Biblical Morality

In the discussions on this blog, the one thing that keeps coming to the forefront again and again is the concept of morality. Especially in the area of metaphysics. During the discussion of whether a rational basis exists for the belief in a transcendent god, the one premise that has been brought up is that if one does not believe in God (specifically the Christian God), then one is condemned to live a life of amorality. However, such an assertion lacks in regards to be a cogent, coherent analysis of the areas of morality and ethics.

The line of ‘reasoning’ that they use is flawed and contradictory, as shall be seen.

1. They make the assumption that there is a God.
2. They then assume that this God is the Christian God.
3. After this, another assumption is made that absolute morality emanates from this God.
4. Then this God inspired the infallible Bible, which begs the question of Inerrancy.

From the fourth point, they then begin the assertions of Absolute Morality is only to be found in the Bible, and can only be recognized by following the Christian path. Of course, another statement that begs the question is the assertion of Absolute Morality, which they conveniently forget to define. To this date, the slogan of Absolute Morality has been touted in fundie circles over and over again, yet even a little time spent on Google and certain academic, theological databases reveal that not one essay, not one philosophical argument has been offered that shows what this morality is without resorting to tautology.

Of course, when you take away the position of Absolute Morality, most theists will declare you as an inhumane, self centered person intent on ignoring the truth in order to satisfy your own lusts and sins. This attack is nothing more but an attack based in fear and ignorance. First, there are reasoned, logical arguments that do not resort to logical fallacies in order to support their positions in regards to absolute moral truth. The reason why most theists ignore these, however, is because these arguments do not resort to the unknown (a definition of God which turns out to be contradictory in most circles of theodicy, or resort to statements that morality can only come from this unknown in philosophical terms) in order to propagate their reasoning on what morality is, how it is to be achieved, and how to live by it.

Indeed, when the argument is looked at in its entirety, a rational person would have to conclude that this is the irrational response of a person who has invested much emotional energy into the construction of their metaphysics, but cannot be relied on to utilize reasonableness in assessment of their own claims. For instance, there is no consensus among theists about the attributes of God. Is it omnibenevolence? If so, then why is the scriptural writ of choice for Christians so vague when it comes to this absolute moral standard? If a person holds truth, but refuses to clarify that truth for the betterment of his fellow man, especially in areas where loss of life may be incurred through ignorance of this truth, then the person is guilty of murder through omission. If God is omnibenevolent, then where are His proclamations regarding gene splicing, genetic mapping, stem cell research? Is God omnipotent? If you know how to swim, and stand on the bank of a stream and watch a child drown, you are guilty of allowing that child to drown when you had the opportunity, the means, and the knowledge in how to save him. However, this Omnipotent God that the theists posit allows millions to die from natural causes every year. Remember the tsunami last year? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

This argumentation of the contradiction in terms between Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence has been discussed for centuries, with the theists always resorting to defending untenable positions. However, if we look at the Bible for attributes that belong to God, we find that many of the attributes are similarly contradictory. It should be no surprise, then, that if a theist is relying on a text that is irrational and contradictory, then his arguments for the existence and definition of God will likewise be contradictory. For example:

Ezekiel 6:12 He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them.

Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Numbers 11:33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

I Kings 22:21-23 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

II Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

So much for the idea of Omnibenevolence being an attribute of God. The Christians own scriptures are riddled with these, and dozens of other, contradictions when it comes to the exact attributes of God. The reason why these particular quotes were cited is because these are excerpts that are usually ignored in most Christian circles, as they tend to undermine their credibility when it comes to citing God as the author of Absolute Morality. Here, we see that God, according to the Bible, causes deafness, dumbness, inflicts sickness and disease, delights in lying to his followers, cause people to lie and to believe lies, is the author of evil, is vengeful, is jealous, is wrathful, and so on and so forth, all contrary to what the typical fundamentalist would want you to believe. These quotes, though, are in direct contradiction to the quotes that fundies usually espouse, which should illumine a rational person to the fact that the inerrancy doctrine is seriously flawed.

With such gaping holes in the Inerrancy Doctrine, one wonders how the Christian then goes on to argue for absolute morality in the Bible? The problem is that they can’t, but they do not want you to know it. The fundamental supposition that is false within a Christian Fundamentalists worldview is the fact that Absolute Morality is never defined. It is, to them, an unproven assertion that is brought out from time to time to attack others that do not adhere to their philosophical viewpoints.

Now, a more liberal interpretation of the Bible does not adhere to such fallacies as the fundamentalists. In their interpretation, there is an explicitly defined sense of what morality is, that is independent from the conception of God. The rational basis for the dichotomy of the argument is lest that Good becomes Evil, and Evil Good; for if there is no difference between the two, and they are defined arbitrarily by anything or anyone purporting to be God or speaking for God, then deception sets in, and the people are led down a rapacious path that is irrespective of moral standards and ethics. Only through reasoning what Good and Evil stand for can a person be relatively assured that his actions are righteous.

Of course, if there is a standard of Absolute Morality according the Bible, I have yet to see it. Maybe someone else can elaborate the argument?

Rejoinder Comments on Morality

Well, after waiting several days, I finally figured out what was going on with the discussion that had started within the article ‘Atheism and Morality‘. It seems that Akismet, that wonderful utility that captures and flags spam, had been a little overzealous in capturing comments from other people, as well. Which, I guess, would explain why they myriad comments I’ve left on other blogs around WordPress have not appeared within my Comments menu item. I hope that this problem finally has been fixed.

For the purposes of this article, I will be quoting from several layers deep from the discussion, akin to what you normally find in a spirited listserv or Usenet discussion. While this format is not the most ideal for blogs, I think that it is pertinent that all see exactly what is taking place in regards to the break down of rational discussion and apologetics. June, an avowed fundamentalist, seems to be making the same errors over and over again. I think I detect a hint of frustration in the posts that have been left by June. While this whole discussion began with myself making a comment on one of her articles, things have spiraled out of control ever since. With the beginning debate on Biblical Slavery, I have restricted myself to just debating the virtues of atheism, Biblical Slavery, and morality. Morality, by necessity, needs to be discussed when contemplating the slave trade, especially when the crux of the debate hinges on the fact that the Bible never condemns the practice, but sets up rules and regulations in order to live with it. This, of course, has been my premise of immorality within the Bible, something that June even tacitly admitted that the Bible never condemns the practice. However, because of the discussion on morality, which tangentially also brushed up on the issue of atheism, June then began to assert that atheists, in a nutshell, are amoral. Yes, I know, this was never said outright, but I plan on proving this through expository analysis of the posts that have been left on this blog.

To begin with, starting with the post ‘Atheism and Morality‘, I wanted to clear up a few myths. Go ahead, re-read the article to freshen your minds on what was, and was not, stated. Now, here is June’s first posting on the matter:

You put forth these arguments; and, sure, they sound great on the surface; but they themselves are nothing but straw men.

Why didn’t I quote more? Because of one thing- June’s use of the term “straw men”. I have, over and over again, pointed out logical fallacies that are embedded within certain theistic arguments. Sometimes, as Nick can testify to, I’ve gone overboard and been rather patronizing and condescending, upon which, when pointed out, I’ve immediately apologized. However, the one thing that I cannot stand is a blatant logical fallacy that is embedded in an argument. (Trust me, making a rational, logical thesis is extremely hard work, as it forces you to use critical thinking skills and not to resort to assumptions.) I have pointed out the New True Scotsman Fallacy, the Straw Man Fallacy, the Bifurcation Error fallacy, Begging the Question, Tautology, and so on and so forth. I’ve even provided links to these fallacies to the pertinent Wikipedia articles that give a brief overview of what they look like. The reason why I stopped quoting there is because it appears that June still does not know what a Straw Man fallacy is. Be that as it may, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponents position.

That’s it. In the article, I made no straw man arguments that I can detect. I wasn’t even debating about the Christian theology. Instead, I was clearing up myths and misunderstandings that a lot of fundamentalists have about atheists and atheism. It seems that this escaped June.

To continue with June’s comments from the article:

1. The Catholic Church (the original version, at least) is not Christianity. Why is that? Well, it’s because they devalue Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Why did June state this? I believe that it was in reference to this quote from the article:

The most successful communist regime in the world today, and by far the oldest, is the Catholic Church. Most Christians are uncomfortable with that fact, because they have been conditioned to only think of Communism in terms of a caricature of atheism.

Now, where in the article was I tacitly discussing the Catholic Church? Yes, that’s right, dear readers, it was only discussed in the context of communism. Specifically, it was discussed in the context of communism not being an atheist only framework for government, as there are many, many theistic implementations of that that can be wrought in the world, and organizations that are both theistic and communistic. However, two fallacies were deployed here: the No True Sotsman Fallacy, and a Red Herring. The discussion was not about the Catholic Church being Christian, but that of communism having many different flavors; hence the Red Herring fallacy. The No True Sotsman fallacy by her denial that Catholics are Christians. Which is the reason why I replied with:

Irrelevant, not to mention off-topic and arbitrary.

Junes response to this was:

I’m sorry; but you are completely ignoring what I have said by writing it off as nonsense; but that only shows me how unwilling you are to see the truth because I made great points in there.

Maybe, just maybe, after she reads this post, she will realize why those points were considered irrelevant. I’m hoping she goes to the links cited, and really reads and tries to understand the fallacies so as not to repeat them again. In the context of discussing Morality, Slavery, and the Doctrine of Inerrancy, yes, I will ignore those points, as they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If they do, then please reword the argument so that a simpleton like me, someone who appreciates rationality in a post with an adherence to logic, can follow it.

Now, going to her most recent comment, skipping the irrelevant parts of Catholicism for reasons already stated, we have:

That was the point of those examples of injustices against fundamentalists. If you had read it, you would know that I asked you what I can tell these atheists to show them how they are going against the principles of atheism to prove definitively that what they are doing is wrong. I can point to the Bible. What can you do? Granted, these articles don’t explicitly say that the people who arrested them are atheists. But that’s a little bit difficult to specify. These arrests, though, are a result of assaults on Christians in the political realm which are a result of free thought on the part of liberals.

To begin with, I would say that the most important principle for an atheist would be that of Reason. The majority, if not all, of the atheists in the world came to their conclusions regarding the concept and existence of God through lengthy deliberations, reasoning, and weighing of the evidence. Without the capacity to reason, and more specifically, to employ critical thinking skills in the realm of religion, most of the people that you know would still be following the antecedents and rituals of their forebears. The concept or morality is a concept that stems from reason. For instance, if you had clicked on the links and actually read the articles on Aristotle and Plato, not to mention the essay pertaining to materialist ethics, you would have known this.

Another point to make in reference to this paragraph is the fact that you posit no moral structure, no reasoned ethic, no logical argument for what morality is. The purpose of the debate was if slavery was moral or not, and if the Bible had explicitly banned it. As you have not answered that question, I can only surmise that it is because you have not thought out a well reasoned structure for the basis of morality in your own life. You keep saying that you can point to the Bible for morality, but I can quote verse after verse where the most immoral acts are condoned by the God of the Bible, and call them immoral. Why? Because of reason. Because I, as a rational creature, with the capacity to reason, can come to conclusions based on empirical evidence and in keeping with the doctrine of reasonableness, can make moral judgements. However, since you point out your vitriol time and time again about moral relativism, but without defining exactly what absolute morality is, I believe that you yourself do not know. Please post on this. Here is an essay on Absolute Morality from the atheistic perspective.

And just for fun, because you are being so vague, is human sacrifice moral? Reason and rationality say that it is immoral, but it seems that it was pleasing unto the God of the Old Testament.

After this, in June’s most recent comment, we get to the fact of numerous citations being quoted purportedly about “atheists” who are oppressing fundamentalist Christians. However, all of the quotes in the comment were from Fundamentalist organizations that had no links to the original Reuters or AP wire articles. That may be just as well, as it seems that June still hasn’t read the original article where I posted:

We can see that atheism does not equate to immorality. Neither does theism. Morality is defined, regulated, and ruled by other ideas and concepts.

Since June seems to be confused about the issue, I even posted again:

In the links provided within the article there were clear examples and logical arguments showing the dichotomy between God and morality. One does not necessarily follow from the other, another point that you ignored. The examples provided showed there is no correlation between theism and morality, just as there is no correlation between atheism and morality.

So, let me clarify again: What are your standards of morality, how do you come to them, and are they logical? Do they contradict each other? Are there logical fallacies in play? Instead of addressing this issue, you posted link after link of articles that only proved my point. (I’m just as outraged as you in some of those articles, as I firmly believe in Patrick Henry’s statement,”I may not believe what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”) Perhaps if you address the situation at hand? Of course, rather than addressing the issue, you wrote:

Quite frankly, you wouldn’t be able to prove to a Communist that what he is doing is wrong though. How would you tell the following Communists that this action is wrong?

Again, we can ascertain that Communism is wrong through reason. The a priori maxim of ‘Each man has a right to his own life’, with all of the corollaries, show that communism is wrong. This is not the point, though, as communism being equated to atheism was a myth that was dispelled in the article. On this point June then goes in further:

It’s wrong because you say so? It’s wrong because someone else says so? It’s wrong because they wouldn’t like it?
First of all, who are you to tell them what to do? How do you truly know what right and wrong are? Second, so what if they wouldn’t like it if it was them? There’s nothing really wrong with doing things to people that they themselves wouldn’t want done to them.

This is yet another Straw Man argument. June has over and over again equated atheists as being amoral; that they have no capacity to know what right and wrong are, and that atheists firmly believe in all instances that the ends will justify the means for the purposes of furthering their own egoism. June seems to not have grasped the rationality behind morality, and seems to be supporting the notion that the only way to tell right from wrong is adherence to the Bible. If this is the case, then how do we know if the Bible is right or wrong? Given June’s supposition, one can infer that atheists, and indeed others that are not Christian, do not know what right and wrong are, and cannot know this, but must blindly follow the dictates from Scripture in order to be assured that what their actions will follow a righteous path. This logic leaves June in a bind in defending slavery as wrong, though, as all people, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, and so on, believe that slavery is a vile, immoral institution.

The more pertinent point, though, is that we are again dealing with a level of recursion that needs to be addressed. Is God good because He says He is good? If that is the case, then we are back to the method of ‘Might Makes Right’. However, if God commanded people to start slaughtering those others that did not believe upon Him, either through ignorance, or because they are of a different religious stripe, then would God still be good? Of course, through the process of reason, a rational person would say ‘No!’. Then, we can see that God is not the progenitor of Good, but Good and Evil are transcendent moral facts that are themselves separate from God. If anyone purporting to be God, as defined in this instance as having the property of Omnibenevolence, but does or commands immoral acts, then we can safely assume that this would be a false god. June still hasn’t written a thesis about his/her conception of morality and how to define it. I’ve given several links already on ethics and morality, all mutually supportive of each other as each is based within the methods of reason, and all of them explaining, within a larger epistemological framework the concepts of Good and Evil.

I suspect that June has not posted such reasonings because of a lack of understanding of Epistemology, and the larger aspects of Ethical reasoning in regards to that which is true and false.

Wrong doesn’t exist in the atheist world. If it’s wrong for the individual, it’s wrong. Period.

In discussions such as these, I’m always amused be people who make an unproven assertion, but then try to distract from it by ending the statement with ‘Period’. There is no supporting evidence, no supporting reasoning; we are to accept June’s statement blindly. June, you need to prove that atheism is equated to amorality. I’ve done my fair share of giving you some links to begin researching this topic, but it seems you want to keep on propagating a myth. (Which is a polite way to put it, as I believe that it is a bald face lie, although not an intentional one.)

On the Bible and Morality:

You demand that I prove that the Bible is the authority; but if you read what I wrote, I clearly state that it’s wrong for me.

Okay, here I’m a confused. Do you mean that Biblical morality is wrong for you? Do you mean the Bible as a whole is wrong for you? I couldn’t find the antecedent this statement was in reference to, so I’m kind of out of the loop on this point.

I was refuting your assumption that I follow these moral codes because I will go to Hell otherwise. Here it is again:

Quote Myself:
I follow the morals of the Bible because it has proven itself to be the Word of God to me. And God’s morals are good. I follow them because they make the world a better place, not because they save me from a lake of fire because they do not.

June, you have skirted the issue over and over again: How can you tell if the morals are good or not? If they are defined to be good arbitrarily by a transcendent being, then how would you know that human sacrifice is bad? If the Bible condoned human sacrifice (theoretically, and yes I’m aware of the hermeneutics that have been employed to excuse the previous example cited of human sacrifice in scripture, but I find them to be weak and irrational), then a person would be put in the unfortunate position of having to defend human sacrifice as Good, because of the assertion that all Good and Evil is defined de facto by God. However, here, in this sentence, you have shown that you do know what right and wrong are, and that you have some method of expounding upon it. Please elucidate this for the rest of us.

But this is supposed to be an analysis of atheistic beliefs, not Christian. You charge me with skirting the issue when it is you who is doing so.

I’ve provided link after link for the basis of morality, all without resorting to positing the unknown in order to know what is moral. I’ve requested that June does likewise. To date, the only thing that has been accomplished has been the changing of the subject again and again, in an adversarial manner, to keep from showing where June’s moral center is grounded. Let me state again: Can June post a logical, rational thesis on morality? Especially in the context of the original debate, which was the Scriptural justification of slavery? (And the side issues pertaining to the Doctrine of Inerrancy.)

When it comes to atheism, June has not done a very good job. June has posted myth after myth, all refuted, on how fundamentalist view atheism. Like I stated in the original article:

No argument should be based in ignorance, or a willful distortion of other’s worldview that you yourself may not hold. Such is the death of wisdom; true wisdom comes in the form of knowing how little you know, and striving to add to your knowledge with the tools that you have available.

To continue with June’s comments:

Unless I find that you are misconstruing Christianity, which was the point of those quotes.

This I find to be funny, as the original article was posted to refute June’s distortions of atheism. The only point that was made in regards to Christianity was in refuting that a political ideology logically followed being an atheist. This has been proved false, but then June thinks I was misconstruing Christianity. The points that were raised in this respect have been refuted over and over again. The intent of the article was not a description of Christianity, but a description of Atheism, and what one should expect from it. Again, this seems to be beyond June’s ken.

Please read my quotes and the text right above them. I am asking you for your opinion on them. Since it seems like you agree with them, I will just go ahead and tell you where I got them from.

Here, we see that June is still engaged with the Red Herring Fallacy. Let me state this: it matters not how many links you post, as for each link that you post in support of fundamentalists being oppressed, I can post another link to an atheist being oppressed. It matters not as both of them lend credence to what has already been stated: Theism or Atheism is not correlated to morality! Reason is. However, it seems dodging the arguments seem to be the order of the day in this thread.

You can post links to books claiming that the Nazi leadership was Christian just because they were trying to win over a Catholic Germany; but private personal comments among friends and family state the contrary. I don’t know whether or not Hitler was atheist. He did use symbols of Hinduism and Buddhism for his flag; but one thing is clear. He wasn’t Christian.

Again, we are back to the ‘No True Sotsman’ fallacy. As far as his being Christian or not, I do not know. Neither, I believe, will it ever be proved one way or another as far as what his personal religious beliefs were. While the comment that was posted is very interesting, I cannot ascertain what the context was. However, it is an undeniable fact that the leadership of Fascist Germany was Christian. This, again, proves that you are moving from point to point in a Red Herring Fallacy. Please post your thesis on morality, specifically on how it applies to Biblical justifications for slavery.

On the point of evolution, Herbert Spencer was trained as a minister, and was a prominent philosopher of the 19th century in England. However, his misapplication of Darwin’s theory of evolution to the social sciences is egregious, as has been discuss here. It seems that Fundamentalists want to confuse the issue between Darwin’s theory of Evolution, and Spencer’s theory of Social Darwinism, as it benefits them to keep the waters muddied to prevent others from seeing with the clear eyes of rationality. Be that as it may, it has little to do with morality in the context of the Doctrine of Inerrancy, and the Biblical justifications for slavery. Again, the fallacy of the Red Herring is present here.

One thing that I want to touch on before I end this article:

What’s your definition of immoral?
You can’t give me one. If you did, you would be advocating the oppression of free thought.

Where on earth did June get this idea? This is patently false, deceptive, and not to mention another unproven assertion, as there is no definition of free though, and an irrational supposition that freedom to think would be oppressive to others. Here is a good starting definition of what exactly FreeThought is:

Freethought: The right to entertain any opinions that commends themselves to the judgement of earnest and honest seekers of truth, without his being made a victim of social ostracism in this world, or without his being threatened with punishment in some other.

This does not mean that any opinion goes. Only those premises which are supported by evidence and reason should be entertained by the FreeThinker. This not only extands to atheists, but to theists as well. How one can conclude that FreeThinking means anything goes is quite beyond my grasp. (ie, illogical, irrational, and another myth that Fundamentalists like to tout when debating the concepts of Atheism.)

Slavery and Translations

Now that I actually have the time to construct a sound argument about the passage in I Timothy that June from the Artist Thinker Blog has been waiting for, I’m actually glad that I decided to wait this long. Not only that, but I’m glad I forgot to respond to the passage to begin with. It was fortuitous indeed that this post should go into this passage in detail, as I think I’ll be touching upon the corners of other fallacious doctrines in fundamentalist Christianity which holds up their whole world-view. How? Well, let’s just say that the passage that June quoted is one of the most ambiguous, mis-leading, and vague passages in the New Testament, as far as linguistics, semiotics, and translations go. How could this be? The answer is rather simple if you have spent any time at all translating texts from the extant living languages in the world, and should be extrapolated into more and more difficulty when dealing with dead languages that still have written colloquialisms and idioms that are no longer understood, not to mention concepts and words that cannot be translated into English because the current English language simply does not have the precepts to understand these ideas. Of course, the same is true in reverse, but hardly serves our purpose for translating some sections of the ancient texts.

Let’s start off by reading 1 Timothy 1:8-11 in different versions, shall we? Let’s see if the words “slave trade” actually show up in the various passages. After all, this is a very specific occupation that actually had it’s own word within the Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and pidgin vernacular of the time, so if the original text utilized the Greek word for slavery, slave trade, and so forth, than the other translations should adhere to this as well. Especially since this is a list response enumerating specific incidents of morality, so the cry of “idiom” should be very far off. First, let’s take a look at the passage in the original language for those of you who may be using bastardized study aids that were manipulated to support one particular viewpoint, rather than trying to arrive at the truth:

8 oidamen de oti kaloV o nomoV ean tiV autw nomimwV crhtai,

9 eidwV touto, oti dikaiw nomoV ou keitai, anomoiV de kai anupotaktoiV, asebesi kai amartwloiV, anosioiV kai bebhloiV, patrolwaiV kai mhtrolwaiV, androfonoiV,

10 pornoiV, arsenokoitaiV, andrapodistaiV, yeustaiV, epiorkoiV, kai ei ti eteron th ugiainoush didaskalia antikeitai,

11 kata to euaggelion thV doxhV tou makariou Qeou, o episteuqhn egw.

Of course, the translation that June posted can be found here. This comes from the New International Version of the Bible. For some of the purists out there, let’s look at the King James translation. After all, the English language has had the word and the conception of slave and slavery for quite some time now, haven’t we?

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

For “menstealers”? Well, Old English has been known to be extremely vague, and “menstealers” might be construed as “slave traders”, along with a dozen other options. Okay, let’s find another translation that might be a little bit more specific. From the Amplified Bible:

8 Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [for the purpose for which it was designed],

9 Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,

10 [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers–and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

11 As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

What a neat little translation, in both senses of the word at this juncture! We have gone from slave traders, to menstealers, to kidnappers! Wow, the enormity of it all! Well, let’s try out another translation:

8 We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching 11 of the good news that the glorious and wonderful God has given me.

Again, we have the term “kidnapper”. What is going on here? Why is it only in the NIV translation that we have the term “slave traders”? If we look at the original Greek version that I posted at the top of the article, we see that the term that is being translated is the Greek word “adrapodistai”, the stem of which is andrapodistes. In _Strong’s Concordance_ we see that this word is enumerated as 405, and the Concordance gives a meaning of:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer — one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Here we find that the term “slave dealer” has been defined as one working illegally with the slave trade, one who goes beyond the limits of propriety in the search for profits. In this passage, we again see that there is no out right condemnation of the practice of slavery, but rather an admonition to adhere to the Law in practicing the trade.

As I said in the beginning of this article, I stated that there were other issues with this passage of text that strikes at the core of linguistics and translation. The reason for this is that this passage is quoted most often, in addendum to a passage from I Corinthians, to be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as well. However, some scholars have stated that the term that has been translated as “homosexual” within the confines of this text is a made-up Greek word that Paul utilized to convey a clear and specific message pertaining to the sexual mores at the time. The term, “arsenokoitai”, meaning men + beds, had a very unusual implementation within the language, and has been translated as masturbators, perverts, effiminate, sexually immoral, sin against nature, sodomites, ad nauseum. How should this word tie into the surrounding passage? After all, Fundamentalists are constantly accusing others of taking Scripture out of context in order to justify their views of the Bible. Well, by looking at the surrounding analogies that the author made, we can see that this debate of homosexuality actually ties in with the current discussion of Slavery. Let’s take a look.

Within this passage the author used duets and triplets of sinfull behavior to describe for whom the Law was intended. First there is the lawless and disobedient, two related categories of sinful behavior. Then there is the ungodly and the sinners, also two related categories. After this, the author cites the unholy and profane, which I think most reasonable people would also conclude that a relationship between these activities exist. Then we have three types of murderers, those of fathers, those of mothers, and manslayers. Then we have the whoremongerers and the “arsenokoitai” and kidnappers. How do we go from these other groups to this last set of iterations? Well, the author has shown that he is linking together groups of similar sinful discourse, so it would be prudent to assume that he is still doing this with this next to last set in the passage, especially since the last set of behaviors, the liars and perjurers, concludes the analogy with yet another set of categories that are intrinsically linked. Let’s look at the terms in the original Greek.

The first of the terms is “pornoi”, which comes from the Greek stem word “pernemi”, which is the infinitive for “to sell”. Pornoi refers to an enslaved male prostitute. A more prudent interpretation of arsenokoitai is one who sleeps with an enslaved male prostitute, and the last term andrapodistes refers to one who illegally enslaves others. We see that the common theme running through this triplet is Slavery. More specifically, it is dealing with a form of illegall slavery that was common at the time that the author seems to be condemning.

Again, we have a comment from June:

In fact, the only reason why slavery has been abolished and seen in such terrible light is because of the Christian nations. If not for that, it would be continuing on today. There was no one else who condemned it. NONE.

Well, actually, if we look at history, we find out there was one group of people that actually condemned slavery within the limits of their historical perspective and mores: the Muslims. If you recall your history, while Europe was languishing within the Dark and Middle ages, an Enlightenment movement was sweeping the Muslim nations in the Middle East. In fact, most of the basis of our current mathematics and sciences are firmly established within the Muslim Enlightenment. They had indoor plumbing and gas lights while English and French farmers and peasantry had none. They had great mathematical minds that were translating the lost texts of Euripides, Demosethenes, Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers into Arabic, and then expanding on them. Also, they were formulating plans for the eventual abolishment of the institution of slavery. As we can see from the Quran:

“Three types of people will stand apart on the day of Resurrection as My enemies – and an enemy of Mine will be doomed; a man who vowed in My name then betrayed, a man who sold a free person as a slave and appropriated his price, and a man who employed a worker and had him do the assigned work then failed to pay him his wages.”

I could go on and on, but it is obvious from even a cursory inspection of the Quran that there is blanket condemnation of the practice of slavery, unlike the Jewish Torah or the Christian New Testament.

Artist Thinker | Slavery Condoned

If you have read the comments in the previous section detailing the debate between myself and the writer of the Artist Thinker Blog, you know that June had made some comments concerning that Christians were responsible for the abolition of Slavery, armed with Theology based in the Biblical Scriptures. My point of contention is that the verses that June had posted are taken out of context, and if looked at in the light of other Scriptures, can be seen to only address slavery in the light of Hebrews being enslaved to other Hebrews. They say nothing about the enslavement of other races. Also, within the Scriptures of the New Testament, there is no repealing measure to the practice and establishment of slavery. Instead, what is called for is an egalitarian communion among the members of the Church within the confines of the Church. Slaves are still expected to serve their masters whole-heartedly and cheerfully.

Some of the first Scriptures that June quoted are taken from the Old Testament, directly from the Holiness Code. (Or the Law, as the Hewbrews knew it.) Rather than quoting the verses in full, I will link to them to the On-Line Bible, wherein the reader can read the verses in any translation that they prefer. First are the verses from Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and Leviticus 25:35-55. (I will get to the verse from I Timothy shortly.) As we can see, all these verses deal specifically with the practitioners of the Law in regards to slavery; i.e., they may sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay off debts or to make ends meet for themselves and their families. However, these verses do not pertain to the practice of taking slaves from other races, tribes, or nationalities. Indeed, we find that in Leviticus 25:44-46 that the Hebrews were allowed to take slaves from other tribes, and that this practice of enslaving others extended to all the slaves progeny. To quote, for those too busy (or lazy) to look at the link:

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This exemplifies in totality the outlines to Law in which slavery may be practiced. However, June also posted from Deuteronomy 15:12-18, which has nothing to do with Slavery, but rather Indentured Servitude. While in our day and age the difference between the two seems relatively minor, in those eras the difference was rather huge within the societies that such concepts operated.

Then, June asserts that slaves were not to be treated with ill-will. From Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we see that slaves were not meant to be given back to their masters. However, as we can see from previous excerpts from the Law, this verse only refers to those Hebrews that were taken as a slave and escaped, seeking refuge. Indeed, June then goes on to quote from Ephesians 6:9. Let me post this so all those can see the clear and inherent contradiction that June does not seem to grasp:

“9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”

From this verse we can see that there is no abrogation in the doctrine of Slavery. Rather, followers of Christ were expected to treat their slaves well. Nothing was stated about Slavery being an immoral, unethical institution.

Then, June posted two excerpts from the New Testament purportedly showing that slavery was sinful. These come from Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:26-29. However, these verses have nothing to do with slavery, but instead show the egalitarian spirit in which the Church was to operate in accepting new converts and the social communion that was to be shared. Indeed, if we look at Ephesians 6:5, we see that:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

as well as Colossians 3:22, which states:

“22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

Hence we see that there is no such construction of the abolition of slavery being inherent within the Bible as June asserts. At this point, I would have to agree with the essay by Charles Bradlaugh that, “I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men professing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognizing freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity.”

In conclusion, we see that the Bible actually condones the practice of slavery, the New Testament reiterates this support within the praxis of just rule over another, and nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that condemns the practice as immoral, unethical, barbaric, and wrong.

Artist Thinker | Questions on Apologetics

Well, late one evening, as is my wont, I was utilizing the random blog jumper button. You know the one, the little arrow in the top right hand corner of the page that appears when you are logged in to see your blog if it is hosted on WordPress.com. Well, while doing so, I stumbled over a post that purported to show Christianity in a “different” light. By the word “different”, I mean that they were trying to show that Christianity was a rational, logical religion that should be believed because the evidence extant proves it to be true.

Well, everyone who knows me in real life knows that I make a distinction between two types of people. (At least when it comes to the religious type of person.) The first group are people who realize that their religion is a product of personal belief and faith and profess as much. The other is more akin to the fundamentalist who says that Logic, Reason, and Evidence shows their religion (and Denomination and Sect) to be the One True Way.

So, I guess what this should show the reader is that I have nothing against a religious Christian. I do have something against a religious Christian zealot who tarnishes her integrity by not claiming that her belief is based in faith.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. I made a comment over at Artist Thinker, a Blog that is dedicated primarily to Christian topics and apologetics. However, one of the posts there seemed to be addressed to the readers at large, and I posted a comment to it. The reason for my comment has it’s basis in what I talk about on this blog, especially when it comes to critical thinking skills. Specifically, what I referenced was the Error of Bifurcation. (Now, let me see if I learned how to do block quoting…)

“The fact of the matter is that either the Bible is the Word of God, or It’s a pack of lies. You have to choose one way or the other for the Bible and every document that claims to come from God. There is no middle ground. If one part of these books is a lie, then how could you possibly trust any of the rest of it?”

Here’s the point that got me all riled up. How, indeed, should we trust a book if one part of it is proven to be false? My, if just one itty, bitty, little bit of it is proven to be a lie, well, then, by Golly! we should chuck the whole thing out of the window! I mean, after all, we know how to do eisegeisis, do we not? We know linguistics, semiotics, the majority of the original language of the written portfolios and autographs, have scientific validation of the historical events that are portrayed within the documents, and so on. But, June wants everyone to believe that if just one, little, itty bit of it is proven false, then the whole thing must be thrown out, rather than just looking at the historical, social, and cultural ramifications and implications of the passage in question. Not to mention that as of yet, there exists no guidelines for telling when the Bible digresses into allegory and when it is relating factual evidence.

Well, June, here is a whole list of inconsistencies, errors, and outright falsehoods of the Bible. Yes, I will admit that the author was stretching a little bit here and there, but the Bible, if it is inerrant, should not get fundamental things wrong, such as the fact that the Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.

Be that as it may. June responded with this quote:

“And the inclusion of a wrong book or the exclusion of a right book would not amount to a pack of lies? What could you really trust anymore? Is God so incapable of perserving His own Word and confusing us on something so vital as the truth? The few small mistakes that have slipped by have been discovered and amended such as 1 John 5:7. Is this not God preserving His Word?”

Well, as we can see, there are far more than a “few small mistakes”. Also, the one thing that I would like to point out is that there is a little bit of ignorance on the part of most lay people about the history of the formation of the Bible. Some of the books that were considered Canon in the first and second centuries are no longer around, and also books were included at later dates that may have even more recent genesis. This is another nail in the coffin of the Doctrine of Inerrancy.

More was said:

“Your Ethics and Reasoning from the Renaissance served to produce such things as racism which tainted early Reformation leaders such as Martin Luther, who really should have known that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and literally by blood since each and every one of us descended from two people.”

I’m sorry, but when did ethics ever present a situation where racism was considered good? I can not think of any. Reason, especially reason that strives to base itself in empirical premises first, also has never promoted racism. However, we can see ample evidence of racism in the Bible, and in many different theologies that are based in Biblical thought. The whole reason why the South (of the United States, that is) struggled against abolition is because they used verses to promote the institution of slavery! Philosophy, especially that philosophy as espoused by the Objectivists, (say what you want about them, as I find some of there logic fallacious as well, but Ayn Rand was right about this) says that “Every man has a right to his own life”. That means that slavery, racism, sexism, and other prejudices that are not based within the content of character of the individual or her actions are ethically wrong. I must respectfully disagree with you on this point, June, as it seems you are utilizing the Straw Man Argument, wherein you set up a factually inaccurate portrayal of the opposing viewpoint in order to bolster your own premise. Your litany is not true.

Again, from the Comments page to the article:

“It also produced evolution which bolstered claims of superiority and relegated “lesser races” as non-humans and even women as lesser beings.”

Well, I wished you would have read my post calling for creationists to submit proof of special creation. As I’ve stated before, there exists proof for evolution by the truckloads. However, most fundamentalist Christians either do not understand the fact of evolution, or they do not understand the theory of evolution, or they intentionally misunderstand all aspects of it. While some people may have misused the theory of evolution, that does not negate the theory itself. People have also misused the theory of magnetism to have others believe that they possessed supernatural abilities. Does this mean that the theory of electromagnetism is wrong? However, to concentrate upon the evolution side of the debate, you also employed the term “superior”. Within an evolutionary context, “superior” only refers to those species that have adapted to their ecological niche can propogate faster than other species. This means the most evolutionary “advanced” species on the planet would be some type of microbe, and most scientists will agree to this. Only madmen, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs have abandoned reason in order to use evolution as their justification for wholesale murder.

Continuing with the statement:

“Such human reasoning gave rise to Nazism and Fascism and Marxism, poxes on history that have scarred many and continue to do so. Don’t believe me? Think such people as Che are to be revered? Well, why don’t we ask the hundreds of Cubans who risk life and limb to make it to this evil nation of America with all it’s evil capitalist freedoms? Are they not the direct benefactors of Che’s ideology? And that chaste man of the people Fidel Castro most definitely did not make it on the list of some of the most wealthy leaders in the world.”

For some reason, I think in June’s earnestness for the sake of argument, June became convinced that I was a communist. I don’t know how I went from just pointing out a logical error in the argument to being a cheerleader for Communism. However, more to the point, June insists that such politics and methodologies such as Fascism and Communism (the Nazis, despite the word “socialist” in their name, were very much a fascist state) can be laid directly at the feet of human reason. Well, I would propose that it would depend on the connotation of the word. I use the word Reason to mean a well ordered, rational approach to the problems of life wherein as much evidence as can be found before forming logical arguments. Basically, I’m using the word reason in the same way that a scientist or a philosopher may use the term. From the way June derides the term, however, I suspect that June’s interpretation of the word is more along the lines of “Whatever a man may think”.

Again, from the comments section:

“By the way, you obviously failed to read Part 2 in this series called Does God Exist? — The Philosophical Argument. If you had, you would have seen how I show how our own reasoning of ethics can be tainted and unreliable. You have skipped to the end of the book and consequently are confused about the ending.”

I will admit that I did not read the article you wrote. I have since rectified that problem, and think that I can succinctly summarize what you presented in this article: For the greatest happiness, there must be a moral order. If this moral order is found that engenders happiness, then it must have been made by someone. This someone is God. Even in this statement you allow several logical fallacies. You beg the question by stating that people are only happy in following rules. You beg the question that these rules do exist, as well as assert an unproven premise. You also beg the question again in the following statement by asserting that the rules had to be made by someone. Not only that, but there is the error of Bifurcation again, as there exist many different possibilities about the formation of these rules and even how these rules are perceived. Your final unproven assertion is that this frame of rules was codified by an unknown and undefined term such as “God”. (That’s a completely different debate that’s been raging for centuries, though.) There are many other methods and arguments that could have been employed in your apologetics for the existence of God, why did you choose this one?

The one thing that I want to point out here is that if I’m wrong, or presented fallacious evidence, or employed errors in my reasoning, then I will be all to happy to admit to the fact of my error and correct it immediately. This also extends to turns of phrase that I may have mis-stated. The point is this: Can you do the same?

After this point, June asks about a personage that I named in the comments section; a certain Mr. Farrell Till, current editor of the Skeptical Review. I think the link should provide all the evidence needed to assay June’s feelings on the topic. This is what was written:

“Question on Farrell Till: If he was a preacher for TEN YEARS as you have stated, then why did he have to be told to dig deeper into the Bible? Isn’t the nature of a preacher the fact that he has already studied the Bible? What were his sermons like if he didn’t dig deep into the Bible until later? They must have been pathetic flops based on his own assumptions and reasoning.
This all just seems soooo….odd.”

I find it odd that a person would engage in ad hominem attacks and character assassination before even knowing something of the subject matter at hand.

This leads me to my final point: I do abhor the fundamentalist. They resort to doctrines that are not true, can patently be falsified (again, in the scientific context), and must use Apologetics that have been disproved time and time again throughout history. A true person of faith will admit to being just that, a person of Faith. They know they believe what they believe because it is an article of belief and faith. If more religious people would just say this up front, I do believe the world would be a much better place.