchmen). In our day, it would be who fact-checks the "fact-checkers".
President Lincoln, who emancipated the slaves, instead said this: "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the Gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of Redeeming and Preserving Grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."
Some 76 years before Sanger, without a doubt he was a million times more enlightened than Sanger. It hurts Atheists to admit this, but it is true.
Grand Nudger: "That we use rape as a weapon suggests that we innately understand the offense of the act even if a cynical view would suggest that the raping warband doesn't see a problem with it."
Only if one views Skepticism about Atheism as "cynicism". Yes, on the naturalistic perspective, raping warbands and many other raping soldiers, terrorists, criminals etc see no problem with rape. So, if morality is subjective, who is to say ours is right and theirs is wrong. In fact, because morality is objective, we can say that they are wrong. But if it was subjective, we could not, any more than you could dictate your subjective preference of tea over coffee to them.
(Obviously, Christians and Atheists agree Rape is wrong, as we do on many other things in fact; only on things like Abortion being wrong, we'd disagree).
And, if it is granted that morality is objective, Theism logically follows. The reason is because, nothing in blind, unguided Nature can tell you how you "ought" to behave, by very definition of being unguided. That's the "is-ought" problem I briefly made reference to earlier. Therefore, granted that we all objectively *ought* to behave in certain ways, and *ought* not to do other things, even if it is in our great self-advantage to do so (as it may be in the self-advantage of a murderer to kill, a rapist to rape, and a thief to steal; or of a bad doctor to commit infanticide etc), it follows logically that there is an objective moral Law that binds all of us, which in turn could only have originated from a Supremely Good Law-Giver.
As for why Christians Evangelize/Missionary Motivation, it's because we love God and our neighbor, and want Souls to be Saved and go to Heaven. Do we know what Heaven is? It's Eternal Happiness, of course. That's eternal as in like forever. If you saw someone in a burning building and labored to save them from the fire, do you do it because you love them or because you hate them. Self-evidently the former. Similarly, if someone wants you to have something like a Palace in Heaven ("In My Father's House are many mansions"), then, first, it's because God Himself loves you, and 2nd, because He commanded His disciples to love one another. So Christians who Evangelize/go on Missions have nothing to explain, as if they're acting inconsistent with their Faith. It's those Christians who profess to believe but don't Evangelize who either don't take their Faith seriously, or don't see that love of neighbor includes care for both their material good and also their spiritual good, i.e. their eternal happiness.
God Bless.
LOL. Is that the best leftist "fact-checkers" can do? Yes, she was "describing a perception she wanted to avoid", the perception that she was a Racist Eugenicist. Her support for both racism and eugenics is well documented and well known, as that very article you cited notes. Read it in context and it's just the same: she does not want word to go out that she wants to exterminate the N/Black Population and she wants leftist/liberal "ministers" of hers to "straighten them out" if "ever that idea" occurs "to the more rebellious members" of Black People. So much for her enlightened, non-racist views. In blunt language, she wanted to (1) exterminate the Black population (2) didn't want word to go out that she did ("describing a perception she wanted to avoid") (3) wanted (false) "ministers" of hers to spread these fake/evil/sinful/immoral racial and eugenic theories, and (4) "straighten out" all those who might oppose her, whom she deemed (5) more rebellious members of Black People?
Heard of the saying, 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (who watches the watchmen). In our day, it would be who fact-checks the "fact-checkers".
President Lincoln, who emancipated the slaves, instead said this: "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the Gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of Redeeming and Preserving Grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."
Some 76 years before Sanger, without a doubt he was a million times more enlightened than Sanger. It hurts Atheists to admit this, but it is true.
Grand Nudger: "That we use rape as a weapon suggests that we innately understand the offense of the act even if a cynical view would suggest that the raping warband doesn't see a problem with it."
Only if one views Skepticism about Atheism as "cynicism". Yes, on the naturalistic perspective, raping warbands and many other raping soldiers, terrorists, criminals etc see no problem with rape. So, if morality is subjective, who is to say ours is right and theirs is wrong. In fact, because morality is objective, we can say that they are wrong. But if it was subjective, we could not, any more than you could dictate your subjective preference of tea over coffee to them.
(Obviously, Christians and Atheists agree Rape is wrong, as we do on many other things in fact; only on things like Abortion being wrong, we'd disagree).
And, if it is granted that morality is objective, Theism logically follows. The reason is because, nothing in blind, unguided Nature can tell you how you "ought" to behave, by very definition of being unguided. That's the "is-ought" problem I briefly made reference to earlier. Therefore, granted that we all objectively *ought* to behave in certain ways, and *ought* not to do other things, even if it is in our great self-advantage to do so (as it may be in the self-advantage of a murderer to kill, a rapist to rape, and a thief to steal; or of a bad doctor to commit infanticide etc), it follows logically that there is an objective moral Law that binds all of us, which in turn could only have originated from a Supremely Good Law-Giver.
As for why Christians Evangelize/Missionary Motivation, it's because we love God and our neighbor, and want Souls to be Saved and go to Heaven. Do we know what Heaven is? It's Eternal Happiness, of course. That's eternal as in like forever. If you saw someone in a burning building and labored to save them from the fire, do you do it because you love them or because you hate them. Self-evidently the former. Similarly, if someone wants you to have something like a Palace in Heaven ("In My Father's House are many mansions"), then, first, it's because God Himself loves you, and 2nd, because He commanded His disciples to love one another. So Christians who Evangelize/go on Missions have nothing to explain, as if they're acting inconsistent with their Faith. It's those Christians who profess to believe but don't Evangelize who either don't take their Faith seriously, or don't see that love of neighbor includes care for both their material good and also their spiritual good, i.e. their eternal happiness.
God Bless.
