2005

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2005
vexen

Christian Morals

"Christian Moral Theory and Morality in Action" by Vexen Crabtree

"Christian Morals"

(Anonymous)

2003-05-16 09:06 pm (UTC)

First I would like to say the main view of the bible is not morals, but Christ, and that as Christians we are no longer held responsible for our sins, this does not mean we shouldn't do good things but that we don't have to.
"It is immoral to tell people or imply that they are inherently a sinner. If we want people to do good they must know that they are not inherently bad, that they are capable of anything they put their minds to."
Think about it. Kids left to themselves get into trouble. As teenagers we rebel at any chance we get. As young adults, we can't wait to get away from our parents and be on our own to do what we want, which is usually wrong. People are not good, they can do good, but we are all naturally evil. If salvations were dependant on our good works, we would be screwed.

Re: "Christian Morals"

(Anonymous)

2008-05-30 08:35 am (UTC)

Seems that you are contridicting yourself, but I get the gist. Humans seem to be drawn to the immoral. Some are repelled by it, but the curiosity is there. I refuse to look at pornography because it drags me down and takes something that should be beautiful and sacred and makes it devoid of any dignity and beauty. I know my limits and strive to elevate my soul rather than drag it through the dirt. I am sick of the smut on TV. I can't even watch a so=called family show with my son! They are ALL about sex...even "Everyone Loves Raymond" gets out of hand. "Two men and a half men" is way off the charts. Funny to an adult but not appropriate for daytime viewing. The talk shows are just as bad. No wonder all my sutdents are having sex! I am no prude and have an awesome sex life, but this is ridiculous. Why aren't the conservatives doing something about this problem?? I'm a liberal, but not when it comes simple moral values, of which our country seems to have none. The demise of decency will bring us down and is doing its dirty work right now...and it doesn't appear to me that the conservatives in this country who profess to dislike the garbage on TV are doing a damn thing about it. Maybe it's because they secretly enjoy the smut! Which brings us back to the sinners we are. Humans are disgusting, pathetic creatures and I can't figure out why God created such losers.

Love thy neighbour

(Anonymous)

2003-05-31 10:32 am (UTC)

I don't think "Love thy neighbour" is a good example of a good moral as it is really a misinterpretation. It does not say "Love all others", but the original meaning is closer to "Love thy kith and kin" which in the case of the bible means other Jews (the speaker was Jewish).
I don't think it is very moral to say one should just love those of one's own folk.

Re: Love thy neighbour

(Anonymous)

2006-02-02 11:16 pm (UTC)

oh, in Luke 10:25-37, Jesus clearly points out what a 'neighbor' really is. even if the Hebrew language interprets it as only Jewish people, Jesus has redefined it himself.

Re: Love thy neighbour

(Anonymous)

2007-05-06 10:03 pm (UTC)

When Jesus said love thy neighbor he was being asked to summarize the ten commandments. The ten commandments make it very clear that we should love our neighbors and our enemies. Do you know greek and did you go through the bible and interpret it for yourself? or did you hear somebody say that. You are right that it is not moral to only love ones kin, that is why it states through the bible that we are not only to love other but to love our enemies particularly. Christ was perfect and he followed the commandments, he DIED FOR OUR SINS. That is loving your neighbors right? of course! And if he followed the commandments then you should see by his example to love your neighbors.

I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment

(Anonymous)

2003-06-01 09:26 am (UTC)

Apart from being well dodgy, this part is an immoral ending to what started out as a promising plot. The mother of the child allowed all the children to be killed rather than sacrifice her own. Although typical of human nature, the more moral, braver and altruistic action would have been to stop the slaughter!


I disagree with this statement. Children are not things, which we should consider ourselves to OWN. Something we own, we can do whatever we want to, use however we wish. It isn't her right to sacrifice someone else, it would be the childs right to kill himself in order to save others. A decision he couldn't make, and which should not have been made for him. She wasn't responsible for the deaths of those children, the king was.
Besides,
Altruism:: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

No matter how you slice it, her decision would be selfish, AND it would benefit others. It would only have helped her ego to know what a great sacrifice she would be making for others, and that would be her only motivation... either that or to avoid any guilty feelings, which would only come if she considered her child to be something she OWNED (which is immoral). By keeping her child, she is being selfish, because the decision is based on her own feelings towards the kid-YET, it is still benefitting someone else.

Neither option is altruistic if you ask me, and your option isnt very moral in a sense. It would encourage people to look at others as inanimate objects, which in turn would discourage compassion and similar traits. The option isn't moral-its logical.. there's often a difference.

Re: I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment

vexen

2003-06-01 10:08 am (UTC)

I don't agree that saving children's lives amounts to considering them objects, nor that sacrificing your own offspring for others promotes the idea that others are inanimate objects.

If you are saying this, then you are also saying that the Christian God (who sacrificed his own son, according to Christian mythology) treats others as objects and encourages people to look at each other as inanimate objects.

Re: I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment

(Anonymous)

2007-05-06 10:12 pm (UTC)

Um hello, God did not kill his son, the people did. And because God is a just and awesome God he only allows these things to happen. God does not treat his children as objects he does not play us like chess pieces. he is not like Zeus or Hera killing people for their own pleasure. It is sick to say that God killed his son. And the Bible is NOT mythology. It happens to be the most reliable book that has had mer copies made from generation to generation. It also is the most accurate, it has been compared to copies made from millions of years ago and it is almost word for word. And nowhere in his book did it ever say that God killed his son. You can believe what you want, but that does not make it right. i personally would rather think that I was perfect talented and beautiful. But it wont make it true.

Re: I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment

(Anonymous)

2006-12-25 03:42 am (UTC)

When one presents any argument discussing morality, they must first make a decision on what morality is derived from, and what makes an action moral or immoral. Judged solely from a teleological, or utilitarian, perspective if Mary would have sacrificed her son in order to stop the slaughter, then she would have made the morally correct decision because by doing so she would have increased the net happiness-or done something from the greater good.
If one is to however, judge the action from a deontological perspective (such as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative) then they would conclude that Mary was morally incorrect. One of Kant's maxim's is to treat every human as an end, and not just the means to an end. Judging from that, it is therefore wrong to kill the baby Jesus in order to save other lives, because by killing her son she would treat him as a means (to saving lives) and not as an end in and of himself.

Therefore, the question boils down to whether or not the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, as is in the case of every question, it is impossible to every truly know the answer (in fact, epistemologically speaking it is impossible to really ever know anything at all).

By the way, I like your distinction between a "moral" decision and a "logical" decision. Kudos for that. = )

--Tim

Re: I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment

(Anonymous)

2010-05-18 09:44 am (UTC)

sorry but the woman was obeying God, apprecite the times, people were more simple then, she had given birth to the Messiah, dont you think God wanted to protect him. He came for a purpose. HEROD KILLED THOSE CHILDREN.Doesnt any mother want to protect her child?.

Christian "morals"

(Anonymous)

2004-05-31 11:39 pm (UTC)

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

To quote Kelsos
"If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick."

Also add to the list, all the victms of the Baptist Order of Ku Klux Klan.

signated by
Medhal (one surviving victm)

God does not promote/identify with or produce SIN. The Bible does not teach that at all (Old & New Testament). SIN is what we are born with because of the fall of Adam & Eve due to their rebellion against God's rules ... funny thing at the time ... He only had ONE rule ... not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Anyway, there are NOT 7 DEADLY SINS. That false doctrine is from Satan to "confuse" people and not in the Bible at all! There is ONLY ONE sin that sends you to hell ... and that is the rejection of Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord. The Bible does not teach us to sin at all ... it tells us how God can help us out of the "slavery to sin" and His judgement upon it/us, and how to live correctly in the eyes of God (not "perfectly", for we will NEVER be until we are taken up to heaven to be with the Lord in our "resurrected bodies"). However, where all you "unbelievers" are getting confused is that God sends judgement upon the unbelieving/unrighteous. Maybe you are mistaking God's punishments/judgements for Him advocating sin??? Don't confuse the two issues. God is holy, righteous, perfect, sinless, all loving, etc. BUT ... He is also perfect justice, which means he dispenses judgement. Don't confuse sin with justice/judgement OF SIN.

Justice

(Anonymous)

2006-12-25 04:14 am (UTC)

I disagree. I think that being omnibenevolent and perfectly just are mutually exclusive principles. But, disregarding the intrinsic errency of that statement, I find other problems within that viewpoint.

Let's assume God exists, and in order to get into heaven, one must be a professing Christian. Aside from the injustice that billions of people who have neither heard the "word of God" or lived before Jesus' time are now doomed to hell, there is no justice in that decision. Billions upon billions of people are doomed to everlasting punishment simply because of where and when they were born. Does God not know beforehand, or choose where and when everyone is born? Does it follow then, that God condemns those people to everlasting punishment? Where is the justice in that? Where is the love in that?

Secondly, there is no justice in an "innocent man" (Jesus) being killed for all of the sins of the world. If there is "an eye for an eye" (as the bible says) then there is still quite a large amount of sin unaccounted for that God needs to balance. The blood of one innocent man does not make up for the sins of every man. If a sin weighed an ounce, then all the sins of the world would outweigh one sinless life. It doesn't balance, and even if it did balance, there are still problems within that paradigm.

How does the sin of one lifetime result in punishment for an eternity? Justice would say that if a man sinned for 70 years he should be punished for that long. Even if one were to double, triple, or quadruple his punishment, it would still not amount to deserving everlasting punishment. Where is the justice in a punishment (everlasting torture) that exceeds the crime (a life of sin)?

If God desires that all know him,(1 Tim 2:4) and God is all powerful then it must follow that all would go to heaven. If God has the will, desire, and ability to do something then it follows that it would happen. God clearly has the will, desire, and power to save everyone-yet according to christianity almost ALL of the world will go to hell. If God set out to save the WHOLE world, and not everyone is saved, then God fails. Not even half, not even a quarter of all the people who ever lived are christians, or even had the chance to be christians, so according to the bible they are doomed to go hell. Where is the justice in that?

Christians typically dodge this syllogistic issue of God's desire and power to save all, by claiming that we have "free will" and the power to thwart God's desire for all to know him, or that God wouldn't "force" anyone to go to heaven, and that it is our decision not God's. Yet, in the bible does it not say that no one chooses God, but God chooses them? If that is so, it is not the fault of those (like myself) who are unsaved, but the fault of "God-almighty" who decided not to choose those people, and therefore choose to condemn them to hell for all eternity. Where is the justice in that? where is the mercy in that? Where is the love in that?

I'll tell you where-no where. There is no justice in that.

--Tim

thank you at least someone knows what they are talking about!

(Anonymous)

2007-05-06 10:14 pm (UTC)

Some Christians can't even get this right but yes we are born with sin.

The Ten Commandments

(Anonymous)

2005-11-02 12:57 am (UTC)

In response to your reasons why the Ten Commandments should not be followed I have several comments:

Commandment 1: You shall have no other God.
- No one is forcing Christianity on you, you can not say that this commandment is forcing God on you. This commandment is taken as truth and a command for those who belive in Christianity; if you don't want to belive it than you dont have to, but you can not say that you did not know that there is only one god, that is our Father in heaven.

Commandment 2: Have no worship idols or imagery.
- The Lord God had Moses deliver this to people who worship idol and imagery. He is not a god who backs down to other religions, for He is the only true god and was the very one to create us. If this commandment is offending and antisocial promoting then you are not a Christian and most likely dont believe The Bible to be true. You can not be offended by something that is not true to you, you can only be disapointed that others would believe it this statement.

Commandment 3: Do not take the Lords name in vain.
- Taking the Lords name in vain is considered by many to be worse than cussing. So yes we would rather have people say cuss words than to take Gods name in vain. "Bless You" is a common practice carried out when a person sneezes, it is like saying "Excuse You" to something impolite.

I will finish my response in a latter reply to the claims that have been made by uninformed and ill research people.

"Nothing in all creation can take away the love of Jesus Christ my Lord."
Romans 8:39

Proof of Christ's Authenticity

(Anonymous)

2006-02-02 11:32 pm (UTC)

First of all, I admire the work it took for you to write your essay. My only concern is that you really dont show any proof to support your case. What i mean is that you didn't interview any prominent historians, psychologists, theologists, or archeologists. You didnt try and research the evidence for both sides of the story, and then make a logical and careful decision based off of that. I have visited many different websites devoted to arguments against Christianity, and that is the one thing that is lacking from yours, no offense. As for seeing the other side of things, all i can do is recommend some well written books from men who have searched diligently for the evidence. One is The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. Mr. Strobel was a legal editor for the Chicago Tribune who dedicated his life to proving Christianity was immoral. Another book is Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. He also set out to disprove Christianity while he was in college. Both ended up becoming Christians themselves. Even if you do not read those books, it is important in essays like this that you collect information for both sides of the issue from other intellectuals who did the actual field work, and apply your own verdict. I would respond to each of your arguments with detailed analysis based off the sources I have, but it would certainly take a lot of posts and a lot of time gathering the information from them. It would be easier if you were to look at at least one of the books i mentioned. But perhaps when I get the chance, I shall make some more posts. Anyways, your site is very well organized, and I admire the dedication you have put into it. Take care.

(Deleted comment)
I disagree completely. First off, I question the accuracy of your statistic, it seems more plausible that you made it up then that it is a legitimate number intimating the chances of failure. Secondly I highly doubt that there is any emperical way to test the chances of failure, but I admit that although I know of none, there could still be some.

Secondly, I don't think humans are evil or incapable of anything. Humans, like all living being, are naturaly self-interested and self-preserving, but that doens't mean they we are selfish, or evil. In order to serve another being, you must also look after yourself. It's natural to seek to serve oneself. If you don't exist, you can't serve someone else. You have to look after yourself in order to look after someone else.

Humans aren't selfish by nature, nor are we evil by nature. Humans naturally feel sympathy and empathy towards others. When you see someone suffering, you naturally want to aid or alleviate their suffering. When you see someone with tears rolling down their cheeks, who doesn't feel bad or want to help them out? When you see someone in physical pain, who doesn't at least feel empathy towards their pain? The point is, people feel compassion, sympathy, and empathy towards their fellow human beings. People naturally want to help them out, and want to do good.

If the world is built upon greed, then one must take into account the underlying force and motivation behind that greed - fear, lack of security, and a desire to feel security. Put in other terms - self-preservation. People become greedy in an attempt of self-preservation and an attempt to seek security.

Among many other reasons of far too much detail to delve into in a simple online comment, war results in a conflict of people's attempts at self-preservation.

Not only that, but maintaining a cynical view is maintaing a stance of cowardice. Any fool can look upon the world and become a cynic, but it takes courage to stand up and have the idealism to have hope and try to make the world a better place. Some may call that foolish, but it is better to be a courageous fool than a cynical coward.

you make me laugh

(Anonymous)

2007-05-06 10:30 pm (UTC)

you said in your comment "don't think humans are evil or incapable of anything. Humans, like all living being, are naturaly self-interested and self-preserving, but that doens't mean they we are selfish, or evil." (by the way it is spelled naturally.) But you just basically said that we are selfish, but we aren't selfish! Yes EVERYTHING WE DO IS SELFISH! If you saw your mom hanging off a cliff you would think "no! I love my mother, I care about her! I don't want her to die!" Have you ever asked why? it is because you are selfish and if she got hurt you would be sad! But what if you saw someone who you hated more than anything on the same cliff! you might ask "What if I felt sorry for her to!" well I Honestly don't know everything, but I THINK that even in unbelievers their is a sense of compassion. If all unbelievers couldn't have compassion or some felling of love then how would we go on? Everyone would kill evach other off right! We want what is best for us of course, but we don't always get it for a reason. It is because we are selfish evil horrible people, even Christians do terrible things.

whatever!

(Anonymous)

2006-07-13 04:45 am (UTC)

you like to make things up, aye? stop involving yourself with things bigger than you are... and if you can't prove things...simply and easily, don't mention it at all...a prime example...
"...it is said by Bible believers that 'Do not steal' is an absolute moral found in the Bible, yet in the Bible we also find text where, under direct orders from God, people have stolen."
Where's the proof...where's the proof... where's the proof? If you know so much about the Bible and decided to write up your own website dedicated to that... I would have thought you had the time to at least prove your ideas!
I find this source valuable for one reason.. it shows me that people try to write "what they think" about the Bible, whether true or not. That should teach you something valuable too...

Re: whatever

(Anonymous)

2006-08-31 08:24 pm (UTC)

What scripture says that God ordered someone to steal?

Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him."

Re: whatever

(Anonymous)

2007-08-16 06:09 am (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to say, that God cannot "steal" anything because everything belongs to him.
-Kevin

to add

(Anonymous)

2007-05-06 10:38 pm (UTC)

to add on this, even if their were some places in the Bible where God told someone to steal he is perfect and his motives are just and flawless as it is stated numerous times in the Bible.

you are right on target about how people only write what they think, because they do, they don't just try to they do. They believe what they want to believe. The worst and saddest thing about it is that all you have to do to go to heaven is accept Jesus as your savior and admit you are a sinner. You don't have to be perfect. Because we can't. end of story. bye bye see you later.

Please, give the true one and only Gospel a chance.

The following is evidence of your shallow morality

(Anonymous)

2007-05-09 05:27 pm (UTC)

"Using characters from within this book we would find many seemingly contradictory morals. For example, for the side of Good, there is much killing to be done, yet part of the morals is that the bad guys kill people."

There are times, because of the evil actions of others, that killing another person is the virtuous action to take. If only there had been a person that could have attacked and killed the man that shot and killed the 32 people at Virginia Tech before he shot the second or third person. That person would have committed a very brave and noble act.

"Confusing and contradictory morals
There is not a single moral "absolute" that I cannot find a contradiction for in the very same book. For example, it is said by Bible believers that "Do not steal" is an absolute moral found in the Bible, yet in the Bible we also find text where, under direct orders from God, people have stolen."

If one of Cho's relatives was certain that Cho was going to go to Virginia Tech and murder as many people as he could, had stolen all of his weapons and ammunition they would have also committed a noble act.

bible misquotations

(Anonymous)

2007-05-24 07:32 am (UTC)

I'm an agnostic and highly critical of christianity, but it really bothers me when people misquote the bible and then make a straw man argument against it like you did with two of the commandments:

It is not "thou shalt not lie" but "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It is purposely translated this way. Some lying (white lies, lies under duress) is not against the commandments. To "bear false witness AGAINST thy neighbor" makes it very clear that the correct interpretation is that you shouldn't lie to do harm or defame someone.

Secondly, it is "thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill." Murder is killing someone unjustly - self defense is obviously just. Killing, say, Hitler or Saddam would certainly be just.

Lastly, "thou shalt not covet...." This is not a misquotation but a misinterpretation. The definition of "covet" straight from dictionary.com: "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others." Coveting something is different from simply desiring a better life or material goods. Coveting implies disregard for the rights of others, so it is more like the desire to steal than the desire to simply improve one's lot in life.

BTW - if you actually talk to most Christians, they will tell you that the commandments are antiquated and no longer in effect. They take specifically Christ's teachings as the current "moral order."

Re: bible misquotations

(Anonymous)

2007-08-14 06:10 am (UTC)

First of all, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" means in modern language "you should not lie against your neighbor". That includes white lies; You tell white lies usually to get away from something (eg: smashing a wine glass) which is therefore harming your neighbor. Why else would you lie? (not including jokes on friends)

Secondly, how else are you meant to kill someone without murdering>(apart from an accident). That also covers "Love your enemy" because you can't really love your enemy if you just killed them.

Lastly, Who said that covet means "wish for an improvment for one's lot in life"? It's NOT WRONG for a man to desire a HOUSE, WIFE, CAR, PET, JOB etc... But it's wrong to desire your neighbors... house, wife etc...Covert means Jealousy, it explains in the rest of the commandment:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

And I don't know what Christians you're talking to, but they seem to be not following gods commandments because Christ also said to love your neighbor" which pretty much sums up all the commandments (except for number 114, which they wouldn't be Christians if they didn't obey)

Re: bible misquotations

(Anonymous)

2007-08-14 06:16 am (UTC)

woops, I actually meant-
(except for number 1 to 4, which they wouldn't be Christians if they didn't obey)

the Adam and Eve part

(Anonymous)

2007-12-05 12:47 am (UTC)

First of all, God did not punish one person for the actions of another. Genesis 3:16&17 ---But the Lord God warned him,"You may freely eat the fuit of every tree in the garden-except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."--- The Lord God WARNED....it would not matter that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of Good and Evil....because God was giving them the choice....follow God, or disobey him.....simple. God could have easily made it so that humans had no choice, that they are forced to worship him, but because God is a Just and Gracious God, he gives us that choice.

Re: the Adam and Eve part

(Anonymous)

2007-12-05 10:20 am (UTC)

If they had no knowledge of good and evil, as you say, then how would they have known that disobediance is bad?

And, they were made to be gullible people (which wasn't their 'choice' at all), so it was God's duty as a parent to make sure that no evil serpent tempted them, as God hadn't given them the capacity to understand deception.

You are viewing vexen