This is not intended to be a sequel to my initial FoP? post. Instead, this is a response to a question posed on Facebook somewhat relevant to said first post. There are three involved parties in this discussion. Some comments and statements referenced which are not included in that post were made by the third party. That is why there are comments and quotes here that do not come directly from the first FoP?.
The questioning user's comment included the following:
But in the meantime, allow me to pose this question to you. You said, "And no it's not the grace of anyone that we aren't all murderers/rapists/robbers, it's because some of us KNOW that's wrong, and not because it's written in a book, but because it's just WRONG. There are some things you just know...'raping people is bad' is one of them."
So my question is, why is it wrong? You believe that the Bible was written by men, so what it says is pointless. Is it because God says so? Nope, you don't believe in Him. Is it because the government told you so? If so, I must break it to you that you do have a god after all, and his name is Uncle Sam. But the government is made up of men. You say men wrote the Bible, so why should you care any more about what the men in government say than you care about the Bible?
Without the Word of God, we cannot determine right and wrong. According to evolution, there is no rhyme or reason for anything. The universe just happened. Some great cosmic fluke brought everything we know into existence. We all act according to our instincts and we do whatever feels good. We do whatever we want to. So according to your belief in evolution, where do you get off telling a rapist that he is wrong? According to evolution, he was just doing what his instincts told him to do. So give me a reasoned out explanation of why rape or murder or robbery is wrong.
Without the Law of God written in the Bible, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit, though many human authors were used over hundreds of years, we cannot determine right and wrong. Without a God who is infinite and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth, we cannot have any grounds on which to anchor such determinations.
I begin here with reference to details from my previous article (which I believe to understand from other words in his post that he may not have read the first FoP in its entirety as of the time of the questions posed), and reiterate that as well as not being a man of religion, I also have no faith in the concept of a governmental system. Just as with any indeterminate outcome, governmental actions overall stand a 50% chance to succeed in their intention and a 50% chance to fail in their intention. (See "The War on Drugs")
A belief that the bible was written by men across an immeasurable span of time is not a complete dismissal of the quality of what should already be the most basic morals contained therein, despite the fact that something as sensible as "raping people is bad" should not have to be written down. While I will not deny that many stories and events written in religious texts (be it any translation of the Christian bible or the Quran, for example) hold valuable moral points that should be present in society, the existence or absence of written expression of these points notwithstanding. Whether or not the government insisted on the fallacy of a religion text would make no difference to me because, as mentioned, I have no faith in any government body; that includes my own country.
- Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- Big Bang Theory: In the begginning that which already existed in an infinitely-compact-everything expanded and took form.
In either case, something suddenly happened out of nowhere.
From a Robin Williams performance:
"Do you believe in the Big Bang?"
"No, God just went 'click.'"
A mythical deity deciding to create an endless, mysterious universe full of stars, worlds, comets, asteroids, eclipses, aurora borealis, solar flares, infrared waves and universal expansion among unknown numbers of other unknown situations, details and appearances in which he might plant life on a single world, thus wasting any time spent creating anything beyond this creature's world and sun makes less sense than a single chaos-driven event within that closely-gathered congregation of particles and energy. If the creation of life through the formation of the universe was indeed nothing more than sentience-granting happenstance, it bears no remarkable difference from any other mistakes which have led to discoveries or products not originally intended regardless of complexity or simplicity; Penicillin, for example.
Though many arguments against the Big Bang and evolutionary theory treat the two situations as going hand-in-hand, each is effectively independent of the other. Where one explains the sudden expansion and formation into worlds, stars and other space-bound bodies of the infinitely-compacted particles and energy, the other details the reason for genetic survival and passing on of mutation-acquired traits (more successful than that which it replaces) for continued survival of a species. The gradual transition of a moth's coloration from white to gray in order to allow the creatures to continue to thrive in pollution-darkened forests has nothing to do with the formation of all that is within the universe.
Evolution is not survival of the happiest, it is survival of the fittest. Those who can survive the world without the harmful interference of others or making stupid mistakes survive. Those who interfere are going against what is natural. Those who make lethal mistakes are taken out of the gene pool and remove the chances of inheritance of their traits from future generations. If a man strikes and hurts you, is your first instinct to think "He is in the right." and bear no offense? Is not another inflicting pain upon you deemed by even the most primordial parts of your mind to be wrong?
Rapists, murderers, etc. are not committing these acts based on instinct. These actions stem from the same principle as the classroom bully's desire to achieve acknowledgment as the alpha of the pack: thoughtless, uncaring carnal desire. The selfishness in taking the possessions or life of another does not even qualify into the comfort factor (also mentioned in FoP?). Desire and necessity are two separate circumstances.
It should not require a written law or passage to "make" something wrong. The necessity for such blatantly visual (in the written form) existence of outlines of what is right and wrong is irrefutably inconsistent with the biblical concept of faith over proof. The need for a higher authority to directly express what should be considered right and wrong is admitting weakness in one's own judgment. As I wrote in the "Human Rights" section, "Every person to walk this earth has the same rights as anyone else: to live as they will, as long as they harm no others." Rape, murder, robbery, assault, etc are all forms of harm. I need no written word to make clear the fact that anything harming another person is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment