A Nice Comment About My Chapter On God and Animals for "The Christian Delusion"
via email:
I have just finished your chapter on "God and animals", and I must say that if this is the type of chapter that did not make it to the book (Christian Delusion) then the book is going to be [a] monster!!This is the link to that online chapter.
Thank you for the work done on this. I believe (as an animal lover myself) that the care and compassion that a person is able to show towards other sentient beings is a very strong indication of that person's spiritual maturity, and if that is so our man Yahwe again falls so far short of even the most basic sense of decency.
Your chapter on this fills a very important gap in this discussion, and personally I believe that God and his earthly representatives should be called on this issue far more often. The whole Christian (well, let's be fair - theist) approach to animals as mobile food/slaves is appalling, and it was one of the cast-iron arguments that caused me to leave my own Christianity years ago. Still, I do not believe that this most important issue is highlighted enough. Your chapter will now happily reside on my hard drive, to be sent to all and any Christian that insists on living with their heads up their proverbials.
Thanks again, and best of luck with the book. I will most definitely order a copy.
Andre from SA
9 comments:
"and if that is so our man Yahwe again falls so far short of even the most basic sense of decency."
And yet there is no standard of morality to appeal to by which to judge the Owner and Creator of the universe. You expect too little from God. You do not see Him as the Infinite and Holy Creator Who is Omniscient...but rather as a co-finite being who you think it is logical to judge. Nothing could be further from the truth....
"Your chapter on this fills a very important gap in this discussion, and personally I believe that God and his earthly representatives should be called on this issue far more often. The whole Christian (well, let's be fair - theist) approach to animals as mobile food/slaves is appalling,"
This is evasive to that fact that we are uniquely created in God's Image and was not a valid reason to leave Christianity if you understood it correctly. The animal that is NOT created in the Image of God is not an eternal being and they are gifts to us.
Their soul returns to the ground (if they have one (mammals do)but they are not eternal like humans who are created in God's Image.
As long as we do not address the logic and the tenets of Christianity when analyzing this temporary creation..we will always miss the argument.
"And yet there is no standard of morality to appeal to by which to judge the Owner and Creator of the universe. "
Yeah funny that.And yet seems man of faith judged gods supposed morals plenty, when creating faiths and writing about it.
W.T.F ??
You say creators Morals cant be judged,in favor of trying to protect a faith with books written about supposed god moral which seems to suggest you obviously think somebody can judge what gods morals might be.
Dont you think its a bit of a extremely false double standard you are using?
What standard! do YOU appeal to when you feel even certain morals of gods can be correct and understood.
"As long as we do not address the logic and the tenets of Christianity when analyzing this temporary creation..we will always miss the argument."
How about starting by addressing the tenets of logic first!,like how can it be both ways.Can judge gods morals,and cant judge gods morals.Because of no standard of morality to appeal to
Dont you think first missing addressing simple tenets of logic, could even be a bit of a potential problem?
Yes, Breckmin
That is one of the big reasons why I left the cult of Christianity. Another reason was coming into contact with people like you, people who fashion their entire lives and worldview on a deficient and incomplete understanding of their own faith. From your comments you are clearly clueless as to the topic at hand, and your reading probably extends to a few pages of apologetics which you bought on the cheap at the church fair, and some ideas that the good reverend shared with you some Sunday.
I have wasted enough time with Christians who couldn't be bothered to research their own outdated belief system, and it is abundantly clear from your comments that we have absolutely nothing to even regard as a point of departure for any meaningful discussions.
Objective morality, my arse. Even some senior Christian apologeticists are walking away from that nonsense.
And calling animals our "gifts" just make me want to throw up. Read something like "The Selfless Gene", by a CHRISTIAN author called Charles Foster and see why this problem should actually be bothering you.
Animals are very susceptible to reacting to their surroundings by instinct. Whether we are conscientiously aware of not, we humans are stewards of the spiritual and material atmospheres, so, if we open up to expressing 'heaven on earth', then God's will may be done - the lion will lie down with the lamb. I've seen stories and photos of such examples - one recent story was about a pet snake and mouse (the snake's intended dinner) that befriended one another. As a former nonbeliever, I would have discounted this as a fluke, but I see it differently now - I see such as a glimpse of the divine intention.
I've heard some fundamentalists ponder aloud a couple issues: if animals will reside in heaven and whether or not our genetic make-up may have been derived from animal origins. About the latter issue; I am not too proud -- I take ownership of my own animal-like beginnings (even Jesus assigns animal labels towards people who are caught up in the habits of mistreatment)- once I was a dog, then a well loved pet and now, soon-to-be child of God. Regarding the initial issue: if Fundamentalists are wondering if animals are in heaven and they take the bible literally, then where do they think God got all those horses that the Apocolyptic riders are coming down from heaven on??
At any rate, I believe God values animals more than we do --- we ought not hinder spiritual enlightenment on this earth so each living being, whether human or animal, can be set free from becoming caught up in the roles of survival-of-the-fittest.
Take care,
3M
"How about starting by addressing the tenets of logic first!",
It is precisely through logic that we realize it is futile to try to appeal to a moral standard that is greater than the Owner and Creator of us all.
"like how can it be both ways."
Often there is a problem with semantics and the accusation is equivocation. The reality is that there is amphibology everywhere
and it is important to identify it.
"Can judge gods morals,and cant judge gods morals."
Here it is important to identify the difference between appealing to a STANDARD of morality and creating your own standard of morality (which has no basis) for
which to judge the One Who created you.
Because there is no standard of morality to appeal to that is higher or greater than the Creator YHWH, there is NO basis to which to claim He is somehow lacking in morality.
Talking about biblical standards of the Creator's Law (Torah) is evasive to charging God and it is actually switching subjects.
"Dont you think first missing addressing simple tenets of logic,"
No. I am identifying that you are switching subjects to "what specifically" those moral laws are rather than dealing with "how you can lay a charge against the Creator and Owner of the universe."
"could even be a bit of a potential problem?"
Substantiating the Law based on the Torah as being divine revelation is a different subject. Without a soft heart and humility before God it is indeed problematic to try and convince someone that it is divine revelation through a Prophet in Israel.
Logic identifies it as a different subject.
Breckmin said... "It is precisely through logic that we realize it is futile to try to appeal to a moral standard that is greater than the Owner and Creator of us all."
But originally humans merely appealed to the "standards" of human logic, to decide "standards" of what was thought moral in the fist place Breckman.What is it that you actually see as the difference between them doing that back then!,and any of us doing the very same thing now?
If gods had actually appeared in front of us,told us what was moral and clearly layed out what they wanted infront of us and recorded it in some extra special way so that it could never logically be argued about,so nobody would forget or ever get it wrong.
Then we might actually be able to considder we had these supernatural morals etc,from "higher standards" that faithful folks tell us about.And then you would really have a point Breckman,because it really could be claimed we were honestly using some "higher standard".
But it dont happen.Its never happened.By cross checking these faith books,it also soon becomes easy to see its nothing supernaturally devine.
Humans are who thinks about whats thought to be morals etc,humans write them down.
So there is no need to appeal to any higher standard of thinking than mere man,because mere man is who was involved in thinking and writing these morals etc.
Anything written in the bible that people question.When they question it they are not questioning the actual "thoughts" of some higher supreme being,no they are merely questioning the "thoughts" of the mere humans who first thought about these faiths and thoughts and those who passed the belief on until later folks recorded them in the bible.
So no Breckman you cant! have it both ways.You cant say--"And yet there is no standard of morality to appeal to by which to judge the Owner and Creator of the universe."
And then point to the bible/faith men dreamed up, and say stuff written within this book is correct and of some "higher standard".
That would be a false claim.A claim you even have no higher "standard" to appeal to to base your claim on.
Because mere man only appealed to his own moral standard to think of whats written in the bible, the only "standard" that was ever use to think of these idea in the (very first place) was only "standard" of (mere mortal man).
And he was a early ultra superstitious ignorant barbaric type mere mortal man at that!.You would need to agree,this uneducated barbarian STUPIDLY thought gods must be behind killing people with earthquakes and lightning bolts etc.
Not that it was really his fault,there just wasnt quite the same amount of knowledge around in days of old
But cant you see how stupid it looks to many skeptics, for any religo person to try and claim their argument is based on some supposed "higher standard",that then "bingo" somehow magically can simply be said becomes above any humanly standard line of questioning.
You cant just take some old belief thought up by men,and simply appoint it as supposedly coming from some supreme supernatural higher standard that cannot be appealed against because of no higher standard to appeal to.
The same thing could be claimed for the moral standard of his lordship FSM
Its only a dreamer who tries to argues and debate from the point of some supposed "higher standard".
Until some god actually personally appears on the scene!,all we have honestly ever had, was "standard" of men to go by.
Today i use kinda the same type of "standard" that ancient men used when thinking about things like morals and gods etc,we use common sense,logic,reasoning,knowledge and education etc.
The difference is, today we have more knowledge which came from better education and much progression through science.
For instance todays standard does not include the ancient ignorant thought,that also gods supposedly personally killed with use of lightning bolts,earthquakes,tsunami,tornado etc.
Todays standard is actually very much improved.We are no longer quite so ignorant as we once were.
That there is a type of higher standard we actually can appeal to Breckman, its called more education and modern knowledge.
By God's standard I see the Bible as being moraly bankrupt.
Dashing babies against rocks is immoral. Psalms 137
Stoning people to death for adultery, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, etc. is immoral.
Punishing people forever in eternal misery is immoral.
The list could go on.
Post a Comment