17 votes

Morality is Subjective...Not.

As a Ron Paul die hard and Constitution lover of liberty I've discovered something that can be lacking in the liberty movement. Freedom and Liberty are not the same thing. Liberty can only come as we adopt laws that align with the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

As John Adam Stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The famous French Historian Alex de Tocqueville noted,“The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other”. He also stated, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Folks, America is no longer great because America is no longer good. Liberty is fading because Religion and Morality are fading. Lately I've been under attack by "liberty" people because I use my religion as the bases of why I believe in the Laws I do.

Religion is under attack in American and it's sometimes under attack in the Liberty movement. The first Protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of Religion. Any Law or Right you support comes from some moral system you have. For me my morality comes from a study of the Laws of Nature and Science, the Bible and the revealed word of God to men (to me they are the same Laws). If you think deeply about the Laws you support you will find that they too come from a religious belief or a law of science or nature. If you don't believe there are natural Laws then you believe that Rights and Laws come from the Government. This is a very dangerous thing to believe as Government can give and take 'laws' and 'rights' as they please. But as assuredly as the rising sun and the pull of gravity the laws that don't align with Natural Laws will bring disaster to those who follow them. The founders knew this and that is why they established the Constitution and left the States to discover and implement more of the Laws of Nature for themselves.

At the signing of the Constitution 7 of the 13 States had State religions. Religious minds established most of the great Ivy League schools we revere today, Harvard by the Puritans, Yale by Congregationalist ministers, Princeton founded by Presbyterians, University of Pennsylvania by the Church of England and Methodists, Columbia by the Church of England, Brown University by The Baptists, Dartmouth College by the Calvinist.

The integration of religious notions and morality in the City, County and State Law is what made America great and Liberty abound. Being free to do whatever you want is not Liberty. It can be the destruction of freedom and Liberty. The greatness and simplicity of great Laws like love your neighbor as yourself,thou shalt not kill, steal or covet are not meant to enslave you. Those Laws when followed create an environment where you are free to discover great things, ennobling things that bring life and light to a people. Secular laws should align with the Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Choosing to have laws that don't align with them produces what we have today in our country.

Liberty lovers, we need to get back to the faith of our Fathers if we are to save our liberties. I wish I had more time to write with more depth and history here but I hope you would study why you believe you have the Rights that you have. Where do those beliefs come from? How do you know they are true? If your beliefs come from a religious source are you skipping some important Laws because you don't think they are important? Something to bring to the forefront more often then we are.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Morality

is understanding the difference between Right vs. Wrong behavior.

Right is correct, it's based in truth. Right is moral, it's in harmony with Natural Law, and actions based in it do no harm to other human beings.

Wrong is incorrect, it's based in untruths. Wrong is immoral, it's in opposition to Natural Law, and actions based in it result in harm to other human beings.

The transgressions of Natural Law - Murder/Assault, rape, theft, and coercion - can really be boiled down to one: Theft (Taking life, stealing belongings, taking someone's free will to choose.) All wrong-doings result in the theft of some form of property. Your life, rights and freedom are your property.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

I am always curious to know

I am always curious to know of strict adherents to negative individual rights / non-aggression principle what they believe to be the basis of their specific moral code. I've heard it said many times in this thread that the laws of morality are fixed like the theory of gravity. But what proof do you offer that there is a universal law of nature that says, say, "it is wrong to murder". However, a statement like "it is wrong to not help a neighbor in need", doesn't reach the same level of innate truth.

Most of the times the non-aggression principle is just appealed to without any basis (e.g, as a first axiom that is just taken to be true by assumption), some choice quotes from the bible, or the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence or other enlightenment-era documents.

Natural Law

I watched this seminar over the holiday on Natural Law, and learned so much. Religious or not, morality is definitely a part of it, and it is not subjective.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/mark-passios-natural-law...

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Exactly!

And we need to bring this to the forefront of the Liberty discussion!

Religion and morality are two different things

One cannot be agape and aligned with the other, without bringing perpetual conflict between the two. Religion can not be both "right" and moral at the same time. Observe the flaws in organized religion, which is led by men and always led by God. Observe the conditions of morality, which is conclusive and ever pervading that I have been impressed by spirit to convey to you directly.

Those who know stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, adultery is wrong, temptation is wrong etc. have no need for a Holy Book to tell them these things are wrong or dictate the way. What you really mean to state, is that the leaders themselves need the holy book and need to abide by the Holy Book.

On this criteria, we plainly agree. However as to who's Holy Book is to be followed, we will come to an unmovable impass today. For there is many Churches, and seven Christian Churches total yet in the end times it was proclaimed only one of them would be correct. To say another term, there are Churches who claim to follow God yet rarely heed "HIS" word...and by his word I mean Gospel, as they condemn the homosexuals, the murderers and the adulterers without providing them any path of forgiveness to which they may walk.

This is why I state to you, morality and Organized Religion are two separate things. One cannot supersede the other without a large intervention. Customs and holidays should be respected, regardless of one's internal bias. Example being, the Latter Day Church does not discriminate against Tao Buddhists, just because they keep their customs or previously came from an unruly upbringing. They accept their customs, their beliefs and desires with no discrimination as long as they agree to worship Christ on Sundays and follow the way of the Lord. These laws and rules, if they are truly 'just' they will allow states and cities to decide what should be. Every city should be allowed to decide by full decree, and every state should be allowed to decide in turn their own law.

On that vein we agree, however on organized religions we do not. Deception and ridicule comes in all shapes and sizes. Another example being, many Christian pastors would charge that Latter Day Saints are evil or strange & pernicious due to their doctrine of Baptism being held inside the Temples. Yet the Lord sent direct instruction that this doctrine be kept, and there is nothing sinister or unrighteous about any part of it. The laws of the Temple were passed down as real protection, since they allow for families and groups of families to be sealed together for eternity. In a way they are a form of ritual, the Great Redeemer's magical ritual to combat the sickly world. To outside observers, it appears masonic or even crazy and weird. Yet it is not, it is perfectly normal as is being blessed with the Holy Ghost.

In the same way Tibetan Monks who do their spiritual ceremonies are harmless, regardless of whether or not they have entered the Church yet or happen to believe in God. They are still uplifting people and harming no one, before discovering a testimony of Christ. I'm not going to get into how the Mormons are weird again, or how this affects our laws. Of course they, the Mormons are weird since they accept the light and dark in all things. They were destined to be weird, because at the start they believe in more than the Bible and happen to know there was a Book of Enoch. And it was Enoch himself who alleged Christ and his archangels were from another planet. Again even Revelations, whether you have admit it or not, speaks to this very foundation of Enoch's proclamation.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207&v...

Enoch gave forewarning, that there is celestial law and that the mark on one's head is for those who are of Christ. Meaning one true Church in the latter day. 144,000 to be exact, which will include among it plenty of the remaining Mormons. And I raise again your contention that all morality must be religious. This is a false equivalency. Among the world, certainly not everyone likes organized religion. And when you look at the near demonic possession happening in Pentecost Churches and Lutheran Churches during these days, it isn't hard to see why. Society is plagued with spiritual sickness.

Truthfully there are those who believe there is more to the world than God and Christ, there must also be an atonement process. Morality for those people will always take precedence. And in truth they are correct, there is a single Church who teaches an atonement process. I need not remind you that there is also only one Church, which outlaws the drinking of Alcohol as well as using idols. I likely don't need to comment on who that might be. Suffice to say, I have never drank alcohol one more time after drinking it once and it's due to the Holy Ghost. As Ben Swann will attest, our protection comes from the fact we have a weekly remission process and this also becomes why we defeat our enemies. For if America knew that Jersualem city, is the headquarters of the New World Order they would cease following it by tomorrow. On this end, morality is very objective. (And I preface: Not all of Israel, just the wicked city of Jerusalem...the iron sword of the U.N)

http://www.fuw.ch/article/we-live-in-a-hall-of-mirrors/

Looked at the comments.

Wished I didn't.

It appears that the most up-voted ones are just being complete jerks about everything, throwing insults every which way, and generally making no sense.

To the jackass anti-theists: seriously, scram. Nobody except your little group in any way likes or respects you, for the obvious reason that you're incapable of engaging without mocking those you disagree with.

To the reasonable atheists and other folks who simply object to the basic premise politely: thanks for bringing it up! It's very easy to mistake "morality comes from God" for "we wouldn't have morality without religion." However, they are far from the same. What Christians (and other religions to varying degrees) argue is that what others refer to as "natural law" is in fact God's law. We instinctively know right and wrong, theists say, because we're made in God's image. Humans are sacred, and thus we must abide by morality to respect the sacred.

In regards to the apparent subjectivity of the Old Testament, it's actually not. God's -moral- law actually remained the same from OT to NT. There are basically three categories of Biblical law, moral, civil, and ceremonial. The ceremonial laws centered around what we know today as Judaism - that is, the religion of the Jews. The civil law was just that, the various laws regarding crime and whatnot. While it is certainly harsh, and a bit incomprehensible to us today, you have to realize that A - the entire world was outrageously harsh, and people generally only responded to outright force rather than argument and a sense of duty, and B - (this is my favorite part) God was playing the long game. He gave the Israelites a downright militantly separate culture, helped by the ceremonial and civil laws, to -keep- them separate from other nations.

To what end, you ask? The conflict with the Romans, for one. Think about it: Christianity would never have spread as quickly as it did if the Romans hadn't attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that wouldn't have happened if the Jews weren't obsessed with remaining separate. Puts the Old Testament in a whole new light, doesn't it?

And you'll notice - the moral law, the key part, hasn't changed at all. What's morally wrong is still morally wrong. The difference is that now we can set up better civil systems, because the world is more ordered. The Old Testament civil law was pretty much perfect FOR THAT ERA, but today it would not work at all.

And there, RIGHT THERE, is the key. Moral and civil law are all too often confused, when they're completely different.

As regards the overall point about objective morality, you may not want to admit it, but all libertarians believe in objective morality. Is it wrong for me to shoot you if you aren't threatening me? Everyone says yes, of course. So you do believe in objective morality.

Thus, you actually agree with the OP! The disagreement is just about what the SOURCE of that objective morality is!

Please remember, atheist, Christian, Mormon, or whatever, we're all allies here in our fight for liberty. Militant anti-theists and violent or hostile members of any religion need not apply.

nipping idolatry in the bud

"all libertarians believe in objective morality" -NCforPaul

I won't completely deny that declaration, but I will butt heads with it considering your useage in such context. Objective implies subjective and vice versa. Both sides of the moral coin exist. For any morally conscious human, objective morality plays a role to some degree. Among those humans are the libertarians. Libertarians quickly prick their ears when hearing of objective morality as it remains a concept typically in great need of severe restraint, lest it run amok in the minds of men and once again lay scourge to humanity as it has repeatedly throughout history. What defines a libertarian among men is his emphasis on subjectivity, including moral. It is found in Murray Rothbard's comments against Ayn Rand, Jefferson's arguments for separation of church and state, and in Ron Paul's sentiment.

"Law reflects the morality of the people." -Ron Paul

Such a statement is pure subjectivism. Yes, we are well to assume that he implies civil law, and we do our best to align [or at least not clash] any of our civil law with God's law or natural law, but we should NEVER confuse civil law with the greater, even if they SEEM to be the same.

"Everyone says yes, of course. So you do believe in objective morality." -NCforPaul

Unanimous agreement among men doesn't imply objective morality.

Even a non-agression principle enacted unanimously among libertarians doesn't emphasize the objective, nor does it prove anything as such. It is emphasized as pact and voluntary. Objective morality is an individual's personal concern between himself and his object. A man among men must never lose sight of his subjectivity lest he become scourge to other men. Personally ;D I thank God for Thomas Jefferson in spelling this out so clearly long ago. For the most part it has kept the puritanical elements [Rick Santorum?] at bay to some degree. Aside from possibly Gary North, I can't think of a libertarian who advocates or rationalizes to any degree, theocracy.

I object! [hmm, or do I subject?] :D

Assuming I subjectively agree with the entire body of your post as sound and good, I can still disagree with your headline, that morality is not subjective.

"If you don't believe there are natural Laws then you believe that Rights and Laws come from the Government."

I think it a better use of terms in support of your logic to declare that morality is not objective. It is an objectification of morality for government to dictate writ large that marriage be this or that, or that abortion is okay or not okay [either way].

"Any Law or Right you support comes from some moral system you have. For me my morality comes from a study of the Laws of Nature and Science..."

Even if we are dealing with the same God and/or natural or cosmic law, you make the case that your access to moral notion is personal and as an individual. That is subjective. From an individual's perspective, the collective presents the objective.

From a Judeo-Christian

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it seems apparent to me that
God wanted man to have freedom, free will, liberty so badly that he was willing to allow death, sin, separation from him into the world.

Most of the theologian types who have attempted to deal with the problem of suffering/sin/pain/death presented in the Genesis story of the Fall end up with arguments that basically go: God values our free will THAT much. He's willing to lose some of us, watch us suffer, hurt each other -- all for the sake of our freewill/freedom. Liberty is that important to God.

I've never been satisfied with the "free will is worth it" defense, but I've never encountered one that is more satisfying. So I guess I'm stuck with it for now. And I don't see anyway around the logical extrapolation that this means God values freedom above morality.

I think morality and spirituality are inextricably linked, but the link goes further back in my mind. In order to be in a spiritual relationship with God, we must be free creatures. In order to be free creatures, we must be free to be immoral, even to define morality for ourselves. The Fall, in essence, gave us the tools to create morality ourselves. Right? We became like God, knowing right from wrong.

If God was willing to allow such suffering and death into the world so that we would be free moral agents, I don't think we should work against him by championing any authority that attempts to step into the moral space God created for us. Even when it means (or we think it means in our short-sightedness) more sin, suffering, pain.

one does not need religion to be moral

But religion is commonly used as an excuse to be *immoral*.
And the truly moral do not need the threat of God's retribution to do the right thing.

If you really want to hold so

If you really want to hold so strongly to objective morality, then you have to disavow 99.99% of the people who live or ever have lived.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

America as it stands now is multi-Religious and multi-ethnic

Unless the OP plans to change those facts, Libertarianism in the 21st century cannot include Christianity as a core tenet.

That's the state of affairs as it currently stands.

Does the OP offer a solution to that problem? Is it a problem?

Why Christianity?

Why not tie our movement to Judaism or Islam or the Mormons instead?

Are they not as moral as you?

Funny, because one of the big

Funny, because one of the big problems I see in the liberty movement are religious people who abandon the principles of liberty when it comes to their religion. They want the freedom to do anything they want, but then want an entity with a monopoly on force to push their religious values on others. To use a religious analogy, they pretend they want to kick the devil out of the house, but then invite him right back in.

That's why you will see most of these people as the minarchists and not the anarchist sect. Deep down, they still worship force instead of letting god do the judging as god requested. The fact you need a book to tell you what is just and moral and don't just inherently know it from observing nature's order, or Spinoza's God as Einstein put it, means you haven't graduated to fully thinking on your own yet. You're voluntary slaves, and that's the worst kind.

Sorry, but you people are no friend of the movement of freedom and liberty. You only hinder it and confuse the issue with those sitting on the fence. You worry about a person's right to die, their right to do drugs, their right to control their own bodies, and their right to relate with whomever they want, however they want, as if somehow someone's relationship with someone else does you harm.

You are the pretenders, make no mistake about it.

There are ove 10K religions on this planet. If you claim you know what the "right one" is, you are lying to yourself. I'm not saying there isn't a god, I have no way to know that, but neither do you. If I was made by an omnipotent being, he placed me in a situation with logic and reason and that being would have to know the only logical conclusion I could come to is I DON'T KNOW when it comes to religion.

What I do know is that the only logical non-arbitrary line observable in nature when it pertains to man is that we own ourselves. Any other conclusion would mean someone else has a greater claim on your body, and therefor anything you control, than you have over yourself. In that case, there are no rights at all. I can get all that, as any logical person can, from observing nature for strictly for the beauty of what we can observe without making up stories of how it came to be that way just to satisfy the same part of the brain that led primitive people to make up stories to make the unknown into the known, and therefor much less scary.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Denise B's picture

I wonder what happened with

the Mayans? They used to rip the still beating heart out of small children. How is it that they just didn't "inherently know" what was moral and just by observing nature's order? How about Hitler, I guess he wasn't much of an observer of nature's order either, or Mao, or Pol Pot or our own government? I suppose they should get busy observing nature's order so they can stop murdering innocent people oversees.

The Mayans ignored nature's

The Mayans ignored nature's order and instead made up the exact fairy tales to explain what they didn't understand, just as religion does, I talked about in my post. They did it because their RELIGION told them to do it instead of thinking on their own. Their religion told them they were being just and moral even though they were ignoring nature. Congratulations, you just gave me a better example of why I am right than I could have thought of on my own.

I'm not quite sure what you think mentioning the other psychopaths proves? Do you really need a book to tell you what they did was immoral? If you do, that's pretty telling in a very scary way about yourself. Psychopaths tend to seek out power to subvert the natural order. How is that not self-explanatory? Psychopaths are the exception, not the rule. The very foundation of libertarianism is that people are naturally orderly in general so we don't need a bunch of psychopaths to rule us.

The fact I have to explain this on a liberty site is why the liberty movement will remain fractured for some time to come, sigh.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Denise B's picture

Umm sorry,

but it was not just the Mayans that ignored it! All of humanity has ignored it. That is why every single culture since the beginning of humankind has ultimately imploded under the weight of greed, corruption and sin (see God's written word for a full explanation of that term). Name one that hasn't. Just one will do, and if your hypothesis is correct there would NEED to be at least one, and quite probably many, many more. It seems, as I just referenced, there is a book out there that explains that people are inherently corrupt and without God, ultimately will fail. You may have heard of it...the Holy Bible. By all accounts to date, the book's explanation of human desire, nature and tendencies has been 100% correct. If you come up with that one civilization that hasn't imploded because of human corruption and sin (again, see the Bible for a full description and explanation of it), I will be waiting to hear all about it. :)

I Applaud Your Desire To Instill Moral Values On Society ...

I'm all for evangelizing the Golden Rule and any other moral values I could consider good.

"For me my morality comes from a study of the Laws of Nature and Science, the Bible and the revealed word of God to men (to me they are the same Laws). If you think deeply about the Laws you support you will find that they too come from a religious belief ..."

But how do you figure that the Bible has historically been relevant in shaping societies, or even Christian's moral values?

As Dawkins has famously argued, not even Christians shape their moral values based on the Bible. For example, how many Christians currently take to heart the following moral values presented in the Bible? - (text in square brackets is a small snippet from my larger post which can be found here - http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace... ):

[As anyone who has read the old testament knows, God (of peace?) ordered the abduction of women for purpose of sexual enjoyment, and even commands that rapists are to be rewarded by taking the rape victims as their wives.

"The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9)."
- http://www.evilbible.com

...Many readers who are well researched in politics and the New (old) World Order (NWO), will see the parallels between the above (evil God ruler) frame of mind and that of Freemasonry based secret societies. As we will see below in question and answer item number "7)", it appears Freemasonry has significantly influenced nearly all organized religions, and may in fact be the tactful evil slavery minded crafters of these organized religions.]

Is this really how you wish to shape society?

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Denise B's picture

Your comment concerning rape

completely fails to take into consideration the vast cultural differences which existed in the time that the Old Testament was written. In those days, women were "betrothed" to men and marriages were prearranged by the parents. One of the conditions prior to a woman being betrothed was that she was "pure", a virgin. If a man raped a woman, punishment of the man alone did not suffice because the victim herself was doomed to remain husbandless because no one would marry a woman that was no longer "pure", regardless of the reason. This could be a sentence of death to many women because without a man to provide for her, it would have been extremely impossible to survive. God's law requiring a man to marry a women that he raped was a very effective deterrent for a number of obvious reason. It protected a women who had been raped from facing a future of destitution and death because she could no longer marry, and it deterred the would be rapist for obvious reasons. How many men would actually rape a woman if he knew he would be responsible for taking care of her for the rest of his life? Even then, he was still looked upon as shaming himself and his family. This was meant as punishment and was in no way considered a reward.

It is very misleading to quote small portions of old testament passages with no explanation of cultural backdrop because without understanding the culture of the time, much of it makes no sense by today's standards, especially with the historical and biblical illiteracy that is rampant today and of which you also seem to be a victim of.

Note: All of your other biblical snipets also are quoted incompletely and require further discussion and cultural explanation to be fully understood. You are taking things out of context and not providing a full and accurate assessment of what these passages portray. I do not have time this evening, but I will further expound on the full meaning of these passages in a subsequent post.

SteveMT's picture

Solomon was involved with 1,000 debaucheries

Did I misinterpret something or take something out of context? Solomon was the Don Juan of the Bible. While he was indulging in all of this decadent behavior, we was writing the Bible. He must have been bipolar, or had a multiple personality disorder, or he was one of the biggest hypocrites in the Bible.
----------------
1Kings11:2-3
2The LORD had clearly instructed the people of Israel, 'You must not marry them, because they will turn your hearts to their gods.' Yet Solomon insisted on loving them anyway.
3He had 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines. And in fact, they did turn his heart away from the LORD.

Denise B's picture

Yes Steve,

Solomon was a sinner, who turned away from The Lord, but I'm not sure what your point is? If there is one thing that the Bible makes abundantly clear is that we are all sinners, every last one of us, save 1, that is Jesus Christ. So often I find that people believe that because the Bible documents a sinful event (e.g. Lot's daughters) that it is in fact condoning the sin or sinner and that is absolutely not the case! Solomon sinned against The Lord, as we all do, and his behavior was condemned and he paid a price for it! All of these people's stories serve to show us that all people, even those sometimes closest to The Lord like Solomon, are by our very nature incapable of escaping sins powerful grip...that is the very reason we need a Savior; to provide us all with the ultimate freedom...through Him we are no longer captives to sin and no longer have to receive the wages of sin, which is death, both physical and spiritual. For a group of people who claim so much to want to be free, I cannot understand such hostility toward the one who gave His life as a ransom so that you truly could be!

SteveMT's picture

The point is Solomon had actively corralled these 1,000 females.

Accumulating all of these women must have taken some time for Solomon; this process probably took years. During this time, Solomon was in communication with the Almighty; Can you imagine what God was talking to Solomon about during this time that was never written!? A chance roll-in-the-hay by someone who later seeks forgiveness is one thing. However, repeatedly marrying hundreds of women and contracting with hundreds more women to become concubines shows a repeated disregard for God's laws.

RicoCabeza commented that some women were probably sold into sex slavery. Solomon no doubt probably purchased some of these 1,000 women; they would not have voluntarily wanted this union. Most of them would not have wanted anything to do with such a lecherous person like Solomon. Solomon also apparently liked round numbers when it came to his women, exactly 1,000 had he, not 746, and not 871; It would have taken him over six and one-half months to get through all of them just once at five-husbandry-encounters/day. Solomon would not have been able to devote his full attention to celestial communications with all of these activities going on. The Almighty didn't seem to mind;He allowed Solomon the honor of writing some of the most beautiful words in the Bible.
Conclusion: Morality is subjective.

Denise B's picture

Actually Steve,

1 Kings documents that God spoke directly to Solomon only two times, once shortly after he became King and granted Solomon great wisdom and again after the completion of His temple at which time he admonished Solomon to follow His Commandments and all of His statutes and all would go well with him. Although Solomon was very wise, he did not obey what The Lord had told him, by marrying so many women who had turned his heart from The Lord and corrupted his ways and as a result word was sent to Solomon that the kingdom would be wrenched from him and divided. Most of the women Solomon married were princesses of foreign kingdoms who were more than happy to marry the richest and wisest King in the world at that time, and although he married far more than he should have, he was a good and just ruler otherwise. The people not only of Jerusalem but most of the world revered him. In any event, Solomon did not have numerous conversations with The Lord, as you state and ultimately God punished Him for his disobedience, although not right away. Lucky for us God is patient and long suffering, not quick to turn to anger, for if He was not and He immediately struck His children down as soon as we sinned with no chance for repentance then we would all be dead by now! I, for one, am very thankful for His patience with His children!
I think it is also worth noting that another reason God did not immediately wrench the throne from Solomon was because of a promise He had made to his father David, whom God loved. God always keeps His promises!

Chief of sinners award goes to the Apostle Paul, I was runner-up

1 Timothy 1:15-16
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

SteveMT's picture

Did 32,000 marriages occur from the raped virgins in Numbers31?

We'll never know.

Numbers31:14-18,35
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, Num. 25.1-9 and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
------
35 and thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

I Am Sorry Denise - The The Overriding Principle Here Is ...

... that neither laws nor moral values can arbitrarily change with the wind.

Otherwise it would be like a court of law presenting to the public that in the event a person feels it is for the overall benefit of society, then it is OK for them to murder.

So this principle seems to clearly override, and therefore invalidate, any Biblical context arguments to get God/the Bible off the hook regarding these verses.

My article explains how the Bible was not inspired by the so called Christian God, but rather was inspired by Freemasonry, as were pretty much all organized religions. One way to substantiate this is to explore how all the tombstone sites of the religious founders have Freemasonry symbols present.

Fortunately these less than supernaturally inspired Freemason writers left behind many tell tale signs in the Bible. For example, the Bible clearly presents the earth as flat, including how Satan viewed the world as flat. The article goes into detail on this, citing several Bible verses.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Denise B's picture

Are you actually

contending that Freemasonry predates the Bible? I'm sorry, but that claim is patently false and if you know anything at all about Freemasonry, it claims a character briefly referenced in the Bible, the King of Tyre who helped to build Solomon's Temple was the original founder of freemasonry, which is completely the opposite of what you just claimed (i.e. the Bible came long before freemasonry, not the other way around).

Please do site the passage in the Bible which "clearly" states that the earth is flat. That is another false claim.

I find it beyond the height of arrogance that you and your friends, by your statements, are actually trying to stand in Moral judgement of Almighty God, the author of Creation and the source of all natural and moral law. You must have an impeccable, or should I say perfect, moral character to believe that you have the authority to claim that your moral character exceeds His. Good luck with that when you actually meet Him.

Please; however, stop quoting things out of context, because it is intellectually dishonest. I could take a line out or two out of just about anything and twist it to mean whatever I want. In the case of rape, you and your friends also left out the portion where the father of the victim was given the ultimate authority to judge whether or not the victim would marry the perpetrator.

Some Much Needed Clarification

Yes Denise, I am well aware that Freemasonry does not predate the Bible. My bad for not stating Freemasons/Illuminatti. It may seem ironic that I first read about this occult connection in an article published on a Christian website (if you read the article you will see why I mention Freemasons as well):

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/...

The article states that "Satan is behind all organized religions today, leading the masses to worship the coming Antichrist, the Beast. That's what the occult all-seeing eye and pyramid all represent, i.e., the completion of the New World Order, which will be led by the Beast."

So if we can expose portions of the Bible which clearly are not inspired by the all knowing perfect God of Christianity, then it would seem likely that the authors/revisionists of these portions of the Bible would be the political/Satanically influenced control freak Illuminatti, and/or other occults which have been under their influence.

Consider also this bombshell quote from the NWO world police Illuminatti/Freemasonry based secret society, the United Nations (of peace?):

"NO ONE WILL ENTER THE NEW WORLD ORDER UNLESS HE OR SHE WILL MAKE A PLEDGE TO WORSHIP LUCIFER. NO ONE WILL ENTER THE NEW AGE UNLESS HE WILL TAKE A LUCIFERIAN INITIATION" - David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations.

Regarding your view that I was in judgment of God, this stems from a false assumption that I believe that God inspired those particular amoral verses - I do not. I was merely talking figuratively in order that you may understand from your own point of view that there appears to be an anomaly here. Honestly, I do not see how what I said could be interpreted any other way (more on this concept of Bible revisionism below, and of course a great deal more within my longer article, which explains exactly why I see things the way I do).

Now regarding how the Bible presents even Satan's view that the world is flat (which obviously could not be 'all-knowing God inspired'), what follows is a snippet from my article, which can be seen in all its glory here:

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

...below are some good examples of blatantly obvious false/contradictory information cited in most if not all Christian Bibles.

First, on the one hand the Bible declares:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (2 Samuel 22:31)

"And the words of the LORD are flawless...." (Psalm 12:6)

"As for God, his way [or method of inspiring scripture] is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30)

"... I [God] will put my words in his [the prophet's] mouth" (Deuteronomy 18:18) [It is clear here that the inspired words of God were not subject to any alteration by the inspired writers of the Bible. Had this passage instead stated that the inspired words of God were to be placed into the 'mind' of the prophet, only then would they be subject to possible alteration due to erroneous preconceived ideas, misunderstandings, or what have you. So in effect, what the Bible says here, in context with the other passages cited, is that the inspired written/spoken words of the Bible came word for word from God, and therefore are absolutely flawless.]

"Every word of God is flawless...." (Proverbs 30:5)

Yet the following verses reveal a very serious scientific blunder [skeptics - please see note following these passages] through suggesting that the earth is both flat and sitting still in the universe, has four corners, is standing on pillars that prevent it from shaking, and is immovable:

- Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

- Revelation 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

- Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

- Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

- Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

- Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world [obviously written by someone who believed the world is flat] (KJV)

- Psalm 104:5 NIV
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

- Job 9:6 NIV
"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

- Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Note - "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Ancient Near East until the Hellenistic period, Ancient India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century."
- http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Flat_Ea...

The verses above would seem enough to cause most rational people to consider as a very real possibility, that the Bible was not in actuality inspired by an all knowing God. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems would not exist in a book which he/she supposedly had flawlessly inspired, because if several parts of the Bible are found clearly to not have been inspired by (all-knowing) God, then why would any rational person believe ANY part of the Bible was inspired by God? Keep in mind that the Bible utterly perjured itself in this regard when it stated "the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30). So upon learning that the Bible contains many such errors (many additional examples of such obvious Bible contradictions/absurdities are presented both within the remainder of this article, and also within the Question and Answer section which follows) many people may be inclined to imagine the possibility that the original Bible was later modified by the father of lies himself, Satan. However, Satan would not likely have described the world as flat, and built upon pillars. And in the final analysis the idea that God may have allowed this to happen can only be viewed as ABSURD to any rational person who reads this article in its entirety. Upon examining all these tell tale signs of error and absurdity, most anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves would probably have to admit that it appears more likely that the Bible was either written or re-written by mere mortals using nothing more than their own imaginations and human knowledge, apparently including evil intent (see below after the near death experience section), rather than being inspired by an all-knowing God.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

No doubt and John the Baptist

calls Jesus the "Lamb of God". So it's pretty hard to take the Bible seriously when we're told that Jesus is a 4 legged white fuzzy animal.

Denise B's picture

There is nothing

"Clear" about the passages you cite. Every single one of them can be considered "figures of speech" and none of them are clear statements about the actual shape of the earth. If that is the best that you can come up with to disprove the Bible after you have clearly combed it looking to do just that, to me that proves just the opposite of what you are trying to contend. The Bible was written over a period of several thousand years by dozens and dozens of different people and has perfect cohesion from beginning to end and hundreds of prophesies that were actually fulfilled and to achieve something like that without someone actually knowing the future is literally impossible in and of itself, never mind it having to be the "mother of all conspiracies" (to use a figure of speech) and the only thing you can find to actually discredit it are figures of speech which you say is "clear proof" of a false statement of fact? Really? Surely you can do better than that?!

From Where Do You Suppose These Figures Of Speech Came From?

- like "the four corners of the earth" or "to the ends of the earth"? What evidence do you have that these were figures of speech? And how do you explain the physical description of the earth as being immovable and being built on four pillars?

If you truly want to make the 'figure of speech' argument, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that these specific ALLEGED 'figures of speech' were actually in use back in those days by people who clearly did not believe that the earth was flat. There is enough information in the world today to figure this kind of stuff out if indeed it were true (for example in the study of Etymology).

Heck, modern day Bible scholars even have multiple methods they claim for determining EXACTLY which Biblical books the Pharisees considered part of their canon back in the days of Jesus.

Let's examine more closely two of the verses in the Bible which seem to present a belief that the world is flat:

- Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world [which I claim was written by someone who believed the world is flat]

- Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Christians have attempted to rationalize these verses away as being metaphors. Clearly the Bibles metaphoric use of the words "The sun rises and the sun sets" is not the issue. However, the subsequent words "and hurries back to where it rises" suggest strongly, if not conclusively, a flat earth world view. People who understand that the sun is always rising somewhere in the world are not going to state these subsequently stated words which denote a false belief that the sun only rises from one location in the world. If someone were to repeat these words today, can you imagine how silly it would sound?

Also, Matthew 4:8 states as a point of fact that "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world". As stated, these words do not qualify as being a metaphor. It would be like saying that the phrase "all the kingdoms of the world" was meant as a metaphor to really mean "all the kingdoms of the world". This is just plain silliness.

Furthermore, if God's way of inspiring word for word the Bible, is indeed perfect, then certainly God would not have chosen such misleading "figures of speech" now would he?

And why is there Illuminatti symbolism at the grave sites of nearly all church founders? Can you not see the nearly obvious truth here that organized religion is nothing but a tool the global elites of the ages have used to help divide, conquer and control the pervasively illiterate, sheeple, non-thinking masses?

What we have here are multiple reasons why your "figure of speech" argument has no merit.

Also, in my prior post/comment to you, I wanted to reiterate that there are other examples in the Bible where "God (of peace?) shows himself to be pro-rape: "Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)" - http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html

Even more bizarre is the Bible's account of "the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that [the rape] victim should be stoned to death ... because she did not cry for help [during the act] (Deuteronomy 22:23-25) ... it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape.".

But your argument is that God is 'anti-rape'. If that were really true, then why was such an important issue not more clearly spelled out in the Bible, or for that matter, included in the 10 commandments? This seems contradictory.

Again what we see here is what seems like an accurate reflection of the values of the globalist elites. It is no longer a secret that they have been behind international human trafficking rings, which shows no doubt that they are pro-rape (yet even they seem to be OK with rape being illegal in the courts).

So anyway, I hope this helps "Clear" (pun intended) these matters up. And if somehow you still cannot see this, read my ENTIRE article (which today was renamed to "Amazing Little Known Facts - Proving How You Have Been Kept In The Dark") which will uncover the veil, where the truth actually lies, a GREAT deal further:

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi