Amorality


amorality

Atheists love to cite the Book of Judges because in it there are the most barbaric atrocities. Going from bad to worse, it literally spirals out of control. If only the atheists took into account the global message of Judges. Instead of thinking it discredits the Bible, they could understand it simply documents reality when a people lose their moral compass (yes, I will say it, when they lose God).

“Every man did what he thought was right in his own eyes,” is its refrain. The author intended to make the case for the need of a king. But it resonates beyond monarchical Israel. When we lose God, we fall into amorality, having no morals.

Of course, the evolutionists have floated the preposterous idea that we humans evolved morality. On the one hand, this thesis undermines evolution because it affirms that we are fundamentally different than animals. On the other hand, it strikes against the essence of evolution: the survival of the fittest.

Have you ever noticed that some “pride” movements are so named because of the innate consciousness of sin (and shame)? Fortunately the abominable “white pride” movement is dying out.

Even if you don’t believe in the Bible, you have a conscious. You know inherently what is good and what is evil. To cast that aside incurs danger.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Amorality

  1. Some of the countries with the lowest crime rate in the world today also have the lowest number of theists.

    To say that morality has evolved does not necessarily imply that humans are not animals. It only implies that humans are more intelligent than other animals.

    Human moral codes certainly have evolved. We no longer stone people to death for committing adultery. Somewhere along the way after the bronze age, we realized that at best this was no longer necessary, and at worst it was misguided to begin with.

    Also, the term “survival of the fittest” does not mean “survival of the strongest”. It means “survival of the organisms who can best fit into their environment”. The term “fit” has two meanings here, which are often mis-used.

    Morality is not quite so black and white. The greek philosophers wrote about morality long before Christ lived on the earth, and the Indian religions spoke of morality before Judaism existed. Generally, there have been consistencies in some of the core messages, but the details have varied.

    The reasonable non-theist foremost should not steal from his neighbor because he empathizes with his neighbor, and he recognizes the benefit to all of having an orderly neighborhood. He is not motivated by eternal damnation. The funny thing is that many Rabbis and scholars tell us that original Judaic law was also for the sustainability of a healthy orderly society, moreso than out of fear of eternal damnation.

    It seems that this would be an example of the modern American fascination with Biblical literalism over critical interpretation.

    • Dear B, Thanks for showing up here with very well argued points. I appreciate you creating discussion on this blog. You are very convincing, but may I suggest that your points come from your worldview? It is a model that incorporates a lot of sources cogently. The existing evidence fits the model well. But the evidence is described in such a way as to fit the model. The evidence doesn’t prove the worldview, it only fits it. With no lack of respect to you B and others who hold that world view, I would humbly suggest that the Christian worldview is no way inferior and that we similarly adapt the existing evidence to our model. None of the points prove or disprove the models, they simply fit them. I don’t mean to be disrespectful or insulting to others who hold a different worldview than mine. I merely wish to suggest that the existing evidence can fit either model, depending on how you interpret it.

      Having said that, I will say that the atheists are right to spend time thinking and arguing on the origins of morality. It is worth their time to do so because to not do so undermines seriously their worldview. Yes, there have been different and changing senses of morality. Many ancient societies held different standards for rich and poor, for killing of a free man and of a slave. Women were treated as property. It was Jehovah who corrected that and instilled the idea of equality. There are some difficult points of the Bible which we have a hard time explaining, most of which are modern judgements made on an ancient world. I don’t suppose I’ll try to answer each one here. I just want to say that there is acceptable answer to the unprejudiced. I wish to suggest that we Christians have less problems explaining such “inconsistencies” as the evolutionist do trying to explain such things as how lungs evolved or the eye, for example. I wish to humbly submit that the Christian/Biblical worldview is more consistent and logical than the atheist worldview.

      Where did the universe come from anyway?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s