Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral

Unfortunately the passage you cited doesn't define sexual immorality. There can't.However, you have a choice: Either human beings are capable of knowing right from wrong, therefore human beings are capable of knowing if the actions of YHWH are wrong (or right) OR human beings are not capable of knowing right from wrong, in which case you can't tell if YHWH upholds the absolute moral standard.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Morality would then be defined by the need for a species to succeed. We, as homo-sapiens, are altruistic because we realize inately that we need to watch out for one another. We are a social creature. We realize we need a group, a family, per se, in order to survive, because on our own, we will be outhunted and/or killed.I can then say to you: why do we see altruism in chimps?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

We have a couple threads already that are based on this question, but I have two answers. One is a direct answer to your question: Morality is defined by our society in general and by ourselves in specific. For instance, I may decide it is moral for me to kill all the people with hair longer than my own. My society, however, would disagree with me and stop me from acting in accordance with that part of my morality.The second response is the one I like to throw back to religious people who assume God is necessary for morality. Where does morality come from? Is something good because God says it's good, or does God say something is good because it's good? Now, be careful how you answer. If morality comes from God, then something is good only because God says so. That makes morality arbitrary. God could say anything is moral if He wanted to. He could change his mind tomorrow and say rape and murder are moral (let's ignore for a minute the question of whether he has already said this according to the Bible), which means morality still isn't absolute, it's relative to whatever God wants.If God says something is good because it's good, then "goodness" and morality exist outside of God, so while he may point us in the right direction, he isn't necessary.So, is all morality relative, or is God unnecessary for morality? Those are your two options.

Lets look at some of the assertions that have just been presented. One of the notions was that human beings are capable of knowing right from wrong. This does not make sense to me assuming that morality is relative as you guys say it is. If there are no moral absolutes, then the concept of right and wrong ceases to exist. One cannot call morality relative and then make absolute claims about what is right and wrong without contradicting himself. Let us look at some of the things humanity has deemed "right" and "moral". Look at Hitler and his genocides of the Jewish people, or Josef Stalin and his genocide of pretty much anyone he didn't like. All these men thought they were doing what was "moral". Were these men capable of distinguishing right from wrong?Another question asked was this: Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say something is good because it is good? To this I would have to urge a greater understanding of who God is. God is morality. Morality is a part of God. Evil on the other hand is not of God. Evil comes from that of a man's mortal desires. God cannot change his mind about morality. Because to God morality is as absolute as one's heart ( aphysical blood-pumping heart. You cannot simply decide to not have a heart. In the same way, God cannot simply decide to change the definition of morality. Morality is unchanging just like God is.We must have an absolute moral foundation in order to determine what is right and what is wrong. Stalin and Hitler are just two examples of man's inability to define morality. Humanity is depraved at its very core. We cannot determine what is moral and what is not by ourselves. The very notion that morality is relative is proof of this. Man cannot set absolut moral boundaries, so he simply chooses not to.

Really! That's very interesting in light of these two bits: Can you clarify how that qualifies as "unchanging," Holyfire? That seems a mite puzzling.Oh, and welcome to EvC! I don't know where I misplaced my manners yesterday when you arrived. Sorry.

False. The concept of objective right and wrong ceases to exist, but that doesn't matter - the assertion that morality is relative includes the rejection of an objective moral standard and the aceptance that ethics are subjectively determined by human beings. One can call morality relative and then claim that a given act is immoral under a specified system of ethics. For instance, under Chrsitian authoritarian ethics, any act in disobedience to God is immoral. Under utilitarian ethics, the action that causes the most good for society as a whole is the most morally correct action.Your statements require an objective standard of morality. When you're arguing against people who reject any sort of objective morality exists, you need to stop viewing moral judgments in such a light. Did they think they were morally correct? Hitler perhaps...he believed Jews were wicked and evil and the source of Germany's problems, if he believed his own press. Stalin I would propose simply didn't care, and acted in his own selfish interests rather than making a moral evaluation. But the very fact that hyuman beings do judge different actions to be "good" and "evil" proves the fact that there is no inherent moral absolute.A better example would be the Aztecs, who believed they needed to sacrifice victims daily to feed their gods and among other things keep the Sun rising each day.Today, we would consider human sacrifice to be abhorrent and immoral.The Aztecs considered their actions to be morally correct, even necessary - what's a person a day to keep the Sun coming up and keep the entire world alive? A hundred? A thousand?Morality and ethics are not written in stone. Rape is not universally and objectively evil - the vast majority of us simply agree that it is wrong, for various reasons, through various systems of ethics. Likewise with murder (though clearly not all societies agree on the definition of murder), theft, etc."Right" and "wrong" have only that meaning which we give to them. The reason we have a system of ethics at all is because societies don't function without some sort of morality governing interpersonal relationships. Societies that consider murder to be perfectly moral will die out, for example. Another reason is that we evolved from social animals - we can empathize with others, and innately recognize "I would not like to be beaten up, so I will not beat up other people." False, according to the Bible:

quote:

---

Isaiah
45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

---

God says he creates evil. If morality is absolute and unchanging, then what about the other moral dictates of the Bible?If you have an unruly child, shouldn't you stone him? That's what the Bible says to do.If you want a wife, can't you go hide in a vineyard, kidnap a girl of your choice, and force her to marry you (and if she doesn't please you in bed, send her packing sans virginity)? That's what the Bible says.Is ejaculating on the ground punishable by death? The Bible says so.If I work on the Sabbath, should I be killed? The Bible says so.I could go on for quite a while. Nowadays, we find these things to be morally repugnant - rebellious children don't deserve capital punishment, forced marriage constitutes rape and we all agree that's immoral, etc. A few thousand years ago, those things would be regarded as morally correct and even necessary - just like the Aztecs and their human sacrifices. I have no absolute moral foundation, and I challenge you to prove that such an objective innate morality exists.I manage to be a relatively ethical person simply by extrapolating empathy and desiring the greatest benefit for society as a whole. Stealing is bad because I wouldn't like my stuff stolen. Rape is bad because I wouldn't want to be raped. Murder is bad because I wouldn't want to be murdered, and rampant killing would destabilize society. Copyright infringement is bad because it harms the production of creative works. Legislating against a group for being black/gay/female/non-Christian/whatever so long as they are not objectively harming society is bad because I wouldn't want any group I beling to to be persecuted for similarly arbitrary reasons. Etc, etc, etc. Most of us seem pretty good at it. Stalin and Hitler, thankfully, are not indicative of the rest of the human population. Last I knew, most people didn't rape, murder and steal - including thsoe of us who believe in no god(s). Unless you've heard of some Atheist rape/murder gangs? The easily observable fact is that mankind can and does determine morality for ourselves. Even when given a standard like the Bible, we still pick and choose what is and is not ethical, and the definition of "right"and "wrong" demonstrably change over time. Absolute moral boundaries are a myth - they don't exist, even for God, who very plainly changes his mind about the ethics of various actions in different parts of the Bible (ie, murder is bad...except when killing the children and non-virgin women of a defeated tribe, then it's okay. So is killing all of the firstborn children, right down to the animals, of Egypt for something God forced the Pharoah to do. Oh, and blowing up a pair of cities for undefined sexual immorality is another exception, but when the surviving family engaged in a drunken incestuous orgy, that was fine).Human beings define right and wrong. We always have, and always will. Any suggestion otehrwise is an unsupportable assertion requiring the existence of objective morality. Good luck proving that exists.

but but but.....that's the Old Testament. Jesus changed all that, remember?

Which of course blows the whole "morality is unchanging" thing out of the water even for a Christian. Biblical ethics are very clearly tied to the whims of the deity, changing however his will dictates. Sometimes rape and murder are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes revenge is good, sometimes it's bad. It's okay for God to do some things, but not for you for the same reasons.Even Chrsitianity doesn't have an moral standard - they're simply authoritarian.

Here are the stats on the 'poor response' so far by those who are/have been active in either thread.Made or implied against rape under all circumstances -Atheist and pro-science:Coragyps Message 117
Parasomnium Message 81
Huntard Message 108
bluescat48 Message 106
lyx2no Message 104
Rahvin Message 103
Theodoric Message 101
Straggler Message 92
Perdition Message 95
Modulous Message 94
Dr Adequate Message 90Christian and pro-science:Michamus Message 133
Meldinoor Message 120
Bluejay Message 115Other/decline to state/don't know and pro-science:Drosophilla Message 127
Anglagard Message 118
Percy Message 96Christian and anti-science (remember how interwoven physics, chemistry, geology and biology are? IMO those who don't and have made statements indicating an antagonistic attitude toward at least one and therefore all = anti-science):holyfire23, evidently fundie Message 3
Peg, mostly fundie but also JW, so a bit different Message 124Heavily implied but no direct statement I can tag, still obviously against rape under all circumstances:Taz, atheist, pro-science
Purpledawn, (I think she is a Christian considering the huge knowledge, although her belief system is so sophisticated {like Ringo's}, sometimes hard to tell), pro-science
hooah212002, unknown, pro-scienceRefuse to answer up to now:Mike the Wiz, fundie, anti-science
John 10:10, fundie, anti-science
kbertsche, unknown, unknown (see above comment)If I have misrepresented anyone here, I deeply apologize, it is purely accidental, and I will correct ASAP after reading.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

But holyfire, we're talking about rape in ALL circumstances, not just certain circumstances. Are you saying that rape, in some cases, is right?So what if the Midianites were punished by god? I don't care if god got out his holy erect penis and raped those virgins, is rape wrong in all circumstances or not?

That's just it, isn't it? Most christians, some of whom believe even a soft literal interpretation, will tell me that whatever happened to said people, that we (as atheists/moralists/rational thinkers) would see as immoral, they either a) deserved it or b) god said it was ok, and since god says it's ok, THEY think it's ok because god IS morality to them.Oh what a tangled web we weave.

This really goes back to Socrates' question: Is a thing good because the gods say so or do the gods say so because it is good?

Hi Holyfire23! We sure are capable of knowing right from wrong. In fact God says we are just as capable of knowing right from wrong as He is.

quote:

---

Gen 3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

---

See. so we all know good from evil the same way God does. The awesome thing about truth (with a lowercase t) is it doesn't have to make sense to anyone for it to still be true. Not really. See the cool thing about us humans is our concepts. Our concepts exist based on several factors, all of which revolve around our interpretation of information.One person can say Rape is abhorrent, and should not be tolerated under any circumstance, whereas another can view rape as acceptable in some, or all circumstances.Which one is correct? Well, that's for each of us to decide. Sure [s]he can. I can say that under no circumstance is rape justified, period. I can say that, and never contradict myself on it.Now, I did not say that no one else can think it is okay.
- Do not confuse my acknowledgment of differing morality (or the lack thereof) as condoning it. Ah yes, Hitler and his genocide in the name of the Christian God. Perhaps you should look up what the German Army belt buckles said. It wasn't really that Stalin "didn't like them". Stalin had to remove any possible power threat in order to maintain "the State" as supreme. Religion obviously a primitive form of government, and as such had to be removed. Not really. The Bible does not agree with you on this one. Refer to my first statement. Why would we? Do you really not obtain enough information from seeing what rape does to it's victim to determine it is an evil, and despicable act? Actually, Hitler and Stalin are two prime examples that we can define our own morality, although it may not be what I consider a good one. I just set an absolute moral boundary. Rape is bad, and absolutely unacceptable in any and all circumstances.The only person here who chooses not to set any moral boundaries is you. You prefer not to use your moral judgment, and instead have in it's place a "Refer tah dah big guy in dah sky" placard.This creates a huge moral rift within you that you cannot fill without accepting that only you can fill it. Without you actively engaged, anyone can hijack your morality by simply convincing you that it is "God's will" and with that hijacking have you commit atrocities.This is no different than a mother thinking it is "okay" to drown her 5 small children in their bathtub, because she thinks god is telling her to do it.

So if morality is decided subjectively and according to one's social surroundings, than that means right and wrong do not exist. What is considered wrong for western culture might be okay for other cultures? Consider this situation. I once heard a speaker tell a story that he heard from a missionary friend in Thailand. She had recently been part of a rescue operation that helped little girls escape the thriving human trafficking trade. While there they found an 11 month old little girl. Her legs had been beaten so terribly that they were severely broken and swollen."It was horrible" said the missionary "what they did to this small child. In this particular crime ring it was customary for the clients to be given a mixture of hard liquor, snake's blood, and a hallucinogenic drug. After injesting this they would then have sex with these little girls. The 11 month old girl was the youngest. The oldest of which was only 11 years old."Tell me this. Is it wrong for these men to be doing this. Is this not evil? In our culture this is repulsive, but in their culture it is a way of entertainment. If you subscribe to the belief that morality is subjective to cultural interpretation than these men who do these awful things cannot be held accountable for what they do. Following the logic behind subjective morality, they have done nothing wrong. Do you guys honestly support this view?

So you propose, instead, to have everyone bound by the "absolute morality" of your particular deity, one of some tens of thousands of such deities invented by mankind throughout recorded history?The fact that there is no empirical evidence for any of them is of no consequence, we're all to be bound by the requirements of your particular deity?Does that about sum it up?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.