In the last blog peace I said that Morality is progressive.We evolve into higher understandings of morality, and since I see God as in process with the universe then i have no trouble thinking that creates the opportunity for evolution and things evolve. This goes for societies as well as physical evolution. Now anyone who has half a brain would be able to understand that this view is not a fundameentalist view. Its' a going to be concieved as very anti-fundamentlist and most fundies will be very angered by it and I'm expecting to get a lot of flack for it from the supports of the CADRE. I'm expecting certain people to say "O relatives look at this blog I don't want them to be ashamed of me or think I'm liberal." Yet a good number of atheists tag this notion as fudie. One even made some sarcastic comment that it was good imitation of a fundamentalist.
They hate fundies and they talk about how stupid they are incessantly and yet, they have NO concept of what fundies believe.No one with any knowledge of theology at all would think a fundamentalist would say this. The fundie would say "god handed down morality int he ten commandments and its' etched in stone, it never changes it's totally objective." But speaking of that, you would think these atheists are fundamentalists. Everyone of them is accusing me of saying that killing and oppression is progressive. I just have to conclude that they have not read the piece. They don't understand what I said because they didn't read it.
I have no idea how anyone could not understand the distinction between what makes something moral and how we understand what is moral. To put it another way, my statement was not about meta ethics it was about the social understanding of meta ethics. In other words, I did not say killing was good and then it became bad. Only a moron who didn't read the article would think this. I said society evolves into an understanding of right and wrong. God didn't climb on a soap box and lecture the Israelis about everything in morality from saving the whales to using energy saving light bulbs. He allowed their moral understanding to grow over time with influences and little pushes in the direction instead of trying to hand it all down on high.
Another aspect of the article that these guys don't get is that it assumes a non verbal plenary view of the Bible. In other words it assumes the bible is not literally "the word of God" handed down from on high, but is written by humans who encountered the divine and reflect their views of those encounters in their words. That means it encodes their cultural constructs. Now I do there are exceptions. The prophets speak "thus says the Lord" I tend to pay attention to that as their transmitting of the Lord's word. But I also understand redaction. I have evidence that the passage about wiping out the Amelikite babies was redacted. So naturally I'm not including that as part of the moral evolution.
Suddenly they have begun to think of themselves as supporting an objective morality. they somehow have slipped their moorings and starting thinking morality as relative.They think they supporting some rock solid moral precepts against some kind of Biblical relativism. Holy negative Batman, that's about as mixed up as you can get. Atheists have to be relativists. They do not believe in a fixed moral standard. They want to condemn the old Testament as "immoral" but they can only do so relative to modern times and modern views from American culture and Western culture. They do not have a foothold in any kind of universal moral grounding. This is the wired Negative world of atheist thinking; like being in the negative of a picture.
Some atheists have begun to think that they can ground moral axioms in feelings. But that shows how deeply mixed up they are. Feelings are not a universal standard, everyone doesn't feel the same way. the ancient world people they condemn for being oppressive and believing in "evil Bible God" had feelings. There is no reason why the atheist feels are sacrosanct and not the ancient Hebrew's feelings. Feeling is not a moral grounding.It's relativism! Atheists have no basis for condemn any decision of God because they having nothing to over against God as the moral standard. Nothing can turn to is anything but retaliative.
these guys are so deeply mixed up they will applauded as Christians are marched off the anti-Christ death camps and all the way they will be saying "that will teach them for being immoral killing people." do I really think this will happen? Yea, when Bigfoot rides into Washington on Nessy's back with Elvis. But if it did you can be quite sure they would never understand their inconsistency. They do not have the right to ste themselves up as some kind of little judges as they are the keepers of universal morality.
What I said was nothing really different than saying "they didn't know any better, they had to group to find out it was wrong to do that." but the little dummies want their excuses to hate God. Too bad they can't be bothered to actually read things. I think some of them could actually learn something if they would actually read.
Here's an example of the deep lunacy the atheists resort to to answer my argument:
It is rather a stretch to say that Adam and Eve weren't ready for Morality WHATEVER_#_WE'RE_AT.0 as though anything you could tell them from 6,000 years of revelation is really that complicated. You don't think they were ape people, do you? Hence, it is an argument to the better explanation, in my opinion, that the at face value progression of ethics across the "big picture" of the Bible is more explicable with the understanding that people just found better ways of adapting to their own moral ideas over time and gave it a theological spin.
where in the word did I say an
y of those things? Did I say Adam and Eve weren't ready for morality? where? Obvious they weren't since they didn't even know they were naked. If he misses that he's missing major feature of the narrative. But I didn't say that in the piece. Where did I say it? This guy's writing is pretty bad so it's hard to get what he's saying.
"You don't think they were ape people, do you?" what?
Hence, it is an argument to the better explanation, in my opinion, that the at face value progression of ethics across the "big picture" of the Bible is more explicable with the understanding that people just found better ways of adapting to their own moral ideas over time and gave it a theological spin"
all that polavor just to say "it makes more sense to think they found better ways." well first of all, now that you've had a writing lesson, that's exactly what I did say genius! I guess he means he thinks I am saying God sat around waiting "Ok guys, (to the angels) just a few more generations and I can tell them the one about not killing." If these guys can't imagine a more create way to understand the idea of progressively unfolding social evolution as part of revelation then they no business even talking about this stuff. What makes this a "theological spin?" It's a simple recognition of the fact that modern Christians are not bound immaculate late bronze aged literature. Is that such terrible "spin?"
What did Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor always say about his henchmen?