New T-Shirt Design: Good Without God
Some claim that is impossible to be good without God. I know that’s not true— if you’re an atheist, then you are probably living proof! Publicly put the lie to this moralistic canard with this bold t-shirt, availble in unisex (4 colors) or women’s (black) styles in my CafePress shop.
January 1st, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Yes!!!
January 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
But how do you know what is good?
Without God, there is no standard to measure good by.
By what standard can you say that anything you do is good?
January 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Althusius,
The Bible says we should stone children who disrespect their parents. Is this good?
January 15th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Ironwolf,
No, that is not good for us today.
That particular part of the Bible is part of the Mosaic law in the Pentateuch. The law is divided into three parts: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. In the new covenant, only the moral law is binding on Christians, since Christ fulfilled the ceremonial and judicial law; as outlined in Acts 15:20
, Romans 13:8-10
, and elsewhere. Stoning children for dishonoring their parents is part of the judicial law, and therefore not binding on Christians in the new covenant.
The Israelite children were part of the covenant of God made to the nation of Israel. By dishonoring their parents, they were rejecting that covenant and rebelling against God further. That’s one reason why the death penalty was imposed. Not to mention that, by the way, this is God you’re talking about.
By the way, you didn’t answer my question. By what standard can you say that anything you do is good?
January 15th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Althusius,
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law until all shall be fulfilled?”
January 16th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Ironwolf,
I don’t mind answering your questions, but please stop diverting the discussion away from my original question. By what standard can you say that anything you do is good? I’m curious to know your answer, since I have as yet not heard any from an atheist.
That verse means that heaven and earth shall not pass away before the fulfillment of all of the law (which happened in Christ). The fulfillment of all of the law has to take place before the end of the world, and it did. Just take it in its context, and use normal logic that you use with every other book.
Now back to my question, by what standard can you say that anything you do is good?
January 16th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Althusius,
I acknowledge your question. We’ll come to my answer in due time— I presume you’re not in any real hurry?
Neither Jesus nor Paul condemns slavery, although clearly they could have. In fact, Paul (in Ephesians) gives advice to slaves that they should “obey their masters.” Many people (Christians, obviously) have at times in the past used these verses to justify slavery. Do you think slavery is wrong? If so, how do you know?
January 17th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
[...] I saw a post by an atheist recently that said you could be “Good without God.” This is a common myth perpetrated by atheists and others who want to build their own society without any absolute morals. It is impossible to be good without God. However, it provokes good questions that poke a hole right through the moral relativism of this day. By what standard do we measure right and wrong, good and bad? What is the basis of law and society? What is the foundation of truth? These are questions that are impossible for moral relativists to answer. [...]
January 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Althusius,
I see you have blogged about our exchange, but I still await your response to my last question.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Ironwolf,
Jesus and Paul’s focus was not on slavery.
Paul (in Ephesians) gives advice to slaves that they should “obey their masters.”
The word is actually translated servants, not slaves. While you can dispute the Greek with me, the word “servants” is a better term that describes what was happening better. In Mosaic law, Israelites entered into servitude only to pay off debts. There are very specific laws about the rules of how long servants can stay in servitude, how they must be treated, the status of the children, and so forth. Masters were forbidden to seriously harm a servant, and almost always treated their servants so well that the servants decided to stay in the service of their master longer than they needed to. At this point, they would be paid.
Merciful treatment of servants is always promoted in the Bible. These were not the chattel slaves of certain slave-owners in the South or work slaves of wealthy Roman noblemen. They were well-treated servants in the houses of masters who usually cared a lot. You will also notice that Paul says that slaves should be treated well by their masters. He says that masters should “give up threatening” (Eph. 6:9
) “give your bondservants what is just and fair” (Col. 4:1
, implying that they were paid wages) and in general to treat their servants well.
Therefore, I would say that servanthood is permissible as long as it is for wages and/or the paying off of debts. Enslaving someone for no wages I think is wrong because it is not fair and equitable. Treating your servants badly is always wrong.
For some more information, see the beginning of this post.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Althusius,
In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Also In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
• Is it wrong for women to preach?
• Should women only ask spiritual questions at home, of their husbands, and not in church?
• Which law “saith” women are “commanded to be under obedience”— the “judicial,” “ceremonial,” or “moral?”
• Is it wrong for women to vote?
• Is it wrong for women to take the lead in lovemaking?
• Is it wrong for women to have authority over men in the world of commerce?
• Is it wrong for a woman to be a man’s superior officer in the military?
• Would it be wrong for a woman to be President of the United States?
Obviously, there are biological differences between women and men. But in general, how do you apply the above scriptures to modernity? Do they make any practical difference at all (either inside or outside of church) in how women and men should treat each other and expect to be treated by each other?
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
A better translation is “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”
• Is it wrong for women to preach? — Yes
• Should women only ask spiritual questions at home, of their husbands, and not in church? — I think that they should not ask questions in the service, but that it’s fine for them to ask questions in conversation and education of women that sometimes take place in the church.
• Which law “saith” women are “commanded to be under obedience”— the “judicial,” “ceremonial,” or “moral?” — moral
• Is it wrong for women to vote? — I don’t know if you would call it wrong, just unnecessary, since they should be in agreement with their husbands, who represent them, along with the rest of the family. But I’m not going to make a judgment on that right now. I’m not qualified.
• Is it wrong for women to take the lead in lovemaking? — no comment
• Is it wrong for women to have authority over men in the world of commerce? — Yes.
• Is it wrong for a woman to be a man’s superior officer in the military? — Yes.
• Would it be wrong for a woman to be President of the United States? — Yes.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
My word!!! I am simply amazed at the regressive thought processes I read in that last comment. I take great offense to the ideas you just represented, Althusius. I am a single mother, working two jobs, and raising two teenage children. I receive little if any support be it moral or monetary. Neither of these gleaming gentlemen would so much as bother to give their children a phone call from time to time to see how they were fairing in school or life in general. Are these the shining examples of leadership and moral righteousness I am meant to follow without question?
Perhaps you were referring to the exceptional quality of the man that molested my best friend’s 11 year old daughter for almost four years. Now, there is a fine upstanding example of just how virtuous “all” men are.
Do not take this the wrong way; I am certainly not a man basher that despises men. I am the eternal “Fan of Man”.
Reading your comment just blew my mind. What century do you think we are living in? There are so many admirable women that have made great contributions to society. Or perhaps you owe all there successes to the men in their lives. (Sheesh!!!)
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Althusius,
I have responded directly to your question with a new post here.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Althusius,
I was raised in the church, and I come from a line of Pastors in my family. My father is a Pastor, and my Grandfather is a Pastor. I disagree with what you say about it being wrong for a woman to preach. I have preached at my church various times, and the Head Pastor at my church used to be a woman. It says in Joel 2:28-29
That in the Day of the Lord,
28″And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”
I hope you would agree that in these last days, it is the Day of the Lord. God has a plan for everyone, and he uses everyone in different ways according to their talents. God wants a willing vessel, may it be man or woman, to deliver his message.
Ironwolf,
I also disagree with your statement that you can be good without God. With or without your belief in Him, God exists and what’s more is that He created you and gave you they very knowledge you use to fight against Him. Without God, you wouldn’t know anything, let alone what good is or what it means to be.
God gave use free will, and in making that decision He knew that some would turn against Him, and others would deny him, but it was a risk He was willing to take, if only to save those that CHOOSE to love Him, but God’s hear desires that everyone be saved, but they have to want it.
You are never truly without God, no matter what you believe, He’s everywhere and hard to get away from. Even in your disbelief He is a strong presence in your life, you just choose not to acknowledge Him.
I suggest you read Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. He was once an atheist, and he provides a rational argument for why he came to Believe in God.
Whatever the outcome, I wish you the best in your life. Be brilliant!
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Ashley,
And you know all this… how, exactly?