P2. Jehovah's actions are always consistent with his nature.
P3. (From 1 and 2), Jehovah's actions are always moral.
P4. Jehovah performs the act of intentionally terminating the life of other human beings without their consent.
C. Therefore(from 3 and 4), it is moral to intentionally terminate the life of another human being without their consent.
This is a dreadful philosophical argument, but it's logical in a Christian worldview. It's philosophy that has been adhered and practiced by ancient civilizations e.g. The Dark Ages. Morality has become one of the greatest(if not the greatest) concern since the beginning of recorded human civilization. The "whys" and "oughts," pros and cons of how we should conduct ourselves as human beings is extremely important for many reasons, but ultimately, to have a meaningful and flourishing society. I've spent much time devoutly and intensely studying Christian theology, apologetics, history(for reasons too long to disclose in this post), and what some Christians revere as the absolute, infallible and inerrant word of God(the bible). It led me to abandon my faith in the biblical God. I could no longer hold to Christianty as historically true, much less as a means for my morality. After putting aside my biased theological approach to studying the bible, and embarking on a more critically philosophical and historical approach, I concluded the nature and character of YHWH(tetragrammaton for Jehovah) is not what I want or believe morality to be. In my research, I concluded that morality in a Christian worldview can be problematic. This is also the case for many other religions. But I want to deal with Christianity in this post because it's the religion I once so passionately practiced and believed to be completely true; but also because it's the religion I know most about.
In order to begin discussing why we ought or ought not to do something, we need to first give definition for words like moral and immoral, right and wrong. All to often I see the theist and atheist go back and forth in circular argument over this because they fail to give clear and meaningful definitions for their terms. In other words, they play word games. But we have to understand that words have meaning and must have it in order to make a concise case for an argument.
From a Christian perspective it can be mind-numbing and perplexing to provide meaningful definitions for morals in the sense of determining that they are good and/or beneficial for the well-being of mankind. In contemporary Christianity, any thought or action contrary to the commands of YHWH is sinful and immoral and therefore punishable by however he sees fit, ultimately in and everlasting dimension of unspeakable torture. In Old Testament context, if the Israelites didn't go slaughter entire villages killing many innocent children and enslaving the surviving women as property for life(to take hold of the promise land), this would be immoral; sometimes they would have to annihilate everyone. If they didn't stone to death one of their own people for breaking a particular command of YHWH, it was not good. If they weren't ceremonially clean, it was considered bad and therefore punishable. If they didn't sacrifice the properly prepared animal, it was immoral. Same goes in New Testament context. If you don't actively believe that Jesus is God(in some sects at least the Son of God) or are unconvinced that he is the savior of the world from the holy righteous judgment to come(in some interpretations by refusing the Gospel message), you stand guilty of your sinful nature you inherited from Eve's disobedience and are on your way to hell forever when you die. Or how about from the words Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 18:9: "And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." What an outrageous claim!
You see, the Christian Apologist will argue that without the existence of YHWH there are no grounds for morality, much less an understanding of why something is good or bad. They will say things like, "without objective moral laws or standards we have no incentive or basis to be moral, much less grounds to question or critique YHWH's divine laws and plans; that morality is dependent on his character/nature and must objectively come from him." In other words, good comes from YHWH and his decrees are a reflection of his perfect character.
Morality in Christianity has little to do with the progress of society and objectively understanding/attempting to reduce pain and suffering or optimizing health, happiness, and well-being. It simply is to do whatever the writers of the bible believed to be YHWH's divine will and plan he foresaw with perfect precision. In more recent circles of Christendom, the main purpose of life is to be saved from the coming holy righteous wrath poured out on unrepented souls in hell forever. Immunity is granted from the inherent and guilty state of depravity when a soul believes the gospel of Jesus Christ(in a nutshell...his death, burial, and resurrection and that it's propitiation for one's sinful nature). If convinced, the believer is given the greatest reward of an eternity in paradise with YHWH in heaven and escapes the punishment of eternal damnation. What I'm getting to is that morality cannot be objectively reasoned by man in a Christian worldview(even though it has to be in a logical sense); it must be the reflection of objective moral laws that stem from YHWH and his agenda. And here in lies my biggest problem with this ideology. Remember that the Christian has to subjectively interpret the bible like the non-Christian. The result is a bunch of sects(now over 33,000) with different conceptions of what is right and wrong. Many of these sects claim exclusivity for their interpretations/doctrines, hence some beliefs outside theirs can be heretical and therefore punishable. For example, should a woman wear a veil on her head when she prays? Is speaking in tongues good or bad? Should women be aloud to speak/teach or have authority over men? Is Jesus God, or just the Son of God, or just a Jewish prophet? Is God a trinity of persons, or is he just one God? Is hell real? I can go on and on. But that's my point. Different forms of Christianity that have evolved since it's origin have subjective views on what is right or wrong, ergo being a dilema when trying to come to a reasonable conclusion on why something is right or wrong in the realities of the world.
But I don't think the Christian view is the best way to look at morality, primarily by just taking some time to meditate on history and how religion has led to unprecedented, senseless deaths(yes, Christianity being one of the majors). A problem with this is that you see many people(me at one point) give up dreams of pursuing to do something revolutionary all because they need to be ready for the apocalyptic coming of the Son of Man which has been around the corner since the Apostle Paul's day. Even Jesus in Matthew 24 predicts that the current generation(40 years in Jewish/biblical customs) of his time would not pass until the Son of Man comes in glory. Evidently this was false or another one of the many mysteries or textual discrepancies of the bible since it didn't happen. Or consider the fact that every century after Jesus' death until the present day you have some Christians believing the end of the world has come. On so many occasions we see a sect or some prophet interpret certain biblical text and come out saying that such and such person is the "anti-christ" or such and such event fulfilled a certain prophecy...etc. To their enlightenment, they're always wrong. Unfortunately, many naive and vulnerable folks fall prey to these nonsensical predictions. The fundamentalist, radical Christian(as I once was) conforms to close-minded ideologies and interchangeably applies biblical text literally to figuratively. I'm not saying that one can't draw some sound ethical practices from the bible, but you can't apply everything in it as absolute, universal, moral code. It is subject to interpretation. And we have seen time and time again, where people interpret certain passages of the bible literally and the results are phenomenal to say the least. More importantly, you can't objectively reason or diagnose why(or what makes) something wrong or right and come up with practical soloutions. You're limited to appease to the bible's expectations and reasons for the ethical problems of the world. Much of which is attributable to man's depravity and Satan's kingdom which YHWH created in his what I like to call, "TRIPLE OMNI"...omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence.
In a secular approach, assigning defintions for moral/immoral or right/wrong, is so much more satisfying, logical, and applicable. For instance, here is a great definition. A particular choice or action is morally right when it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, health, and/or it diminishes suffering and harm. The opposite of this would be immoral. That established, you'll notice that there is nothing about this that is subjective or relativistic as some will claim. Pain and suffering are not personal experiences and contingent on what one person alone feels. Everyone suffers and experiences trauma. For some it may be the loss of a job or child, for another slavery or physical/emotional abuse. See, certain Christians will say that it is one's own personal subjective opinion that these events are considered wrong, and that human beings have no right or reason to call an action/choice moral or immoral outside of what YHWW's prophets and writers supposedly wrote. But when you assign clear and comprehensible definitions, you can analyze and work toward solutions. Is raping someone wrong? Absolutely! Why? Because it whittingly causes pain and suffering to the victim. This is a moral fact. And if you were to take a poll, you would find that mostly everyone would agree except for a couple of psychopaths. But in a Christian worldview it's only wrong because YHWH's represetatives said it's wrong. The deception is that YHWH can say he is going to cause or order rape(Zech 14:1-2, Judges 19-21, Deut. 22:23-24, Deut. 21:10-14, 2 Samuel 12:11-14 e.g.) and it's "good" because the command or cause came from him. If the Israelite didn't execute, it would be considered immoral.
In short, I truly believe that morality and ethics can take a far greater role in the quality of our lives if we simply think and not run with propositions at face value. We need to reason and see why things are good or bad. We have consciousness that enables us to do so. The bible is ancient literature that had its place in its original context. Yes, we can learn a lot from our ancestors but the bible is not the infallible, inerrant word of God. I absolutely disagree. There are to many discrepecies, contradicions, differences, even forgeries, and no original manuscripts. What we have are copies and copies of many anonymous writings written decades after the Jesus events translated into languages that were not originally spoken at the time by people who lived in a world where only 5-10% could read(much less write articulate narratives like the gospels we have) and where oral transmission was the most common means for communication. There is more abundant and compelling evidence to think the contrary. If one is going to believe that they're saved and passing through this world with the purpose to be united with their God, that's dandy. But when people declare the bible to be perfect and without error, a manuel for morality and ethics, I have to disagree. But we're free to disagree and still love. In the words of Thomas Huxely: "Freedom and order are not incompatible... truth is strength... free discussion is the very life of truth."
In future posts I want to deal with the bible and why it has become the most influential document in western civilization. Most people don't have a clue as to how the bible came to be. Who wrote it? How it was transmitted, translateed and compiled? And if the claims it makes are historically and completely reliable as some folks unquestionably subscribe to. Until then, be blessed.
P3. (From 1 and 2), Jehovah's actions are always moral.
P4. Jehovah performs the act of intentionally terminating the life of other human beings without their consent.
C. Therefore(from 3 and 4), it is moral to intentionally terminate the life of another human being without their consent.
This is a dreadful philosophical argument, but it's logical in a Christian worldview. It's philosophy that has been adhered and practiced by ancient civilizations e.g. The Dark Ages. Morality has become one of the greatest(if not the greatest) concern since the beginning of recorded human civilization. The "whys" and "oughts," pros and cons of how we should conduct ourselves as human beings is extremely important for many reasons, but ultimately, to have a meaningful and flourishing society. I've spent much time devoutly and intensely studying Christian theology, apologetics, history(for reasons too long to disclose in this post), and what some Christians revere as the absolute, infallible and inerrant word of God(the bible). It led me to abandon my faith in the biblical God. I could no longer hold to Christianty as historically true, much less as a means for my morality. After putting aside my biased theological approach to studying the bible, and embarking on a more critically philosophical and historical approach, I concluded the nature and character of YHWH(tetragrammaton for Jehovah) is not what I want or believe morality to be. In my research, I concluded that morality in a Christian worldview can be problematic. This is also the case for many other religions. But I want to deal with Christianity in this post because it's the religion I once so passionately practiced and believed to be completely true; but also because it's the religion I know most about.
In order to begin discussing why we ought or ought not to do something, we need to first give definition for words like moral and immoral, right and wrong. All to often I see the theist and atheist go back and forth in circular argument over this because they fail to give clear and meaningful definitions for their terms. In other words, they play word games. But we have to understand that words have meaning and must have it in order to make a concise case for an argument.
From a Christian perspective it can be mind-numbing and perplexing to provide meaningful definitions for morals in the sense of determining that they are good and/or beneficial for the well-being of mankind. In contemporary Christianity, any thought or action contrary to the commands of YHWH is sinful and immoral and therefore punishable by however he sees fit, ultimately in and everlasting dimension of unspeakable torture. In Old Testament context, if the Israelites didn't go slaughter entire villages killing many innocent children and enslaving the surviving women as property for life(to take hold of the promise land), this would be immoral; sometimes they would have to annihilate everyone. If they didn't stone to death one of their own people for breaking a particular command of YHWH, it was not good. If they weren't ceremonially clean, it was considered bad and therefore punishable. If they didn't sacrifice the properly prepared animal, it was immoral. Same goes in New Testament context. If you don't actively believe that Jesus is God(in some sects at least the Son of God) or are unconvinced that he is the savior of the world from the holy righteous judgment to come(in some interpretations by refusing the Gospel message), you stand guilty of your sinful nature you inherited from Eve's disobedience and are on your way to hell forever when you die. Or how about from the words Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 18:9: "And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." What an outrageous claim!
You see, the Christian Apologist will argue that without the existence of YHWH there are no grounds for morality, much less an understanding of why something is good or bad. They will say things like, "without objective moral laws or standards we have no incentive or basis to be moral, much less grounds to question or critique YHWH's divine laws and plans; that morality is dependent on his character/nature and must objectively come from him." In other words, good comes from YHWH and his decrees are a reflection of his perfect character.
Morality in Christianity has little to do with the progress of society and objectively understanding/attempting to reduce pain and suffering or optimizing health, happiness, and well-being. It simply is to do whatever the writers of the bible believed to be YHWH's divine will and plan he foresaw with perfect precision. In more recent circles of Christendom, the main purpose of life is to be saved from the coming holy righteous wrath poured out on unrepented souls in hell forever. Immunity is granted from the inherent and guilty state of depravity when a soul believes the gospel of Jesus Christ(in a nutshell...his death, burial, and resurrection and that it's propitiation for one's sinful nature). If convinced, the believer is given the greatest reward of an eternity in paradise with YHWH in heaven and escapes the punishment of eternal damnation. What I'm getting to is that morality cannot be objectively reasoned by man in a Christian worldview(even though it has to be in a logical sense); it must be the reflection of objective moral laws that stem from YHWH and his agenda. And here in lies my biggest problem with this ideology. Remember that the Christian has to subjectively interpret the bible like the non-Christian. The result is a bunch of sects(now over 33,000) with different conceptions of what is right and wrong. Many of these sects claim exclusivity for their interpretations/doctrines, hence some beliefs outside theirs can be heretical and therefore punishable. For example, should a woman wear a veil on her head when she prays? Is speaking in tongues good or bad? Should women be aloud to speak/teach or have authority over men? Is Jesus God, or just the Son of God, or just a Jewish prophet? Is God a trinity of persons, or is he just one God? Is hell real? I can go on and on. But that's my point. Different forms of Christianity that have evolved since it's origin have subjective views on what is right or wrong, ergo being a dilema when trying to come to a reasonable conclusion on why something is right or wrong in the realities of the world.
But I don't think the Christian view is the best way to look at morality, primarily by just taking some time to meditate on history and how religion has led to unprecedented, senseless deaths(yes, Christianity being one of the majors). A problem with this is that you see many people(me at one point) give up dreams of pursuing to do something revolutionary all because they need to be ready for the apocalyptic coming of the Son of Man which has been around the corner since the Apostle Paul's day. Even Jesus in Matthew 24 predicts that the current generation(40 years in Jewish/biblical customs) of his time would not pass until the Son of Man comes in glory. Evidently this was false or another one of the many mysteries or textual discrepancies of the bible since it didn't happen. Or consider the fact that every century after Jesus' death until the present day you have some Christians believing the end of the world has come. On so many occasions we see a sect or some prophet interpret certain biblical text and come out saying that such and such person is the "anti-christ" or such and such event fulfilled a certain prophecy...etc. To their enlightenment, they're always wrong. Unfortunately, many naive and vulnerable folks fall prey to these nonsensical predictions. The fundamentalist, radical Christian(as I once was) conforms to close-minded ideologies and interchangeably applies biblical text literally to figuratively. I'm not saying that one can't draw some sound ethical practices from the bible, but you can't apply everything in it as absolute, universal, moral code. It is subject to interpretation. And we have seen time and time again, where people interpret certain passages of the bible literally and the results are phenomenal to say the least. More importantly, you can't objectively reason or diagnose why(or what makes) something wrong or right and come up with practical soloutions. You're limited to appease to the bible's expectations and reasons for the ethical problems of the world. Much of which is attributable to man's depravity and Satan's kingdom which YHWH created in his what I like to call, "TRIPLE OMNI"...omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence.
In a secular approach, assigning defintions for moral/immoral or right/wrong, is so much more satisfying, logical, and applicable. For instance, here is a great definition. A particular choice or action is morally right when it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, health, and/or it diminishes suffering and harm. The opposite of this would be immoral. That established, you'll notice that there is nothing about this that is subjective or relativistic as some will claim. Pain and suffering are not personal experiences and contingent on what one person alone feels. Everyone suffers and experiences trauma. For some it may be the loss of a job or child, for another slavery or physical/emotional abuse. See, certain Christians will say that it is one's own personal subjective opinion that these events are considered wrong, and that human beings have no right or reason to call an action/choice moral or immoral outside of what YHWW's prophets and writers supposedly wrote. But when you assign clear and comprehensible definitions, you can analyze and work toward solutions. Is raping someone wrong? Absolutely! Why? Because it whittingly causes pain and suffering to the victim. This is a moral fact. And if you were to take a poll, you would find that mostly everyone would agree except for a couple of psychopaths. But in a Christian worldview it's only wrong because YHWH's represetatives said it's wrong. The deception is that YHWH can say he is going to cause or order rape(Zech 14:1-2, Judges 19-21, Deut. 22:23-24, Deut. 21:10-14, 2 Samuel 12:11-14 e.g.) and it's "good" because the command or cause came from him. If the Israelite didn't execute, it would be considered immoral.
In short, I truly believe that morality and ethics can take a far greater role in the quality of our lives if we simply think and not run with propositions at face value. We need to reason and see why things are good or bad. We have consciousness that enables us to do so. The bible is ancient literature that had its place in its original context. Yes, we can learn a lot from our ancestors but the bible is not the infallible, inerrant word of God. I absolutely disagree. There are to many discrepecies, contradicions, differences, even forgeries, and no original manuscripts. What we have are copies and copies of many anonymous writings written decades after the Jesus events translated into languages that were not originally spoken at the time by people who lived in a world where only 5-10% could read(much less write articulate narratives like the gospels we have) and where oral transmission was the most common means for communication. There is more abundant and compelling evidence to think the contrary. If one is going to believe that they're saved and passing through this world with the purpose to be united with their God, that's dandy. But when people declare the bible to be perfect and without error, a manuel for morality and ethics, I have to disagree. But we're free to disagree and still love. In the words of Thomas Huxely: "Freedom and order are not incompatible... truth is strength... free discussion is the very life of truth."
In future posts I want to deal with the bible and why it has become the most influential document in western civilization. Most people don't have a clue as to how the bible came to be. Who wrote it? How it was transmitted, translateed and compiled? And if the claims it makes are historically and completely reliable as some folks unquestionably subscribe to. Until then, be blessed.
