Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?
I am showing you the historical baggage that Americans inherited from christian theocracies. It is the exact opposite of the picture that Fiene painted.
But Zuckerman is missing one important caveat in his assertion that atheists are just as capable of living morally, that caveat being if they live in a house built by religious hands. So no, an atheist doesnt need to believe in God to recognize that its wrong to take the lives of people who are weaker or seemingly less significant than he is. In fact, the Bible itself actually makes this point in Romans 2.
But history is littered with societies that havent drawn this same conclusion, so why isnt the average atheist arguing that we should chuck our sickly infants off a cliff, Spartan-style? Because his conscience has been formed by Western laws and societal expectations that have been born of a Christian worldview on the sanctity and equality of life. Does an atheist need to believe in Christ to insist that slavery is indefensible? No, but considering how prevalent slavery still is in the world, why do American unbelievers oppose it? Because, just like American believers, their views on slavery have been formed by the Christian conscience that drove the abolition movement and still dominates our culture today.
While faith in Christ can be abandoned in an instant, it takes generations for the influence of a Christian worldview to leave the cultural bloodstream, and were nowhere near that point in the western world. So when Zuckerman submits the low crime rates of Sweden and Denmark, two secular nations that were both highly religious until about seven minutes ago, as evidence of atheisms ability to construct a prosperous society, this isnt the argument of a man who genuinely doesnt know why Scandinavia lacks crime (hint: it lacks poverty). Rather, this is the argument of a trust-fund kid who is too insecure to admit that his epically moral life is primarily due to living in the mansion that Daddy Christendom built. (http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/12/do-secular-family-values-even-exist/)
Except you're not. You keep pointing to the Spanish Inquisition while trying to disprove the view of sanctity of life in Christendom,
while somehow trying to hairpin it to what you claim is "the historical baggage that Americans inherited from Christian theocracies."
When asked for examples, you give vague rumors of religious wars in Europe that led to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, when they didn't, and you keep trying to attack the concept of an American theocracy while changing the subject from the original issue (which Fiene backs up) about the inheritance of morals from a basic, Protestant Christian ideal.
I can cite other examples, if you like.
"During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly Roman Catholicized the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare and law upon conquest. Examples include the Massacre of Verden in 782, during which Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred upon rebelling against conversion, and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785 which prescribes death to those that refuse to convert to Christianity."
Forced conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
"A general toleration of Religion appears to me the best means of peopling our country… The free exercise of religion hath stocked the Northern part of the continent with inhabitants; and altho’ Europe hath in great measure adopted a more moderate policy, yet the profession of Protestantism is extremely inconvenient in many places there. A Calvinist, a Lutheran, or Quaker, who hath felt these inconveniences in Europe, sails not to Virginia, where they are felt perhaps in a (greater degree).”
~Patrick Henry, observing that immigrants flock to places where there is no established religion, Religious Tolerance, 1766
Those same protestants that fought wars with catholics in the name of protestantism?
Just like how St. Patrick took a sledgehammer to the altar of Crom Cruach, how Boniface cut down Thor's Oak, and how the Christianization of Norway took place.
As a descendant of the Saxons, of the Thuringians, of the Norwegians, and of the Irish, I would like to personally thank these Saints for forcibly converting my ancestors.
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
- George Washington "General Orders" (2 May 1778)
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports."
- George Washington "Farewell Address"
"Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty."
- John Adams "Letter to Abigail Adams" (15 April 1776)
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."
- John Adams "Letter to Zabdiel Adams" (21 June 1776)
"Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."
- John Adams "Letter to Thomas Jefferson" (19 April 1817)
"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God...What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
- John Adams diary entry (February 22, 1756)
Which ones?
So much for christianity upholding justice and the sanctity of life. Slaughtering 4,500 people because the rebelled against the idea of being forcibly converted to christianity is the exact opposite of justice and a respect for the sanctity of life.
Notice that you completely avoided their acknowledgements of the church overseeing persecution.
"The Thirty Years' War was a series of wars in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648 lasting for thirty years.[15] It was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in European history.
Initially a war between Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmenting Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe,[16] becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the FranceHabsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence."
Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In modern times, we have the conflicts in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. I can find tons of examples, if you like.
Ever heard of the Inquisition?
The revolutionary laws that went against the divine right given to the King by God?
Or the revolutionary laws that said you can believe what you wish instead fighting wars in the name of a religion as was done in Europe?
And, uh, where does Christ condone that?
Much as you completely avoided their praises of religion and morality.
Thank you, Wikipedia! Also, it " developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe, becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the FranceHabsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence."
Started not by the Protestants!
Whose moral belief is based on a religious book?
By divine right as Holy Roman Emporer. Such is the danger of mixing government and religion.
I've never supported a theocracy. I'm a Lutheran. We have a little thing called the doctrine of the two kingdoms.You mean the praises of religion and a separate secular government?
Christianity respects the sanctity of life. Christians don't always.Christianity respects the sanctity of life, except when it doesn't. Got it.
Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?
Well, I guess you can say mine are. There are certain things in the Bible that say this is or that is wrong, and because I fear the penalty of hell, I am walking from what the Bible says is wrong.
But some people say "because the Bible says so" is a stupid answer. I guess I blindly follow a religious book. But I don't why this or that is wrong. I just don't want to be punished.
Bu we haven't! Yes, while society is steadily moving away from Judeo-Christian values, you're still preaching secular values from the house that Papa Christendom built!
There's a difference between the Moral and Civil/Ceremonial Laws (the latter of which Christ fulfilled).
Refers only to women in ministerial positions.
There's a great article on the subject which I think all would benefit from reading:
Do Secular Family Values Even Exist?
I asked where Christ condones that, and this isn't an example.
I've never supported a theocracy. I'm a Lutheran. We have a little thing called the doctrine of the two kingdoms.
Christianity respects the sanctity of life. Christians don't always.
Just in the way that atheism is OK (civilly), but atheists aren't always (Stalin, Mao, &c.).
It most certainly is. Implicit in Divine Rule for a christian theocracy is the claim that Christ condones what the king/queen do. That is the danger of non-secular governments and morality.
Then you embrace secularism.
There are several places in the Old Testament where God orders the killing of people, even of women and children.
I do not claim atheists to be immoral. There are plenty of moral atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, &c., &c. that support traditional family values. The Bible talks about this in the second half of Romans 2. In the case that you didn't finish that article, Hans Fiene later takes the blame and places it squarely on our (Christianity's) shoulders.The problem is that if they claimed divine authority through religion, how could you say that they were immoral?
Zuckerman sets out to prove that secular parents who raise their children “without prayers at mealtimes and morality lessons in Sunday School” are just as suited to raise “upstanding, moral children” as their religious counterparts. While his use of statistics in making this case is painfully unsuccessful, the weakest part of Zuckerman’s essay is actually his thesis. In asserting that unbelievers can accomplish the goals of Christianity without Christ, he presumes that the actual goal of Christianity is to mold mankind into moral creatures.
But this isn’t really the goal of Christianity. Certainly the Scriptures urge Christians to live a holy life, but the very reason Christ came into the flesh was to rescue us from the condemnation we earned by failing to live a holy life. Christ came not only to be our example, but ultimately to be our savior. In John 20, the evangelist states that every word he has written concerning Jesus is given not so that we can live more upstanding lives, but “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” Quite simply, the goal of the Bible, and hence the goal of the Christian religion, is to cover us in Christ’s forgiveness, life, and salvation.
As much as I’ve picked on his bad arguments in this piece, it’s not Zuckerman’s fault that he’s set up a competition with false Christianity. That’s the fault of Christians who are either too ignorant or too hungry for earthly glory to properly confess their own theology to the unbelieving world. Why, for example, does Zuckerman expect to even the score against Christians by telling us that “the vast majority [of secular adults] appeared to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose?” Because a five-second glance at the best-sellers in your local Christian bookstore sort of, kind of, entirely gives the impression that Christians believe the chief goal of their religion is to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.
Christians worship an ontological God, a God who exists because He exists and who has made mankind exist so that we may exist with Him and in Him through the power of Christ’s forgiveness. As much as we have the right to find Zuckerman’s statistical gymnastics embarrassingly weak, we don’t have the right to get angry at him for wanting to make his case when we’re the ones who essentially taught him that we worship a functional God, a God who only exists to aid us in accomplishing the goal of moral uprightness.
By all accounts, Phil Zuckerman seems to be a good representative of the friendly American atheist next door. If this average unbeliever has spent most of his life hearing Christians invite him to church because that’s the only way he can raise an eagle scout, we can’t really blame him for letting his insecurity get the better of him and offer up a handful of non-evidence in an attempt to prove that he can achieve the same feat without the superstition. (Do Secular Family Values Even Exist?)
God could do anything and you would view it as an "infinitely just action." You describing an action by him as that is meaningless. You're just saying your piece. Doing the lip service. It means nothing.WirSindBettler said:Yes, but as God knows the hearts and souls of all beings, this is viewed as an infinitely just action.
God could do anything and you would view it as an "infinitely just action." You describing an action by him as that is meaningless. You're just saying your piece. Doing the lip service. It means nothing.
Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?
It means nothing to say it outright. "Justice" is just synonymous with "God". "Righteousness" is just synonymous with "God". You have no independent definition for any ethical term.*It means nothing to you.
I'm saying it is to be expected. There is nothing that God could not do that you would not endorse. Your conception of morality is following orders.So don't tell me I'm just "doing the lip service" and "saying my piece." Because you don't know me either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?