Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

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

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Collection of critical pages on Religion and Morals

Collection of critical pages on Religion and Morals

  • 1
(Deleted comment)
What has all that got to do with a sociological or informative discussion on the moral precepts of religion?

there is no good without God. Can you define for me what is good? But isnt good relative without God? Dont people see things differently in different cultures? Some cultures believe that it is a valuable trait to fight for ones country, while others (Like the quakers) feel it is absolutely wrong to fight at all, for any reason. So you see, it is impossible to be good if there is no guideline for "good". Good is variable without God so therefore so are morals. We NEED God for morality. And whats wrong with getting rewarded for morality? Just as an athlete would recieve a medal at the end of a race, we get rewarded with eternal heaven. Of course we WANT to go to heaven and that may be seen as selfish. However the feats that we accomplish getting to heaven do negate all arguments of selfishness, and as we do progess in our lives, we begin to do good for goods sake, and not for heavens sake! It comes as something natural and we feel doing good is the right thing. If God suddenly came down with a new set of commandments completly opposite of what it taught us before, then many people would feel uneasy in the obediance of these commandments, even if there was no doubt that the commandments where from God. For example. A person who had never murdered in his life would hesistate greatly if God told him to go and murder someone he just meets randomly

People DO see things differently in different cultures, and also from person to person. A violent double ex chromosome sex offender, such as the type as is sent to child psychiatrists for violence, will have a vastly different instinctive morals to an upper-class fox-hunting English aristocrat; part genetic, part upbringing, everyone has different outlooks; everyone views things in a different way.

This happens whether there are gods or not. With or without a god, peoples "guidelines" will differ. If there is a God (as you believe, now) then, as far as morals are concerned, it is AS IF there wasn't one. There are no divine morals that people tap in to; all such meditations are culturally bound; human-invented.

Your example of a new set of commandments... that's the type of thing the Christian God does, don't forget! Without such revolutionary revelations, Christianity would be the same as Judaism and Jesus would be unnecessary! So would Moses. Even in Christianity, God reveals "new" moralities; if there are "absolute" morals, God itself doesn't reveal them!

You mention the Christian Gods' way of brining in new commandments. First of all, that is irrelevant because I do no believe in Christianity. ["If there is a God (as you believe, now)" That sentence has implications that my faith will eventually end. Sorry, not gonna happen]

Yes, I accept that there are cultural and social explanations for morality, apart from religious. However, as pointed out in one other of my replies, morality of Islam must be followed as BEST TO YOUR ABILITY if it is to function. Some people will simply not be able to follow some rules of Islam, and whatever reason this is, as long as there is absolutely nothing in their power they can do to TRY to follow these laws, it is forgiven of them. Also, if you do not follow by some morals sometimes, you can be forgiven for that also, as long as you ask for forgivness. Everyone sins at some point in their lives, and there is noone that I know who has followed Islam 100%. We are humans after all, and not machines. So for different people, and different cultures, it will be harder to abide by some laws. God is just, and will make up for this difficulty in the after life. The harder your life was while following Gods laws, the better your reward will be.

And as I have just been arguing, there ARE spiritual morals that people "tap into", and these can be found in the holy Quraan.

Absolute morality, Statistics or an Enforced Will.

If reason or logic is allowed?, There can only be three options for morality.

The morality of agreement (statistical) This is what the most of us agree on.
The morality of power (an enforced will) This is what is right because I can make you do it.
The morality of God (an absolute) This is a non statistical, or non enforced will form of morality. Even God must follow this, because it is a part of God's nature.

In the first case we should either be listening to the largest groups in the world, or be having a world wide referendum on what is moral.
India and China should be among the leading forces settng morality.
Possibly the UN would run the referendum.
The problem here is what could we all agree upon.
How would statistical morality be enforced
How often do we check to see if morality has changed.
There is no individual free will, only statistical will.
In the second case whoever has the most power sets morality.
If had won the war then he was right. At the moment the US
has the most power so we should be listening to them.
The problem here is whether might is right. War sets morality?
Powerful people are not always intelligent or loving.
There is no free will, only what I am forced to have by power.
In the third case absolute morality exists.
Either God communicates it to us or
we will have to discover it by studying the nature of God.
The problem here is that if absolute morals exist then
we will all be held to them. Absolute justice/judgement exists.
There is no free will, as morality is fixed.

If we are sensible no other expanations exist. There are no gushy feeling morals. Knowledge and Science constantly change and the more we know the less we agree on. In all three cases there is no free will.

I believe the whole world is mixed up with all three versions of morality.

Will one win out in the end. We will have to wait and see.

"Absolute morals" is a misleading idea

“there is no good without God. Can you define for me what is good? But isnt good relative without God? Dont people see things differently in different cultures? Some cultures believe that it is a valuable trait to fight for ones country, while others (Like the quakers) feel it is absolutely wrong to fight at all, for any reason. So you see, it is impossible to be good if there is no guideline for "good". Good is variable without God so therefore so are morals. We NEED God for morality.”

It is only through the concept of life that the concept of value has any meaning. We can safely presume that the nonliving do not value. Therefore ALL value lies within the purview of the living. This is why life has inherent value; (there is no value without life). Life is the “well-spring” of values. “Value” is that which is valuable to the living, i.e. to you, and there can be no morals without values.

“Good” is that which aids us and helps us live a full productive and healthy life, (within discernable intellectual context and scope), and “evil” is the opposite.

Each culture interprets what particular values it keeps and religion is just another way of establishing what values are considered ‘good’, but this is not a “get out of reality free” card. Worshiping something that may wish to destroy you or considers you expendable is illogical, whether that object of worship is a ‘god’ or a society.

Following ‘godly’ dictates is not practicing morality. Morality necessitates moral choice and moral choice necessitates YOU choosing between good and evil. A ‘god’ that tells you to not think for yourself and just do what it told you to do is not an action of morality, nor is it a moral standard. A trained rat can follow the rules. A trained rat is not a moral creature. If for you to even consider whether ‘god’s’ dictate is moral or not is to question ‘god’s’ moral authority and is a “sin” (within Judeo/Christian context).

Morality is only possible without a dictatorial ‘god’ telling you what to do.

The Vampire

Morals... blah blah blah

I'll do my best to give my opninion to your numbered arguments. Notice I say opinion because I have no facts to back up my thoughts which I get from the bible.

1. you say "absolute morals are impossible." I am not sure what you mean by absolute morals but if you mean perfection then I agree. Most christians aren't good so they can get into heaven, being good does not get oneself into heaven anyways, the bible makes that very clear. God has laws and we do our best (most of the time) to obey them.

2. To your section on christian morals. You make an assumtion that parts of the bible are untrue, that is an opinion. The bible does not say that slavery is good or to hate jews. Where do you get that from?

3. Can morals exist without God. I don't think that God needs to exist for morals to exist either. Everyone can make up his or her own morals and decide for themselves what is right and wrong, that would be great. (Sarcasm implied) God does need to exist for a non subjective absolute truth to exist though.

4. GOd has no free will. Where did you get that from? who is in charge of God to tell him what he can and cannot do? God is the law, whatever he does is right because with him there is no right or wrong because he is above the law. Who will judge GOd? He has laws for us that serve our benefit. Are any one of the commandments or the teachings of christ bad for a person? Even an atheist would agree that all of them should be obeyed except for the first commandment.

5. God is Love is a inhumane statement. Well to your atheist love came about through natural processes so is just chemical reactions in the brain and therefore really has no value. Love obviously evovled over time and the more "loving" specimen survived. This would say that love has no value since it is just inherited and not chosen its like being short has true "value" to an atheist. It is a hypocritical statement you make and I don't understand how you came up with it.

6. WE are judged by our moral choices, not by our religion. Who is judging us, who has the right to decide what is right and wrong? Society? No that would be subjective for them to decide truth for the people. You imply a God...............

7. If dead infants go to heaven should theist parents selflessly sacrifice themselves to hell by killing their children? I have heard this one before. It would destroy the purpose of why we exist if were true. It is not our place to take innocent lives. Its not about numbers to God, he does not need so many people to go to heaven. It is a relationship he wants and for us to choose.

In conclusion, I believe that there exists absolute truth and that it is given to us in the bible. God created the law and he has put it in place for our own benefit. THats it, its late, Im tired. What are your thoughts?

This may not really be completely connected to the other posts on this page.

You stated that Christians do good acts to try to get into Heaven. This is not at all true. Christianity, in fact, is the only religion that does not teach that we must perform good acts to reach Heaven. All that we believe is required is a relationship with Jesus Christ. The "good" things that we do are in a effort to share the love we have received from God, and out of gratitude.

You argued that by allowing only some people to enter Heaven, God must be "an immoral monster". Christians believe that we are basically all just a bunch of screw-ups. Therefore, we do not deserve to go to Heaven in the first place. It is by His grace that God allows us to go to Heaven. Here is a good metaphor/ parable type-deal: A president offers freedom to prisoners on death row. For different (and ridiculous) reasons, no prisoners accepts except one. Would the president be viewed as unjust because only one prisoner accepted freedom? Of course not. He would be seen as extremely merciful for saving that one man. None of the prisoners deserved this at all, so he would be even more merciful just for giving them the chance to live. Refusing it was their choice, just as it is humans' choice to accept or reject eternal life.

Christians do not believe in reincarnation. We just don't. Where did you get this idea??

You also mentioned that Christians believe in the seven deadly sins. This is also not true. This is a Catholic belief that we do not support. You may have gotten this idea from Proverbs 6:16-19. This, however, clearly does not call these the seven deadly sins. I believe that they are more of a way to categorize all sins, restating things we should not do.

You argue that God has no free will. You, however, repeatedly state that God has "chosen" to do things (create evil, etc.) Both points are not only untrue, but they also contradict each other. If someone does not have free will, they cannot choose to do anything. You also use the fact that God is not defined by time (this is true; He created time for us) to prove that He has no free will. These subjects are not even related! You also argue this to be true because He is all-knowing, He has no free will. The fact that He know all things means that he knows the results of everything that He does, and will know what will happen. He, therefore, cannot ignore the consequences His actions will have, but this does not prove that He has no free will. It does teach us that His choices are the best. He could choose to do things that would have horrible effects for all people, but instead chooses to do things to benefit us, because He is a loving God. In addition, if this were true, then Jesus would have had no free will. Because we believe that Jesus lived on earth as a human being, this could lead to two conclusions:

1) Humans are not tempted (This is clearly not the case; we all have felt temptation at some point in our lives.)

2) Jesus did not take the form of a man (This is also impossible; what else could he have been? A bear? A log? He was clearly in the form of a man.)

From these points, we know that Jesus was tempted on earth. Those who are tempted are given a choice between two or more things. This demonstrates that God, in fact does have free will. When you write that God has only one choice: the most moral/good one, this is untrue. Instead, God only makes one choice: the moral/good one.

In addition, Christians do not believe things to be "more good" or "more evil". The Bible states that all sins are equal, and can only be forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. Evil is sin, and therefore, if there cannot be levels of sin, there cannot be levels of evil. Also, we believe that we are all sinners, and therefore none of us are good. Only God is good. In the beginning, His creation was good, but through and since Adam's sin, it has been perverted. God's goodness means that because He is perfect, anything/one that is compared with Him will not be seen as good because of the sin in the world. Therefore, there also cannot be degrees of goodness. Good and Evil are like yes and no; there is no levels and no maybe.

See next (above) post for the reminder of this.

THIS ONE!!! (I meant below)

...continued from above

If you examine the book of Job (that's in the Bible), you will find that God does not make evil things happen, but instead He allows them. The fact that the devil had to ask permission to cause evil in Job's life further proves that He has free will. He could have not allowed the devil to do the things he did. It also proves that He uses evil for good, by strengthening Job's faith, likely bringing his friends and neighbours to or closer to Him. Romans 8:28 says, "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him".

As for homocentricity, it is not a real word. Also, you seem to think that the realisations that the planets do not have circular rotations and that the Earth is not round significantly influenced the downfall of belief in God. Who made these discoveries? Where was I? I'd like to talk to whoever that was, because I really don't remember these events...

Evolution is a ridiculous idea. Humanity is not evolving; that would mean a change for the better. Instead, it is devolving and revolving. Humans either do not change, but instead repeat the same actions over and over, without original ideas (just ask Avril Lavigne), or fall farther away from what is good. When mutations are found in genes, they cause problems. They are missing chromosomes, causeing seious problems. There is no change for the better, so nothing could have come from any single celled organisms. The similarites in the DNA of apes and humans is not caused by evolution, but by a mutual creator. Humans also have half of exactly the same DNA as a banana. We clearly did not evolve from them; we simply share a creator. How would you explain a conscience? Did it develop along the way. Apes obviously do not display morals.

You have written about the many people who call themselves Christians, but really are not. Do not use their words or lifestyles to determine your idea of how a true christian really lives.

Your page seems to be more a list of your opinions, rather than actual proof of the nonexsistance of God. There is a clear lack of proof, Biblical, scientific or otherwise. It is unfair to everyone to post a page containing such material, not only because of the lies about the nonexistance of God, but also to those who are looking for support for sharing their beliefs with you, as this page clearly does not contain valid arguments. Many people would be happy to debate the contents of the Bible with you, but that is not what you are doing. You have simply taken untrue ideas from society about Christianity, and argued those. Many of these things Christians do not believe in the first place! I would suggest that you better educate yourself on these topics before trying to argue with them. You are not using scriptural references to prove the untruth of Christian beliefs, but instead simply telling others why you don't think things are true, whether or not they are relevant or actually believed.

Catholisism and Christianity are very different; catholic beliefs cannot be used to try to argue that there are problems with the Christian religion.

I hope that you will someday understand why your ideas are so wrong. You will be in my prayers.

Re: THIS ONE!!! (I meant below)

"If you examine the book of Job (that's in the Bible), you will find that God does not make evil things happen, but instead He allows them."

Not according to Isaiah.

Isaiah 45:7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Here, the word “create” is the Hebrew word bara’ which means to create or make from nothing. It doesn’t mean to permit or allow. (As the apologists would have you believe.)

Jeremiah 45:5
“I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the Lord.”

The Vampire

“You stated that Christians do good acts to try to get into Heaven. This is not at all true. Christianity, in fact, is the only religion that does not teach that we must perform good acts to reach Heaven. All that we believe is required is a relationship with Jesus Christ. The "good" things that we do are in a effort to share the love we have received from God, and out of gratitude.”

I’m not sure about the “only” part of that statement, but the gist of the statement is true for Pauline Christianity.

Pauline Christianity is EVIL.

According to Paul, we are “conceived in sin” and inherit “original sin” (yes I know that it was Augustine that formulated OS, but Paul fleshed the idea out for him).

According to Paul, unborn and newborn babies, just like the rest of us, deserve hell-fire torture from “just” ‘god’ and it is only by ‘god’s’ “grace” the he doesn’t open up a can of whoop-ass on us right now. Why do babies deserve being eternally burned with molten sulfur? Because of “original sin”, which Paul describes as (more or less) the freewill ability to deviate away from ‘god’s’ demands and dictates.

Of course, there is no “justice” involved at all if “no one is innocent in the eyes of ‘god’”. We would be appealing for a lighter sentence from the hanging judge rather than getting anything resembling justice.

Paul’s idea of original sin is evil as is the Pauline idea of “Redemption”.

“Redemption” is where one worships the torture and human sacrifice of the “Son of Man” for one’s own personal profit.

Does it matter if the sacrificial “lamb” was able to cure himself from a chronic case of death? Does it matter IF he was REALLY a volunteer “victim”?

No, worshiping torture and human sacrifice for one’s own personal profit is definitively evil. Christians ask for Jesus to be their “whipping boy” stand-in to receive the “wrath” that (Paul says) we all deserve from ‘god’ because we are guilty of being born. This is nuts. The idea is that you are guilty for something someone else did, and you can be “saved” from ‘god’ by being a “slave to ‘god’” (Romans 6). Jesus is “savior” because he is willing to save you from JESUS if you become ‘god’s’ mindless and will-less slave, working within the Pauline myth.



God MADE us screw ups? What kind of blackmail is it where a GOD, of all things, stoops to creating a problem then pretends to be kind in offering to fix it? I mean, bogus garage repairmen run a more convincing scam! What an odd theology Christians have... God makes Human nature so that we don't "deserve" heaven because God itself made us ignorant of the truth from birth, divorced from 'Jesus', and then you're also trying to tell me about 'God's goodness'? Explain this madness to me!

How can something that is infinitely good, with infinite power, say that we are "undeserving?". A god that is *that* good would grant us all heaven whether we are deserving of it or not. In fact, it's one of Christianities most popular teachings that you should be kind to your enemies (despite their choices). God should immediately put everyone in heaven whether we "deserve" it or not, especially because God is the one that created Humankind's nature in the first place! It has ultimate responsibility for what choices are possible, and for what choices we are inclined to make.

please read my comment I'm nice

I wanted to say first off that I respect your beliefs. Whether I agree or not is irrevelevant but I do respect you and your beliefs. I wanted to say that I understand some of the points you make in your site. I don't agree with all of them because I am a member of an organized theistic religion. I wanted to also say that I think you are very smart. I don't think however that you have studied enough theistic religions in depth to make your points very strong. I think when we make arguement we must know the opposing side just as well as our side so we don't run the risk of lookin stupid, and I think alot of times you need more back up. I do however think a lot of the christians that have come on your comment page just to fight with you are making themselves look really stupid and showing a bad representation of christians all over. I myself am a christian but I do not believe at all that I am better then anyone else. I wanted to make one point though, as much I would like you to consider Christianity I can not force my beliefs on you but I do want to know why you focus so much on proving theistic religions wrong and less time being greatful that our world has some moral left. I am persoanlly greatful for people who are moral whatever their motivations may be. I am a good person by nature and I know there are alot of people like me who just appriciate people doing good things because they should not for any other reason. I thank for your arguement. I like to read others oppinions so thanks for being so open. I would suggest again maybe reading the bible as literature rather then rules and religion just to open your mind up to the opposition thank you, Jessica

Re: please read my comment I'm nice

Thanks for your honesty and friendliness. Take care.

Re: please read my comment I'm nice

hi, vexen,
my heart was warmed when i read the gentle comment from Jessica !
i read some of your material on the website and when i came across the top 10 smitings i just had to look...
i could only find 5 though?
did i miss page two, or are you working on the next 5?
sorry i replied as anonymous, but i do not have a live journal account.

Re: please read my comment I'm nice

I'm going to go correct the title now! 5, not 10!


Great site. Don't forget about Matthew 27:25, wherein it is claimed that the Jews readily accepted responsibility for Jesus' death: "His blood be on us, and on our children." The hatred and injury and death that the "children" part of this line has caused for Jews, right up to and including the Holocaust, is beyond belief.

  • 1