Sweaty Morals: Enslave, Hate, and Subjugate

I wanted to kick the weekend off with a challenge to Newtonists, but until I can find my camera I will have to find other ways to suppress my baby eating, erm, predilections.

Speaking of baby eating, I received an email alert today. I stopped reading Dan's blog over at Debunking Atheists as he kept deleting my comments. I failed to unsubscribe from comment notifications, though, on his Atheists Eat Babies! entry. He posted a comment which I hear made a lot by Ray, that God has written his moral code "in our hearts" as a conscience. Therefore, it does not matter if we disbelieve the Bible as he's given us a permanent copy. Dan writes, in response to Adrian Hayter:

For example, it's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

They experience sweaty palms.

They experience induced swallowing.

Their heart rate increases.

Their faces turn red.

They avoid eye contact.

They speak more quickly, etc. etc. (The same old, same old with everyone human being on the planet. Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception.

I will spare you the rest that leads up to God's moral law is our conscience, atheists are immoral because we disobey our conscience, and feeling bad for lying or "raping and murdering a baby" is evidence for this. I address this point as, I said, it's brought up a lot. Not just by Ray, but also by a commenter of this blog some months ago:

"And if you fail to receive a copy of these laws, through no fault of your own, you are to be tortured for all eternity, regardless of whether or not you lived your life better than those who are getting into Heaven?"

Yet, God gave us a conscience. Man knows what is right and what is wrong. [...]

God is going to judge all mankind.
He will judge the ones who have been given the law stricter than those who have never heard of it.

Therefore the people who have not heard of the law will indeed be judged by the law of God which has been placed into there heart.

So, to begin, the obvious question arises: what about sociopaths? Dan begins by saying that, it's a fact, "ALL people" have it and then he concludes with "except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception." I wonder if he just stated it ambiguously or if he really believes that sociopaths have "perfected evil deception." The notable feature of sociopaths is that they do not have a conscience: "Because of the psychopaths inability to internalize superego precursors, they are unable to learn from past mistakes, and are completely devoid of a conscience." So, why has God given a conscience to some people but not to others -- especially if he is supposed to judge everyone by that standard?

It has been advanced by the above, and Ray, that the conscience is God's moral laws written on our hearts (which makes you wonder why, then, go through the trouble of writing them down?). Their assertion is that God's moral laws are absolute -- after all, their whole shtick is about the necessity of dictated moral absolutes. Therefore, everyone's conscience should match up and also with the Bible.

This is demonstrably false, though. I can speak only for myself, as the conscience is necessarily a first hand experience. Here are a few things my conscience "tells" me:

Slavery
When I think of enslaving anyone -- anyone -- it makes me queasy. It makes me literally queasy to close my eyes and imagine going out, capturing someone or paying a slave trader, and then infringing on that person's right to liberty for as long as I please in the most inhumane manner possible. It shocks my conscience. I think, perhaps, it is the most immoral thing you can do; even greater than murder as, at least then, the person can actually die. And yet, this moral law God has supposedly written in my heart is in direct conflict with the moral laws he has written in the Bible that slavery is moral:

** (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
** (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
** (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
** (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
** (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
** (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
** (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Morally repugnant. Egregiously immoral. Unconscionable.

Homosexuality
What is there to say about homosexuality in the realm of morality? About as much as there is to say about the preference of green towels over red towels. If someone I knew preferred members of their sex over members of the opposite sex, I would have about as strong of feelings towards that revelation as if they were to tell me that they preferred green towels of red towels.

What I do find immoral is judging them for their nature. That is truly wicked. It is just as immoral as judging them based on their skin color -- in fact, actually worse as you are sullying something essential to them and often desecrating something sacred they may hold for someone else. It's morally repugnant and abominable, especially to impose some sort of penalty on them. And yet, this moral law God has supposedly written in my heart is in direct conflict with the "moral" laws he has written in the Bible that homosexuality is immoral:

* Genesis 19:1-9 (as it relates to it)
* Leviticus 18:22
* Leviticus 18:29
* Leviticus 20:13
* Romans 1:26-32
* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

I'm supposed to feel that it is wicked that my sister, a loving mother of a beautiful daughter and an all around gregarious person, is some sort of immoral deviant or scourge because she is naturally attracted to females? Morally reprehensible.

Subjugation of Women
What is there to say here that I have not said before? Women are not my equals; I am their equal. Women are just as capable as men and they are born with the same inherent rights: life, liberty, and property. Misogyny is deplorable in all its forms. And the woman's place? The woman's place is any where she damn well pleases. The man's place is to treat her as the person she is. That's what's written in my heart. I wince -- literally -- any time I hear some "good" Christian talking about the role of women or women "pretending to be men." And yet, this moral law God has supposedly written in my heart is in direct conflict with the "moral" laws he has written in the Bible that women are inferior to men and/or property:

* Genesis 3:16
* Genesis 19:8
* Exodus 21:7-8
* Numbers 31:15-19
* Deuteronomy 22:20-24
* 1 Corinthians 11:3
* Ephesians 5:22-24
* 1 Timothy 2:11-12
* 1 Peter 3:1

Vile commandments and "morals." Paine was right when he described the so-called teachings of the Bible to be more the word of a demon than of a god. I was going to go on into shellfish, treatment of children, rape, taking a day off, but this is about all the scripture from the "good" book that I can stomach in one evening. I once was truly horrified by what the Bible taught, but even the cruel wickedness of the Bible I have become desensitized to.


So, from all of this, the question is: Why write these things in my heart, and then write something entirely opposite in the Bible? Why God? Did you plan on me being an atheist and, therefore, decided to make it so that I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't? Are you just trying to cover all your bases to ensure that I'm going to Hell? Either my conscience is wrong or the Bible is false. I choose the option that doesn't allow me to enslave, hate, and subjugate: my conscience.

Ray Comfort is an Animal

And so am I. It is time for yet another basic science lesson for Ray Comfort in response to Ignorant Knuckle-draggers (an aptly titled post).

A lesson in scientific definitions

The dictionary says that an animal is "any such living thing other than a human being."

This seems deliberately dishonest. He posts this in response to flinging dust saying that if he denies that humans are animals, he needs to take a basic science course. In response, he posts a lay definition from the dictionary, apparently from dictionary.com. How many times have we heard Ray and others characterize evolution as "just a theory"? If we were to try to explain that he needs to take a basic science class to understand that a theory is not some educated guess or conjecture, he would probably come back with:

The dictionary says that a theory is a "guess or conjecture. "

Skipping over the scientific entries and failing to consult a scientific definition (or encyclopedia). He's done this for "animal." The definition he gave from the dictionary was the second entry for animal at dictionary.com. The first:

any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

Humans are the Homo sapiens species, of the Homo genus, of the Hominidae family, of the Primates order, of the Mammalia class, of the Chordata phylum, of the Animalia kingdom. Since we are in the Animalia kingdom, that makes us, by definition, animals. I didn't have that memorized (as I'm not a biologist), but having taken basic life science when I was around the age of 11-12, I knew that's how we were classed. So, by searching around for a few key terms and "middle school," I got the results aimed at middle school students. The knowledge is that basic.

And another science lesson for you, Ray. It's not the baby-eating "evolutionists" who classed humans as animals or even of the Primates order. Humans were classed as animals over a hundred years before Origin of Species by the taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus in Systema Naturae. Linnaeus, a Christian, believed he was classifying "God's creation" as opposed to evolutionary lines. And no, Ray, taxonomy is not the science of taxes, it's the science of classification, something children learn in the sixth grade where I lived in Oklahoma.

I can't believe it! That means man is "simply an animal."
Besides botching animal classification, he moves on to a morals approach:

If evolution is true, then man is simply an animal.

And even if evolution is false (ha), man would still be an animal because it is not evolution which defines humans as animals. Ray is arguing from personal incredulity: "I just can't believe that, because that would mean..." Just because humans evolved from lower forms of animals makes us no less significant. The fact that I used to be a substance which was just moments before formed by a sperm and an ovum makes me no less significant. Origins do not define the person. Personal incredulity in this regard is ridiculous, when arguing against science. "I just can't believe Earth is among a star with seven other planets, among a pool of 10^22 stars, in a galaxy among 100 billion galaxies. It just makes us so insignificant." Well, your personal incredulity has no bearing on what is factual.

The animals of the Bible.

That means he is free to embark on his sexual prowls, because it is nothing but a basic instinct to do so. [...] To him, evolution is a license to act like an animal, and he does.

That and the law. And upbringing. And society. It seems, though, the men are your Book were restrained by nothing more than basic instinct, and that was far before humans were classified as animals. They repeatedly murdered, raped, and enslaved. I believe I'm an animal descended from lower forms of animals, and I have yet to murder, rape, or enslave anyone. Seems I'm already doing better than the godly men of the Old Testament. The men of the Old Testament and the God of the Old Testament were both animals, in every sense of the word. They murdered hundreds of thousands, sparing only the virgin women so that they can enslave them and rape them. Is that the sort of basic instinct, the sort of sexuals prowls that you say evolution gives them a license to commit? Apparently, you have evolution confused with your Bible and God, who gave men the license to commit such despicable acts.

Justifying "immoral" acts

If man is an animal he can even justify homosexual and bestiality, because “other” animals do it.

I have never understood, even when I believed the immoral homophobia the Bible teaches, how you get from homosexuality to bestiality. Why? Because they both cover sexuality to which you do not subscribe? I don't subscribe to any religion, including Christianity and Satanism, so, by your fallacious slippery slope argument, Christianity leads to Satanism? Or, better phrased, if you believe in Christianity, there's nothing to stop you from practicing Satanism, because it's another religion.

If man believes in the Bible, he can justify murder, rape, misogyny, racism, and slavery, because he can simply cite the chapter and verse.

Today's Theist Memory Verse, VIII

The Setup

A bit of a long one today. The host, who has a virgin daughter, has taken in a Levite and his concubine.

The Passage
I've emboldened key parts of the passage if you wish not to read it all.

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, [...] Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. (Judges 19:22-29)

The "Moral" of the Passage

Yet another passage of misogyny and homophobia. The story is very reminiscent of the incestuous tale of Lot from Genesis. The passage is vile. Rather than suffer his male guest to be raped (or in some translations "met"), he offers of the guest's concubine and his own virgin daughter! How wicked of a passage is this.

The mob of perverts, at least, refuse the host's daughter and instead take the concubine and gang rape her and abuse her all night. Her fate? To die at the door of the host's house. Then, in a bizarre twist on the story, the guest dismembers the concubine and sends her to the coasts of Israel.

The legacy of this passage, and also the passage of Lot, is disturbing. Are you familiar with those institutions which try to rehabilitate homosexuals? This is a passage they use. The homosexual mob were offered women to have sex with and they took a woman and had sex with her all night.

This passage also continues the theme from the past few memory verses of the value of women. The daughter is nothing more than property to the man, so why would he not think to offer his daughter to be gang raped so that they would not take his guest?

Today's Theist Memory Verse, VII

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." -- Mark Twain

The Setup

Deuteronomy 22 is, like most of the Bible, unconscionable. Before this passage, it speaks of killing women who can't prove their virginity, killing a married woman for getting raped, etc.

The Passage

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

The "Moral" of the Passage"

It is another abominable sentiment about women. There's a number of things wrong with this passage; injustice too great to describe. If a man rapes an unmarried virgin and they are found, then the man must pay the father fifty shekels of silver (as much as God values a man at in Leviticus 27:3) and marry her. The woman gets raped and then has to marry him... the injustice is egregious. It also shows that women are very much considered property. The woman belongs to the father and thus the transgression is against him, not the woman. Since he has taken her virginity, she is of no value anymore (except perhaps if the father wishes to sell her into slavery, as the Bible explicitly permits).

And if they are not found... what then? She is no longer a virgin. If she then is married to another man, she will be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Any way you slice it, if a woman is raped, it can only work out for her if she is married at the time and the rape occurs in a field (Deuteronomy 22:25).

Connection to Modernity

The virgin in question is most likely a young girl (as was the way then). So, a child rapist, according to the Bible, gets to rape as long as they aren't "found." If they are found, he has to pay a fee to the father and then marry her.

Until Kennedy v Louisiana, this got the death penalty in some places. Otherwise, it usually comes with life in prison (not to mention the torture incurred in prison due to the nature of the crime). Anyone who thinks that (1) child rape is a crime against the father, and (2) it merits nothing more than a fee paid to the father, is immoral.

Ray Has Damned the Midwest

The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed... They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom. (Koran, 2:89-90)

Ray has posted an odious cartoon in his blog instead of a text article. The "moral" of the cartoon? Well, firstly, there is no scientific explanation for weather, it is a tool of God to inflict pain, torment, suffering, and sorrow on humans, depending on their actions -- or rather, on some of the actions of some of the people around them. Fires, floods, tornadoes, cancer, financial woes... there are no natural explanations for them, they are of supernatural origins -- used by God to punish the sinful Americans. Of course... that's why there were no weather disasters, diseases, or hardships back in the Christian times of the Puritans, Pilgrims, etc.

What Ray fails to notice, though, is that there are no raging wildfires ripping through the Middle East. There are no mud slides destroying homes and killing people in the Middle East. There are no floods destroying the Middle East (God can make a desert flood just as easily as he can the Bible Belt). So, it's obvious, then, why God is punishing Americans.

Christianity is false; Islam is the one true religion. The Qur'an clearly states of Christians, Jews, atheists, and the other disbelievers:

The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed... They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom. (Koran, 2:89-90)

Isn't it obvious why, then, America has natural disasters? It's because of people like Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort has damned the Midwest to suffer floods. Ray Comfort has damned California to suffer wildfires. Hurricane Katrina? Yes, that was Ray Comfort's fault as well. Allah is angered by Ray Comfort who teaches that Jesus was the Son of God, which the Qur'an clearly states is wrong and wicked. Ray Comfort and his Christian message is causing us all to suffer natural supernatural disasters.


There's another thing wrong with this post, though. Is Ray dishonest, a liar, or forgetful? One of the commenters on the post, Geoff, points out the first one:

"Of course I would never say that fires are punishment for gay marriage, or that floods were a punishment for poor folks in the Midwest."

--Ray Comfort

You should have added...

P.S. But I will express these ideas in other forms, like cartoons and interpretive dance.

The Qur'an and the Bible both paint a very wicked, sadistic picture of a perfect being indeed. Is He simply unjust and unfair that he would slaughter the innocent along with the guilty, the babies along with the adults? Or is He simply not powerful enough to punish only those guilty by striking them dead rather that sending forth a natural disaster? Or is He a terrorist of the worst sort sending forth such natural disasters so that bigots like Ray Comfort can point to them and say "Convert and agree with me, or there's plenty more where that came from!"?

Bad weather and Hell: just two of the death threats Ray Comfort is armed with.

---

Posts by others on this topic:
- Of Microbes and Men

Today's Theist Memory Verse, Vol IV

[Sorry for posting this one early. I will be taking a trip out of town tomorrow, so I am not sure if I will have a chance to update. I wanted to leave tomorrow's quote for sure, though, and I will post on whatever Ray has to say by Tuesday :-)]

=============

A passage of immorality for today from the "Good Book." To set this up: God comes to Moses tells him to war against the Midianites. So, Moses raises an army of 12,000 to "execute God's vengeance." The army kills every single adult male Midianite, but saves the women and children (along with a bunch of other plunder). They come back...

And Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against God in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of God. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:14-18)

The total number of virgins that they kept was thirty-two thousand (Numbers 31:35).

I chose this one as it's one Paine uses in Part II of Age of Reason, which I am rereading this week. Let me provide a Theist Memory Quote from this:

Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel.

Before introducing this Bible passage, Paine has to say of Moses, that:

The character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the history of any nation.