Is the Christian God Moral?

[johnno777]

                                 Part two

You say: “Moreover, the christian bible includes, apart from the decalogue (of which, BTW, there are two versions, namely Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), several other moral prescriptions such as putting to death those who work on the sabbath or that eating shellfish is, like homosexuality, an abomination.  As human beings, most would view these edicts with a twinge of scepticism, horror even, which suggests that we have a moral sense quite apart from that decreed by the christian god.”

As I mentioned on another occasion, God’s moral code is derived from the Decalogue. There are indeed two narratives about the handing down of the Decalogue to humankind in Exodus and Deuteronomy but they constitute one Decalogue, not two versions with differing tenets. The Decalogue is referred to in many other parts of the Bible as well, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

There was a time in the history of humankind when God ruled directly over a relatively small nation of people known as the Jews in the Middle East. It was during that time that this direct rule by God, over a specific group of people, was, what is known today by theologians and other interested parties, as a Theocracy. The Decalogue has universal and abiding validity and relevance, as to how all of humankind should live. Most of all the other laws were directed to this group of people, on their space on earth, at their time, on the space-time continuum.

There was a time when those people decided to exercise their free will and to demand to be ruled by an earthly king, like all their neighbours had, instead of having God as their king and ruler. The people to whom the Decalogue was entrusted decided to exercise their free will as well and multiplied ten laws to become over two thousand laws, which included one that disallowed one to extricate oneself out of a hole if one fell into it on the Sabbath. Some of the Mosaic laws were specifically intended only for the Jews of the era, and others were cobbled together by Scribes and Pharisees and so-called "teachers of the law". Most of those laws were already anachronistic 2,000 years ago. Many books have been written about the Mosaic/Levitical laws. If you’re interested I can give you a substantive bibliography. There were many good reasons as to why certain laws which seem weird to us today were given to that specific society, at that specific region, at that specific time.

As you rightly say, you do have a moral sense quite apart from that decreed by the Christian God, but which is not the code caricatured by yourself, as one which wants you killed if you work on the Sabbath.

I will attempt to post a reply to ArgumentumAdHominem soon.

[johnno777]

                                Part One

You say: “But what I did notice from your response is that your analysis of Nietzsche does show a trend in fallacious thinking.  You did not address the quoted passage from The Gay Science but chose, instead, to venture into genetic fallacy by finding something somewhere that he said that you disagree with.  It is a form of ad hominem attack and can be equated to discounting all of Newtonian physics because (in later life) Newton studied (the undeniably unscientific world of) alchemy.  It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

I do not see how you can legitimately come to the conclusion that my “analysis of Nietzsche” shows a trend in fallacious thinking. I have not made a detailed analysis of his writings and thinking, which I pray God I never will have to. I treat his mixed up philosophies with contempt, primarily because he spouted them out, not with an honest desire in seeking truth, but from an arrogant, contemptuous mind that thought it dwelt in the rarefied stratosphere of higher intellect and not the morass of evil and idiocy where it actually habituated.

Sure it was a form of ad hominem attack, but not primarily so, because the philosophy emanating from a person is indivisible from his esse, otherwise, as Luthon64 says: he bears false witness to the code he claims to live by. As Jesus said to those who were trying to enforce their man-made laws (in the name of God) upon the people; viz. it being non u to eat pork. He replied to them that it is not what goes into a person, as a food, that befouls and defiles that person, but what comes out of their mouths.(Matthew 15:11)

I did not find something, somewhere, that I disagreed with in Nietzsche’s writings. I disagree with probably more than 80% of all the ideas he proffered. For me to argue fully against all of them, would necessitate me  writing at least 300% more than everything he ever wrote.
There is something he said, that I agree with, however. To wit (sounds so Shakespearian): He says in “Gay Science”, I think in book 3, “Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors.” That is the difference between man-made philosophies and codes for living, when juxtaposed alongside epistemologies and codes for living emanating from God.

The Bible says: “Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.” (Corinthians. 3:18-19). Fact of the matter is that  were one to scrutinise any man-made philosophy (which holds itself to be aloof or antithetical to God’s pronouncements), no matter how seemingly brilliant, one will always find flaws and errors. The deeper the scrutiny, the more apparent the anomalies. The converse is true when examining God’s pronouncements. Many of them, with a superficial examination, may appear to be simplistic or even foolish, but the deeper one peels away layers, the more profound and perfect it becomes, to the honest examiner.
Nietzsche also says in relation to moral codes: “The conditions for the preservation of different communities were very different.” This was probably the kernel thought for what we know today as Postmodernism. The hopeless philosophy that has no centre and no universal truth, or abiding truth. The “herds” of plural societies must conjure up moral codes which are relative to their loci and worldviews. Only problem with that is; what if the moral codes of those societies demand punishment and retribution universally? The case laws of Judaism are anachronistic today and never had power outside of Jewish society, even in its day. Christianity, while having a universal moral code, has stated no penal code for civil society today. Islam, however, believes that its barbaric civil laws need to be imposed on all people throughout the world. We even have idiots like the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, trying to persuade the British judiciary to assimilate Shar’ia law into their justice system.

Hopefully a third reference to Nietzsche’s “Gay Science” (or more precisely: “Die fröhliche Wissenschaft”) will satisfy you.Luthon64 cited a section where Nietzsche proclaims: “Morality is herd instinct in the individual.” There is only one aspect to that assertion that has a modicum of truth in it and that is that in many cases, an individual’s morality, or lack thereof, is determined by how his or her peers behave around them. This is often evident in something as mundane as, for example, certain people rising to their feet at a music concert, or a play, to display their pleasure and a possible request for an encore, or a curtain call. If the majority of people rise to their feet, it is unlikely that those remaining seated, who were not overly impressed, will not also rise to their feet. A similar trait is evident in mob violence, where individuals may not commit certain violent acts if on their own, but do it more readily if they see the majority of people around them participating in violence. That is not herd mentality in the construction of moral codes but in behavioural practice. An individual may believe in the imperative “thou shalt not kill”, but in a fit of jealousy, envy, or rage, may allow their base emotional selves to countermand the morality embraced by their minds.

[johnno777]

                                   Part two

You say: “I do not want to detract from 'Luthon's response (and I hope that you respond to her argument) but I would like to ask why you choose to follow the ten commandments and only some (very few) of the hundreds of other commandments (some which were highlighted by 'Luthon)?  The Jewish faith recognises three hundred and sixteen commandments that the strictest Hasidic Jews follow unquestioningly as a moral code.  Are they acting more morally than you?  Among these "moral" pronouncements from god are the stoning to death of disobedient children and the murder of rape victims for their part in the immoral act of rape.”

I hope that I have dealt with Luthon’s response adequately. With regard to why I choose to follow only the 10 Commandments, as opposed to the 316 (it is actually over 2,000) laws supposedly adhered to by the Jewish faith, is that the 10 Commandments cover every sphere of human endeavour and behaviour on earth and they are legitimate and valid for as long as the earth lasts. As I explained earlier, most of the others are anachronistic, not only by virtue of time, but also in its (ir)relevance to (post)modern society. There is a whole so-called Christian movement, largely in the U.S.A., called “Christian Reconstructionists”, who are a Neo-Fundamentalist group who are trying to crawl back into the womb of Judaism and who claim that all the Mosaic/Levitical laws are as relevant to all, everywhere in the world, today as they were in Jewish antiquity. I think you are getting the rape victims mixed up with Islamic Shar’ia law.

[Anacoluthon64]

Thanks for the “engage is [sic]” which was a typo and should have read “in”. Let me know if we’re going to comment on each other’s typographical, grammatical, semantic, or malaproposic [sic]errors, as well as the substance of our argumentation. It could be an interesting side-game, very different to your playing with the "meise2"s and your "kenny g"s.

When I spot an error, whatever its kind, I would be remiss in not, at the very least, drawing attention to same.  You disagree, perhaps?  Or might this be a joke that is framed in the private language of johnno777, one that I am not able to fathom?

I have no problem with such an assertion. Further, you say that if what I say about God, with respect to Him being the aforementioned author of a moral code, is true, or to be accepted by you, then: “the question you seek an answer to is entirely meaningless”.

There is no “further” part – it is a single argument, one that you have either failed to grasp properly or, what I think is more likely, chosen instead to jumble up so as to get past it without actually answering it.  The argument is simply this: If we accept that your god created our moral code, then either “good” and “evil” exist entirely separate from him/her, or s/he created “good” and “evil” along with a code to distinguish between the two for humans to follow.  The first option means that the essence of your god’s supposed moral code was dictated external from him/her and s/he’s merely a conduit for a pre-existent demarcation.  The second option in which your god created “good” and “evil” means that those assignments are entirely arbitrary.  This vexing dichotomy remains unaddressed and unresolved.

I do not seek an answer to the topic question which I have answered in the affirmative. … I affirm that God is moral by virtue of being the author of a moral code as well as being perfect.

Then I’m afraid your reasoning, as evidenced by much of the reminder of your reply, is merely a bald and circular assertion because it boils down to this: “I know my god is moral (as in ‘good,’ presumably) because s/he gave me the moral sense to recognise his/her ‘goodness.’”  Sorry, but that’s philosophically bankrupt and entirely unconvincing.

If Einstein declares that … E = mc² … then so it is; until someone can demonstrate empirically, that he is wrong. His thesis is no less valid because he alone declares it to be valid, without validation from outside sources. It is incumbent on anyone who disagrees with, or doubts his thesis, to prove him to be wrong.

Not so.  Here your reasoning comes horribly adrift.  It is precisely the opposite.  First, Einstein didn’t simply assert “E = mc².”  He discovered mass-energy equivalence as a consequence of Special Relativity (SR), which aimed to preserve the form of Maxwell’s EM equations across all inertial frames.  The concept is neither a priori nor central to SR, though it follows (necessarily) from it if SR is a valid theory.  Confirmation came (and continues to come) from a variety of phenomena, including the Michelson-Morley experiment, upper-atmosphere muon decay, nuclear power generation and the behaviour of particle accelerators.  SR was greeted with considerable scepticism and was (and still is) thoroughly probed.  The point is simply that you are dead wrong in asserting that a simple declaration ensures truth until wrongness is proved.  Second, the onus of proof rests on the claimant; there is no onus of disproof on the critics of an idea – if there was, we’d never get anything done for disproving all manner of nonsense, quite apart from the manifold difficulties such disproof would entail.

It is no different with the assertion made by myself that God is the author of morality and that He is perfect, therefore He is indeed a moral God.

No.  That’s perfectly, immorally circular, as pointed out above.

If you don’t believe it, or don’t like it, it is incumbent on you to prove such an assertion wrong or just say you don’t like the idea.

Sorry, wrong.  It’s on you to prove it, as pointed out above.

How do you come to the reductio ad absurdum that the problem of evil in the world is a strong reason to suppose that God does not adhere to His own moral code?

Your god is author of “good” and “evil” is s/he not?  S/he is perfect, is s/he not?  If so, there is evil in the world that is either not wrought by mankind’s actions, or affects innocent individuals, or both.  Why does your god allow this, if not actively produce it, assuming s/he has the attributes you claim?

His moral code was constituted for humankind, not for Himself.

If true, then therein lies the problem: your god makes a moral code but is free to violate it at whim.  Alone the existence of such an escape clause renders it clear that your god’s morals are dodgy.  You wouldn’t trust such an exemption-laden covenant if it came from any other source, would you?

(Continued…)

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

(Continued…)

He has given every one of His human creation [sic] a free will.

If this “free will” is meant to address the point that some people are evil by choice, then there’s a further difficulty.  Your god could simply have chosen to omit creating evil alongside good.  Then we’d have good people and neutral people.  Your god, being omnipotent, omniscient and supremely benevolent, could surely have contrived to create a version of “free will” in which the temptation to “sin” is simply absent; a “free will,” for example, in which the liberty simply extends to a choice between worshipping your god or not without any attendant hobbling of thinking or reasoning faculties.  Instead, s/he chose to add all of these other evils like murder and unnecessary death and lying and covetousness and so on.  So, once again, your god’s morals come up less than lilywhite.

Evil in the world is present because evil people have exercised their free wills to do and to propagate evil. Our very first parents, Adam and Eve, chose, of their free wills, to disobey a direct command from God. From that moment, all their progeny, right down to today, were born with a virus more virulent than Aids, called sin.

But this is of your god’s own devising, unless you would detract from his/her omnipotence, omniscience and supreme benevolence.  Saying “free will” doesn’t address the point that either your god lost control or never had it to begin with.  In either case, s/he wouldn’t matter to us.

It was a de facto rejection of some, or all of the constituent parts of that moral code, by most of His human creation, that caused evil to flourish throughout the world.

Which, presuming his/her omnipotence, omniscience and supreme benevolence, s/he knew was going to happen and either let happen anyway, or chose to do nothing about.  That’s another black mark against his/her morality.

God is not a liar.

Yes, s/he is.  S/he promises things but doesn’t deliver.  S/he’s also a bit of a sneak, if you ask me.

Unlike your contention, He bears no false witness just because the world does not choose to live according to His moral code.That is a logical malapropism.

I’m afraid that won’t wash.  S/he says, “Here’s my code, and you should listen.  If you don’t, you’ll suffer eternally.”  S/he then proceeds to violate his/her code for no obvious reason.  S/he never explains why.  What sort of example is that supposed to be?  I’m afraid, in the words of Robert Heinlein, that these “are the manners and morals of a spoiled child.”

[The two versions] constitute one Decalogue, not two versions with differing tenets. The Decalogue is referred to in many other parts of the Bible as well, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

But why should it appear twice in a book that supposedly is all about morality?  Perhaps because it’s twice as important?  And it is telling that the order in which they appear differs, depending on whether one consults the Philonic, Talmudic, Augustinian or Lutheran rendition.  One can dismiss such inconsistencies as minor but they certainly cast doubt on the reliability of their supposed source.

The Decalogue has universal and abiding validity and relevance, as to how all of humankind should live. Most of all the other laws were directed to this group of people, on their space on earth, at their time, on the space-time continuum.

You know this how, exactly?  More importantly, if true, it opens the door to all sorts of selectivity about what moral codes are to take precedence, so we’re actually no better off than the colloquial “winging it.”

The people to whom the Decalogue was entrusted decided to exercise their free will as well and multiplied ten laws to become over two thousand laws, which included one that disallowed one to extricate oneself out of a hole if one fell into it on the Sabbath.

In other words, you acknowledge that most of the moral edicts in your god’s book were embellishments added later.  How do you know that the Decalogue alone is somehow different and uncontaminated?

There were many good reasons as to why certain laws which seem weird to us today were given to that specific society, at that specific region, at that specific time.

Undoubtedly so, but that’s no reason to conclude that those that retain their relevance to this day were divinely decreed.

(Continued…)

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

(Continued…)

As you rightly say, you do have a moral sense quite apart from that decreed by the Christian God, but which is not the code caricatured by yourself, as one which wants you killed if you work on the Sabbath.

What caricature?  Your book says so.  But that’s unimportant, relatively speaking.  The fact is that we have such an independent moral sense, yet your god put his/her code in a book, supposedly via a bearded patriarch, when s/he could so easily have indelibly imbued each individual with the code from birth (which need not, please note, be had at the expense of free will, assuming the latter to exist at all).

Luthon64 cited a section where Nietzsche proclaims: “Morality is herd instinct in the individual.”

No, she didn’t.

I hope that I have dealt with Luthon’s response adequately.

No, I’m afraid you haven’t.  If the Decalogue is your god’s only proper moral code, why bother putting all those other ones in the book?  If these latter were later additions, how do you know that only the Decalogue deserves our full and unequivocal attention?  Why convey them in so cumbersome a manner?

Perhaps we could restrict this discussion to manageable proportions, i.e. single messages, by refraining from attempting to prove that quantity equals quality.  That’s just a thought, however.

'Luthon64

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

I am responding to all of your comments on morality here, everything to do with Nietzsche has been moved here.

There were many good reasons as to why certain laws which seem weird to us today were given to that specific society, at that specific region, at that specific time.

I find it odd that the actual date when these "laws of the time" were repealed is a mystery.  Surely the day that god found these laws to be unnecessary there would be an amendment to the bible in order to clear-up any confusion?  The laws still stand in the books (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etcetera) and no "official" word on when they are amended, it is left up to the followers to decide which laws to adhere to.

As Jesus said to those who were trying to enforce their man-made laws (in the name of God) upon the people; viz. it being non u to eat pork. He replied to them that it is not what goes into a person, as a food, that befouls and defiles that person, but what comes out of their mouths.(Matthew 15:11)

And I put it to you that there is no other kind of law (other than man-made).  God wrote the bible, but through the hands of people.  So we get into the thorny issue of proving that god actually did the writing, because to the rest of us it just looks like another set of man-made laws.

Fact of the matter is that  were one to scrutinise any man-made philosophy (which holds itself to be aloof or antithetical to God's pronouncements), no matter how seemingly brilliant, one will always find flaws and errors. The deeper the scrutiny, the more apparent the anomalies. The converse is true when examining God's pronouncements. Many of them, with a superficial examination, may appear to be simplistic or even foolish, but the deeper one peels away layers, the more profound and perfect it becomes, to the honest examiner.

Of course only to the honest examiner     That's fair, any criticism whatsoever comes from a dishonest person, but only those who swallows "the word" unquestioningly are being honest.  Your statement is unfounded, I could easily say the same thing back to you, that were one to scrutinise any theistic philosophy, no matter how seemingly brilliant, one will always find flaws and errors. The deeper the scrutiny, the more apparent the anomalies. The converse is true when examining atheistic ideas. Many of them, with a superficial examination, may appear to be simplistic or even foolish, but the deeper one peels away layers, the more profound and perfect it becomes, to the honest examiner.

It's just baseless rhetoric unless you can define the "peeling" of "layers", profoundness and perfection in this context.

[Postmodern philosophy is the] hopeless philosophy that has no centre and no universal truth, or abiding truth. The "herds" of plural societies must conjure up moral codes which are relative to their loci and worldviews.

That is what has happend so far, not what postmodern philosophy says must happen.

Only problem with that is; what if the moral codes of those societies demand punishment and retribution universally?

No, that would be law enforcement and international law is not based on any theocratic morals but rather on humanistic morals.

The case laws of Judaism are anachronistic today and never had power outside of Jewish society, even in its day. Christianity, while having a universal moral code, has stated no penal code for civil society today.

So when the ten commandments say that those laws are also to be imposed on "the alien within your gates", we shouldn't actually impose it upon them.

[johnno777]

I am responding to ArgumentumA first, because his reply to my previous post was the shortest and requires less time to reply to.

You say: “I find it odd that the actual date when these "laws of the time" were repealed is a mystery.  Surely the day that god found these laws to be unnecessary there would be an amendment to the bible in order to clear-up any confusion?  The laws still stand in the books (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etcetera) and no "official" word on when they are amended, it is left up to the followers to decide which laws to adhere to.”

Yes, indeed, there was an amendment that is known as the New Testament (or New Covenant). As to an actual date, probably around 34 A.D.

At the advent and subsequent death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection, the juridical power of the Decalogue was neutralised and the additional laws aimed specifically at Jewish society were annulled and supervened by Christ.

The writer to the Hebrews says: “By calling this Covenant ‘new’, He (Christ) has made the first one obsolete.” (Hebrews 8:13). Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4), which is now Christ’s law (1Corinthians 9:21). The laws that “still stand in the books Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etcetera” are a historical narrative of how God dealt with His people at that time of human history and how they reacted. Just because things ancient things are still present in the Bible, it does not follow that they have paradigmatic demands on all who want to follow the Bible’s teachings. Christ even summarises the Decalogue into two overarching laws: “Love the Lord your God, and; love your neighbour.” (Matthew 22: 37-40), and: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). The problem is that we need the detail of the Decalogue to know exactly how we can love God and our neighbour. The Decalogue was always meant to be an indicator of sin and righteousness, not a draconian oppressive instrument grind people into the ground.

You say: “And I put it to you that there is no other kind of law (other than man-made).  God wrote the bible, but through the hands of people.  So we get into the thorny issue of proving that god actually did the writing, because to the rest of us it just looks like another set of man-made laws.”

God did not write the Bible. He inspired people to write and those who wrote had all sorts of personalities, backgrounds, education and lack thereof. They often expressed and revealed their own personal biases and presuppositions and they made many mistakes in observation and judgement from time to time, but He breathed on what they wrote and sanctified it. (“All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”) 2 Timothy 3:16. (I know you and your colleagues like crying out “tautology”, so be it, it’s nevertheless true. If you applied the same constraint on the philosophers you follow, you would not be able to legitimise what most of them proffer. So we have warts and all accounts of goings on under God, but everything we need to know about God and about humankind, past present and future, is contained within its pages. By the way, there are no man-made laws, for instance, that say “love the lord your God with all your mind, body and soul.”

You say: “Of course only to the honest examiner. That's fair, any criticism whatsoever comes from a dishonest person, but only those who swallows "the word" unquestioningly are being honest.”

That is not what I meant. What I meant was that if one were to examine God’s pronouncements with an honest desire to see if there was truth in it, notwithstanding the subjective presuppositions that one may approach it with, one would see the truth in it. God is not a dumb fundamentalist whom you guys like to play Frisbee with. He has nothing against reason. He even makes the invitation “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1: 18.) If your questions are honest, you will get honest answers. You are not expected to swallow the word unquestioningly.

You say: “Your statement is unfounded, I could easily say the same thing back to you, that were one to scrutinise any theistic philosophy, no matter how seemingly brilliant, one will always find flaws and errors. The deeper the scrutiny, the more apparent the anomalies. The converse is true when examining atheistic ideas. Many of them, with a superficial examination, may appear to be simplistic or even foolish, but the deeper one peels away layers, the more profound and perfect it becomes, to the honest examiner.”

Any and every atheistic philosophy that I have examined has shown, without exception, exactly the contention that I make. Some are extremely provocative and seemingly rational on the surface and after a superficial perusal, but as I have probed deeper, whether by means of peeling away layers of contentions and constructs or examining it with a magnifying glass, or microscope (metaphorically speaking of course). The Da Vinci code is a reasonably contemporary example; not of atheism in this case, but of a man-made construct that seems extremely plausible and academically respectable, but which is built on factual error, lies and a manipulation of smoke and mirrors. (I’m not going there so please don’t refer to specifics. We’re side-tracked enough).
More Following

[johnno777]

You say: “It's just baseless rhetoric unless you can define the "peeling" of "layers", profoundness and perfection in this context.”

In the context that we’re talking about, the profundity of the concept, for instance, of “love your neighbour” is not immediately apparent. How do I love my neighbour? Does it mean I must have a gooey feeling for him or her? Do I go pat them on the head and say “I love you”? If I read the Bible with respect to my neighbour, I’m told not to covet anything my neighbour owns; not his house, not his servants, his Ferrari (ox), not even  his wife. It also tells me not to give false testimony against him. That is also extrapolated to mean, not to falsely, or speculatively skinner about him to anyone else. Luke 10:29-37 also tells me that my neighbour can be a stranger who is in dire need. The story there is of the Samaritan man who was badly mugged, stripped and bleeding. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews at the time, yet Jesus named him as one’s neighbour. The homosexual is my neighbour, the AIDS sufferer is my neighbour, The A.P.L.A. terrorists who shot up my church are my neighbours.
That is a small example of what I’m talking about.

You say: “That is what has happend so far, not what postmodern philosophy says must happen.”

Correction, that is what Postmodern philosophy says must happen. It states that there is no Universal truth. No truth that is universally applicable to all people everywhere. It also says that there is no Abiding truth. No truth that lasts through all periods of human history. It also believes in relativism and pluralism and states that any moral code or world-view is legitimized by the majority of an autonomous group. It believes in little planets of like-minded communities floating around all aspiring to their heterotopias (there is no single Utopia). Instead of design, it believes in chance, Instead of purpose, it believes in play, Instead of creation, it believes in deconstruction, Instead of a signifier, it believes in the signified, Instead of a master code, it believes in  idiolect etc. etc. etc. It is an extremely complex and intellectually challenging philosophy, which after peeling away all the layers and peering deep into its abyss turns out to be more hopeless and confused even than Nietzsche.

You say: “No, that would be law enforcement and international law is not based on any theocratic morals but rather on humanistic morals.”
You miss the point. The self-stated goal and aim of Islam, for instance, is to take over the world. Within the rules (or non rules) of Postmodernism, Islam has the legitimate right to live under its world-view and moral code. Not unlike their conquest of Northern Africa Syria, parts of Palestine, Persia, Iraq, Turkey and the Southern part of Spain in the 7th century, they are trying to get other Northern African countries by force and have a strategic plan to overcome Western countries (not conspiracy theories). There are already no-go areas in England, where non-Muslims cannot go. Then, as I mention elsewhere, we have the Archbishop of Canterbury who is reputedly the most intellectual archbishop the Church of England has ever had, making a dumb-ass recommendation to the English judiciary that they should assimilate Shar’ia law into the British legal system.

By the way, it is under Islamic Shar’ia law that female rape victims must be stoned to death. The point I was making was that if a group like Islamists were to gain control of any country in the world, it would be Shar’ia law that would be enforced, which they believe emanated from Allah. Christian Reconstructionists are no different. If they got control of any country (they’ve almost got the United States) they will kill people according to the Mosaic/Levitical laws found in the Bible. Lyotard, the granddaddy of Postmodernism, speaking about the Cashinahua Indian tribe, but meaning any self attesting group, says: “They are legitimated by the simple fact that they do what they do.” (1991:23).
 I beg to differ with you that international law is not based on Theocratic morals but rather on humanistic morals. Almost all of the law systems in the Western world have their genesis in biblical moral precepts. The East has some as well, but where it does not, the moral codes are based on the ethos of Eastern belief-systems. The majority of law systems around the world are based on religious belief, not on humanism.

You say: “So when the ten commandments say that those laws are also to be imposed on "the alien within your gates", we shouldn't actually impose it upon them.”
I said in my previous post: “The case laws of Judaism are anachronistic today and never had power outside of Jewish society.” The “alien within your gates” was just that: “In your gates”. It only applied to foreigners who came into Jewish civil society and who wanted to be assimilated into it. It did not and does not, apply to people outside of Jewish civil society.

[johnno777]

Before we wander even further off topic let me state that the following is the moral code that God has proffered to all humankind, everywhere in the world, for as long as the world lasts.
Commandments regarding our relationship to God
I. "You shall have no other gods before me.
II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
III. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
IV. "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Commandments regarding our relationship to our fellow humans
"Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
VI. "You shall not murder.
VII. "You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. "You shall not steal.
IX. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.
X. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
This is the moral code for all humankind. This, I say, demonstrates God to be a moral God.

[johnno777]

This is for Anacoluthon64
You ended your reply to my post with:
"Perhaps we could restrict this discussion to manageable proportions, i.e. single messages, by refraining from attempting to prove that quantity equals quality.  That’s just a thought, however."

Now that is pretty rich coming from you, especially with your previous post. You see I was under the apparent misapprension that if I gave a short, succinct answer to your theses, you would think that I was either trying to dodge difficult issues, or unable to answer you due to a number of shortcomings viz. the inability to comprehend, debate, argue logically,know various philosophies that are out there etc. etc.

So, here's my reply then: YES I KNOW THAT GOD IS A MORAL GOD

[Anacoluthon64]

Now that is pretty rich coming from you, especially with your previous post.

If, as seems reasonable to assume, you’re referring to my reply that stretches over two-and-a-bit messages, then you may have noticed that much of said reply constitutes references to your own prior messages, which together are of exceptional length.  These could easily have been shorter because much of what you wrote was extraneous, irrelevant and/or obfuscatory.  I chose, perhaps wrongly, to meet your replies comprehensively.  Besides, you have 6,500 characters, or around 1,200 words, per message.  That is, I think, more than ample to accommodate a fairly detailed argument.

You see I was under the apparent misapprension [sic] that if I gave a short, succinct answer to your theses, you would think that I was either trying to dodge difficult issues, or unable to answer you due to a number of shortcomings viz. the inability to comprehend, debate, argue logically,know various philosophies that are out there etc. etc.

Actually, I’m under pretty much the opposite impression, namely that your volubility is a rather obvious ruse by which you seek to drown any dissent, rather than meet it squarely.  But I’m open to the possibility that I could be wrong, pending apposite evidence.

So, here's my reply then: YES I KNOW THAT GOD IS A MORAL GOD

Yes, and therein can be found the gist of the problem: you blandly, baldly assert your position without giving any convincing reasons why one should (a) take these assertions of yours seriously, and (b) accord your unsupported views any more credence than one should an endless host of other, possibly competing fairytales.

But, just to be fair, let’s summarise the currently prevailing picture.  You claim “I KNOW.”  A workable definition of “knowledge” frequently used by philosophers is “a justified true belief” to which some would add “that remains true even if some small changes occur in the circumstances in which it is held,” a conditional that seems superfluous because you’re attempting to assert a universal, eternal truth.  Considering that you have not actually addressed six crucial objections, namely

• proving your god’s existence;
• that s/he authored morality and a code specifically for humans;
• that the Decalogue is his/her only set of biblical admonitions that we must heed unfailingly;
• the circularity of your argument (“I know god is good because s/he told me so”);
• empirical observations of the world that militate against your view, and
• the logical dilemma that ensues from an analysis of your god as author of our morality and the code, as described twice before,

you cannot then rightfully claim either that your belief is true or that it is justified.  Consequently, claims on your part to “knowledge” are, to put it mildly, premature.

Oh, and you will also perhaps see how it is possible to frame a reply that meets the preferred one-message length criterion without resorting to either of the extremes of garrulous verbal diarrhoea or huffy knee-jerk peevishness.

ETA: I have gone to the trouble of collating the salient statistics of my prior replies: 1,149 words and 5,687 characters.

'Luthon64

[johnno777]

For Anacoluthon64
If you believe that much of what I wrote was “extraneous, irrelevant and/or obfuscatory.” just ask me to go and I’ll go. I certainly won’t be your whipping boy. Let’s see if we can engage with less  ad hominem attacks and utilise more skill and nuance than a shotgun, or mallet approach. Please don’t try the “mine is bigger than yours” (viz. language and epistemology) approach either. I’ll take you on any which way and beat your ass every time and you’ll lose the balls you think you have as well. I’m not impressed by your knowledge, erudition or argumentation and your school maam (Does that get a sic?)(Should it be ma’arm) approach. It is irritating and childish. It displays an innate insecurity, as well as an air of arrogance. If you want to continue engaging with me on the topic; that would be great, but then lose the vituperative, venom-spitting attitude and we can get on with the business. I don’t see you an enemy and I don’t think that I can win you over to my way of thinking, even if my argumentation was brilliant. Believing (in)God, and getting to a point where one puts one’s faith in Him is a spiritual event, not one primarily of cerebral assent; that is why the Christians you regularly mock on the various forums as being cerebrally challenged and as being ones who reason circularly (a favourite chestnut), can still love and live for God. They have a dynamic, personal relationship with Him that does not require them to be paid up members of Mensa. So it’s up to you.
I’ll stay or go. Its your call.

[Anacoluthon64]

So it’s up to you. I’ll stay or go. Its [sic] your call.

Rather than answer your litany of charges – a silly game you yourself started, by the way – I’ll just point out that whether you stay or go is not my decision.  It is entirely yours, so do not, please, try to make me your scapegoat, okay?

But if you decide to stay, don’t expect to receive any special favours or considerations for your contentions because religious believers have demanded and received such for so long now they think it’s an entitlement.  If you do decide to stay then please answer the objections I have raised.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

And this, I say, demonstrates the christian god, if s/he exists, to be a spineless miscreant sporting a degenerate morality, not so much for failing opportunely to intervene on behalf of the innocent as for facilitating such depravity in the first place.

Oh, but I suppose those girls and their babies brought it all on themselves, no doubt by being sinful.

'Luthon64