| Christians love to make mention that it is only by 'god' that we can have any morality at all. Of course, this is (a) unfounded, (b) suggests that philosophy and ethics are nothing, (c) ignores the fact that there are plenty of moral secularists and (d) ignores the fact that the ancient Jews thought that they were moral and everyone else in their known-about little flat world were heathens, but WE PEOPLE TODAY know that there was a whole round world full of people who weren't trying to steal little Jewish girls for wives, etc. The idea that "The Ten Commandments" are the foundation for modern morality is a laughable and throwback idea. These ancient Jews are the same "moral foundationalists" that advocated stoning to death your recalcitrant lippy kids.
Morality is choosing between "right" and "wrong", which of course necessitates an understanding of what is 'right and wrong' and begs the question, 'right or wrong to whom' and necessitates a philosophical understanding as to WHY they are labeled as such. Many would suggest that such a designation is purely arbitrary. This cannot be true if 'good' and 'bad' are to have any non-arbitrary meanings themselves, however there must be some subjective interpretation regardless of what one uses for a moral standard. The purpose for any standard is for someone to compare something to it. In the case of morality it requires one to compare, to conceptualize, to generate abstract thoughts, to philosophize and to generate representative abstractions. In short, TO THINK. Morality necessitates thinking. In order to be moral, one must have the capacity to think, not merely parrot or to follow the training like a rat running though a labyrinth maze. "Carrot and the Stick" is not morality and neither is following a grocery list of do's and don'ts. It is only the concept of human life that gives the concept of human values any meaning. (We can presume that the dead don't value anything.) Since there can be no human values without human life, then human life must be our primary value from which all other values spring forth. This is logical and reasonable. This means that human life has INHERENT value (because there can be no human values without humans). This is logically true regardless, whether you believe that life originated biologically or as a cosmic favor from the great and powerful goblin king in the sky. Christians hold a hoped for "afterlife" as their primary value, which means that they in turn value physical death (even though they fear it) because this is the transitional point from physical life to this greater value "afterlife". It would be rational for Christians to value life and relish the "short" time here and then to go to an afterlife existence when necessary. Some "liberal" Christians do in fact enjoy life because their 'god' is a 'god' of love, but the more literal (aka biblical) the Christianity, the more real their Pauline-type self loathing and mortification of the flesh and the more the talk about this "dirty" world of "iniquity" and how they can't wait to "go home" and "be with Jesus". This is valuing physical death over life and is an anti-value as it goes against the primary source of our standard of human values. For "life" to value "death" is illogical, even in light of the supposed afterlife (which in their mindset, is inevitable anyway). As it is only the concept of human life that gives the concept of human values any meaning, then I rationally propose that the things that can be said to add to the continuance and growth of said life is "good" and that which is the opposite is "evil" from that organism's perspective and within a given scope. Human life and the welfare of the self then is a rational and logical non-arbitrary standard for morality. An anti-value cannot be "good", regardless of what we want to call it. Death is not good for life. Anti-value is evil, as it threatens the source of all one's values. Judeo/Christianity does not offer morality at all, nor does it allow for it. In 'The Fall', Adam and Eve were ostensibly supposed to remain like dumb animals, not knowing 'good' from 'evil'. Eve needed to decide who was telling the truth, the serpent or 'god'. She made up her own mind and thus gained the ability to THINK and discern good from evil. She had the 'audacity' to THINK, to be more than a dumb animal, a "lamb", a Pauline-type slave. SHE USED HER OWN JUDGMENT. It is this, in my estimation that was fashioned as "Original Sin". Continued mindless Kowtowing is not thinking and it is not freedom. It is impossible for "Jesus to set you free" if "coming to the Lord" means to be a Pauline-type slave to 'god' ala Romans chapter 6. As evaluating whether a commandment of 'god' is moral or not would be to question the moral authority of 'god' and thus a sin, then to use one's own judgment would necessarily be a sin, and in "The Woman's" case, the Original Sin. Morality requires moral choice. Moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil. Christians maintain that Adam and Eve obtaining the capacity to make moral choice was itself an immoral action. This is not only illogical but it is also a fundamental flaw in Judeo/Christianity. It is a crack in the keystone upon which their castle in the sky is built. If "people becoming moral would be immoral" is a true absurd paradox, then there is no valid "Fall" of mankind. If there is no valid fall of mankind, then there is no valid original sin. If there is no valid original sin, then there is no valid "redemption". If there is no valid redemption, then there is no valid Jesus the redeemer. If there is no valid Jesus the redeemer, then there is no valid Christianity. I maintain that a trained rat is not a moral creature, so Christians responding to the Carrot and the Stick method of motivation by following a grocery list of do's and don'ts IS NOT MORALITY. Morality is thinking about, discerning and judging whether something is good or evil, not seeing if thing 'x' is on their grocery list of do's and don'ts. I maintain that they in fact worship absolute power absolutely and deem whatever this power wants is "good" and whatever it does not want is "evil". Even if what it wants is to enslave us (Romans 6) and torture us if we don't worship it. To suggest that this terrorist threat is done out of love for US is not only illogical, it is in fact obscene. CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A MORAL SYSTEM. (See also 'Religionists Are Not Moral' at my 'sister' website). The Vampire LOGOS |
| MORALITY |
 |
| Back to 'Why Christianity is evil' |
 |
| Read/Write Comments about this piece |