If you read the comments of atheists to my last “1.6% Solution” post, you’ll see them laboriously explaining the ever changing worth of human beings as it follows the ebb and flow of human desire.
Currently in our world we reward those we deem to have worth and value. Those with:
. Physical attractiveness
. Athletic ability
. The power to entertain us
. Education - (atheists deeply admire those with education)
. Intelligence - (atheists deeply admire those with intelligence)
I remember saying once, “Jesus loves morons.” An atheist, Lui, from Australia, said, “That’s disgusting.” I didn’t tell him that one of my children is just a couple points away from that label. Atheists worship intelligence.
. Those with money - especially if they promise to make money for us - are honoured and valued.
==
==
. In a secular world, externals are VERY important.
. In a secular world, good character, integrity, honesty, a servant attitude, a humble mentality and meekness are virtually shunned. These things are seen as a sign of weakness.
. In a secular world, those who love the outcast, those who minister to the poor, those who care for “widows and orphans” are by and large judged by the secular world as having suspect motives. (For an example of this, go to YouTube and listen to respected and honoured atheists Penn and Teller’s thoughts on Mother Theresa).
. In a secular world, those in the valued group look for reasons why those who forgo education and wealth to voluntarily serve the fringes of society should not be valued.
. In a secular world, if you say you have one unit of value and your neighbour says you have no value your neighbour is just as correct as you are. In a secular world "might" determines what and who is right.
. In a secular world, those with the least power are the one’s most likely to be devalued and exterminated. The more secular any community / country becomes, the more likely this is to be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's the value of a human life according to the Bible God?
ReplyDeleteDoes God feel that some people are worth more than others?
What do God's absolute and perfect moral standards have to say about this issue?
Lev 27:1-7
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD(dedicated to the Lord) by thy estimation(scale of values).
And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
The process described above relates to dedicating someone to the Lord by paying the "value" of that person to one of God's priests, who acts as God's agent in this transaction. The value of a person is declared in Lev 27, as shown above.
Here's the accounting summary:
Man age 20-60 = 50 credits
Woman age 20-60 = 30 credits
Women are worth 60% of what men are worth.
Boy age 5-20 = 20 credits
Girl age 5-20 = 10 credits
Girls are worth 50% of what a boy is.
Boy age 1 month-5 years = 5 credits
Girl age 1 month-5 years = 3 credits
Man age 60+ = 15 credits
Woman age 60+ = 10 credits
Old women are worth 67% of what old men are worth.
Old men are worth 30% of what a mature man is worth.
Boys are worth 40% of what a mature man is worth.
Children and infants are worth 10% of what a mature adult is worth.
The Bible God places lower values of worth on children, females, and the aged.
Also of note is that children under 1 month of age have no identified value.
"In a secular world "might" determines what and who is right."
ReplyDeleteLuke 12:5 “But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him.”
Might makes right sounds like your god.
It's too bad God's acceptance of slavery isn't shared as much by US citizens as it used to be. I could use some occasional help around the house and in the yard, especially during the summer.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteI wasnt finished responding to your last post. I'll continue on the last conversation on this one...
Just as physical laws are fully realized in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realized in Jesus and Father God. As I stated before, our daily interactions with others shows we know beyond doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
Physical law is absolute, it's reliable for prediction, we literally have it down to a science ;) Earlier you stated that there was a difference between absolute objectivity and Christianity's objective morality. I'm trying to understand what the difference is, if you contest God's moral code to NOT be situational. I gotta say though, I do not know how you can say this and then go on to describe cultures where it's a crime to convert out of Islam. I find it naive to think that these ENTIRE cultures are rebelling against the moral law that we know beyond doubt was put in place by Jesus "himself".
Going back to the Nazi analogy from earlier, would god want us to fight off the nazis and protect our civilization, or would he expect Thou shalt not kill? You could attempt to make the case of "what would Jesus do?' being the ultimate authority for morality, however there are problems with this. First of all, how are we to know what Jesus would do in every situation? Secondly, we must establish Christianity as being true before declaring its morality objective and eternal. With this being what it is, we cannot use morality as a case for the existence of God. Another problem, as stated before, Christians don't seem to have the upper hand when it comes to morality. For instance, the top 10 countries with the highest murder rate per capita are ALL populations that are overwhelmingly Christian. I do not however, attribute this to Christianity, actually. I think its what you mentioned above, economic stain and poverty. (mostly)
The point is, with Christianity claiming objective morality, shouldn't we observe the lowest crime rates in places saturated in the ambience of Christian morality? Well, I know you don't agree with that, you will say that god still gives you a choice. Its up to you to live up to the objective standards set by god. However if this is how it works, what is the benefit of objective morality?
By your definition, the only function objective morality serves is to establish who goes to hell. We can say this because Christianity doesn't automatically inspire people to adhere to god's ethics. But then again, if you accept Jesus, your not going to hell right? To what purpose does you definition of objective morality serve?
What seems to be happening is that we're using the same term to describe two entirely different things.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThis is where we cannot connect...
Your objective morality - Moral laws put forth by god. They are eternal, objective, non-situational, and each individual is "responsible" (sort of) for adhering to this code of conduct.
My "objective" morality - The paradigm of social morality set forth by the sum average of the individuals that comprise the collective. My objective morality works in conjunction with my subjective morality. They CANNOT operate independently, both types of morality rely on each other
My subjective morality - The individual interpretation of morality. It is situational, finite, and each individual is responsible to the society for adhering to this code of conduct.
AS YOU CAN SEE our definitions have no way of meeting a common denominator and we can therefore only argue on which method is more effective. And not which one is true. In order to verify the truth of your definition of objective morality, we must establish the existence of god.
That’s what YOU think is the right way to do things. Other cultures and sub groups within cultures think differently. What you think is an evolution toward a better society some see as regression.
What like woman's rights? Like abolishing slavery? Yes I agree that some cultures see those things as regression, but they violate the "greatest possible sum". And I'm just going to call it that from now on and I'll explain what I mean by that.
The greatest possible sum: The maximum amount of individual freedom allowed without compromising basic human rights upheld by society.
Qualification for the sum are:
Individual freedom: The individuals right to exercise freedom in all forms as long as they do not compromise basic human rights (the sum of the individual freedoms that comprise the collective)
Basic human rights: A safeguard for individuals defined by laws. Its function is to prevent the harm of individuals.
The reason I can define these term is because its compatible with how societies gravitate
in times of prosperity. I agree that in times of desperation the collective is self destructive. But this is all the more reason to fight world poverty or the inhumane treatment of another collective. This doesn't nullify the dynamical progress that exists in properity.We should embrace the implications of prosperity and concentrate our efforts towards the well being of ALL human beings, despite whatever collective they're attached to.
Part 3 (last part)
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely what Muslims and Hindus believe is happening when people of their faith convert to Christianity. I’ve heard it said in exactly those terms. The very stability and security of the nation is in jeopardy when people de convert. Therefore the collective preempts the individual.
I agree. But this is the result of faulty collective foundation, like the friction of tectonic plates. When the stability of the nation is in jeopardy because of religious conversion, this is a matter of TWO opposing collectives. The nation collective is partitioned into more fundamental and in this case, opposing collectives, defined by the intoxication of religion.
Situations like this do not adhere in allowing the maximum possible personal freedom (The greatest possible sum). Now, one could make the argument that its not our RIGHT to tell other cultures how they treat women. THIS IS WRONG, there comes a point where we do need to intervene to protect the rights of individuals despite whatever collective they "belong to". Are we that primitive that we can't decide whether or not allowing other people to be raped in other countries is morally right or wrong? I'm not suggesting we go into these countries with guns blazing, but we could at least start with a discussion of what future plans might look like.
And by the way, what's up with this new post? It's pretty silly. You were putting forth a good fight for a while, and then this?
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, what's up with this new post? It's pretty silly. You were putting forth a good fight for a while, and then this?
ReplyDeleteBecause you got caught again thinking that you can actually discuss with the man... ;)
He's not interested in what you think, he thinks he knows it all already, and could not care less that we keep telling him his wrong when stating 'this is how they think'...
Great comments, you touched the most important point in my opinion: his god is yet to be proven, so all this morality talk is only theoretical.
Actually, it's worse than that, all this morality "discussion" is pointless when taking place with a man who 'knows' his god exists, and pretends to have a divine connection with an invisible gost, i.e. the Holy Spirit... That might be the answer to another of your question:
"what would Jesus do?' being the ultimate authority for morality"
Don't worry, the Holy Spirit will guide you... as long as you believe it it. If you don't, it's your fault, you are not opened enough. Why aren't you more like Mary atheistsnackbar? ;)
@Biblical Living
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment, I did not expect that when reading the username 'Biblical Living'. I thought for a second that we might actually see a theists show up here and support or contradict Thesauros!
"However if this is how it works, what is the benefit of objective morality?"
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the Law is to show us how far we fall from God’s standards. The Law is not meant to save. It cannot. It can only convicts us of our need for forgiveness. It destroys the delusion that we are good people in our own right.
===========
“prosperity and concentrate our efforts towards the well being of ALL human beings,”
I would suggest that prosperity does almost nothing to ensure the “well being” of people. We live in an enormously prosperous, well educated, well fed society yet depression and angst and violence and despair and addictions are rampant. The only thing that prosperity encourages is that we’ll leave each other alone.
=========
“Are we that primitive that we can't decide whether or not allowing other people to be raped in other countries is morally right or wrong?”
Base on what? Because snacker the atheist says so?
I’ll tell them that rape is wrong because the highest Authority in the universe says it’s wrong.
You’ll say, “Well, there are quite a few of us over here who believe that things would work a lot better if you didn’t do that.”
Mine has an objective base and we don’t have to think even two seconds to know that rape is wrong - objectively wrong.
You’re side, the atheist side, has even had people make a case for rape as a natural and expected means of ensuring the survival of one’s genes. That's called relative morality.
The only thing that keeps the latter from becoming the norm is power and a change in the collective consciousness.
Paedophilia or man / boy love is a more realistic example. Within twenty or thirty years you will see it move from vice to habit. Not because it has become objectively right (it will remain objectively wrong) but it will become considered right based on the collective good. After all, who are we to discriminate against those who have felt this way, who have only been attracted to children right from birth?
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
ReplyDeleteAnd Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the Law is to show us how far we fall from God’s standards. The Law is not meant to save. It cannot. It can only convicts us of our need for forgiveness. It destroys the delusion that we are good people in our own right.
ReplyDeleteIn other words it has no practical function in reality. It only serves to illustrate the difference between "perfection" and ourselves. It serves to contrast a flawed creation with a "flawless" creator. So we have a creator who insists on making "his" creations flawed and then later punishing "his" creation for having blemishes. Oh, I see.
"I would suggest that prosperity does almost nothing to ensure the “well being” of people. We live in an enormously prosperous, well educated, well fed society yet depression and angst and violence and despair and addictions are rampant. The only thing that prosperity encourages is that we’ll leave each other alone."
This is completely inaccurate. First off, it's not like we live in the republic of the Congo, okay? We haven't been oscillating in and out of a civil war that has cost the lives of millions. Let's not exaggerate the severity of our situation. We have problems, sure, but let's not compare them to those of third world countries. That's just insulting to those living in places where its illegal for women to dance., for example.
Base on what? Because snacker the atheist says so?
Nope, because it directly harms the individual and by extension the collective. Because the collective cannot maintain happiness knowing that rape is being allowed in society.
You’re side, the atheist side, has even had people make a case for rape as a natural and expected means of ensuring the survival of one’s genes. That's called relative morality
Not all atheists think alike. Shall I copy/paste some quotes from creationist that are just as crazy? because there are LOTS to pick from.
Mine has an objective base and we don’t have to think even two seconds to know that rape is wrong - objectively wrong.
This "objectivity" doesn't seem to prevent it from happening. Besides, we've already established what your definition of objectivity means relative to the real world. Your objectivity is simply declared, nothing more. We have no real reason to assume your morals are any more objective than mine. We would need to establish that your morals are not designed by man in the first place, being that the condition you assign for objectivity requires god.
The only thing we have to go by is your word. Are Hindu morals objective?
I’ll tell them that rape is wrong because the highest Authority in the universe says it’s wrong.
ReplyDeleteHilarious, as if he had any way of knowing for sure what is favorite god thinks...
Mine has an objective base and we don’t have to think even two seconds to know that rape is wrong - objectively wrong.
The fact that we all have objective basis that allow us to conclude in 2 seconds that rape is wrong is irrelevant to him. He does not even want to know because our thought system is a priori wrong.
He prefers to conclude that our secular society will go toward accepting pedophilia. Seriously, how much more delusional can someone become?
Of course, he also forgets that the secular part of our society is precisely what allows his pet fundamental religion to flourish, especially in the US...
Again, nice quotes Biblical Living.
Obviously, you missed the point that these must be taken as symbolic literature, or put into historical context, since they are so clearly repugnant for our times.
"Oh, I see."
ReplyDeleteNo snacker, you don't see.
Pot, meet kettle...
ReplyDelete