Hi, all,
Been involved in other things. Some things, really cool, other things, not so much. But that's life, isn't it?
Getting right to it, I was on a certain social networking site today, and, well, let's just say that there's a never-ending supply of blog topics to choose from in my news feed at pretty much all times. While I do have some new developments, both current, and on the horizon, to address them right now would be premature. So, instead, I'm going to revisit the subject of "morality", specifically, that of the Christian faith and its Bible.
One might ask, "Well, Boomslang, that varies from believer to believer, doesn't it?," to which I'd have to answer "yes". And yes, I know that I've already addressed this topic many times here. But alas, I'm stiiiiill waiting on any Christian, most of whom(all of whom?) are moral objectivists, to answer just one simple, pointed question.
Here it is: How would you distinguish between hearing a "good" command from God, and an "evil" command from, say, an evil imposture?
And no, it's not a trick question, but you'd think that it was, because I'm still waiting on a reasoned response, and boy what a great ministry tool it would be to provide us "angry", "immoral" atheists with a reasoned response.
See, it's really quite simple: Christians are in the same subjective boat in which they like to place me, the atheist. While they claim that the command to love one's neighbor as you love yourself, yadda, yadda, is a prescriptive, "good" command, one worthy of imitation, the question remains HOW do they "know" it?? Is it because "God"/"Jesus"/"Christ"/the Bible said so? Or is it because it aligns with an external standard that's totally independent of the Christian's god and their bibles?
Something's got to give. If something prevents "God" from commanding something that we all agree is evil, then we can knock the idea that this "God" sets the moral standard right-the-hell off the table. On the other hand, if nothing at all prevents this "God" from commanding something that we all agree is evil, then the problem is staring right at us.
On social media, one Christian writes....
The truth is, violence, killing, war...has never really fixed us or anyone else. I'm not a fanatical Christian, but Jesus was right when he recommended that we love our enemies. We simply don't have the balls to do that.
So there you have it. A Christian, and a female one at that, opines that we don't have the balls to love our enemies. My, my, my....I sure hope she doesn't have balls. But that's for another discussion.
But seriously, the reasonable among us can see that it's not about "balls" or lack of; it's about applying common sense. It is not practical - and in fact, I contend that it's downright idiotic - to force ourselves to LOVE someone who's trying to cut our effin' heads off. In other words, we have to apply common sense here and examine and weigh out the circumstances before we just set out to obey a bunch of blanketed commands. Christians know this, but many pretend that they don't know it.
Another Christian jumps in and tries to pinch-hit...
we can love our enemies AND crush them on the battlefield at the same time. Jesus was not at odds with his spokesman, Paul.
Um, whaaaa?!?!? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this stuff half the time.
So, let's see, you can simultaneously LOVE someone and be standing on the battlefield about to turn them into red confetti? Oh, really? In what world is loving someone and turning them into swiss cheese with your M-16 not "at odds"? Answer: The Christian world.
See, instead of just taking a position like, "Well, Jesus was probably just trying to say that we should strive to love people, even if some people make that very difficult for us to do" - at least that contains a kernel of reason in it - you see Christians like the one quoted above making bloated rationalizations to avoid having to admit that it's either really, really crappy advice, or it was meant as a poetic truth, NOT an Absolute Truth.
Christian #2 adds.....
I'm sure you don't believe in objective morality. If you did, you'd have to ask where it comes from, and that's just a drag.
Uh, no drags or dilemmas on my end, buddy-boy, because guess what?.. I can do this really, neato cRaZy thing, which is to ask a question under the pretense that something is true, when I don't actually believe that it's true. A rhetorical question? Hello? It's not unheard of. No. See, the "drag" is that each time I ask someone who DOES believe that there is an Objective Moral Standard to square-up the moral dilemma I laid out above, you can hear a rat pissing on cotton.
Instead of squaring it up, they resort to red herrings, such as asserting that if morals are subjective and just opinion, IOW, not objective, then atheists can't say anything is actually "wrong".
Christian #2 continues.....
If morality is subjective, you cannot say murder is wrong. It is only an action committed by someone with a morality different but equal to your own
Poppycock. The minute that you choose to live in a group of people..e.g..a society, as opposed to alone on your own island, that is the minute that you either agree to not kill anyone unnecessarily, or you get your rear end out of that society. That is the minute that you either understand and agree that you don't do anything to another person that you wouldn't want someone to do to you, or you leave. Yes, if you can't agree, then you take your butt to another society, or take your chances and get taken out of that society. You don't agree to that society's rules? Fine. Lose your rights and freedom.
UPDATE:
In a PM on social networking, one of the above Christians has given counter-arguments to my responses. Since I'm fairly certain that he's reading along right here, I will address these below as a continuation of this blog post on the topic of Christian morality(how it's not objective, but subjective). My responses will be in red text.
Christ commanded us to love our enemies.
Yes, and again, I opine that if it's meant to be an "objective" command..i.e..the moral, "right" thing to do in every conceivable situation, that it's really, really stupid advice. If, on the other hand, it's meant as a poetic truth..i.e..meant to illustrate how we should strive to love others even when they make it difficult for us, then we'd need to apply common sense, and in applying common sense, we are using our own, innate sense of morality, in which case, it's subjective, not objective.
Paul, a spokesman for Christ, said government bears the sword to punish the evil-doer. I can love my enemy, but if he's breaking into my house, and I call the cops, who come and shoot him dead, God is ok with this.
Moving the goal posts..i.e.. logical fallacy. Look it up. Previously we were talking about killing one's enemy one's own self, not calling someone else to do it. Your previous analogy talked about how you can "crush" your enemy on the battlefield and love them "at the same time", meaning, simultaneously. I maintain that that is preposterous... well, unless you have a really perverted, twisted, effed-up definition of "love".
If you can't square that, I'm sorry.
Don't be sorry on my account. You evidently can't square your original remark about how blasting holes in your enemy's chest on the battle field is an act of "love". You're the guy who's stuck having to defend nonsense. If there's anything to be sorry about, it's that.
But by all means, pick out a hyperbolic statement I made about loving the enemy and crushing him on the battlefield to give people an idea of what I believe about a very complicated subject.
Pick it out? You gave one example, so if the example that you picked to illustrate your position is a poor example, that's not my fault; that's your fault. But you're right about one thing---it's a complicated subject, and rarely are complicated subjects solved with "one size fits all" answers. In other words, the type of answers that Christianity tries to give.
If a man who believes murder is wrong, goes and lives in a society where murder is acceptable, does that make murder acceptable?
Acceptable to who? The concept of "murder" is applicable to human beings, exclusively. Humans must exist for the concept of "murder" to have meaning. If society X agrees that existing is better than not existing, then society X will see to it that the unnecessary taking of life is kept at a minimum in the case that someone starts to disagree or change their mind. Laws prohibiting murder would seek to accomplish this. On the other hand, if, in society Y, no one agrees that existing is better than not existing, then yes, "murder" could be acceptable..... to them. Remember, I'm not the one arguing for an objective morality. I'm the one saying that morals and ethics are relative. And BTW, a society in which the members of that society can murder someone for any reason at all would eventually go extinct. Thus, to make discussion on this topic meaningful, we must agree that existing is better than not existing.
He's outnumbered after all.
His being outnumbered needn't change his view of "murder". He can roll the dice and stay, or he can leave.
When a person with one morality goes and lives in a society that has another morality, he can abide by that society's laws or leave. No one is saying otherwise.
Then I fail to see the problem or conflict with my position.
But all this shows, is that a person has been given the choice of leaving, or adopting someone else's morality. It says absolutely ZERO about who's morality is right or wrong.
Yes, and it's a false dilemma. The only real dilemma is which society this person wishes to be in, and you offered the solution yourself: You either LEAVE, or you stay and you abide by that society's laws, or lack thereof. Each side is obviously going to believe that their policies are "right", so the question about which side is "Right™" is moot. You can't force people to agree that existing is better than not existing. Take people who commit suicide. They reach a point where they think not existing is better than existing.
Forget about society for a second. You have two people. One believes murder is moral. The other believes it is immoral. Who's right? If you agree with the man who says murder is wrong, it's because YOU believe it's wrong.
Yes! You appear to be "getting" it, by jove! If I agree with the person who says murder is wrong, then it's implicit that we agree that existing is better than not existing. Hence, the unspoken agreement to treat him as I wish to be treated, which would be the avoidance of unnecessary harm. And BTW, we know that killing is not wrong in every conceivable situation, hence, why we make a distinction between killing and murder. If the Bible makes the same distinction, then this is compelling evidence that morals are relative(subjective), not Objective.
And BTW, after all of this, my question still goes unanswered.
Here it is again: How would you, the Christian moral objectivist, distinguish between hearing a "good" command from God, and an "evil" command from, say, an evil imposture? Anyone? How do you distinguish between a slab of commands that are "good", and a slab of commands that are "evil', if they were laying side-by-side? Listening.
