On morality. Again

SB has a post about conversations but somehow it ended up being about morals.

The visiting fundamentalist asked

If morality is subjective, how do you condemn slavery as immoral?

This question asked by a fellow who believes the bible should be used as a moral code reeks of high irony. Or is it sarcasm. I can’t tell which.

In different ages, society has condemned slavery in many of its myriad forms because of the belief that all human beings deserve equal treatment before the law. In that period of time, who is worthy of the consideration of being human has changed too.

And what does it even mean to say that subjective morality is inconsistent? Maybe the question to ask is what is morality? I think that’s the source of all confusion.


on free will

Mary whose blog does not have a comments section tells us

Yes, God is loving and omnipotent, but it doesn’t mean that He will wipe out evil. God wants us to make a free decision of will. Man is the crowning glory of God’s creations. Man is the only creation given a free will. All other creations, living and non-living, are here to serve. They provide man with a means to live so that man can focus on the real purpose of his earthly life, that is, to return to God of his own volition. Just as the Tree of Knowledge existed to test the will of Adam and Eve, evil exists to test the will of their descendants.

I don’t know about you, but where I come from where people are both not all loving and omnipotent, they do their best to reduce suffering. Try imagine going for an operation with anesthesia!

Mark Brady is the True Christian™ kind of fellow. He knows you are going to hell if you don’t have Jesus H in your life and it is for eternity plus 1!

And finally, Shepherds [sheep comes to mind] Chapel tell us god allows people to hurt each other because, you guessed right, freewill.


Evil and omnipotence

on the death penalty

Mick asked me to comment on this post. I hope he will not mind me doing it here.

Mick says prison these days is not punishment. In his own words

As soon as I walked in I could feel the tight suffocating atmosphere. I could instantly tell suffering had took place here for any crimes.  The rooms were small and some with no windows. The inmates had to work hard just for their breakfast.

prisons should be made in this way and this reminds me of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. I sympathized with him, hated him and then loved him. Did prison make him a better person or a worse person? How did society treat him?

Mick tells us

They should be wiped out and took out of life so we don’t have to care for them. This will free up space in prisons with people of lesser crimes.


If someone had murdered someone close to me I don’t see jail as justice not in the modern day.

I hope he will be willing to kill the perpetrator himself and not defer the punishment to the government. I want him to choke the murderer to death. Or stone him to death or maybe burn him at the stake and then write about how he feels about it. No lethal injection or firing squad. Him and the offender.

He makes allowance, wait for it

I understand rapists and thieves etc should be given second chances etc but murderers especially cold brutal murderers should be put to sleep.

I am confused. I thought he was all out for execution for criminals. Why does he give rapists a second chance but not murderers?

I would love Mick to tell me his views on war.

I do not support capital punishment.

I don’t know what I would do were I in a situation where I was face to face with a person who had murdered one of my family members or friends. If, for example, they had killed them with a knife and they court told me I can kill him too but with a knife, would I do it? I think not.

Is capital punishment preferred because it is the government doing the killing on our behalf or would we still want it if we were to do the killing ourselves? What does it make of us?

some truths

Yes, it is a truth- the vastest, most certain of truths, if one will- that our life is nothing, and our efforts the merest jest; our existence, that of our planet, only a miserable accident in the history of worlds; but it is no less a truth that, to us, our life and our planet are the most important, nay, the only important phenomena in the history of the worlds.

The Buried Temple by Maurice Maeterlinck

Of Christian sects and cults

Here I was strolling on the internet when I meet with this post and I got really interested.

While I laud her proposals, they don’t go far enough. It is not enough to just question ones faith but all god claims. Parents must as a matter of course not indoctrinate their children in their beliefs but to create an environment where children can know of different beliefs observed by others around them and to question the validity of any of them or all of them.

The type of group she discusses matches millennium cults that were prevalent in Europe between the 7th and 16th centuries of the current era. And while education was at play, the biggest drive was economic and they were based on loose interpretations of apocalyptic literature such as book of Revelations and Daniel. Instead of dismissing the followers as blind and uneducated, it is far more productive to us who don’t believe to investigate the motivations behind such groupings. Who says they are not political?

And while at it, she should be fair to her readers and start with a definition of a cult.

For me, the difference between a cult and a mainstream church is in real estate. Others I know have added a farther qualifier that in a cult the founder is still in many cases alive while in a religion the founder is long dead.

Finally I agree with her concluding remarks. She writes

However, it is imperative that we all use our brains for what they are meant for – to think! [Emphasis by me]

Pope cuddle on atheists 

The Pope cuddles while addressing a church gathering said 

But to be a Catholic like that, it’s better to be an atheist.’ It is that: scandal

But this is an insult to atheists. To compare dishonest and hypocritical Catholics to atheists is to claim we are dishonest, which we are not and it is a poor reading of his sentiments that would make anyone think he has respect for atheists.