Without God, human beings have to get together and figure it out amongst themselves. A society like the one Hitler built from the ashes of a defeated Germany, was not long for this world. You'll notice it didn't last, because any society built on the foundation of Darwinism, specifically the survival of the fittest, cannot function without uniting every other nation against it. Even Hitler's Reich could not survive such odds.
But Stalin and Mao both held to a "survival of the fittest" view of things and killed tens of millions in reflection of their view. Despite the incredible oppression and death of atheistic communism in China, it remains in political control to today. Russia, too, has yet to truly cast off its death-dealing communist past, the populace electing a former KGB officer to the highest political office of the country.
And Hitler came very close to dominating Europe entirely and establishing his vile Third Reich. If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, it's uncertain when, if ever, America would have participated seriously in resisting Hitler. And without America's help, it's very doubtful Europe would have successfully prevented Hitler's Nazi regime from dominating the entire region. You'll recall, too, that both Italy and Japan joined Hitler's bid for power. There wasn't, then, a universal repudiation of his war-mongering.
Many ancient nations, too, operated under a "survival of the fittest" philosophy and did so, in some cases, for centuries. Even in the Roman Empire, life was terribly cheap, women, children and slaves treated as things to be used and abused without qualm. Plutarch wrote of Carthaginians who
"...offered up their own children (as human sacrifices to pagan gods), and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan." (Excerpt from
Moralia.)
I don't see, then, that what you've asserted about the soon collapse of any society working on the basis of "survival of the fittest" is true.
This is why human beings have to talk and actually decide what kind of society they want to live in. Not invoke the authority of an invisible sky god, but actually put in the work that's required to have a society, while never perfect, is one that every person feels privileged to be a part of. So far, the West has had the most success in this endeavor.
There is so much fallacious arguing here that it's hard to know where to start in answering it all. First, it's a false dichotomy that
either human beings talk and decide together what society they want
or they "invoke an invisible sky god." Especially in western democracies, it hasn't been either-or but both-and concerning religion and political/cultural dialogue in society. These things haven't been mutually-exclusive but, rather, the Judeo-Christian worldview has been crucially important to the development of the democratic freedoms we now take for granted in the West.
Second, it's a glaring Strawman that Christians "invoke a sky god," like some ancient pagan might've done. In reality, the philosophical, historical and even scientific basis for Christianity is deeper and more robust than for any other world religion - by far - and affords the Christian a highly-reasoned and reasonable basis for their belief in God.
www.reasonablefaith.org
www.crossexamined.org
www.coldcasechristianity.com
www.str.org
Third, the rights and freedoms every person in North America presently enjoys and the representative, capitalistic democracy under which they live that provides to them the greatest, peace, safety and affluence the world has ever known are owed in no small part to the Judeo-Christian worldview that you want to dismiss. Amazing.
What you're going to see over the next thirty years or so, if there isn't a return to the Judeo-Christian roots of North American culture, is the utter deterioration and violent implosion of North American society and the deadly rise of the cruel, bloodthirsty madness of a society where Man is his own god.
Again, there is no universal authority.
Then you can't point at the Muslim who wants to kill homosexuals and say, "That's wrong!" as though your view is superior to theirs, or more true. At best, without God, all you can do is proclaim your moral
preference. But why should anyone care about your moral preference? Why should the Muslim care? He has his own moral preference which he likes better than yours.
No, it's not. They're both the same. They're both holy books that claim to be divine revelation from God. They actually mirror each other in many ways because they both come from the same desert. The only notable difference is that Islam claims to be the final revelation from God. Which is precisely why there's never been a reformation.
By your logic here, I can say that Hitler and Mother Theresa were the same. They were both born of human mothers; they both had two eyes, two arms and legs, and arteries and veins filled with blood; they were both world-famous; the were both born in Europe, and so on. Thus, according to your line of reasoning that you've used in the quotation above, Hitler and Mother Theresa were the same, even though one was a genocidal maniac who murdered millions and the other a woman who gave her life in succour of the downtrodden and impoverished.
What your words above actually show, though, is how little you actually know about either sacred text. No serious scholar of either text would agree with your highly superficial assessment.
I dont care how common it was.
Then you shouldn't have asserted that it was.
It could have just happened once and I would still condemn the deity that gave those commands as a depraved despot.
So? Your condemnation does nothing to prove He actually was a depraved despotic. And for the reasons I've pointed out, such a charge just doesn't hold water when it comes to the Creator and Sustainer of Everything. In fact, in light of who God is, your condemnation, to me, just sounds incredibly petulant and silly.
Well, that's good. It's certainly a cut above the Islamic belief. However, I find it very frustrating that Christians use the bible as a weapon against those they personally don't like. We're routinely told by Christians that the Old Testament is no longer in play because Jesus brought with him a new covenant, which is the New Testament.
But Christians will still use Old Testament law to discriminate against those they don't like. Or behavior that they disapprove of. I think this is deeply hypocritical, and many people in the West each year are coming to the same conclusion.
Homosexuality - and all sexual sin - is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. But Christians are under a different covenant with God than the OT Jews, one that is not nationally theocratic, and that doesn't require a priestly order to mediate between a person and their Creator. The Christian has only one High Priest, Jesus Christ, and through him the Christian has direct access to God.
Anyway, God calls all of His children to holiness, humility, faith and love. And He takes upon Himself the business of changing minds and hearts, making people into who He wants them to be. This is
spiritual work He does, not political, or militaristic, and doesn't involve His own forcing others to the Christian way.
What I find really hypocritical, though, is the non-believer imposing their beliefs, values and politics on the believer while telling the believer they must not do the same.
This is all I've got time for. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
