Jeff:
Look up Old Testament Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral laws, then get back to me. Specifically, what category does the "don't Murder" law fall under? What one does the "kill people who work on the Sabbath" fall under? What does that tell us about which one to follow?
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Old+Testament+Ceremonial%2C+Civil%2C+Moral+law&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=87b61fcb467d957c
Keep twisting and spinning, MiC. Twist and spin. Mental gymnastics is your strong suit. So is bullshitting it seems. This is a complete nonsense argument. Talking back to your mother and father is a moral issue. Therefore it should fall under a moral law. It's not a civil issue.
It's a commandment from God man. You're fucked if you don't kill children who talk back to you. THAT is defensible position from reading the bible. Need I remind you.... 2 Samuel 22:31 Remember always, that the word of god is flawless. And Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever. Are you going to say "forever" only means a "little while" now too?
Can you point to the passage of the bible that specifically says the civil, and ceremonial laws have been nixed, but the moral ones... now those you always have to follow? Otherwise, you're more deluded than I thought.
The only reason you cling to that bullshit is because you can't square your EMPATHY with what God does and says. You have to do the gymnastics. It's just so silly.
You mentioned something about empathy, that it evolved out of us being a social species. The instinct to have sex also evolved, and with it the instinct to rape. Can you explain why we ought to obey the one evolved impulse (empathy) but not the other (rape)?
That has something to do with civil evolution, moral evolution, and ceremonial evolution MiC. You see, The Westdarwin Confession, which is that body of learned evolutionists produced, and which is our own doctrinal standard, deals with the Law of evolution in its 19th chapter. I hope that dumb shit sounds just as stupid to you as your argument did to me.
In all seriousness, evolution has given us many things that are no longer useful in our environment. The urge to gorge ourselves on overly fatty foods for one. The instinct to rape, another. The belief in the supernatural, a third. The only reason we "ought" not to rape is the exact same reason we "ought" not to kill. We don't want to feel that, and we respect other people, so we don't rape. In the past, that instinct may have been required for the very survival of our species, (much like fatty food urges and supernatural beliefs) but it isn't necessary now. It's much like a vestigial remnant like the appendix or male boobs. We still have them, but they don't do anything now. Our reasoning can overcome the urge to rape. It can overcome our urge to eat huge amounts of fatty foods. And it sure as hell can overcome our need to believe that this entire universe needs an explanation and that explanation has to be some lame ass character in an old book.
You can cook up some story how we evolved social mores, and even were I to grant it, you have yet to show why we ought to follow our evolved social mores. As the venerable Hume says, how can an ought follow from an is?
That's the interesting thing MiC. We don't have to follow them. We make the choice to follow them. I could rape someone right now, but I don't. Why? Because I think it's wrong to rape someone. I wouldn't want to be raped myself, so I'm not going to do it to someone else. Lots of people share that opinion. That's where society dictates the "oughts" by creating laws around them. All you have to do is understand that everyone is an individual, and they each evolved and they each experienced growing up in a specific society which dictated what "oughts" they should follow. That explains pretty well the way in which different societies are exist with different versions of what "ought" to be.
As an atheist, I see that as a wonderful thing. It allows me to understand that my "oughts" don't have to be someone elses' "oughts". Of course I think everyone should be like me, but I don't push that. You on the other hand, belong to a group that has long pushed it's belief about what "ought" to be onto millions of people over thousands of years, to the point of torture and murder. Sleep well.
Finally:
Your arguments about heaven being awesome so we should be anxious to send people there miss the point entirely. We're not smarter than God. He said not to murder people. We (Christians) therefore don't.
Yeah you keep saying that, but what about when the person is ALREADY murdered? THAT'S the question. If they're dead, they're in heaven, right? What's the problem? So they got there by being murdered... who cares? Does the bible say something about people who are murdered not going to heaven? The murder
ee is not the murder
er. We aren't talking about the murderer here. Can't you answer it without saying something about a completely different point that people weren't actually trying to make?
Or if your too scared to answer that, how about you just answer the analogy I gave you? If you have an awesome job on the horizon and all you have to do is get fired from your current one, why shouldn't you wish for being fired? It's a simple question MiC. Answer it. And then explain where that analogy fails in terms of your God belief.
It is only the atheist who can honestly mourn for the dead. We know it's the end (well, at least most of us are pretty sure). If you believe in God and heaven, you have no business mourning the dead. They are supposedly in a better place. You should be so lucky.
And think of all those Japanese people who were killed in the tsunami. That's thousands of people who died and are now with God. Why are Christians around the world not celebrating it? You either don't actually believe in heaven, or it's cognitive dissonance, where you simultaneously believe that heaven is the greatest place ever created, but dying and going there is a tragedy.
Nuts man. Just nuts.
