This is pretty easy pickins, I know, and it almost NEVER happens... more than annually anyway. But it's a tough call for me to reach any kind of conclusion on it. I wasn't there. I don't know the facts. The case hasn't been tried on Fox or C-Span yet, so I really can't say for sure what might be going on down there.
After all, I'm as much for government staying out of my life as the next guy. On the other hand, government should provide some basic services and protecting children is one of them. In my humble opinion.
So for now, I'm going to assume the folks who filed the complaint alleging child abuse did so because they truly believed it was happening. (I know, I know, just like people who bomb abortion clinics) BUT, I'll assume that because they didn't just rush in with guns blazing, but rather, followed the law, filled out the paperwork, and allowed the wheels of justice to turn, ever so slowly, that the folks who filed the complaint were semi-reasonable. (or is it unreasonable to wait on the system when you believe kids are in danger?) BUT I'll assume that as part of due process, others with less personal interest in the case including judges, law enforcement officers and elected officials signed off on the complaints and pursued them with the diligence of a reasonable human, and that brings us to where we are today.
167 kids were removed from a fort - a literal fort - where they'd been shut off from just about every aspect of modern American society. Say what you want about modern American society, if you live here, you should have access to it. Now for the hard part. One of the LDS women described the raid in which the kids were removed as similar to what "Russians" or "Nazis" did. (Sounds like she could use a little more exposure to current events) There's some truth to that. Armed men raided a homestead (fort), pushing women to the side and taking children. That does sound a lot like terrorism.
But the really tricky part is that in their minds, these self-described fundamentalist LDS Churchgoers (I won't call them Christians just yet) were only doing what their faith told them was right. Or at least within their rights. According to their interpretation of the Bible, the way they lived was cool. And they do believe the Bible offers the guidance for their way of life. (Ok, NOW I'll call them Christians) Granted, they've dropped the violence of the Old Testament, and the lessons to be learned, but their beliefs, though slightly appended by more modern "prophets," are based in the New Testament. Fundamentalist LDS folk are LDS folk and LDS folk are New Testament Christians.
So, how does faith help solve this matter? And if it doesn't, then it's part of the problem. In the case of the 167 kids in Texas - abused or not? Drop the religious protection, and the choice is clear. Raid the place. It's a cult fortress. But put it back in the context of a religious organization, and it's no longer as easy to decide. There are religious freedom rights to consider, and those rights require absolutely no logical justification other than being called a religion.
So there you go. Our nation, founded on protecting religious freedom, is now damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere on behalf of a 15 year old girl who may or may not want to be married to and bear the children of a 50 year old man with several other wives, we're fascists. If we don't interfere, we may be violating that 15 year old's basic human rights... so we're... fascists.
Sounds like a pretty easy decision to make like that... err on the side of caution, eh? But toss the religous argument into the mix and it's no longer easy. So by my moral standard (that which causes human suffering is bad/immoral) interfering is the way to go. While we may violate someone's religious beliefs, that alone doesn't directly cause suffering, and they'll have their day in court. If we're wrong, their lifestyle/religion will be restored. But if the girl really is being abused, held against her will, raped, then not interfering is condoning the abuse and furthering the suffering. That's wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, eh?
I've read that one of the pre-cursors to the fall of an empire is that the empire becomes more "liberal" and its citizenry grows lazy, taking the fruits of the empire for granted. It's true, except for the liberal part. Because liberal means willing to consider other perspectives, making an effort to understand other points of view as long as those points of view can be defended with sound logic. That's not lazy. And requiring a logical justification isn't liberal or "secular." It's actually a lot of work requiring a lot of faith in the person espousing that other perspective. What's lazy is taking for granted the fact that a few key words absolve one from having to argue or defend one's position. That is decidely not liberal, not logical, and in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS folk in Texas, all the justification they need to maintain their compound.
Luth
Out
16 comments:
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. What do you prefer, dead babies or a pile of bricks? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
OK Luth, you knew I'd comment on this one.
First, I do agree with your premise that intervention was called for. And I agree that mixing in religious beliefs is volatile, but the government was right to take the children as they did. I will buy your moral definition here, is the religious belief causing harm? Is it hurting someone? If so, then it most likely violates some moral code or law based on a moral code and would justify government intervention. Romans 13: 1-3 says, "1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same."
So, why am I not supporting the rights of fellow Christians? Because they ain't Christian. The LDS church has just recently tried to make an argument that they are Christian, and it really came to a head with Romney. They did it to show he was one of us. That he wasn't some weird cultist. In the past even the LDS church has not claimed to be Christian and they still deny that they are Christian in the orthodox sense of the word. These wackos in Texas are a long time split off the LDS church and I doubt they will admit to being Christian. They are latter day saints not to be confused with NT Christians who have completely different beliefs. Fundamentally, a Christian has to belief that Jesus is the Son of God and is deity himself. Belief in the trinity. The LDS will say Jesus is a son of God, but will not ascribe deity to him. The LDS church teaches that Jesus is no different than you and me, Luth, merely a creation of God. That is not Christian. The LDS roots their beliefs not in the Bible, but in their own Book of Mormon, they view the Bible as a mere commentary and not necessarily the Word of God. That is not Christian.
Relative to your last paragraph, I will grant that this is an instance where labels can be confusing. What is the reason why empires have failed in the past? Obviously, there isn't just one reason, but a cursory look will reveal changes. Sometimes those changes were moral. The Roman Empire and the Greek Empire were never noted for exemplary moral values, as we know them today. But when their denouements were characterized by increased licentiousness. Maybe unfairly, but often that is equated with a liberal philosophy. Liberals push agendas contrary to what some of us see as proper moral standards. But, that is a broad brush. But, I can buy your last two sentences.
It doesn't sound like Rev. Spitz is following the rule of Romans that Ray cites above. After all, our ruling authority says abortion is a legal alternative to killing the mother of living children rather than terminating the death sentence of a tubal pregnancy. And according to that Romans verse, our ruling authority were chosen by God. (as Bush often reminds us)
Rev. Spitz should know, and would know had he read more Horsepoup than the few lines above, that I'm no advocate of about 99.9% of abortions, but bombing clinics is terrorism and at least equally evil to performing abortions as birth control. It's also the least of this nation's worries in the upcoming elections and the previous two for that matter. Were it not for the distraction of this religious-based argument, we may have been a more focused electorate and might have even made a more sound choice! (but I digress)
But it's the second paragraph of your comment, Ray, that sums up one of the biggest roadblocks of my previously Christian past. I'll grant you that the folks whose fort was raided weren't Christian by just about any definition, but after that your argument derails. Up until Constantine, your Trinitarian definition of a Christian was dead wrong. As wrong as those Texans thinking they are Christian. As wrong as thinking Allah (pbuH) is the creator. It was only after Constantine tried to exploit the popularity of Christianity to maintain Rome's power that Unitarianism was replaced, violently, and for political gain. Constantine, who wrongly believed that the predominant, and Trinitarian sect of Christianity in Rome was the dominant sect worldwide, embraced it as his ticket to maintain his power. Only after siding with this rebel sect did he realize it was truly the minority, considered by most Christians of the era as an aberration of widely held Christian doctrine.
Catholicism, as it is recognized today, was born of this sudden shift in church doctrine from a Unitarian model of independent nations who were blessed by God if they so believed to a model of Trinitarian world domination. Only fairly modern Christians (since about 320 AD) subscribe to the idea that in order to be a "real" Christian, you must be Trinitarian. Prior to that time, most Christians considered such an idea blasphemous. Most of the verifiable history suggests Jesus's own family were among the bishops who were terminated in order to "unify" the church under Trinitarian beliefs, a unification that required some major modification of the existing doctrine. The originals were, of course, destroyed along with the original Unitarian Christians in Rome. The power of Rome, now united under this "new Christianity" was such that the remaining Unitarians of the world went into hiding rather than succumb to conquest, and the rest is the Bible we have today that folks so often quote as the "original word of God."
You'll have to pardon my oversimplification of this story, but I would never ask you take my word for it. You can find the history of this in a variety of non-religious sources (I first learned it and began to question my brainwashing in a Philosophy class. I most recently ran across it again in a Rhetoric course.) One source I especially like is http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p268.html
which is the site of the Christian Churches of God in Australia.
The so-called "absolute authority" modern Christians espouse is about as situational as ethics gets. The Bible today is only what's left after Constantine and the Roman Christians killed off the "dissenting" but majority Christians of the time and destroyed what may or may not have been the original word of God, keeping only a heavily revised version that suited their political purposes. Word of God or not, what we read today is less than half of the original story, and even that half is only told through the filters of greedy, power hungry humans who had the power to keep the parts they liked.
So the Fundamentalist LDS folk BELIEVE they're following God's word. Muslims BELIEVE they follow God's word. Catholics BELIEVE they follow God's word. Jews BELIEVE they follow God's word. Christians prior to Constantine BELIEVED there was only ONE GOD... no trinity. Ray BELIEVES today that Constantine's revised Bible is the original word of God and contains the proper definition of what it means to be Christian. I believe that the arguments over all of these original words of God are the leading preventer of world peace since man came into existence. These arguments are the biggest source of violence and hatred throughout the history of man. These arguments, at the very least, are a distraction from the solutions to the problems that man faces. As such, they are part of the problem, not the cure.
Oh, and we haven't addressed the number of abortions that God performs each year. Some call these miscarriages or spontaneous abortions. They account for 20%-30% of known pregnancies, and as much as 50% of unknown pregnancies. So in a typical year, in the U.S. alone, where 6 million known pregnancies occur, God terminates (on average) about 1.2 million of them. God must like American women though, because our spontaneous abortion numbers are actually reported to be only about 600,000 per year, but unknown pregnancies may account for much of that discrepancy.
Now here's where our discussion might begin: I would argue that there is a medical (biological, physical or chemical) explanation for the deaths of these unborn children. But Faith suggests it was an omnipotent and all-knowing God who caused these abortions. We can't have it both ways, gentlemen. Either God is real and favors aborting roughly 20% of all babies conceived, or there's a more scientific explanation. Now I realize I'm creating an either/or fallacy here, but let's face it, if God is even involved in these terminations at all, then He at least condones them. Since we're not talking about elective or chosen abortions here, there's no "free will of humans" on which to cast blame for these events.
I won't claim to know why God does this, after all, I don't think God does it all, but it does happen every day.
Luth, there has been religious controversy probably forever in human history. The history you cite has some truth to it, but as with all history it is shaded and filtered by the beliefs of those who wrote the history. It is not the complete story.
The Bible can be used to support any idea you want to propose, at least it can be twisted to appear to support any idea.
Jesus said in Matthew, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." There are other references that support the trinitarian view. There have been religious groups extant from the time of Christ that have taught what they perceived to be the truth, that is the trinitarian view. We Baptists do not see ourselves as Protestants because there have been groups down through the centuries that believed as we did and were not part of the Roman church, we are descended from them, not Rome.
All the different groups really believe they are doing God's will. So, I understand why you have come to your current conclusion, though I disagree with it. But, getting back to the point of your original post here, I work with some Muslims. They are not terrorists. Not even close. I don't think they have the truth, I think they practice a false religion, but I also recognize they have the right to believe as they do.... as long as they are not harming society. And my coworkers are not a threat to society, nor do they have practices that go against accepted normal behavior, unlike these Texas wackos.
I'm truly glad you disagree with 99.9% of the abortions and raise some good questions about the other 0.1%. One problem is that many of us who feel very strongly that those 99.9% that are done for selfish reasons and not for some medical necessity, believe it is akin to murder. Hey, they Nazis forced abortions, Hitler was a big proponent of abortion to cleanse German society of riffraff. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated abortion to rid society of blacks - she was an avowed rascist. Think about that, Planned Parenthood is rooted in racism and had ties with Nazism.
But, bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionist doctors is just as evil. Those who advocate such things are no better than the abortionist.
"...there has been religious controversy probably forever in human history. The history you cite has some truth to it, but as with all history it is shaded and filtered by the beliefs of those who wrote the history. It is not the complete story."
My argument exactly. In fact, I wish you'd written the part where I criticize what we have left of the Bible 'cuz you say it so much better than I did!
MOST Christians during Constantine's time were not Roman Christians. MOST were Unitarian. There doesn't seem to be much dispute about his in the recorded history (outside of the churches who are now Trinitarian, that is.) It always amuses me how modern interpreters discount "original" documents when they don't suit their purposes. But originality is hardly my point... they're all stories. They're all one man's version of unverifiable beliefs.
Since there is no rational basis, no evidence, no way of settling the arguments, there will always BE controversy and the accompanying violence, or at the very least oppression, inextricably tied to religion.
You claim your Muslim co-workers don't intend to harm anyone and I know what you mean. I know plenty of Christians who also don't intend to harm anyone, yet people are brutally murdered in some God's name constantly, forever.
My change of course was brought on by the realization that perpetuating irrational beliefs DOES harm someone, even when non-violent folk are doing the perpetuating. It has historically and it will continue to do so. There are three forms of this harm:
1) Overt - the Crusades, Jihad, Texas Fundamentalist LDS, Branch Davidians...
2) Unintentional - some of the same people, though non-violent, can be mentioned here
3) Indirect - Good men doing nothing. The "good" Christians who refuse to see the violence of religion's past as a real part of religion's future. This is who I used to be. This is you and your harmless Muslim friends. All of humanity pays a price for blind faith that drives people to rationalize any behavior in this life for the reward of the next one. At the very least, it prevents us or distracts us from solving the real problems that we face. (that which is not part of the solution...)
As for Planned Parenthood having ties with Nazis... don't make me drag out Mein Kampf again. The issue there, for Rev. Spitz's benefit, was the number of abortions God performs. He's either in control, and thus performs more abortions than any human, or He's not. And if He's in control and performs abortions, then why is it so wrong. Perhaps we flawed, humble humans misread something about the "miracle moment" of conception.
I understood your point about abortion, and you raise an interesting idea with natural abortions - it is much more common than often realized. But, then using that rationale, we can justify euthanasia and killing anyone we believe is no longer productive or beneficial to society. I think that is a dangerous path, for man to play God and decide who lives and who doesn't.
With the rest of your post above I think actually we have some common ground. Even the government draws a distinction between bona fide religious organizations and those that are mere fronts for some type of nefarious activity. You have heard me say repeatedly that certain people you mention, such as Hitler - I need to find the quotes from him that prove my point - are not Christian. The Crusades, though under the guise of a religious activity, were in reality political. Hitler was not trying to promote Christianity, he was trying to promote the Aryan race - he was a racist. I am delving into their motives, not what they may say on the surface.
You castigate good Christians who refuse to accept the reality of religious violence. I agree with that. Yes, so-called Christians who turn a blind eye are part of the problem. I have been reading extensively about the time of the Civil War and it is amazing how white Christian preachers could justify slavery and even those who opposed slavery often spoke of blacks in very demeaning terms. I cannot even begin to justify their actions. But, I would contend that many are social or political christians (I used the lower case c on purpose) and not Christian from the religious standpoint - compare the percentage who claim to be Christian with the percentage who actually attend church on a fairly regular basis or the percentage who even have a fundamental understanding of what the Bible has to say. In fact, someone who truly is a Christian will tell you that their faith is not a religion, it is a way of life. It involves a deep belief in God and that permeates their lives. Not just something to spend one hour a week on Sunday doing, then back to the real world.
I'm not saying everyone has to be exactly like me, I have friends who are Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, etc. whom I believe have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and who are gentle people and people who recognize the atrocities that have been performed in the name of religion. These are intelligent people who are not just blindly following some Jim Jones type leader.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with your penultimate paragraph above. But, I disagree that we have to throw out faith in God to achieve peace.
All right Ray. All right. When you can make the same claim for Islam or Jain Dharma that you do for the brands of Christianity that look most like yours, then you'll have me. Until then, just know that I feel about all religions the exact same way you feel about all of them except one.
I'm not asking for a ban or government intervention, just a little of your own perspective applied a little more consistently. .. a little more "liberally" if you will!
Enjoy your worship this morning.
Luth, my friend, you sound exasperated. If memory serves me correct, this conversation started several months ago when you opined that people of faith should not be allowed to be involved in the political process. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and find the thread, but I'm sure you remember the conversation.
No, I don't have to make the same claims about other belief systems as I do with Christianity, but that doesn't mean I want to curtail anyone's freedom to belief as they want.... as long as it does not hurt society. And I think that can fit in with your definition of "good". I even support your right to be an agnostic, if that is the label you would accept.
The one good thing about this country is that we can have a discussion like this. That I can believe as I do and you can have your set of beliefs and we can both be good, productive citizens. In too many places in the world you and I both would be marked as heretics and could be ostracized and even condemned to death. Consider this, you have professed Christian beliefs but now you renounce them. In some African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern lands that are strongly Muslim, renouncing the Muslim faith can often bring on the death penalty. Your own family would have you killed so as to not to dishonor the family. We don't do that.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by my own perspective applied more consistently, or liberally. As a social conservative, one thing I believe in is maintaining certain standards of living. I do have specific moral beliefs. I'm not perfect, though, as none of us are. I think maybe one difference we have is that you define Christianity by the actions of those who claim to be adherents. I don't do that for a simple reason. I believe in the sin nature of man - just observe a baby growing up, we don't teach children to be bad, we teach them to be good. Being bad seems to come naturally to them. So, to determine the validity of Christianity on how people act is flawed since we are all flawed. My belief is based on God's Word. But, then you have a problem with that since you belief that is flawed. So, we are at an impass.
OK, let me take my reasoning above and apply it to Islam. My rejection of Islam as truth is not based on the actions of terrorists, as I've already said, I know some good people who are adherents, my rejection is based on their religious system and fundamental beliefs. I think the fundamental doctrines of Islam can easily develop a terrorist mentality and can lead to the social problems seen in predominantly Muslim nations.
So, now tell me why we can't coexist?
Luth, I'd like to make a point concerning Unitarian vs Trinitarian belief. There has been conflict between the two positions down through the centuries and it continues today. In fact, at its fundamental level that is the difference between Jews and Christians.
Trinitarians accept God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit as part of the godhead. All are deity. They are one. Volumes have been written explaining this, so I can't even begin to scratch the surface to explain it. Non-Trinitarians by nature of their position deny the deity of Christ. They view him as a good man, a prophet (as do the Muslims), or maybe a lesser deity. As a friend put it, they can only hold to their absolute view of the one-ness of God by denigrating the deity of Christ. If there is only one God, then what is Christ?
I will contend that a Unitarian may be a believer in God, but it is impossible for them to be Christian. To deny the deity of Christ is to deny Christianity.
True Christians through the ages have been Trinitarians. But, regardless of all that, Jesus was a Trinitarian, and therein lies the proof.
Blind faith does hurt society. Maybe not directly, but stalling stem cell research, distracting us from other forms of progress, perpetuating violence. You cannot deny that religion is the primary source of wars throughout the history of man. I did begin this mess by suggesting that when it comes to the affairs of man, God should be left out of the discussion in favor of rational arguments, sound reasoning and proof. If a candidate can't come to the table like that, then he or she shouldn't be considered a viable candidate. Here's why I think so...
Operating under the delusion that he’s the most important animal on the planet, man created God in his own image in order to perpetuate that delusion. This allows man to dream up all kinds of rules used to keep other men, and animals in what some men feel is their proper place.
The uni-trini split is certainly an example of what happens when those men disagree over what rules should be observed. There is no logical argument, no verifiable source of knowledge or truth to either story. Both are simply matters of faith backed only by documents written by those who shared that faith and created the documents to back it up. The documents provide only enough guidance that after 2000 years those men still can’t agree on which ones are real, which ones count and which ones we can ignore.
For instance, the Old Testament makes no mention whatsoever of Jesus... apparently the Trinity was an afterthought that didn’t come about until centuries after Israelites escaped via a miraculously parted Red Sea. Later, the New Testament tells us that the Holy Ghost was sent by God (a subservient role, not equals) to impregnate Mary who then gave birth to the Son of God, NOT God, but the Son of God... clearly delineating three separate, certainly not equal roles. The Son was subservient to the Father, and the Father was the Ghost, who was SENT BY the Father. Jesus alwasy referred to God as his Father, not an equal, not a shared entity. It just doesn't bear even the most superficial logical inquiry. And we won’t even get into the whole incestuous overtone that a literal interpretation of the story requires. So there’s a couple of counterpoints to some of your Trinitarian claims.
I tend to agree with your point about there being non-Christian faithful and Christian faithful, but it makes me wonder why you feel the newer version of the story is so much more valid than the original version yet you have no problem discounting the latest version (as revealed to Mohamed and foreshadowed - or prophesied - in the Bible.) How can you logically expect someone to buy parts but scoff at the whole?
But back to the delusion theory since it also addresses your "born of sin theory." We teach our children everything they know. They’re not born racists. Kids will play with other kids regardless of their skin color and they will judge each other on their own merits until they LEARN racism or other methods of judging. We teach them to be evil. We teach them to sin.
Relating to other human traits, basic instincts, that we are born with, the various religions define these basic human instincts as “sin” for some strange reason. Just because members of a species are born with an innate desire to propagate their species doesn’t make the act of reproducing a sin. Only religion defines it as such... and only under strict conditions. Sex is evil and dirty until you are 18 or 22 or 30 (if it's my daughter!) and married, at which point it is magically transformed into a wonderful expression of God’s love... as long as you do it in the right position and only for the express purpose of procreation.
So are we born with sin? Sure if you choose to define a genetic code that causes us to want to reproduce (among other fun things!)... that causes the act of doing so to be pleasant and desirable. But the science of who we are and how we got here doesn’t call it that. Only religion calls it that... and creates the guilt associated with it... and prevents humans from connecting in that way via that guilt. It’s only the delusion of self-importance that lends any credence to these rules. The rules in turn create guilt, anxiety and even, by a stretch, a scarcity (of salvation) that leads to conflict and disharmony among humans.
For instance, in order to defeat this guilt, we’ve created the religious institution of marriage - not the legal institution, but the religious institution. Along with that come all kinds of arbitrary rules to which every marriage must submit. Adults don’t get to decide what they feel is a successful or happy relationship, they must succumb to the arbitrary rules. In many cases these rules go against the propagation of the species. I mention that only to point out the utter lack of a logical or even moral basis for these rules. They are “moral” only to the extent that they match some religiously defined, not logically defined rule.
So the delusion leads to craziness. The craziness leads to separation. The separation leads to conflict and the conflict leads to violence and oppression. I’m not saying religion is the ONLY cause that ends this way, but show me a more prolific one.
If man truly feels the need to believe he’ll live forever, he simply need look to science. The law of physics tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change forms. So the matter that makes up our bodies has always been here and it will be here long after we’re gone. We will live forever, just not in the form we’ve fooled ourselves into believing is something more than it is.
I won't do a point by point rebuttal, we are just going in circles anyway. But, I do want to leave it that we agree on one thing anyway. Blind faith is dangerous. It does hurt society and not just indirectly. Yes, religious differences have caused many conflicts throughout history and often it was rooted in blind faith. And by blind faith I mean faith without understanding, just believing because someone said that is what should be believed. One of my hobby horses in this discussion has been defining a Christian. Do a poll and ask people what their religion is then ask them what they base it on. I bet you will get a lot of people who claim to be Christian but have no idea why, because their parents were and they went to church once when they were little. Now if they make decisions or take sides based on just that, they are flying blind. No understanding of what a Christian really is. The same can be said for Muslims or any other group.
Sorry Luth, but some more thoughts came to me and I just can't resist.
With teaching kids to be bad, I agree with what you said above relative to how kids learn to be racists and generally judgmental. I was thinking on a more fundamental level. Lying, for example, seems to come naturally to young children as a way to avoid punishment. Tattling is a natural behavior. Being self-centered is natural - all babies are extremely self-centered, they have to be. The problem is some never grow out of it or learn to control it. That's the sort of thing I was referring to. We have to teach kids to not lie, not tattle on others, not pick on brother or sister, and to share and be aware of other's needs not just their own.
With regard to sin, or wrong doing, or whatever you want to call it, it all comes down to morality and I have questioned what your basis for morality is absent God. I'm not questioning you again, though. As I have become older it has become more clear to me the reasons why the God through the Bible has given us rules to follow and names certain activities as sin. And it neatly fits into your definition of "good". You go on at length above about the morality of marriage rules. Does your wife allow you to have a girlfriend and bring her home, maybe even live with you as a nice happy family? If your wife is typical, I would guess the answer is a resounding no and if you tried to do that, you'd find yourself single very quickly. Jealousy is a normal human emotion. How are social diseases spread? If everyone followed biblical rules for sex, would there be the social disease problem we have today? OK, unrealistic. But there is logic there.
More examples....
Why does God say it is sinful to steal from others? It materially hurts those stolen from - fits your definition.
Why does God say it is sinful murder? Kind of self explanatory.
Why does God say it is sinful to lie? It can hurt others in many different ways - fits your difinition.
I could go on and on. The rules we see in the Bible are just a codified way of trying to enforce behavior that results in an end that you perceive as good, we love our neighbor rather than hate him and do him harm. It defines what is good what we must do to achieve it.
Semi point by point rebuttal:
Kid learn to lie along with other language skills. Sometimes it is picked up and used as a survival instinct (as you mentioned). Survival instincts are not the same as "born of sin."
Morals are easy. We've been over and over that.
The whole point of the sex example regarding my marriage is that it shouldn't be anyone else's business outside of my marriage. As far as sexually transmitted diseases, it is a shame that some men feel they need God to keep them in check. I just exercise a little self control. No God isn't the same as no consequences. As for as socially transmitted diseases... well, those come from socializing, apparently, and isn't that a key part of fellowship?
Faith without reason, proof, evidence or logic is blind faith.
And the one that came to me later... the self-control issue above reminded me of a friend's take on a growing number of converted Christian preachers: you often find they've simply replaced one addiction (drugs, womanizing, abuse, self-destruction) for another (God and/or proselytizing).
Addictions are dangerous.
The number of typos in the previous comment (mine) can be dangerous as well!! Sorry.
What ever happened to ol' Rev. Spitz? He got his standard message in, realized it had no place and didn't stand a chance in a civil, logical discussion, and turned tail?
Post a Comment