Popular Posts

30 August, 2011

Morals? Second Follow Up

He did respond! Finally. Unfortunately it was essentially a desperate last attempt. Lets give it to him...he can't really say he's wrong about anything that he said he was right about. That would make him wrong. And a religious leader can't be wrong how would that look to his followers. He says that I made a comment that is untrue of his holy book I will dispute that right now before you read the two comment conversation I said that his holy book sanctions rape and that anyone he captures he can rape according to his bible. He says that I obviously do not know the torah or the 5 books of moses for suggesting that they sanction rape and slavery.

Keep the laws of the captive woman Deut.  21:11
Not to sell her into slavery Deut.  21:14
Not to retain her for servitude after having sexual relations with her Deut.  21:14

I do believe rabbi...that's what it says in your holy book. It's not really superficial to say that this says rape and slavery (it says not to sell her into it but it implies that you are able to keep her for servitude/ slavehood until after you rape her) is ok, it's fairly blatantly the only meaning. (This is from the 613 Mitzvot, laws of the jewish religion)

Moshe Averick August 30, 2011 
  1. 3:08 pm
    The point is that if you grow up with cannibalism it will seem perfectly normal to you. Those who object will seem like the strange ones. If there are no absolute moral values, in fact there is nothing wrong with it.
    If you grew up in Rome you would think it was perfectly normal to watch people kill each other for entertainment.You have inculcated basic Judeo/Christian values as the basis for our moral outlook. You consider human beings to be inherently important. That is a direct consequence of the Biblical statement that man is created in image of God and adapted into the Dec.of Ind. as “all men have been endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.” This is not a Greek, Roman, or Babylonian idea. An atheistic world outlook sees a human being as the unintended, purposeless outcome of a blind and directionless evolutionary process. From that perspective a human being is as significant or as insignificant as you want him to be.
    Objectively however, a human has no intrinsic value from that view of reality. AGain, Sigmund Freud: “the moment a man contemplates the meaning and value of life he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.”
    This is not his personal feeling, it is the simple truth as an atheist that he is stating. If you want to assign value to a human being, by all means, but it has no significance outside of your own head.
    The Torah obviously does not sanction rape although I can understand how from a superficial reading of an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew Five Books of Moses, you might get that distorted impression. One of the things I explain in the book is that it is impossible to understand Judaism from reading the translation of the five books of Moses.
    But in the meantime, until you actually do some serious study to understand Judaism, feel free to reject orthodox Judaism, and let’s agree on the principles that I mentioned in the article, and we will go forward from there.

    1. 6:47 pm
      There’s nothing superficial in the reading on the sanctioning of rape or slavery rabbi. not to mention the moral obligation kill anyone who works on the sabbath PLEASE do not insult my intelligence or yours by saying such things. Freud’s quote that you seem to love stating adds absolutely nothing to your argument he’s saying nothing of morals. I agree with freud, a persons meaning is only subjectively assigned by themselves, but, rabbi, we’re not discussing meaning so stop quoting it to simply invoke Freud’s name. And I understood your trivial point with your idiotic cannibalism anecdote it seems more that you obviously did not understand mine. I agree that children growing up in that culture will of course not see a problem because, AS I SAID, they believe through most likely religious convictions that there is a logical reason such as healing properties of eating the human flesh. When western society comes along and explains that there is no logical reason for thinking that eating the flesh gives any sort of healing benefit that belief along with the morals that it buttresses are abandoned. It is through advancements in society, through advancements in reason, logic, and science that we are able to have social discussions about what is moral. We don’t need some imaginary friend to police us an tell us. I mean do you honestly believe that until the almighty sent down his commandments to moses they were killing each other left and right. Thats absolutely absurd they wouldn’t have made it to the mountain if that were the case. and If you say morals are innate (just incase) then again I tell you that claim is completely unfalsifiable because we can’t take the morals away. And finally I’d like to comment on your quote from the wise man about the holocaust. It is completely the opposite sir. How could you possibly believe in a god who sat with folded arms while “his” people suffered OVER men and women around the world, Humans, mankind, who risked THEIR lives to set your people free. Reading that from you, a fucking RABBI, is probably the most insulting thing you could ever have said.
After this the rabbi did not respond. As I expected from someone with such pitiful idiotic last attempt. There was a very eloquently put statement that I believe sums up (If you haven't been following) what I'm saying posted by an Eric Pfeifer. 

If this is the quality of philosophy produced by religious thinkers, then I have no anxiety about the spread of atheism in the future.
“Peter Singer says that he has no intrinsic moral taboos. In the same interview in response to the question about Pedophelia he says that “nothing is just wrong.””
I seriously can’t believe that I have to explain this to you, O man who pretends to be learned.
Singer states that ‘nothing is just wrong’ – he does not state that pedophelia is right. Pedophelia is wrong because of the consequences of pedophelia, which is to cause psychological damage to a child. When you pretend that Singer is blessing pedophelia from a hedonistic standpoint, you simply demonstrate your inability to engage in critical discussion without underhanded linguistic tricks.
Likewise, ‘no inherent taboos’ simply means that from a consequentialist perspective there is no forbidden act – all actions are judged based on the consequences, including punishment by society and internal guilt at having caused suffering. Pedophelia is not wrong because children are sacred, but because it harms children and carries severe social sanctions.
I would respect your argument more if you could accurately portray the arguments of your opponents rather than attempting to smear them with half-understood misconceptions.

No comments:

Post a Comment