Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9

Really Skeptic? The problem of evil has been solved? Let's see this amazing solution.

Without evil, you can't have good. One is meaningless without the other. Same with light and darkness.

Darkness doesn't actually exist. it's merely the absence of light.
Cold doesn't actually exist. It's merely the absence of heat.
Evil doesn't exist. it's merely the absence of good.

Extremely simple kindergarten knowledge here.

The problem here is that you think you can create reality with words. It is not a new concept; many ancient peoples including the Judaic and Arabic tribes thought that saying something was the same as creating that thing. So they really valued the spoken word, oral traditions, oral poetry, etc. Other cultures valued the visual depiction of the world; look at the complex artwork that the aboriginal people of Australia use to describe their religious beliefs.

However, while using words or pictures are culturally cool things, neither are objective ways of determining what is real. Just because you can say something or draw something does not make that thing real.

You can measure light and dark scientifically in ways that everyone can agree with. You can measure hot and cold scientifically in ways that everyone can agree with. Those are objective concepts.

However, you cannot measure good and evil scientifically in ways that everyone can agree with. Morality and immorality are culturally relative concepts, and will change depending on the time and place, because human beings created those concepts. Good and evil do not exist out in the universe somewhere. There are no good and evil animal behaviors or plant processes or geological events. There is no good or evil in weather patterns. There are no good and evil black holes.[1]

That does not mean that there are no rules and anything goes--exactly because human beings decide what is good or bad depending on the cultural context. We have been round and round on this with how the bible describes warfare, killing, slavery and yes, marriage from completely different perspectives than most people do today. None of those words means the same thing today than they meant in ancient times.

Show me anywhere in the bible where it says a powerful man would be in trouble if he forcibly assaulted one of his slaves, one of his concubines, one of his wives or even one of his children. None of these categories of people were protected because they did not own their bodies. The man owned their body to do with as he saw fit, so as a crime it did not apply. Perfectly acceptable, moral or legal?

In modern societies, no thanks to any gods, we have decided that servants, employees, women, men and children all have ownership of their bodies and do not have to submit sexually to anyone, no matter how powerful, and no matter what the relationship. I would argue that we are far more moral in this regard than in bible times. This has been a development of only the past 100 years in the US and Europe, so I don't want to hear any Christians claiming that they were at the forefront of women's or workers or children's rights.

Marriage was a financial contract between a father and the future husband, and was handled much like the transfer of a valuable camel or horse. Polygamy and lots of nookie on the side were part and parcel of biblical "marriage"-- a wealthy man was expected to have many wives, plus mistresses and enslaved concubines and to have children by all of them. Some powerful men kept male slaves for nookie purposes as well.  None of that is considered acceptable, moral or legal in most modern societies today. So, where is the unchanging moral code?

So, let's not get all high-handed about the sanctity of marriage being upset by allowing people of the same gender to legally commit and get the benefits thereof. In bible times, marriage was not about being in love or being committed to raising a family together, or having an equal partnership between two people as many would describe it today.

In order to pretend that there is an unchanging moral code in the bible, you have to do some pretty fancy dancing with crap like "slavery was just being a servant, like an employee" and "today we are wage slaves and we are slaves to creditors" --yeah, right. A slave was exactly like an employee who owed money on a credit card, just one who could not leave, was not paid, could be beaten to the point of death, had no choice of employer and could be sold to someone else. Exactly like the employment situation in most countries today. Right. Maybe North Korea, ironically one of the least Christian countries on the planet, has the most "biblical" working conditions for most of the population.[2]

Besides, if slavery was no big deal, no more than employment, than 1)why didn't the Jews just suck it up and stay in Egypt instead of leaving in the Exodus and 2) why are Christians so quick to take credit for ending slavery in the US? Instead of deciding it was wrong and eliminating slavery completely, why didn't Christians just make it more "biblical"?

You can't have it both ways, skeptic. Words about morality do have meanings, but only because people decide what those words mean. And when circumstances change, so do the meanings. No thanks to any gods.
 1. That is why god telling the Jews to kill an entire society including all the animals, or god drowning all the animals on the earth in the flood "to rid the planet of sin" is absurd on its face. Evil panda bears, full of the horrible sin of looking cute while eating bamboo shoots?
 2. Of course, wealthy conservatives in the US would love to have those kinds of "biblical" working conditions imposed on people today....
Changed Change Reason Date
lotanddaughters Nothin' but Goddamn "nookie gods". January 05, 2014, 12:44:31 PM
shnozzola evil panda bears :o) January 05, 2014, 10:50:55 AM
ParkingPlaces She's back! Absolutely superb, ngfm!!! January 05, 2014, 10:41:22 AM
median A beyond excellent response. MUCH PRAISE!! January 05, 2014, 03:07:14 AM