Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

To say God should make us incapable of lust is to say that he should make us incapable of sin in other regards.

He hates sin so much, it would solve all his problems.

But, what you say doesn't follow. God didn't give us wings to fly, so he shouldn't have given us feet to walk?

The reason why we have the ability to sin is so that we can love God through our own merit.

And yet, it isn't really love because it's purchased with promises of eternal life, punishments of eternal death, and a situation where one party's will matters and the others' is not only of no importance, but should be ignored at all costs to satisfy the control freak. Under the Christian salvation, there is no incentive to avoid evil in and of itself. You do it because you want to be saved. You want to receive the promised rewards and avoid the promised punishments, over and above all else, and why wouldn't you? The very idea of salvation makes loving God selflessly an impossible task, yet that is precisely the demand made of you as a Christian. It makes me wonder where the morality is in all this. Seems like pure pragmatism to me. Or, perhaps, it is a poorly-conceived idea which betrays the unimaginative human agency responsible for inventing it. Why didn't Calvinism catch on? Because who is going to 'love' a God who is almost certainly going to condemn you no matter what? Would you?

So the Christians of history did all they did in the name of an afterlife for themselves? Isn't doing good it's own reward? Kindness and virtue bring people closer to God on earth, and therefore closer to heaven, because all heaven is God's prescence. Heaven isn't for people who do good stuff for credit, it's for people who are good at heart, so they can live with the ultimate good that good hearts desire. This is why Christ preached against lust. It's not enough to simply not do adultery; your desire to commit this offense against another man's marriage shows who you really are as a person.

---

To say God should make us incapable of lust is to say that he should make us incapable of sin in other regards.
The reason why we have the ability to sin is so that we can love God through our own merit. So that people can be good because they choose not to be evil and actively work against it, not because they have no other option.

You do realize that you have painted god as a veritable psychopath. He is one who could take away our pain, with a snap of his proverbial invisible fingers wipe away all sin, but instead he would rather watch us suffer for his own entertainment, to watch us strive for an impossible goal that he knows we cannot attain because we are simply human.

To believe that such a being is in any way good is the epitome of a delusion that will merely make the believer suffer rather than to be free of such horror.

Did I say that God gets a kick out of sin and suffering? Yet it exists in an imperfect world filled with imperfect beings.
None of us will ever be perfect, but do our failures make us better or worse? The fight to find God in a world of imperfection is noble in itself, and God calls people from the imperfect world to find perfection in him. It's a choice to love him or hate him, and one that anybody can make.

---

The murder of another human being is always wrong and will forever be. It doesn't matter if it will help us in a million years. We don't need it to be written down. Everyone around the world knows this. It appears this particular ethic is not only eternal, but invisible and universal.

Did I not bring up the ancient chinese's punishment where they kill all the relatives of the offender? Even children? Evidence shows that it isn't always wrong to people, people used to do these things thinking they're right. If you want to dispute this please bring up evidence.

Right now, you don't need it written down. Because that's what we are now, we are the product of the evolution of human morality. If we didn't need it written down, why is it such a big thing that your god included it in the ten commandments? Because back then people DO need it written down. So when the people who came up with your religion attempted to make laws to govern people, not killing was one of the big ones.

Even now there are minority of people who kill people and they don't think it's wrong. Clearly not everyone in the world knows this. For these people, it's because of the law that they refrain from acts like this. Sometimes they don't and they end up in the newspaper.

Is it more likely that we invented a world where homicide isn't a good thing, or that we discovered that living in peace was the best way to live?

Both. What's the difference? By doing the second we invented the first.

So you ascribe our morality to a prehistoric group of people?

What's wrong with prehistoric people? They came before us. Just like i'm ok with saying mathematics was invented by an ancient group of people, i'm ok with saying our morality came from our ancestors, who learned the hard way. Our morality and laws are still evolving even to this day. A very good example is the gay rights movement. Just few decades ago people think being homosexual is morally wrong. But now it's legal for gays to marry just like normal people. We are inventing a world where being gay is ok by changing the laws. And people's morality tend to lag behind a bit. Now there are still people walking around thinking gays are an abomination. But 100 years from now they will be the extreme minority. Because as a whole, our morality would have adapted.

To me it's so obviously absurd to say being gay is immoral. But it's not so obvious for a lot of people. It used to be that way for killing innocent people.

I was referring to the crime of murder in my example. Capital punishment is not done without it being required by law, no matter how terrible. Maybe the ancient Chinese had stronger family ties.

The Israelites already knew that murder was wrong, but it needed to be reinforced in the Torah because people bend the laws and the Ten Commandment served as a check-and-balance. The Jews later formed a dependency on this law in the aftermath of Adam's sin but God foretold that they wouldn't need it spelled out for them, because God's law would be "written on their hearts" in the New Testament (Jeremiah 31:33).

Those who think that killing is OK are either psychopathic or have been indoctrinated to believe it is. You can't get that way on your own.

OK, there is legislation in all countries against most forms of homicide, but that killing another human being has ever been, is, or will be inherently good is impossible, no matter how legal it becomes. It is in times like that that written moral codes come in handy. Inflicting pain on another person is simply wrong by its own merit, and we can't make it good.

It still remains that morality couldn't have just been dreamed up by a group of people overnight who made the world follow their rules. They learned it, they didn't invent it. If we knew the dead were reincarnated, murder would be a form of public service.

Why do we think that it's OK to be gay? Because we accept the scientific study that gays are simply a demographic, not a cultural sect. Those who do not know or accept this say that being gay is wrong, like the Bible authors, who have indoctrinated those against homosexuality. Our belief that all men are equal overrules the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. That's why we didn't need to be told that gays should be accepted as equal members of society.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Did I not bring up the ancient chinese's punishment where they kill all the relatives of the offender? Even children? Evidence shows that it isn't always wrong to people, people used to do these things thinking they're right. If you want to dispute this please bring up evidence.

Right now, you don't need it written down. Because that's what we are now, we are the product of the evolution of human morality. If we didn't need it written down, why is it such a big thing that your god included it in the ten commandments? Because back then people DO need it written down. So when the people who came up with your religion attempted to make laws to govern people, not killing was one of the big ones.

Even now there are minority of people who kill people and they don't think it's wrong. Clearly not everyone in the world knows this. For these people, it's because of the law that they refrain from acts like this. Sometimes they don't and they end up in the newspaper.
Both. What's the difference? By doing the second we invented the first.

What's wrong with prehistoric people? They came before us. Just like i'm ok with saying mathematics was invented by an ancient group of people, i'm ok with saying our morality came from our ancestors, who learned the hard way. Our morality and laws are still evolving even to this day. A very good example is the gay rights movement. Just few decades ago people think being homosexual is morally wrong. But now it's legal for gays to marry just like normal people. We are inventing a world where being gay is ok by changing the laws. And people's morality tend to lag behind a bit. Now there are still people walking around thinking gays are an abomination. But 100 years from now they will be the extreme minority. Because as a whole, our morality would have adapted.

To me it's so obviously absurd to say being gay is immoral. But it's not so obvious for a lot of people. It used to be that way for killing innocent people.

I was referring to the crime of murder in my example. Capital punishment is not done without it being required by law, no matter how terrible. Maybe the ancient Chinese had stronger family ties.

The Israelites already knew that murder was wrong, but it needed to be reinforced in the Torah because people bend the laws and the Ten Commandment served as a check-and-balance. The Jews later formed a dependency on this law in the aftermath of Adam's sin but God foretold that they wouldn't need it spelled out for them, because God's law would be "written on their hearts" in the New Testament (Jeremiah 31:33).

Look, you cannot pick and choose as you wish in this discussion. You said killing the innocent. If my uncle committed a crime, am I guilty? it's as simple as that. What excuse you use to kill an innocent doesn't matter. Are you saying if i do something and call it punishment that makes everything ok? Either you don't have a moral compass, or you are willing to live with a lot less rights than me. What do you mean the ancient chinese had stronger family ties? If you want to champion this law you'll have to do a lot better. They had that law for the same reason your god killed children as punishment. It's a bigger deterrent than just killing 1 person, if you tell them you'll kill all their relatives. We've already been through this with your god's punishment, and now we have to repeat everything with this one? please, just agree that it's wrong to kill innocent people whether or not it's in the guise of capital punishment. And ironically your response just shows that it's not all that clear to you that killing innocent people is wrong. So you really have just proved my point, again.

If they know it's wrong, why do they bend the laws? What is right and wrong is very different from what is legal and illegal. As I tried to illustrate in my previous post. You don't do what you think is wrong, because you think it's wrong. You don't do what is illegal, because you're afraid of the punishment. So which is it? Do they know it's wrong or are they refraining from murder because they're afraid of the punishment? You cannot have it both ways.

You are also making a positive claim (that the jewish people knew murder was wrong) without evidence. Please provide that. Not a bible quote, you can use it, you just won't convince me.

Are you still standing with your position that everyone on earth knows that killing is wrong? If so please explain all the murderers who murdered thinking they won't get caught and then got caught.

Btw, I really don't care about your bible's prophecies, it will hold no weight in this discussion. So maybe you can leave that out next time because to me, some dude in 1920s may have said one day gays will be able to marry in this country. And that doesn't change my world view at all. The only difference is that no one wrote it down when he said it. That's all prophecy is to me. It's better if you'll tell me what you actually think, and why you think so.

[Consilius]

The example I was making was of unprovoked, premeditated murder. Nobody thinks that's OK.
If you are going to cite the Bible and use it against me, Bible prophecies gain weight in this discussion.
People who do bad things usually know that they are wrong but do them for physical benefits. They do not lack moral compasses, they ignore them. There is a difference.

Here's the second half of my last post:
Those who think that killing is OK are either psychopathic or have been indoctrinated to believe it is. You can't get that way on your own.

OK, there is legislation in all countries against most forms of homicide, but that killing another human being has ever been, is, or will be inherently good is impossible, no matter how legal it becomes. It is in times like that that written moral codes come in handy. Inflicting pain on another person is simply wrong by its own merit, and we can't make it good.

It still remains that morality couldn't have just been dreamed up by a group of people overnight who made the world follow their rules. They learned it, they didn't invent it. If we knew the dead were reincarnated, murder would be a form of public service.

Why do we think that it's OK to be gay? Because we accept the scientific study that gays are simply a demographic, not a cultural sect. Those who do not know or accept this say that being gay is wrong, like the Bible authors, who have indoctrinated those against homosexuality. Our belief that all men are equal overrules the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. That's why we didn't need to be told that gays should be accepted as equal members of society.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I've editted my previous post, you may want to reread.

And no no no no no. Why is my example wrong then? If a baby just stays home and her father committed a crime and she got killed as punishment. Who on earth did she provoke?

You are claiming to know things that you cannot possibly know. That people have moral compasses but they ignore them. How can you possibly know this? I'm not taking bare assertions seriously.

Psychopaths are BORN THAT WAY. They really got that way by their own.

I never said killing was once good. I said once upon a time it wasn't as clear cut as it is now for us. You're attacking a position I didn't take. I even explained why without moral compasses killing would be extremely bad for the survival of all. Killing people for no reason is very unlikely to be beneficial for anyone.

I did not say morality was dreamed up overnight. Please respond to my actual argument. I said our ancestors learned it the hard way. Repeating what I said in a different tone doesn't make it your argument. If you agree, just say so.

You are again agreeing with me, while trying to make it sound like it's a valid argument against mine, which is the same argument. Yes, we are enlightened by science and now no longer think that being gay is wrong. Where did I disagree with you here? You're saying now that the rest of the world is indoctrinated. You say that because you know their position to be irrational. Whether it is really indoctrination or not has nothing to do with this discussion.

We didn't need to be told that gays should be accepted as equal members of society?! Really? We DID need to be told. You just said a sentence ago that scientific study INFORMED us. Just because we evolve to our current state of morality doesn't mean you can ignore how we got this way. To say that our belief that all men are equal trumps all else is dishonest. Because that thing didn't work so well when slavery was going on did it? I hate to bring up another example to complicate things, but slavery showed that we DID NOT believe that all men are equal. To say that we did not change from then and now, is dishonest, unless you can bring up evidence.

About bible verses: I brought them up because you were championing god's law. The bible is the only document I have that tells me what god's law is. I did not bring it up to make factual assertions. I did not even hold you to the entirety of the bible or to my interpretation, i just asked you many many times to clarify which part you're in favour of, and which part you're not. So don't say I used it against you, because I could easily have held you to all of it, as you brought it up and said that god's laws are unchanging. I brought up 10 commandments to illustrate the point that the people who came up with the religion needed to say murder is wrong. And that is a factual claim, but since the 10 commandments does actually exist, i think my grounds are more or less covered there. It did not in anyway depend upon the bible being a special document. If you want to bring up the bible and say the bible prophesized A, B and C. That won't convince me of anything.

[Consilius]

The murder we are describing here is a stranger killing a stranger without provocation.
If not everyone has a moral compass, then the imprisonment of criminals is wrong. They were just having fun and had no reason to believe it was wrong. That would also mean that good people are not responsible for being good. Rather, they were born into it, like wealth or a race. It means we have been discriminating against a class of people with our morals and laws all this time.
Being born into psychopathy is not the fault of the psycopath. That's why they aren't punished by law, but put into asylums. You can also be led to do evil by being convinced of it through bad influences like family or religion.
Our ancestors learned it the hard way. They did not invent morals. Killing is bad, whether or not you have found out about it for yourself. General human society agrees with this. Didn't we evolve into our morals? This wouldn't have happened if the moral landscape was manipulable.
We needed to be told that gays were normal people. We did NOT, however, upon the conclusion, have to be told that since they are normal people, they must be treated equally. Science has little standing in ethics. Isn't that a leap we all took on our own? We decided, that since gay people are born that way and are not freaks plotting against us, as we originally or naturally thought on finding out about their unfamiliar sexuality, that we should stand up for their rights.
Who told the world that slavery was wrong? Scientists? Clearly, the Europeans knew that Africans were people when they found them. They also knew that they had a lot of sugar cane to grow in the New World. They also knew that that the Africans could sell them many people at a low cost, and that there was much profit to be had in simply overlooking their rights. People then had to be brought back to the truth that all are equal, or else the abolitionist movement wouldn't have been conceived, because we could all really use some free labor today.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I have no idea what the hell you're responding to anymore.

First you asked why killing innocent people is wrong. Then I said that moral evolved. Then you said it didn't, and say that my examples aren't of premeditated murders, and then later you said you only mean premeditated murders that are unprovoked. These shifts are blatantly dishonest, you have lost your original position. And with psychopaths in the picture, you lost the last one too, since they are part of everyone and it's not clear to them that unprovoked murder is wrong.

The rest of your arguments have no bearing on the above. Most of it you're responding to things I have not said. Some of it you're repeating what I've said in a different tone. I see no reason to respond to any of them. You refuse to admit that a lot of people changed their moral values with the slave trade and gay rights examples but admit that there's a change. Elaborating how the change came about doesn't negate the fact that there was a change. With the slave trade you basically went against your own position that everyone knows all men should be treated equal, unless you add the qualification that "except when there's profit to be made". Your argument basically is that everyone knows all men are equal, and when i point out the gay movement, you say oooh but no no no no, they didn't know they were men, otherwise they'd have treated them equally. I think the fact that they look like us and have the same fucking DNA as we do is a big fucking clue, isn't it? Men should be treated equal is something inherent in us? you might as well not say that if we suck so much at detecting what's human and what's not, then only what we like is considered human, and what we don't we say they're not human. Well great job, if that's the morality you're willing to concede to, I think we've arrived at an agreement.

[Consilius]

I have no idea what the hell you're responding to anymore.

First you asked why killing innocent people is wrong. Then I said that moral evolved. Then you said it didn't, and say that my examples aren't of premeditated murders, and then later you said you only mean premeditated murders that are unprovoked. These shifts are blatantly dishonest, you have lost your original position. And with psychopaths in the picture, you lost the last one too, since they are part of everyone and it's not clear to them that unprovoked murder is wrong.

The shifts I made were for the reason that killing in general was too broad and I needed a clear-cut point for this argument. Sorry.

The rest of your arguments have no bearing on the above. Most of it you're responding to things I have not said. Some of it you're repeating what I've said in a different tone. I see no reason to respond to any of them. You refuse to admit that a lot of people changed their moral values with the slave trade and gay rights examples but admit that there's a change. Elaborating how the change came about doesn't negate the fact that there was a change. With the slave trade you basically went against your own position that everyone knows all men should be treated equal, unless you add the qualification that "except when there's profit to be made". Your argument basically is that everyone knows all men are equal,

Morals don't go away, no matter how many people ignore them. Just because the Africans were abused, doesn't mean it became right. It just became socially acceptable. There's a difference. Because what we accept to be right can change, we need moral constants (e.g. religious texts) to keep us as close to what moral is as possible.

and when i point out the gay movement, you say oooh but no no no no, they didn't know they were men, otherwise they'd have treated them equally. I think the fact that they look like us and have the same fucking DNA as we do is a big fucking clue, isn't it? Men should be treated equal is something inherent in us? you might as well not say that if we suck so much at detecting what's human and what's not, then only what we like is considered human, and what we don't we say they're not human. Well great job, if that's the morality you're willing to concede to, I think we've arrived at an agreement.

We thought the gays were gay on purpose, and were just messing around with us. Their persecution became socially acceptable, and still is in many parts of the world. Generally, those who have been informed of science confirming that gays are born gay, accepted them and apologized. If their not doing it on purpose, people who are different can be accepted as equal, and that is moral.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Perhaps I should make my position on gays clear. i think people are people. if they want to fake gay it's their freedom, if the entire thing is a scam, i won't hold a thing against them and i'll still be in support of gay marriage. It's a little thing called freedom. i see no reason why anyone should not deserve to do so. I'm actually also in favour of polygamy IF everything is consensual and if it can be legalized properly without anyone being scammed in the process. See, this is where what is right and wrong really differs between us. I'm not saying i condemn your position, i'm saying you cannot deny that there's a difference.

Because what we accept to be right can change

Hate to break it to you, but it's the only type of right and wrong that exists.

we need moral constants (e.g. religious texts) to keep us as close to what moral is as possible.

No we don't. I come from a very irreligious culture. I got sucked into christianity at an older age, and got out fairly quickly. The muslims in my country are shariah law and the nonmuslims tiptoes around them to prevent getting sucked in. You need to look at the truly religious communities before you can say that religious texts are what give people morals. In chinese culture, texts of philosophers and thinkers are what we refer to almost religiously. And if you look at chinese community you can still find a lot of people who believe that women are worth less than men. This is practiced to such extreme that I know plenty of people now whose parents believe that they're worth less than their brothers and should marry a rich man as soon as possible. The same concept was condoned by your bible and by the quran. To say that one book can tell the entire world what is supposedly right and wrong, is a bit too ridiculous, and cultures who have acted that way have paid for it. In muslim countries they believe that women should cover up to prevent men from raping them. If a woman walks out in a bikini she has done wrong and brought shame upon her family and deserves some inhumane punishment. i bring this up despite the fear that you will try and defend these men's actions. They, just like you and i, know right from wrong. It's just that different things fall into different categories for them. To say that no, they're just confused, they need to read the right book to understand what truly right and wrong, is a bit naive.

[NoahsFarce]

Consilius,

First of all, hello. I am a former Roman Catholic. Though you would have called me an Easter Catholic back then so don't expect me to recite all the chants. I never bothered to learn those. Hail Mary full of Tang... the orange with thee... something like that right?

Anywho, sorry if I missed this in here somewhere, but I have a question for you...

What is your stance on omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence? Speaking of God of course.

[Consilius]

God has all of them. It's these three attributes, along with omnibenevolence, that make him God.

---

Perhaps I should make my position on gays clear. i think people are people. if they want to fake gay it's their freedom, if the entire thing is a scam, i won't hold a thing against them and i'll still be in support of gay marriage. It's a little thing called freedom. i see no reason why anyone should not deserve to do so. I'm actually also in favour of polygamy IF everything is consensual and if it can be legalized properly without anyone being scammed in the process. See, this is where what is right and wrong really differs between us. I'm not saying i condemn your position, i'm saying you cannot deny that there's a difference.

Because what we accept to be right can change

Hate to break it to you, but it's the only type of right and wrong that exists.

we need moral constants (e.g. religious texts) to keep us as close to what moral is as possible.

No we don't. I come from a very irreligious culture. I got sucked into christianity at an older age, and got out fairly quickly. The muslims in my country are shariah law and the nonmuslims tiptoes around them to prevent getting sucked in. You need to look at the truly religious communities before you can say that religious texts are what give people morals. In chinese culture, texts of philosophers and thinkers are what we refer to almost religiously. And if you look at chinese community you can still find a lot of people who believe that women are worth less than men. This is practiced to such extreme that I know plenty of people now whose parents believe that they're worth less than their brothers and should marry a rich man as soon as possible. The same concept was condoned by your bible and by the quran. To say that one book can tell the entire world what is supposedly right and wrong, is a bit too ridiculous, and cultures who have acted that way have paid for it. In muslim countries they believe that women should cover up to prevent men from raping them. If a woman walks out in a bikini she has done wrong and brought shame upon her family and deserves some inhumane punishment. i bring this up despite the fear that you will try and defend these men's actions. They, just like you and i, know right from wrong. It's just that different things fall into different categories for them. To say that no, they're just confused, they need to read the right book to understand what truly right and wrong, is a bit naive.

Well, I ALSO believe in gay marriage AND polygamy, so we have the same views here.
Of course, though, if gays are doing it for fun, it's far more disturbing to the Christian community than it is for others. I'm sure atheists never lifted a finger over the issue. We can say the CHRISTIAN community's gay ethic is changing.

If we all agree that we should lie to each other and betray our friends, it does NOT become OK. I feel that is a very dangerous thought. If it takes 50,000 Americans breaking the law for anarchy to reign, it is only because legislation can be changed at the will of the people. With morals, it is not the same. Why didn't the abolitionists think that slavery was OK when all of the slave routes were good and running? Slavery was never OK, no matter how many people thought it was for however long, and someone needed to put a stop to it and get us back on track. Human morality is like a self-repairing system.

As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.
Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.