To say that criminals treat people the way they want to be treated, and they just happen to want to be treated badly, is ignorant at best.

Nicely put. I’ve often argued that the whole of morality and all of the Good Bits of any religion can be distilled down to nothing more than “respect each other”

That man needs a good GODSMACK in my estimation, and I wish I was given the opportunity to tell him so!

Um… yeah. No connection between religion and violence at all.

Right.

I wanted to call in but it was a “captive” audience. I wanted to ask the guy which part of the brain fabricates the kind of nonsense he spews? The audacity of anyone to believe they know what anyone else’s brain is thinking! I’d say that is delusions of grandeur and the ultimate insanity! That man needs a good GODSMACK in my estimation, and I wish I was given the opportunity to tell him so! After all, isn’t “humanism” religious dogma in itself? It is a dictation of what the rest of us are supposed to believe, and I don’t buy it! Don’t say I am “uneducated” or “brainwashed” because I have traveled to 17 countries, including the former soviet union, have lived in many different areas, worked with people from all over the world, and have done my own research.

I just have to wonder if brave Althusius is still around.

Alas, his blog has been long-dormant.

Thanks for the thoughts and the wisdom behind them.

I just have to wonder if brave Althusius is still around. If so, I’d love to have him join our discussions on the “divinely inspired” section of this blog.

Since, after all, his entire notion of life and morality begins with an atrocious bare assertion fallacy:

By the Bible, the ultimate standard laid down by the Ruler of the universe.

If this statement is true, verification should be relatively easy based on said “ultimate standard”.

Alas, so far we’re still stuck on penguins on long boat trips. ; )

Jon

from the Althusius blog referenced here earlier:
“”And as I said before, you cannot judge another moral standard as corrupt using
“your twisted version of the Golden Rule. You cannot accuse another person of “bigotry using your standard because they choose to not have it apply to them. In terms of sexism, the Bible has many rules that hold up the rights of women (still keeping them in their God-ordained role), treating them as you would like to be treated. ”

ok. so keep’em in their place? how come only men get to write the rules?
& how dare you say “golden rule” as you still place the collar of inferiority around the minds and bodies of women? This bible states that women can be kept in line with a good beating once in a while, must cover her head out of deference to her master, I mean husband, and just follow along obeying whatever he thinks is right….

where’s the equanimity there, buddy?

“In terms of slavery, Mosaic Law has provisions for the treatment of slaves fairly; for example, masters should take care of slaves when they get injured as they would take care of themselves, or else the master would get executed (Exodus 21:20-21). ”

ummmmm….who would be enforcing this law? And if and when this purported sentence were to be carried out, would the slave then be free?

oh yeah, if you are a slave, who is there to make sure you are treated fairly? By the very nature of the master-slave relationship, is this concept even possible? How is one “fair” to one who is considered inferior?

“Slavery would have only occurred when you had a foolish or insane person who could work for a responsible one. ”

Really? How fascinating.

I suppose the millions of Africans kidnapped then brutally transported to Europe & the Americas were morons who deserved to be enslaved as they were idiotic enough to allow themselves to be captured.

Oh yeah, all those who were made slaves in wars, they were pretty stupid too: they’d be on the losing side(obviously not god’s) & merited the ensuing rape, pillage, as well as enslavement….

How about the peoples enslaved within their own lands in Asia, the Americas under the repressive social system known as colonialism, they were raving lunatics to actually want to hold on to their land. “heaven” forbid.

I understand.

“These people would be threatening society by their actions if they were not taught a temporary lesson by having temporary enslavement. ”

Oh Christians aren’t a vengeful lot. really.

Temporary enslavement? what kind of euphemistic delusion is going on here?!?
Where was “temporary enslavement” practiced, particularly among Christians?

“Thus you would treat other members of society as yourself by taking away this threat.”

I have a very pressing question for you Althusius: under what circumstances would you deem “temporary enslavement” an appropriate, shall we say, “alternative”?

I’m very curious.

you meant to say “Thus you would protect the interests of other members of society like yourself” didn’t you, Althusius, because that’s really the thrust of your argument here.

“You have to consider other aspects and nuances, Ironwolf. The Law of God does that, because, well, God is God.”

What an answer! How is this tautism supposed to govern Ironwolf’s thinking or actions? based one what?

He’s supposed to suspend reason and renege the very clear principle on which he bases his actions for a very convoluted lie?

Repeating a lie a million times will never make it true.

Matt

“Since the vast majority of all species have evolved into extinction, I find myself unable to be a fan of evolution. I would think that every extinct species had its own evolved “survive and prosper” toolkit.”

Most species did not “evolve” into extinction: the very fact you use the word evolve in that context displays your lack of understanding of the concept.

Ever heard of the dinosaurs, Matt? I’m sure you have.

They not “evolve” into extinction. There are different theories as to how this happened, all pointing to drastic climactic shift that happened too quickly for beneficial mutations to evolve in a large number of dinosaurs.
(a little info: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html)

“So the foundation of the secular application of the Golden Rule is feel-goodism.”

No Matt, the basis of the Golden Rule is an attempt at being fair.

SlingPaw

“How do you know the Golden Rule is right? How can you judge other people’s actions? The only thing you can do with a “standard” like that, is judge your own actions. It’s too weak to extend to other people.
If the Golden Rule is the standard, what about people who have a very low view of themselves? Criminals don’t care enough not to commit crimes. They treat people like they treat themselves. Is this right? How can you say otherwise?”

SlingPaw, your argument raises an interesting point. I will give the best answer I can.

When a group of people decide that they will live with another, a covenant is formed by which it is agreed certain behaviours cannot be tolerated, ie rape, theft, etc, not on the basis of religion, or or any subjective ideas even the Golden Rule, but because cohesion of the group will be threatened and survival then minimised.
So the basis of this covenant needs to be based on pragmatic, objective reasoning.
The “standard” as you mention, needs to apply to everyone, no matter where they are from, the culture in which they are raised, etc.
Nonetheless, there are basics no matter what society people are born into: it is not acceptable to randomly assault someone with no provocation. Theft is not acceptable either: even in cultures where property is communal, there is the idea of taking more than is one’s lot, or “share”

IRONWOLF—

what can I say but “Bravo!!!”
well done!

Ultimately guys, the idea is to be just and the basis of justice is not tied to any deity but to the principle of acting in fairness.

Back to work I go, but I simply had to respond.

Althusius,

First, you continue to justify the sexism and slavery condoned by the Bible and your God. My point.

Next, you spend several paragraphs begging the question of the Bible’s divine authority by appealing to… the Bible’s divine authority! (”The answer, “God did it” is not wrong at all, since He tells in His Word that He did it.”) My point again.

Next, you briefly dis on other cultures because some of them haven’t made as great a contribution to science as some other cultures that were predominantly Christian. Even if I grant you that, this would not be an argument that Christianity is true, only that it may promote science. But I can’t really grant you that, as often the Christian establishment has been a chief enemy of science— finally giving in only when to not do so would make laughingstocks of them. If you look at where cutting-edge advances in both science and social systems are being made today, you will have to look outside the U.S. (a “Christian nation” by description though not prescription) to some of the least religious countries. Another point here.

Next you try to claim religion as the origin of science while simultaneously attempting to undermine science. Cheeky move, but it falls flat. 4-Love.

Next, you admit to an extreme dogmatism of absolute truth. Have you noticed that Richard Dawkins entitles the central chapter of his bestselling book The God Delusion, “Why there is almost certainly no God”? Hey, if the world’s leading atheist is willing to concede a little doubt about whether there is a God, won’t you even concede a little doubt about your claim that God exists? No? I didn’t think so, but then you seem content in the unwholesome company of a lot of other dogmatists— both religious (such as terrorists) and political (such as dictators)— who also have no use for doubt. Point.

Next, you accuse me of a brute assertion when I say that Christianity did not always exist. Well, if you’d like to produce some evidence that people called themselves Christian back in the days of Moses, then I’ll retract that. I’ll charitably call this one a foul.

Next, you attempt an incredibly weak defense of your straw man characterization of the Golden Rule. How you continue to derive killing and mayhem out of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” continues to be a real stumper for me. Point.

Next, you attack self-defense as not compatible with the Golden Rule, again showing your persistent misunderstanding of its application within the larger framework of game theory. People defend themselves from each other when necessary, but they prefer to trust each other. This is reciprocal and it works (remember, a more general name for the Golden Rule is “The Ethic of Reciprocity.”) That you carry on attacking an ethic that you yourself pragmatically hold is quite astonishing. (You would defend your family, wouldn’t you? Or perhaps you’ll just sit around faithfully waiting for lightning bolts from heaven to zap your wife’s rapist.) Point.

Nearing the end, you call me out for describing you as, among other things, corrupt and perverse. You again attempt to construct a straw man Golden Rule out of pacifism. “You wouldn’t want to be called evil, so by the GoLDen rULe you should not call anyone else evil.” But if someone thinks I’m evil, then I’m quite willing to have them call me that, for perhaps I will recognize truth in their words and change my ways. If I do not, then no harm done is done to me by their words, and in any case I can respond with my own view. 8-Nothing.

You are (of course) welcome to score this debate your own way. And I invite you to have the last word. I’m convinced that thinking readers (Christian or not) will easily see the staggering fallacies inherent in your world view. But since I believe we’re starting to run in circles, I’m going to call my end of this debate closed. I am, of course, available to answer any specific questions you may have. You know where to find me.

Regards,

Ironwolf