This is a response to Ironwolf’s reply to my previous article. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’ve been pretty busy lately. Anyway, I’d like to thank you for actually responding to me, as well as having civility in doing it.
The thesis of your argument is that the Golden Rule is the moral standard that you follow, and the best one for me and other people at that. However, I do have a few questions for you. Where did the principle of the Golden Rule come from? Who laid down the Golden Rule? You just said in your post that it predates Christianity, and possibly humanity itself. However, I propose that you need to have some type of source for your moral standard; otherwise it’s just something that some little insignificant creature made up. If someone just made it up, it is not binding on anyone else; it is just one man’s opinion on how others are behaving. You can’t impose your standard on anyone because neither you nor it has supremacy over humanity. However, if it came from God than it is binding on everyone, since then it is a rule that was laid down by our Maker. Therefore, it would predate time itself. But you won’t admit that it was God, so I’m anxious to know your answer.
But back to what I am saying, you might be able to be governed by the Golden Rule, but you can’t impose it on anyone. Why is the Golden Rule the only rule that man should be ruled by? Why is the Golden Rule right? Is it just because it’s evolutionarily beneficial? Or is it just because it’s good for a society? Killing everyone who is a weakling is evolutionarily beneficial. Going on a world conquest is good for your society. Those are not moral standards; they are just ideal actions that might progress something further.
The Golden Rule is based on how you would like someone to treat you. However, many different people have many different likes on how they like to be treated. Therefore, as Slingpaw said, you can’t apply it to other people based on what you do and do not like. The Golden Rule is not capable of making absolute judgments of other people. It can only supply a general principle of behavior that we should follow as creatures of God, who laid down the Golden Rule.
Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian tradition (and many other religions besides) corrupt the Golden Rule by adding layer upon layer of superstition, dogma, sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry to an otherwise simple and beautiful idea: treat others with the level of respect that you would like to receive.
Who are you to say that all those things are wrong (I’m not disagreeing that they are; it’s just a rhetorical question)? Who are you to define those things? It’s just your opinion that keeping a woman from being a pastor is sexism. Many other people don’t see it that way. It’s just your opinion that you don’t want to be stoned for “mere” disrespect. It’s just your opinion that it is only “mere” disrespect. Other people, knowing what an offense it was to the covenant of God, would have admitted that they deserved stoning. You can’t judge the judgment of God, and say that it isn’t fair.
The wisdom of the Golden Rule only requires a little thought to understand
Where did that “wisdom” come from?
If I do not live by the Golden Rule then the suffering of others increases, and inevitably the increasing suffering of others increases my own suffering. In extreme cases society itself breaks down and suffering increases exponentially.
So what? If you get gratified with what you want, who cares about what happens later? Aren’t we supposed to live life in the here and now? Who cares if others suffer, it usually doesn’t affect me. (Yes, this is rhetorical, I am not advocating end-justifies-the-means ethics)
Based on your answers to my questions, I judge you, Althusius, to be morally corrupt, i.e., depraved.
This is my favorite sentence in your reply. Yes, Ironwolf, I am depraved, I am morally corrupt. But I have hope. I have a Savior who has taken my moral depravity upon himself and died because of it for me. He has taken my corruption upon Himself, and put His righteousness on me, so that I am no longer depraved before God. Yes, I still sin in this life (not by your standards, but by God’s), but the Holy Spirit is working in me to make me more like Christ. I still sin, but I have been forgiven. I have hope.
How about you? I’m sure you don’t keep the Golden Rule perfectly, and I can guarantee you that you haven’t kept God’s Rule perfectly. You need forgiveness from God.
I judge you, Althusius…your morality [is] just as questionable, when judged by the standard of the Golden Rule.
You can’t judge me; you can’t judge God, or anyone else by the Golden Rule. You can voice your opinion, but it doesn’t really matter in the long run. People can still steal, cheat, murder, rape, show disrespect, lie, cuss, profane God’s name, worship demons, and work themselves into the ground, regardless of your thinking it’s wrong.
It is by the Golden Rule that I know what is good.
Good according to your standards that you can’t judge anyone else by. If anyone can make up his or her own moral standard, than Hitler’s actions were good, because they were good according to his standard, whatever it was. You are trying to make a moral standard for everyone based on what you think is right and wrong. You don’t have that authority, only God does.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Althusius,
We can disagree on where the Golden Rule comes from: you say your God gave it to you, and I say it is an optimal game-theoretic solution for livable societies. You say that that’s because God made it that way, and I say that the exceptions that your God allows to it corrupt it and increase human misery. You can say it is specifically the Christian God that laid it down and I can point to many earlier pagan religions (and non-religious philosophies) that had it first.
The fact is, we both agree that it is a standard for good that works. It’s in your own Bible at least twice. Go read it again.
Of course I do not practice it perfectly, but I believe it is beneficial that most people practice it most of the time. I have seen it make my life better. I see evidence that most people agree.
It is the best basis for moral common ground between us, my friend.
Why then do you seem to feel the need to undermine its validity simply because I don’t believe in your God? Certainly it is not because it is a bad or false moral standard. Could it be that the Golden Rule is, in and of itself, humanistic? It simply allows the greatest number of people to live in harmony and plenty without recourse to anyone’s god. I can see how, from your rather dogmatic perspective, that could seem pretty threatening.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:39 am
“However, if it came from God than it is binding on everyone, since then it is a rule that was laid down by our Maker.”
That is not a valid conclusion. It’s just something you assume, kind of like Ironwolf just assumes the Golden Rule.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
brtkrbzhnv,
How do you come to the conclusion that I just “assume” the Golden Rule? Simply google for:
“golden rule” “game theory”
…and you will see a great deal of research and thought that does anything but “assume” the Golden Rule. Here are two excellent hits:
Game Theory and Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Moral Norms in a Partly-Compliant Society
February 5th, 2007 at 7:34 am
The Golden Rule.
“Who that has the gold makes the rules”
II Opinions 4:2
February 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Ironwolf:
I say it is an optimal game-theoretic solution for livable societies
You still didn’t answer my question. You just said there what it is, and what it’s supposed benefits are. You didn’t say what it’s origin is. Yes, it could have been a good thing for society, but who made it up? Was it a crazed monkey in the jungle? Was it a caveman in the forest? Yes, I say that God handed it down, but it’s the God of the whole universe, not just me.
I say that the exceptions that your God allows to it corrupt it and increase huma
n misery
Who are you to judge God to say that He has corrupted it?
I can point to many earlier pagan religions (and non-religious philosophies) that had it first.
God is before all time, He did not get invented at some point in time. No one “had it” before God.
it is a standard for good that works. It’s in your own Bible at least twice. Go read it again.
It works, but it isn’t complete without the rest of the law of God. It isn’t complete without any greater power or force to back it up. It isn’t complete without any punishment for not keeping it. I know it’s in the Bible.
Of course I do not practice it perfectly
So one could go on not keeping it and not recieve any punishment for it. The person might think it’s a good thing to do, but he won’t do it, and he won’t recieve any punishment for it.
it is beneficial that most people practice it most of the time.
I’m assuming that you mean beneficial to society. But people who do not care about society do not need to follow it. Therefore they are not ruled by it. Therefore their actions are not wrong.
I have seen it make my life better.
But it won’t matter in the long run, Ironwolf.
Certainly it is not because it is a bad or false moral standard.
It is incomplete, as I said before.
I can see how, from your rather dogmatic perspective, that could seem pretty threatening.
Not really. I’m concerned because you are saying something that is wrong.
brtkrbzhnv:
Just as you assume there is no God.
God is our Maker, therefore He rightly commands us, His creatures to follow His laws.
Gavino:
Maybe, not really.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Althusius,
You originally asked me for my moral foundation, and I answered. I also showed that your moral foundation is a corrupt parody of mine. You asked me where my foundation came from, and if I have not answered that explicitly I apologize and do so here now: it is an emergent property of a social system. If you ask me how that social system came to be, I will tell you Evolution. If you ask me how evolution came to be I will say I’m not sure, but I hope we can find out someday. If you ask me how the universe came to be I’ll say I don’t know, but I hope we can find out someday.
Notice how “I don’t know,” is a perfectly acceptable answer to me? This is standard practice in science, as is the expression of a will to find out. Since your “holy book” fails any reasonable test of divine inspiration, it also fails to provide any useful answers to questions to which I have no immediate answers. Your brute assertions of Bible-based faith carry equally vacuous significance.
Your argument that God is “before time” (an oxymoron) and therefore this explains why people had the Golden Rule before the Judeo-Christian epoch is certainly no argument that a God (if one exists) is the God of Christianity. On that argument, you may as well grant equal validity to the prior religions.
You assert that the Golden Rule works but is incomplete without punishment. You have my pity that the only way you can conceive of acting in harmony with your fellow man is that you live in fear that you will be tortured for eternity if you do not. If you really need carrots and sticks, as I have previously stated, we live in a society of checks and balances, including rewards and punishments in the here-and-now. For me, my punishment is to see my fellow humans suffer and my reward is to see their suffering decrease.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Ironwolf:
Thank you again for your honesty. Not many people admit what you did.
your moral foundation is a corrupt parody of mine.
My moral foundation is different from your twist on the Golden Rule. It is different, but not corrupt. It may be corrupt according your twist on the Golden Rule, but you cannot apply your standard to judge between two standards, yours and mine. If you do that, then obviously everything that differs is going to be corrupt, but your standard does not have the force or power to do that.
It is not a parody, because it does not originate from your moral foundation. In fact the Golden Rule is just an application of my moral foundation; it is a facet of it.
When Jesus said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “love your neighbor as yourself,” he was talking about love. Love the Lord your God with all you heart…and your neighbor as yourself is the summary of God’s Law (my moral standard). You can imply from this (and Jesus said this) that love is therefore defined by the Law. If you love God, you will worship Him alone, you will not set up spiritual pornography of Him, you will not take His name lightly, and you will rest for His honor and your good. If you love your neighbor, you will respect him when he is an authority, you will not murder him, you will not commit adultery with or rape his wife, you will not steal from him, you will not lie to or about him, and you will not covet everything he has.
This is the true definition of love. You cannot just make up your own definition of love. When you follow the Golden Rule truly, you will love God and your neighbor according to the Law. However, we cannot do this perfectly; we need Christ.
it is an emergent property of a social system.
Thank you, the key word “emergent” was missing before. That still means, though, that it arose out of a human source (or creature source, according to your theory of righteous apes), whether it be a group of creatures or one creature. This means that it still originated among us, and therefore we can choose to reject it or follow it. It doesn’t actually rule us. It’s just a good idea.
If you ask me how that social system came to be, I will tell you Evolution. If you ask me how evolution came to be I will say I’m not sure, but I hope we can find out someday. If you ask me how the universe came to be I’ll say I don’t know, but I hope we can find out someday.
Thank you so very much for your honesty here.
Notice how “I don’t know,” is a perfectly acceptable answer to me? This is standard practice in science, as is the expression of a will to find out.
Yes, but there comes a point (like 150 years of continuous “I don’t know”-ing) when you have to stop and say, “This theory is not giving me any answers. I wonder if there is another theory that has answers.” Then you should go look for another theory that might have the answers, instead of trying to find facts to prove your theory. You should start out with facts that implicate a theory. So far though, I have not seen any effort on the part of the secular scientific community to look for another explanation besides evolution. They just keep on holding tenaciously to evolution and try to fit facts to it, even though it won’t work. That’s not very scientific.
your “holy book” fails any reasonable test of divine inspiration
I’m not aware of it failing any tests. I’m not even aware of any test that can apply to it (though there sort of is one that I will mention later). Please expound.
Your brute assertions
I don’t know about the word “brute.”
God is “before time” (an oxymoron)
Only for mortals, not for One who created time.
On that argument, you may as well grant equal validity to the prior religions.
They did not have the truth, and as I keep pointing out, they were not “prior.” Worshiping the One true God was there at the point that the first human was created.
As for the other religions not having the truth, see my response to Aidan where I put out the “Four tests of Truth.”
For me, my punishment is to see my fellow humans suffer and my reward is to see their suffering decrease.
However noble this statement is, Ironwolf, most people do not follow it. Criminals (and many others) do not like to see others’ suffering decrease. If they were not stopped and punished (or put in fear of punishment), they could go on and kill everyone, including those who did support your noble statement. No one would be able to do anything about it, because you would say, “As I would not want to be thrown in jail (or executed) for my beliefs and my occupation, so we should not throw this person in jail (or execute him) for following his beliefs and his occupation.” You do not have the standard of God’s Law to qualify and truly understand the Golden Rule.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Althusius,
My claim that your moral foundation is a corrupt parody of mine is easily supported, and I have already done so. But I here again summarize: 1) It is “corrupt” because although your God and his followers preach the Golden Rule, they also suspend it helter-skelter to practice bigotry of the sort I raised in my original response– for example, the sexism and justifications of slavery you previously demonstrated. It is a “parody” in the sense that my dictionary describes: “An imitation or version of something that falls far short of the real thing,” because it takes the essential parsimonious wisdom of seeing ourselves in others (the true basis of love) and adds to it the travesty of eternal torments and rewards meted out by an unpredictable, petulant deity.
You seem to feel that emergent properties are “thought up” by someone, whereas just the opposite is true. For example, the gaussian or “bell” curve is an emergent property of many probabilistic systems– it’s not just a “good idea.” The fact is, in many systems we also observe emergent complexity– which, of course, you rule out as a possible explanation for life while simultaneously asserting the inexplicable prior existence of an infinitely complex Being.
You thank me for my honesty in admitting things I don’t know. But in my experience, this is nothing unusual or special among scientists and those with a healthy respect for the scientific method and critical thought. If it weren’t for the willingness to say, “I don’t know, but I’ll try to find out,” then science would not exist. It is however quite rare to hear a religionist admit they don’t know something because they consistently fall back on the stock answer “God did it.” The fact is, science has given us many more answers than religion; and although our new knowledge continues to raise new questions, religion has failed to provide us with any of the testable, useful answers we have sought.
You say that scientists do not look for theories other than evolution, but I will remind you that they did just that until Darwin finally provided a decent theory. After the advent of such a powerful theory, it takes an even more powerful theory to supplant it. If you have such a theory that explains all the DNA, geological, and fossil records better than— and makes new, more accurate predictions about biology that cannot be made by— the theory of descent with modification and natural selection (”evolution”) then please come forward and show that it is such. I assure you, you will be receiving your Nobel Prize shortly. Unfortunately, both you and I realize that you are stuck defending a prior supplanted theory, to wit: “A deity did it by fiat in six literal days.”
Of course you are unaware of the Bible failing any tests of divine inspiration. That is because, a priori, you accept a particular dogmatic interpretation of it as “true.” Those who do not, such as myself, look for clues as to whether or not the extravagant supernatural claims made about it could possibly be true, and come up empty.
A “brute fact” is a “terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy 2005). By analogy, a “brute assertion” is a statement that purports to be a fact, but is not supported by evidence. “God is our Maker, therefore He rightly commands us, His creatures to follow His laws,” etc. are brute assertions based on your a priori acceptance of a particular interpretation of the Bible– they are unsupported by any information outside the untestable myths contained in your book. On the other hand, scientists begin with brute facts by taking measurements, and then construct hypotheses that suggest experiments. If the results of those experiments support the hypotheses, then a “theory” is born, and further measurements gathered and experiments devised and performed to see whether the theory holds up in light of the new evidence. You may find useful the visual explanation of this process here. Similarly, your claim that the concept of “before time” is an oxymoron, “Only for mortals, not for One who created time,” is also a brute assertion.
I refer to “prior religions” in the sense that Christianity as you hold to did not always exist, and other religions distinctly different from it preceded it. You may claim that there was always only one true form of worship of the one true deity, but again you are indolently resting on your brute assertions. I prefer real arguments and evidence.
Thank you for admitting that my credo, “My punishment is to see my fellow humans suffer and my reward is to see their suffering decrease,” is noble. You assert that most people do not follow it, but my experience is otherwise. The vast, vast majority of people do not deliberately hurt others, and do feel diminished when they experience the suffering of others. The global outpouring of concern over the Indian Ocean tsunami is a prime example. Oh, yes– didn’t your deity cause that evil?
Your final statements are quite disturbing. In them, you twist a quite justifiable statement, “As I would not want to be thrown in jail (or executed) for my beliefs and my occupation, so we should not throw this person in jail (or execute him) for following his beliefs and his occupation,” by absurdly re-defining “beliefs” to mean “the belief that others should be harmed” and “occupation” to mean “the occupation of killing all others.” Of course, in any society someone who held such definitions should and would be stopped, as self-defense is totally appropriate and justifiable under the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is not dogma, or relativism, and neither is it pacifism. Sadly, in your thrashing attempts to defend the erratic and corrupt morals of your deity, you are demonstrating a most perverse misunderstanding of the Golden Rule’s applications, implications and nuances.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ironwolf,
Sorry I haven’t been able to get back to you lately; I really have been busy. I’m working through posts and responding in order from oldest to newest, so if I don’t get to the most recent stuff in this session, please pardon me.
1) It is “corrupt” because although your God and his followers preach the Golden Rule, they also suspend it helter-skelter to practice bigotry of the sort I raised in my original response– for example, the sexism and justifications of slavery you previously demonstrated.
And as I said before, you cannot judge another moral standard as corrupt using your twisted version of the Golden Rule. You cannot accuse another person of bigotry using your standard because they choose to not have it apply to them. In terms of sexism, the Bible has many rules that hold up the rights of women (still keeping them in their God-ordained role), treating them as you would like to be treated. In terms of slavery, Mosaic Law has provisions for the treatment of slaves fairly; for example, masters should take care of slaves when they get injured as they would take care of themselves, or else the master would get executed (Exodus 21:20-21). Slavery would have only occurred when you had a foolish or insane person who could work for a responsible one. These people would be threatening society by their actions if they were not taught a temporary lesson by having temporary enslavement. Thus you would treat other members of society as yourself by taking away this threat. You have to consider other aspects and nuances, Ironwolf. The Law of God does that, because, well, God is God.
It is a “parody” in the sense that my dictionary describes: “An imitation or version of something that falls far short of the real thing,” because it takes the essential parsimonious wisdom of seeing ourselves in others (the true basis of love) and adds to it the travesty of eternal torments and rewards meted out by an unpredictable, petulant deity.
A parody indicates that you are imitating something that already existed. God’s Law existed at the beginning of time. You are twisting the Golden Rule that God laid down, and therefore you are the one who is making a parody of it. “Unpredictable, petulant deity” I don’t think so. If you make a study of the Bible, you will find that God is not unpredictable or petulant. The Lord is longsuffering and unchanging.
You seem to feel that emergent properties are “thought up” by someone, whereas just the opposite is true. For example, the gaussian or “bell” curve is an emergent property of many probabilistic systems– it’s not just a “good idea.”
My point is that it came from earthly, creature-originated means. This is assuming of course that all that you’re saying about it being an emergent property of social systems is correct. This is only correct in so far as it arises from a divinely created conscience; otherwise, man and society are utterly depraved. Since it came from earthly, creature-originated means, those creatures can choose to reject it or accept it.
The fact is, in many systems we also observe emergent complexity– which, of course, you rule out as a possible explanation for life while simultaneously asserting the inexplicable prior existence of an infinitely complex Being.
The complexity of those many systems consists in, and is upheld by, the infinitely complex Lord of all Creation (Col. 1:17).
You thank me for my honesty in admitting things I don’t know. But in my experience, this is nothing unusual or special among scientists and those with a healthy respect for the scientific method and critical thought. If it weren’t for the willingness to say, “I don’t know, but I’ll try to find out,” then science would not exist.
True, true. Excellent.
It is however quite rare to hear a religionist admit they don’t know something because they consistently fall back on the stock answer “God did it.”
I have heard many “religionists” admit that they don’t know something. I say it myself. True, we know that ultimately God did it, but we are called by God to find out how He did it, and how it works right now. The answer, “God did it” is not wrong at all, since He tells in His Word that He did it. There’s the evidence right there. Also in that evidence (the Bible) we are called to scientific exploration. You’ll notice that science arose chiefly in Christian cultures. You don’t see the same thing in Buddhism or Hinduism, because to them the world isn’t real. You don’t see it Tribal Religions because their gods are mindless human-controlled things that worry about this world at all. You don’t see it in Islam as much because Allah just commands them to do 5 things and they’ll be fine (you do see it a little though, because Islam is a parody off of Christianity). I could go on, but I’ll stop.
The fact is, science has given us many more answers than religion;
And where did science arise from? Religion. And has secular science given us a purpose in life? No.
and although our new knowledge continues to raise new questions, religion has failed to provide us with any of the testable, useful answers we have sought.
“Testable”–some of them not empirically, and to the modern mind, empirical proof is all there is, which is false, there are other kinds of proof.
“Useful” –you’re using that subjectively.
it takes an even more powerful theory to supplant it.
How about creation? By the way, here is just one example of the scientific community rejecting something because they don’t want to leave uniformitarianism (part of the evolutionary paradigm).
a prior supplanted theory
A prior challenged theory, but not supplanted. Just check out this site for some stuff and write them letters. They regularly post responses on their site to peoples’ letters. In fact here’s a good one on slavery (the guy used almost exactly the same arguments you did, but they responded better than I did).
you accept a particular dogmatic interpretation of it as “true.”
Exactly. I believe in a philosophy of antithesis and absolute truth that ultimate holds the answers to life, as opposed to relativism which leaves people in despair.
look for clues
Interesting.
God is our Maker… unsupported by any information outside the untestable myths contained in your book.
Hmm, let’s see, take a look around you Ironwolf, you see the beautiful California sky, the coastal range, the awesome ocean, and the scenic San Francisco Bay. These are the self-evident works of God. If you want to debate that fact, you’re welcome to; you may want to write AnswersinGenesis a few letters too.
your claim that the concept of “before time” is an oxymoron, “Only for mortals, not for One who created time,” is also a brute assertion.
An assertion based on the Bible, which is the written Word of God, and has been affirmed time and again by outside evidence. An assertion that is one of the fundamental facts of God.
Christianity as you hold to did not always exist
A brute assertion.
The vast, vast majority of people do not deliberately hurt others, and do feel diminished when they experience the suffering of others.
They do do it in small things, maybe not in murdering people, but in other things that are wrong as well.
absurdly re-defining “beliefs” to mean “the belief that others should be harmed” and “occupation” to mean “the occupation of killing all others.”
And yet, that’s what a lot of these people think, and many of them say.
I was carrying your position to its logical conclusion. The statement that I wrote is the Golden Rule without any biblical parameters, definitions, or qualifications.
self-defense is totally appropriate and justifiable under the Golden Rule.
But then you’re hurting the other person, and you would not like to be hurt if you were him. Sure, you might be protecting yourself, but who’s to say you’re more important than him? Or if you’re protecting your family, who’s to say they’re more important than him?
thrashing…erratic…corrupt…perverse
All condemnatory words which you cannot use with the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule does not have the power to condemn other people or systems.
Look at the Truth of the Bible, read it, and find the true moral standard laid out by the One who has the authority to do so.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 am
Althusius,
First, you continue to justify the sexism and slavery condoned by the Bible and your God. My point.
Next, you spend several paragraphs begging the question of the Bible’s divine authority by appealing to… the Bible’s divine authority! (”The answer, “God did it” is not wrong at all, since He tells in His Word that He did it.”) My point again.
Next, you briefly dis on other cultures because some of them haven’t made as great a contribution to science as some other cultures that were predominantly Christian. Even if I grant you that, this would not be an argument that Christianity is true, only that it may promote science. But I can’t really grant you that, as often the Christian establishment has been a chief enemy of science— finally giving in only when to not do so would make laughingstocks of them. If you look at where cutting-edge advances in both science and social systems are being made today, you will have to look outside the U.S. (a “Christian nation” by description though not prescription) to some of the least religious countries. Another point here.
Next you try to claim religion as the origin of science while simultaneously attempting to undermine science. Cheeky move, but it falls flat. 4-Love.
Next, you admit to an extreme dogmatism of absolute truth. Have you noticed that Richard Dawkins entitles the central chapter of his bestselling book The God Delusion, “Why there is almost certainly no God”? Hey, if the world’s leading atheist is willing to concede a little doubt about whether there is a God, won’t you even concede a little doubt about your claim that God exists? No? I didn’t think so, but then you seem content in the unwholesome company of a lot of other dogmatists— both religious (such as terrorists) and political (such as dictators)— who also have no use for doubt. Point.
Next, you accuse me of a brute assertion when I say that Christianity did not always exist. Well, if you’d like to produce some evidence that people called themselves Christian back in the days of Moses, then I’ll retract that. I’ll charitably call this one a foul.
Next, you attempt an incredibly weak defense of your straw man characterization of the Golden Rule. How you continue to derive killing and mayhem out of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” continues to be a real stumper for me. Point.
Next, you attack self-defense as not compatible with the Golden Rule, again showing your persistent misunderstanding of its application within the larger framework of game theory. People defend themselves from each other when necessary, but they prefer to trust each other. This is reciprocal and it works (remember, a more general name for the Golden Rule is “The Ethic of Reciprocity.”) That you carry on attacking an ethic that you yourself pragmatically hold is quite astonishing. (You would defend your family, wouldn’t you? Or perhaps you’ll just sit around faithfully waiting for lightning bolts from heaven to zap your wife’s rapist.) Point.
Nearing the end, you call me out for describing you as, among other things, corrupt and perverse. You again attempt to construct a straw man Golden Rule out of pacifism. “You wouldn’t want to be called evil, so by the GoLDen rULe you should not call anyone else evil.” But if someone thinks I’m evil, then I’m quite willing to have them call me that, for perhaps I will recognize truth in their words and change my ways. If I do not, then no harm done is done to me by their words, and in any case I can respond with my own view. 8-Nothing.
You are (of course) welcome to score this debate you’re own way. And I invite you to have the last word. I’m convinced that thinking readers (Christian or not) will easily see the staggering fallacies inherent in your world view. But since I believe we’re starting to run in circles, I’m going to call my end of this debate closed. I am, of course, available to answer any specific questions you may have. You know where to find me.
Regards,
Ironwolf