How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken

Marriage is still viewed as a sacred institution in our society.  Christians view it as a "gift from god," or a"spiritual representation" of their relationship with God.   Truth be told however, the institution of marriage came about for economic reasons, and not out of love for a god, or the love for a potential mate.

Marriage has been defined differently by different cultures four thousands of years, and not solely in the realm of Christian societies. In many cases, arrangements were made, dowries were paid, children were born, and people worked together to provide the necessities of life.  Marriage was a contract.  Marriages have also not always been monogamous.  In fact, approximately one in six of the 1,195 societies surveyed in the largest anthropological dataset have been defined as being monogamous,* making monogamy something of an enigma.

Biblically, marriage was also a form of contract that had little or nothing to do with love, and in many cases, if not most, these marriages were polygamous.  Historically, the wealthier one was, the more wives one tended to have. (Consider King Solomon and his 700 wives and his 300 concubines.)  Polygamy was most certainly a permitted practice. Although the Romans and Greeks are said to have practiced monogamy--which some say influenced Western Societies to adopt this practice--their version of monogamy was something of a sham.  Roman men who were married could and did have relations with their wives and their slaves, and this was not considered adultery, as slaves were possessions--not people.   Furthermore, the practice of pederasty (in which a man "passed his knowledge" to a young male protege via homosexual sex) was also considered normal in Roman society, and was not a form of adultery.  The normalcy of this practice is made mention of in the Bible, although not directly.  In Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus was asked by a Roman centurion to heal his "pais" (male slave), and made no mention of any sins being committed.  Logically speaking, if pederasty itself was considered sinful, then it would make sense that he would have denigrated a practice that was widely practiced in the Hellenized world that he lived in--but he did not.  But I digress.  Not only did Jesus not speak out against pederasty, niether he nor Paul spoke much on the subject of marriage.  What Jesus did say however, was in reference to a question of divorce.  When Jesus told his disciples man could only divorce when adultery was committed, they decided maybe it was better not to marry.  Jesus concurred by saying some men became eunuchs to avoid marriage, and the "sins" of the flesh.  Note also that Jesus contradicted himself when he said "Therefore, what God has joined together, let NO ONE separate," but then goes on say that well, it is ok to separate if one has committed adultery:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”  Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom  of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”  Matt. 19:3-12

Neither Jesus nor Paul put much stock in the institution of marriage. Paul  made it known that marriage is for those that "can't help themselves" and it would be better if they did not marry (1 Cor. 7:8-9) as they would be better able to "serve the Lord" without the distraction of "lust."  (Although, this tactic hasn't worked out too well for the priesthood.)  Furthermore, as late as 393 CE, the Roman state forbade Jews to ‘enter into several matrimonies at the same time’ (Justinian Code1.9.7)** which illustrates that polygamy was routinely practiced by the Jews who worship the same god the so-called monogamous Christians do.  Therefore, we can say that marriage is not well defined by the Abrahamic god and his "writings."  More importantly, this illustrates that the "absolute" laws of Yahweh, are not so absolute at all, when Moses said it IS possible to divorce, and Jesus said it was not (i.e., let NO ONE separate {a universal term})--and then when he was challenged on this mistake by the Pharisees, Jesus added the ad hoc exception to the rule--making him less than perfect.  Jesus seems to imply that Yahweh created his laws based on  how people feel at that given time.  (They were "hard hearted" at the time of Moses.) The implication of Jesus' statement is that the laws are NOT absolute, and they change based on social conditions.

That being said, even in Christian societies the rules and regulations concerning marriage has changed significantly. Governance of marriage proceedings only became an institution of the church in approximately the 13th century.  Before that time, those speaking for their God pretty much kept their noses out of the business of marriage.  Since then however, the church has felt the need to tell people what defines marriage and who they can and cannot marry--when they themselves have no consistent Biblical doctrines which uphold their views. (The more the church infiltrated the lives of their flocks after all, the more power they had over them.) Church fathers did, and continue to this day to instill their OWN bigoted views on homosexuality and gay marriage, interracial marriages, and interfaith marriages on their flocks, to the detriment of the happiness of those involved.  Again--due strictly to their own bigoted views.  How shameful.  If Jesus did exist in the person most Christians describe--I know he would not be pleased.
  
 

*http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf 
** Ibid.

Please see the following post for more information on "Absolute Laws."
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.ca/2011/08/on-question-of-virtues-vices-and.html

Why I Hate Christianity

There are many reasons why I hate Christianity--and yes, I do literally hate Christianity. Why?--because of the negative doctrines it promotes, and the resulting "moral laxity"--which the Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago.  Let me explain by offering the following analogy.


The following would be a "life situation" for many, and is analyzed from a Christian perspective:

Christians believe they are born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things because they are "born sinners." (Original sin) Now, a Christian man who says he loves his wife still beats her because she doesn't do as she is told. She forgives him for hurting her every time, because that is what her religion tells her to do. The man beats her because the same religion tells him he has authority over her, and he cannot help but to do bad things, so he does them thinking he can't help himself--but it's ok, because his god will forgive him. Until one fateful day when a beating ends in death, and he kills his wife with his bare hands. 


THIS IS WHY I HATE CHRISTIANITY.  I hate the fact that this religion tells people they are EXPECTED to behave badly.  I hate the fact that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their bad behavior in this life or the next for believers as long as they sincerely say "sorry" to Jesus.  What about the victims??  What compensation do they get under the Christian system?  None.  There is no justice for victims of Christian crime--unless it is through secular laws.  Therefore, Christianity in and of itself is IMMORAL and UNJUST.  This is the biggest reason why I HATE Christianity.

If people believed they could do the right thing the first time, and took responsibility for their own actions instead of having "Jesus" do that for them, the world would be a much better place to live in.

Christian Blogger Wintery Knight Illustrates That the Christian God is Egotistical and Sadistic!

 

I had been meaning to post this earlier, but I got caught up in responding to comments made by "anonymous" on this blog. Now that that is done, time to move on.

In this blog post, I will show that Wintery Knight's attempt to answer the problem of evil fails, and that in fact, he shows us that if the Christian god exists, then he is egotistical and sadistic. Once again, the Wintery Knight has written a post in which his lack of thinking skills "hurts my brain." Ouch!! Let me illustrate. This is the conclusion he drew from a paper on the problem of evil:

What the atheist has to show is that God could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness. I.e. - the atheist has to show how a dentist can fill a cavity without using a drill, (or even using air abrasion). That's the burden of proof on the atheist, and Alston claims that the atheist is not in a position to know that. It's not enough to say "I don't see why dentists would have to resort to letting me suffer". The atheist has to prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering. He has to show that you can get the same good result without losing the good that allowing the suffering achieved.
Remember that on the Christian view, the good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life, regardless of their knowledge, wisdom and character. That's what atheists think, though. They think that God, if he exists, is obligated to make them feel happy all the time and not to be actively involved in forming their knowledge, wisdom and character without harming their free will. God has a purpose - to work in the world so that everyone who can freely respond to him will respond to him. The Bible says that allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY. Who is the atheist to question whether God could get all the people who will respond to him to respond with less suffering? How would the atheist know that?
But as I said before, atheist confuse the purpose of life. They think that the purpose of life is to have happy feelings, and they wonder "how could allowing me to suffer create MORE happy feelings?" And that's where the problem arises. They can't get past the idea that God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs.

Wintery Knight's argument does not even get off the ground, because first he must prove a god exists before anyone could show that god could prevent any evil. Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove that claim. It is only when he can show his all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god exists that he can say atheists must show that God "could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness." What an atheist has to show in this case however, is that the type of god Christians claims exists, i.e. an all-powerful, all good, all knowing god, is inconsistent with a world of suffering--THIS is the problem of evil. If Yahweh is all powerful, and all knowing he could accomplish any of his tasks without the need for suffering--or he would not be all powerful and all knowing. If he was all good, he would want to create a world without any pain and suffering, since it would be within his power and knowledge to do so. But clearly we have pain and suffering. Therefore, Yahweh is not all knowing, all good, or all powerful.

Wintery Knight's analogy in this case does not rid us of the problem of evil--in fact it supports the problem of evil!  Of course, the dentists cannot do their jobs without some pain and suffering, because they are not all good, all knowing and all powerful--they do not have the power and knowledge to do their jobs without some pain and suffering. Now it could be the case that there is no other way to do it given the way our world is, that is, according to the laws of nature. But then, that just goes to show that the dentist is not all powerful--that he is subject to the laws of nature. Likewise, it would also be the case then, that if Yahweh could not create a world without suffering because it is not possible to do so, then he is not all knowing and not all powerful--as there is something he cannot do. Note, some religions, such as Taoism claim that the Tao came before the universe and gods/goddesses. Thus, it makes sense in this case that any such gods and goddesses are not subject to the problem of evil, as the universe and the laws of nature were not created by them, and so, it follows that there may be things that they cannot do given the nature of the universe. However, the Christian god is claimed to have created everything, and therefore, as the bible tells us, is responsible for it all, as it states in Proverbs 16:33 and various other places that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." Given this scenario, the Christians claimed he created the universe and the laws of nature. Thus, if he were all knowing and all powerful, then he could have created a universe without pain and suffering, and still have satisfied his needs--but he chose not to. This makes the best explanation for Yahweh is that he is egotistical and sadistic, or he did not create the universe and the laws of nature, and he is not all powerful, or all knowing.

The Christians face another dilemma. According to the Christian eschatological view, our pain and suffering is the result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. But could not Yahweh have created a world where Adam and Eve were free, and chose not to sin? If he could have created such a world and chose not to, then the best explanation for our pain and suffering is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist. Since Yahweh is said to have created heaven without pain and suffering, but not our world, this further illustrates that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.  If Yahweh created a heaven where people are happy and "sinless,"Yahweh could have also created earth in the same manner--but chose to have his children be inflicted by pain and suffering instead. Surely--the actions of an egotistical and sadistic god. Christian apologists have been asked, "How can we be free in heaven and not sin?" Their answer has been that man does retain his free will in heaven, but loses the capacity to sin.  How does this work? We are told by the Christian apologists that the Christian god gives humans a new "godly nature" when they become "saved." They are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and given a new nature. 2 Peter 1:4 states "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature." So, we see that those who are saved are given a nature that is radically different than the fallen nature that is said to be inherited from Adam and Eve. This claim is based on Augustine's conception of original sin. Supposedly, this new nature is godly, agreeing with all the precepts and laws of God, and since they completely obey all God's laws, they would be sinless, as Jesus was said to be without sin, and therefore, he was perfect. (2 Cor. 3:21;Matt 5:17) Now, for our purposes, and with reference to the problem of evil, the most significant point is that this "nature" that is given to humans by god means that they will not sin, but yet, they are still considered to be "free." This hammers home the point that Yahweh could have created us in such a way that we were free, and yet never sinned in the first place--thus, avoiding pain and suffering. He could have created us with a "godly" nature in the first place, but obviously, according to Christians and the bible, he chose not to. Again, the best explanation for this, is that if Yahweh existed as depicted by Christians and the bible, then he is a egotistical and sadistic god because, as Wintery Knight tells us, Yahweh chose to make this world to satisfy HIS needs. He NEEDS to experience the pain and suffering of his children to satisfy some needs that he has. What needs could these be, other than sadistic needs, given the fact he could have created a world without pain and suffering, one in which love and respect is absolute?? All the pain and suffering could have been avoided if Yahweh had created a world in which humans had a godly nature, and thus had free will and no sin in the first place. Truly--a sadistic god.

Now, Christians might claim that if we do not experience pain and suffering, then we would have no knowledge of "good." The first point is that if this was the case, then Yahweh would not be all-knowing and all-powerful, as clearly he could have created us with a godly nature, and the knowledge of good, without having to experience pain and suffering, as this would be something he could not do. Thus, how is it that god knows the difference between good and evil, when according to Christians, he has this knowledge, but has not sinned? How did Yahweh have the knowledge of pain and suffering before the "Fall of Man"? He would have had no experience of pain and suffering, but yet, he knew what it was, and since he is said to be the creator of all things, he created pain and suffering. Thus, he could have created us with a godly nature, and knowledge of pain and suffering and good and evil, without having to have us experience it.

Wintery Knight claims that the "...good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life." According to Wintery Knight then, Yahweh is not about giving human beings happy feelings in this life. Now, based on the stories of the bible, and what we have experienced in this world throughout history, it confirms that Wintery Knight is at least right on this one point. It is clear that Yahweh is definitely not about giving human beings happy feelings! In fact, the bible tells us that Yahweh is responsible for misery! (I mean, he did create evil after all, and admits it in Isaiah 45:7) Assume this is true. If this is true, then given the pain and suffering depicted in the bible, and the pain and suffering we experience in our world, it would support the conclusion that Yahweh has no interest in the happiness of humanity. The best explanation for this behavior is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.

Wintery Knight goes on to say that "...allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he (Yahweh) gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY." According to Wintery Knight, people will respond FREELY to Yahweh when inflicted with pain and suffering--this is despicable. The use of pain and suffering in order to make someone "respond" to you is a form a coercion. (Just as the Christians did to the so-called witches" when they tortured them for crimes they had not committed until they FREELY "confessed") As I have shown above, Yahweh could have created a world where people respond to him as a result of their "godly nature." Instead, Yahweh could have created a world in which there would be no need for any coercion of any type--but he CHOSE to use pain and suffering in order to FREELY(?) ALLOW(?) us to respond to him--these, dear Wintery Knight, are the manipulations and actions of an egotistical sadist. Even if Yahweh had not made us with this "godly nature," your god could choose to whisper in our ears, or give us any number of signs--but no, he chose pain and suffering. How bizarre. Not only is it bizarre, but it is contradictory for a so-called "all-loving god" to manipulate his "children" this way. If he were an earthly father who was  abusing and torturing his children in order to bring them "closer" to him--he would be put him in jail. As mentioned in an earlierpost, Christians seem to believe that pain and suffering go hand in hand with love--which had lead to untold amounts of abuse at the hands of people that "love" us. Again--how bizarre, and sad at the same time.

Finally he says that, "...God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs." What right does Yahweh have to inflict, as I have shown above, unnecessary pain and suffering on humans, because he is god? Is Wintery Knight suggesting that "might makes right"?? Is it the case that something is right because god says it is right, or is it right because it IS right? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right.  If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good."  Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.   However, there is a positive reason to suppose that moral notions, even if brought into existence by God, apply independently from God's judgement once they exist. As such, Wintery Knight's claim that Yahweh has a right to form our character by any means necessary would be wrong, as Yahweh would also be subject to the same standards of right and wrong that we are. Otherwise, it would be the case that Yahweh brings moral facts into existence by his judgement. What this amounts to is, is that Yahweh has judged of himself that he is good. Christians however, want to say that it is Yahweh himself that is good--and not that he is good by his own self-judgement. For if it is just a mere self-judgement, Yahweh could be just like the entity that Christians claim is evil-- one whose goal is to create pain and suffering. This entity who is evil and creates this pain and suffering does not become good by a "self-pronouncement" or because someone like Wintery Knight claims this entity has a right to cause pain and suffering. To avoid this absurdity, we need to reject the claim that Yahweh has a right to do whatever he pleases, and that whatever he pleases becomes right. No, there is no such right that makes causing unnecessary pain and suffering "good" by mere self-pronouncement by an egotistical and sadistic god! Yahweh cannot avoid the problem of evil by mere "self-pronouncement"!!!

Wintery Knight says Yahweh "orchestrates a world that meets his needs." Yes, ACCORDING TO WINTERY KNIGHT, YAHWEH NEEDS TO HAVE LITTLE CHILDREN RAPED AND MURDERED.  HE NEEDS TO HAVE WOMEN BEATEN TO DEATH BY THEIR HUSBANDS, ETC. Again, those are not the actions of a loving god, but the actions of an egotistical sadistic god.  I have shown above that the atheist has no need to prove that there is a way to, as Wintery Knight says, "prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering."  For as I have shown above, this is the case according to Christians and the Bible--Yahweh could have choose to make the cavity go away without any suffering--but chose not to.  Yahweh could have prevented every instance of evil, pain and suffering without losing any overall goodness. Otherwise Yahweh is not all knowing, all powerful, or all good!

Christian Ethics Exposed

 

In my recent post on pride, I was presented with the following comment and challenge from Ron. This post is my response to that challenge. The challenge came after I said:


" According to Christianity, Yahweh is "all good." If Yahweh is all good, then he would be completely virtuous. But Yahweh is not completely virtuous, because he exhibits certain vices, such as jealousy and anger. Now, let's examine your attempt at Humpty Dumpty Semantics. You think that you can change the meaning of the term by mere assertion. Almost every culture list jealousy and anger as vices. The Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, and so on. In almost all the religions, jealousy and anger are vices. Worse yet, even according to Christianity, jealousy and anger are vices. Furthermore, according to Christians, these are "absolute" and come from Yahweh. But how bizarre, Yahweh himself exhibits jealousy and anger according to the bible! Note, for it to be absolute, there would be no exception to the rule. No matter what the condition, anger and jealousy would still be vices. The Christian claims "god is good" and "god is virtuous"--based on what standard? As you illustrate, if the standard changes, and is applied differently to make whatever Yahweh does "good and virtuous" even if it is a vice, you would have no standard at all. It is clear that jealousy and anger are vices, according to Christianity, and have been considered to be vices by almost all the major cultures and religions. You illustrate your bias and ignorance when you try to make anger and jealousy virtues in an attempt to make your god and bible seem consistent--when they are not. According to the bible itself, Yahweh is not all good and virtuous because he exhibits the vices of jealousy and anger. How sad. You want to take scripture, like Humpty Dumpty, and make it mean whatever you want it to mean. To claim that something is a vice, and then say it is a virtue, is totally inconsistent and ignorant."


To clarify,  I said that according to Christians, these are "absolute" and come from Yahweh. To claim that something is a vice and that it is a an absolute, and then say it is a virtue, is totally inconsistent and ignorant."  I will explain this below and offer a better explanation as to what counts as a virtue and under what circumstances one would be justified in overriding that virtue in favor of another virtue.


The challenge was as follows:

"Short and sweet today... I'll attempt to get you out of the university classroom and into the real world. Here's a scenario for you to apply your logic towards.

A father's daughter is raped. He loves her more than life itself. Do you imagine that he is angry with the man who raped her? Now imagine that the man continues to rape her every day. Do you think the father is angry with the man who is raping her? Do you think he can still be a loving father and at the same time be angry? Would you consider him loving if he were not angry with the man who raped her? Would you consider him loving if he continued to allow the man to rape her daily?

Since you are a perfect person I'm hoping you can tell me the best way to handle this situation. First imagine she were your daughter."

As I pointed out before, I am a Peircian pragmatist, and as a result, there is no distinction for me between the university classroom and the real world. "Speaking of the real world"-- that is odd coming from a Christian who bases his hopes on a fake afterlife, as opposed to "living in the real world."

First of all, Ron's example is neither short nor sweet. In fact, it is complicated, and is a bizarre example for him to use, as it will illustrate the weakness of his position, and for the Christian conception of their own God(s), Yahweh and/or Jesus; and the Christian religion in general.

Secondly, Ron's example does not present a moral dilemma for me nor an objective morality that is not founded on a God, in particular the Christian God Yahweh. Worst yet, his example presents a problem and dilemma for Christian Ethics and the Divine Command Theory and again, for the Christian conception of their own God(s), Yahweh and or Jesus, and the Christian religion in general. I will show that if I were the father in his example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him to prevent him from raping my daughter. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and my arguments will be supported by Biblical scriptures and Normative Ethical Theories.

Let us consider Ron's example: "A father's daughter is raped. A daughter he loves more than life itself."

Now, if Jesus had his way, no one would love anyone more than they love him! As Nietzsche pointed out:

"Love of one man is a barbarity: for it is practiced at the expense of all the rest. Also the love for God."

Not only is Yahweh/Jesus' demand for love at the expense of family and all else barbaric, it is the highest form of egotism/narcissism/perversion I can think of.

The bible is full of contradictions, as I will illustrate shortly, and have already done so earlier. According to Ron's god, he is to love him, and love his enemy MORE than he loves his daughter. So, in his example, according to Jesus, he ought love the man raping his daughter, more than he loves his daughter!--how bizarre. According to Jesus:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."  Luke 6:27-36

As the Christian Pastor, Ralph F. Wilson notes, "The world says -- RIGHTLY(my emphasis) -- "Love your friends. Be loyal to your friends. Look out for your friends." Why? Friends will look out for you. Loving your friends is just smart...Loving your friends and your spouse is just enlightened self-interest."

So again I say--bizarre. The Christian must resort to Humpty Dumpty semantics in order to try to make sense out of this nonsense. For in Ron's example, the father ought love the man raping his daughter, more than he loves his own daughter! Not only is he supposed to love him, but he is also supposed to express his love for his daughter's attacker. To paraphrase Jesus, "If someone rapes you, let him rape you again. If someone takes your virginity, do not stop him from taking more. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." Now, let's see if we substitute agape love for eros or philia, does that help? Agape love is:

"...one of the Greek words translated into English as love, one which became particularly appropriated in Christian theology as the love of God or Christ for mankind. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love. Although the word does not have specific religious connotation, the word has been used by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources, including Biblical authors and Christian authors. Thomas Jay Oord has defined agape as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being." In his book, The Pilgrimage, author Paulho Coelho defines it as "the love that consumes," i.e., the highest and purest form of love, one that surpasses all other types of affection. Contemporary philosopher Slavoj Zizek refers to it as "political love." Greek philosophers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to philia (an affection that could denote friendship, brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros, an affection of a sexual nature.

Although some sources claim agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used there. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means "beloved" or "well-loved". Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 and 17 of the Odyssey and means “to treat with affection.

The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. The Greek concept may have originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint."*

Now, according to Christians, one ought to have agape love for his enemies. We see from the definition above, that would mean Christians ought have unconditional love for their enemies. Also note that Yahweh is kind to the "ungrateful and wicked," according to passages above cited from Luke 6.  In Ron's example, the father ought have unconditional love for his daughter's rapist, and Yahweh will be "kind" to the rapist. I still say--BIZARRE!! According to Christians, one ought be "self-sacrificing" to his enemies. So, the father and daughter ought sacrifice themselves to the rapist/attacker. Perhaps the father can "turn his cheek" over to the rapist too. I still say-BIZARRE!! According to Christian agape love, the father should respond to the rapist with well-being instead of ill-being. I still say-BIZARRE!! Well, I hope that you get the point.

The Christian conception of a god that has unconditional love contradicts the god of the bible, Yahweh, whose love is conditional. According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh only loves you if you keep his laws and commandments. As the bible says:

"If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers." Deuteronomy 7:12

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments. " Deuteronomy 5:9-10

Therefore, according to the bible, and Christians, Yahweh's love is unconditional, and NOT unconditional!--a contradiction. For if Yahweh's love was unconditional, then there would be no conditions involved. But as the passages cited above illustrate, Yahweh's love has conditions! The claim that we ought to have Christian agape love, a divine, unconditional love, and I quote from above, the use , "...of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers"--instead of innovation, I say a BIZARRE INVENTION!! For, we should have the kind of love that Yahweh exhibits in Deuteronomy. That is, you should punish those who hate you, and love those who love you. In the case of the father whose daughter is being raped, he ought to punish and HATE the rapist. The father ought stop the rapist from raping his daughter. The father ought show the rapist no mercy. The daughter ought not give herself to the rapist if he demands her too, nor should the father give his daughter to the rapists.

Christian Pastor, Ralph F. Wilson said it right, "The world says -- RIGHTLY(my emphasis) -- "Love your friends." And I add to that, the world says--rightly HATE your enemies,  and in the spirit of Yahweh, hate them and show them your "wrath" if they treat you unjustly.  In Ron's example, the father ought to hate the rapist and show the rapist wrath to prevent his daughter from being raped.

While Christians claim that Yahweh is all loving and even loves the sinner and they cite New Testament scripture, such as John 3:16, as support and proof of this interpretation, we also find that according to New Testament scriptures that Yahweh does not love the sinner, and in fact, he hates and punishes the sinner:

"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors." Psalm 5:5-6

"The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates." Psalm 11:5

"The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry; the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth." Psalm 34:15-16

"The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous." Proverbs 3:33

"The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death. The Lord detests men of perverse heart but he delights in those whose ways are blameless. Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free." Proverbs 11:19-21

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him." John 3:36

"For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer,but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” 1 Peter 3:12

Therefore, If I were the father in Ron's example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and as I have demonstrated above, and I support this on the basis of Biblical scriptures. If anyone can cite Biblical scripture that contradicts this, such as the passage I cited above, and if, according to Ron, this would somehow not be acting divinely and is not in line with being perfect, and thus, I am not perfect, then Yahweh is not perfect--and it would be inconsistent and contradictory. This would be in accordance with my argument in the post that generated his comment and my replies to him, and eventually this post, that shows that if we accept the Christian conception of their ethics and the Christian' s claim that Yahweh is all good and thus virtuous is false, since Yahweh exhibits anger, jealousy, and now we can add to that list--hate, which according Christianity are vices. Now we can see how complicated Ron's example is, and how it illustrates the problems, inconsistencies, and contradictions within Christianity.

On the other hand, if we go by Old Testament law, and remember, Jesus said to follow ALL the laws and ALL the prophets until heaven and earth disappear, (Matt 5:18) then if I was the father in Ron's example, the result of my daughter being raped depends on whether or not she is a virgin, betrothed or married, or whether she was raped in the wilderness or not.  I will address this issue in my next post title "Christian Ethics Exposed Part 2 - Sanctioned Rape".  

Let's continue. Ron's complicated example is easily handled by other normative ethical theories and non Christian conceptions of morality which posit absolute moral rules.

In ethics, we have absolute rules and non absolute rules. Christians claim that their God's rules are absolute and non changing. According to this view, there can be no objectivity without absolute direct moral rules; what they call commandments. Nevertheless, Christians claim they are under a new covenant, and the old laws no longer apply. However, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus said to follow all the laws and all the prophets until heaven and earth disappear--but that is a discussion for another posting, as this too is inconsistent and contradictory.

There are no absolutes. The problem with absolutist Normative Ethical Theories is that they use specific factor fixed-weight rules. A factor is a characteristic of action. For example, an action can be characterized as truthful or lying; prideful or arrogant. Truth telling or lying; having pride or being arrogant, are factors of some actions. In general, when we think that an action is right or wrong, we almost always describe a factor. "What did Paul do that was wrong?" "Paul lied to his brother about using his bike." A rule has a fixed-weight if it cannot be overwritten by other factors. A factor overrides another when its presence changes and judgement we would otherwise make about a situation. A variable weight factor in contrast to fixed weight factor is one that varies from context to context. For example, if a father told his child he/she should murder their neighbor, which would be breaking the commandment of "do not murder" but if the child disobeyed their father, he/she would be breaking the commandment of "honoring their father." In this case, both commandments are supposed to be specific-fixed-weight rules.

According to Christians, Yahweh commandments are absolutes, and Christians claim that without absolute rules, there can be no objectivity or morality. This example illustrates that there are no absolute moral rules. Yet, we still have morality and objectivity via Normative Ethical Theories that do not require a god, such as Utilitarianism, which means doing what increases the overall good.

Variable-weight factors, in contrast to fixed-weight factors, are those whose weight varies from context to context. Such rules do not have the problem presented above for absolute specific-fixed-weight rules. In the example above, for instance, the weight of not committing murder outweighs honoring thy father.

In the beginning of the pride post, I used Aristotle's definition of virtue. To illustrate that the Christian conception of pride leads to misuse, ambiguity and equivocation. However, that is not my view of the Normative Ethical Theory of virtue. Note, that a virtue that required a certain type of behavior, would be an absolute, and as I have illustrated above, absolute rules do not work. Likewise, I would argue, absolute virtues do not work either. From a Christian standpoint, one might argue that a virtuous man would never lie, get angry, hate, and so on. However, as in the above example, under certain circumstances there are justifiable conditions for lying, anger, hate, and other so-called vices, and in such circumstances, these vices would be virtues. How would I determine what are virtues and vices, and under what conditions a virtue might be overridden by another virtue. One method that could be used is JS Mill's indirect rule utilitarianism. The indirect rule is as follows:

If any proposed direct moral rule, when generally acted from, increases the overall good, then it is a correct direct moral rule.

In this case, we can substitute virtue for direct moral rule. So, it would lead:

If any proposed virtue, when generally acted from, increases the overall good, then it is a virtue.

Now I can handle the example where the father is angry. Given the circumstances where "I am the father of a daughter who is raped, a daughter I love more than life itself."--then I would be justified in hating the rapist and I showing him my wrath, and I would be virtuous in doing so. Therefore, if I were the father in Ron's example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him to prevent him from raping my daughter. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and my conclusion was supported by Biblical scriptures and Normative Ethical Theories.

Nietzsche goes further and actually argues that under certain circumstances, some characteristic that is a virtue can actually be a vice; and some characteristic that is a vice can actually be a virtue.  For example, in the time of war, being a "good thief" and thus being able to steal supplies from the enemy would be a virtue--stealing in this case would be a virtue. Likewise, hate would be virtue if it provided the motivation and energy to defeat the enemy.

*agape love wikipedia