Theists and Their Moral Abyss


Have you ever heard theists say something like “without religion you cannot be moral”? I guess they would know what is right and wrong with god on their side, wouldn’t they? Luckily theists even have a moral guide book, the bible, to settle some of the more contentious issues.

Leviticus 25: 44-46

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

Yet another fine example of religious extremism. Maybe we should start entertaining the notion that religion clearly has no claim over morality.

Morality: FAIL

Share

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Images, Quotations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Theists and Their Moral Abyss

  1. Brown says:

    Easy guys- everyone became fine with slavery once they opened their doors to every race, put an apron on them and embossed a nice shiny yellow “M” on their hats.

  2. Its almost comical how so many atheists haven’t a clue about slavery in the bible. The same rhetoric gets floated around with zero research into the matter. I recently addressed this issue refuting the complaints of godisimaginary.com, in this article,
    The Complaint Dept. is Closed #13. Sure it seems clever to your core readers of atheists, but among anyone who knows anything on the issue, it’s a rather pitiful display of ignorance.

    I do not normally come onto blogs to complain, but I have read posts such as this quite a few times in the last few days so its hot on my mind, perhaps I’m just venting.

    • Your thesis seems to be that slavery is not scripturally endorsed, but merely tolerated. I think it’s possible to accept that argument and still consider it an inferior moral position to a blanket injunction against slavery, something that humanist values allow but which is entirely absent from the bible.

      In your post you actually compare the scriptural tolerance of slavery to yourself allowing (but not endorsing) your daughter to date. Does this mean that you think slavery should be allowed now, but biblically regulated? I imagine not, but that’s what your argument supports.

      • Unfortunately humanist values are not really values, but are rather the outworkings of the societal polls. Slavery could be endorsed and even championed by humanist societies if enough of them get together and do so. (see: who needs morality?) The strong dominating the weak is exactly what the outworkings of an evolutionary process predicts, and is a natural happening.

        My analogy was not a justification of slavery under certain conditions, but to show the difference between tolerating a practice and endorsing it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s