The Case of the Missing Needle on Materialism’s Moral Compass

The Case of the Missing Needle on Materialism's Compass

click on image to enlarge

And I submit this transcript of a very thought-provoking lecture by Richard C. Vitzthum (Gasp! Yes, that Richard C. Vitzthum.) for the consideration each and every reader: Philosophical Materialism

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “The Case of the Missing Needle on Materialism’s Moral Compass

  1. Without God, there is no grounds for objective morality. I’m not even convinced there are grounds for subjective morality, because I’m not convinced materialism can allow for subjects.

    Like

  2. Perhaps a similar category might reveal the problem point: on one side of the compass is Up and the other side Down.

    Now consider:

    Without Zeus, there is (sic) no grounds for objective elevation. I’m not even convinced there are grounds for subjective elevation, because I’m not convinced materialism can allow for subjects.

    Leaving aside for the moment the non sequitor nature of Wartick’s concluding questionable observation, and assuming for the sake of argument that materialism is in complete error, what are we left with?

    We are left with the assertion that comparative categories of words have meaning only through the objective existence of their individual meanings. Apparently, these individual meanings are then bestowed into us – first passing through some gate that separates the material from the non material – by some mysterious mechanism linked to belief in a supernatural agency. This supposedly ‘explains’ how we are granted this missing needle. Without belief in the objective and independent existence of each comparative value, the explanation opposed to materialism insists there is no way to gain the ability to compare. And this alternative to materialism is supposed to make sense.

    Frankly, I don’t see how.

    Like

    • This isn’t a reply on Wartick’s behalf (he’s very able to answer on his own). I would be interested in why you equate God — God as revealed in the Bible and through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the One JW was referring to — to Zeus. I’m pretty sure you can’t find a single person who believes in Zeus. Why is that?

      Besides, I find it very strange and concerning that you’d make a comparison between God (the Judeo-Christian God) and a sexually deviant man/deity who raped young women and whose tomb is said to have been somewhere in Crete. I’m concerned because I wonder how much you know of the history regarding either one. Now, I’m no Greek myth scholar (the texts read like bad soap operas), but I do know enough to see a ridiculous comparison.

      So, why do you make the comparison when even any heavily disinterested observer can see the obvious differences? Is it because the word “God” in your vocabulary has the same meaning as “Zeus”, so the two are interchangeable? Where did you get your definition?

      And, honestly speaking tildeb, this sort of slosh bucket religious knowledge you carry and have displayed here before — one that doesn’t see distinctions where they are obviously present — prevents me personally from taking your views on religion seriously.

      Joshua

      Like

    • I think you’ve made a category mistake. Show me how Zeus is equivalent to the God of classical theism, that is a God who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, transcends the universe, exists necessarily, and has these properties essentially. Zeus does not fit.

      Like

  3. Josh, your god is not Wartick’s god. The two are not comparable because they are not describable. Both of you maintain a sort of fuzzy notion about what this object you call ‘god’ is that you believe exists in reality, although you may agree (and probably do) about this critter’s attributes, intentions, motivations, desires, and so on. Nevertheless, I substituted Zeus to show that this portion of the argument – regardless of how well substantiated you may believe the particular god-figure to be – does not reveal to us any indication of association with comparative values like elevation, morality, or ethics. The link you try to make between them does not naturally flow from the god-figure to the comparative value. So although both you and Wartick go after my use of Zeus, you miss the point by doing so. I could substitute any god-figure to show the same problem in your argument. The link is not real in the sense it is not backed up by good evidence from reality, in other words. It is only backed up b y your belief. And establishing this causal link in reality is no small problem to overcome if you wish to argue that it is a necessary component to ‘finding that needle’ so-to-speak.

    Of course I understand that you believe in the existence in reality of your god, that you believe you understand its nature, characteristics, forms, and abilities. But your belief does not inform your argument that morality requires the reality of this specific god-figure to establish some home base for differential moral values like right and wrong to be validated. Various other factors can be shown with evidence from reality that although these comparative values (as revealed by behaviours) fluctuate by circumstance and intention, they seem to cross all normal barriers – like language, culture, religious belief, gender, age, ethnicity, and so on (including the species barrier). To account for this fact that moral values are generally held collectively – that all people tend to holds the same moral values and the same behaviours that reveal moral concerns- I think there are much better reasons based on this causal evidence that have nothing whatsoever to do with your religious beliefs or anyone else’s. So by extension, if your god-figure does not exist in reality (I know, perish the thought), then what you are trying to argue is that we lose any ability to differentiate between what we call right and what we call wrong because the necessary causal factor has evaporated by the loss of belief. I don’t think that argument withstands serious examination.

    Like

    • Well, as a Christian, I limit what I know about God to revelation in three main forms: textual (the Bible), physical (what exists), and personal (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus). (They must correspond to each other — and they do.) I’m limited to the Bible because it alone claims to be the Word of a God Who has designed humans for a relationship with Himself (and with each other) and uses the pattern of human language to communicate with humans. (Other so-called “holy books” either don’t claim these [the Dao De Jing; the Qur’an’ etc.] or make the claim after the fact.) The claims are not empty because they are backed up with evidence. For example, if God did actually participated in human history (in the Exodus, the entry into the Promised Land, the Monarchy, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus), then there would be evidence because they are told in a matter-of-fact way as real events on this Earth. And when we investigate, we find evidence. And we get more and more evidence that shows that the Bible is an extremely accurate, reliable work of antiquity at least and the very words of the God responsible for creation at best. (Contrast that with so-called lost Gospels or the Book of Mormon.)

      Why say all this to you? Well, you seem to have reduced these differences to nothing and imply that belief in God is merely a delusion, an immaterial by-product of firing neurons between the ears of a walking sack of protoplasm, right? But on the atheist worldview, your conclusions on God and morality would fair no better. They, too, are merely delusions, immaterial by-products of firing neurons between the ears of a walking sack of protoplasm. And since mindless, thoughtless nature doesn’t play favorites with delusions, I’m perplexed as I try to understand what all the fuss is about. After all, this is what chemicals do in this condition at this temperature.

      And, essentially, that is the point of the cartoon: In strictly materialist universe, morality is pointless.

      Even if we reduce belief in the Judeo-Christian God as a delusion, the practical application of appealing to the Bible for morality is pretty practical and easy, as far as I can see. If someone tells me they believe in the God of the Bible, I can then appeal to them / judge them according to the moral standards recorded in its pages. And they, in turn, can do the same to me.

      But if you have a moral showdown with a fellow atheist, whose morality do you appeal to? How do you enforce or convince another atheist of the rationality of your morality and that they should follow yours?

      I don’t squirm when someone asks me to consider that God doesn’t exist. I’m just thankful He does and that you can enjoy seeing His creative genius in the morning while you brush your teeth.

      Joshua

      Like

      • Thanks for the links. I always like to hear Hitchens. Although he’s an otherwise intelligent person, he shows a real lack of knowledge about the Bible in the video you posted, even going so far as saying, “Slavery is mandated by the Bible.” If he were alive, I would ask him to show us. He seems to be implying that the slaughters in the Bible were somehow common place and included rape (I’d like to know where he’s reading). These things along with the other things he complained about – genital mutilation, suicide bombers — well, they are just chemicals in motion doing what chemicals do under these conditions at that temperature in his worldview. He has no problem with them. He can’t have a problem with them because they, like him, were just doing what is right to them.

        Let me say this again:

        You seem to have reduced differences between various deities and the Judeo-Christian God to nothing and imply that belief in God is merely a delusion, an immaterial by-product of firing neurons between the ears of a walking sack of protoplasm, right? But on the atheist worldview, your conclusions on God and morality would fair no better. They, too, are merely delusions, immaterial by-products of firing neurons between the ears of a walking sack of protoplasm. And since mindless, thoughtless nature doesn’t play favorites with delusions, I’m perplexed as I try to understand what all the fuss is about. After all, this is what chemicals do in this condition at this temperature.

        And, essentially, that is the point of the cartoon: In a strictly materialist universe, morality is pointless.

        Even if we reduce belief in the Judeo-Christian God as a delusion, the practical application of appealing to the Bible for morality is pretty practical and easy, as far as I can see. If someone tells me they believe in the God of the Bible, I can then appeal to them / judge them according to the moral standards recorded in its pages. And they, in turn, can do the same to me.

        But if you have a moral showdown with a fellow atheist, whose morality do you appeal to? How do you enforce or convince another atheist of the rationality of your morality and that they should follow yours?

        Joshua

        Like

  4. But if you have a moral showdown with a fellow atheist, whose morality do you appeal to? How do you enforce or convince another atheist of the rationality of your morality and that they should follow yours?

    Simple: best reasons.

    Like

    • We use an assortment of – for lack of a better word – tools to help us establish the ‘reliability’ of moral reasoning: everything from the context and intentions of some behaviour to punative law. You do exactly the same thing when you reject the biblical acceptance of slavery or killing of children for disobedience; you do not find the biblical reasons compelling enough to overturn your moral compass. How do you know it is not moral to own other people? How do you know that the killing of disobedient children is not moral when the authority to which you appeal for your ‘objective’ morality states otherwise?

      Like

      • So, you use a variety of tools based on reason, which means you use reason to establish the reliability of reason. And what do we call that?

        The phrase “biblical acceptance of slavery” has no real meaning. I and others have shown that the Bible didn’t establish slavery, it merely laid out just, fair laws to regulate it. I’m sure you’ll make no distinctions between slavery as practiced in recent history and slavery in ancient times. But that actually helps me because it would go to show yet another inability on your part to distinguish things that are distinct, since you’ve already shown an extreme deficiency in being able to distinguish claims about reality between religions.

        Israel had regulations to kill children who were disobedient to parents. Show me where it was ever enforced? There are laws that exist whose extremity of the potential punishment was enough to persuade people not to do it.

        Personally speaking, I don’t see any of these interactions going anywhere, so I’ll stop here.

        Joshua

        Like

      • But the point you want to make is about how the bible guides us in matters of morality, Josh, so what does it offer us about slavery or killing children? Does it clearly condemn these horrific practices? No. The bible does not morally condemn slavery any more than it morally condemns the killing of children. This is a problem for your thesis. When the biblical guidance cannot offer us a moral platform of authority to condemn such immoral practices (and I’m assuming you’re not going to try – unlike Wiliam Lane Craig – to argue that slavery and infanticide are moral practices) then surely you can appreciate that the bible is a better example of moral failure than it is a moral guide.

        Like

      • Yawn. You’ve already argued in a circle, appealing to reason to establish the reliability of reason. Now you’re once again making sweeping statements on subjects that you apparently haven’t studied, slavery in the ancient near east and Old Testament law. Personally speaking, I don’t think you know enough about the Bible to speak with any sort of authority about what is recorded in its pages. (And I don’t think you’ve actually studied any religion, aside from atheism.) Why? You make inaccurate statements. Previously you failed to distinguish differing religious claims, going so far as equating God with Zeus as if they are interchangeable. Now, for example, you, like many critics of the Bible, have failed to distinguish between the establishment of an institution and the regulating of an existing one. Another example is you calling slavery in ancient Israel “horrific”, which shows that you don’t have a basic understanding of what the Bible says about slavery and its purpose. You assume you know slavery then was horrific (What is that opinion based on?) and that systems we have in place now to deal with debts and crime are much better. So, I don’t think that your opinions of slavery in the ancient near east and Old Testament law are informed enough to give you any authority to speak about them. Maybe you can change my mind. Here’s the challenge:

        1) Tell me one history book regarding slavery in the near middle east that you’ve read.
        2) Tell me one religion you’ve actually studied and how you went about studying it.
        3) Tell me one book that you’ve read regarding Old Testament law.
        4) What is your opinion of slavery in Old Testament times based on?

        NOTE: Web pages don’t count!

        Perhaps you’ll dodge these questions, change the subject, insult me personally, post a video link, or all of the above. But the reason I’m asking you these questions is because you’ve come here and made claims (again). I want to know what the claims are based on. Now, I know you’d like to have us all believe that you know all about every religion, all branches of science, human morality, and this author. But pardon me for not believing any of that about you. I want evidence.

        Joshua

        Like

      • Josh, have you stepped back and looked at what you’re trying to argue: that slavery (because it was ‘institutionalized’ then) in biblical times was moral (but in need of some divine regulation, apparently) even though now it is not (again, I presume you do not argue that slavery IS moral)?

        Is this really the stand you want to take to show ‘objective’ morality is delivered to us via the bible?

        Really?

        Like

      • In all kindness I ask you to not attempt to lecture me again about a subject that you apparently haven’t studied.

        Now, answer my previous questions, tildeb. Here they are again:

        1) Tell me one history book regarding slavery in the near middle east that you’ve read.
        2) Tell me one religion you’ve actually studied and how you went about studying it.
        3) Tell me one book that you’ve read regarding Old Testament law.
        4) What is your opinion of slavery in Old Testament times based on?

        NOTE: Web pages don’t count!

        After you answer my previous questions, answer these:

        Do you go to work every day? Why?

        Like

      • I’m not lecturing you about slavery; I’m noticing that there is no biblical injunction against it. As the source for your moral guidance, the bible should be at the root of why you do not support human slavery. And yet – clearly – you have arrived at your moral stance over slavery not because the bible has guided you to it but in spite of the bible. How is this moral difference possible if what you say about the source of our morality is true?

        I – and I’m sure your readership – would very much appreciate it if you stayed on task here with your thesis rather than demand me to answer diverting questions.

        Like

      • I’ll take your silence as an admission that you haven’t read anything about slavery in the ancient near east and Old Testament law. I say this kindly: You are uninformed regarding slavery in the ancient near east and slavery in ancient Israel. And that was the point of my questions. You’ve got no evidence to support your claims. You are just spouting an uninformed opinion and I just wanted the readership to see.

        Done.

        Joshua

        Like

      • Josh, I did comment. That’s not silence. I am pointing out that your claim to biblical guidance for your morality about actions that you can “judge (them) according to the moral standards recorded in its pages” is highly problematic. It is clear that you do not use the bible for your morality but that your morality precedes your interpretation of scripture. You are trying to wiggle out of this obvious problem by pretending I need to first establish expertise in slavery as it was practiced in biblical times, establish my biblical scholarship to your satisfaction, include details about my working day, before you’ll address the very pertinent point I raise about your morality claim. If anything, the bible is full of moral contradictions. If you are unaware of this fact, then a good starting point is to read one and find out for yourself why such a guide to morality is entirely lacking compared to the strong moral sense any five year old child has about fairness and reciprocity.

        Like

      • You don’t need to comment anymore on this thread, tildeb. I’ve already established that you are relying on reason to establish it. You don’t have morality, you merely have biology. You are uninformed about slavery in the ancient near east and about Old Testament law. You’re assuming and misunderstanding so much, including my questions and their aims. You’ve avoided answering my relevant questions three times. I didn’t expect you to be an expert. I only expected you to have read ONE (1) work on the topics about which you claim to understand. (That is why I made the word “one” bold in my original questions.) Now you’re exaggerating in what is most likely an attempt to cover the obvious answers to my questions.

        So, I kindly submit to you that your opinions about religion in general and the Bible specifically are uninformed at best and intentionally ignorant at worst. Only you know which.

        I don’t take your jabs to heart because these comments are open for people to read themselves. They can see who’s wiggling.

        One small suggestion: Just read some works on slavery in the ancient near east and Old Testament law before you make a comment on them in attempting to sound like an authority. It is the least you could do.

        Joshua

        Like

      • I have read, written, and presented thesis papers on Genesis and Job. To do this I studied four different bibles. I have read both OT and NT. I have also read and written papers on the Qur’an, read the Bhagavad Gita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, and a few specific tracts of the Talmud. I have had to compare and contrast various religious ideas presented in different ways – myth, allegory, narrative, and witness – so it’s not like I am somehow without knowledge in religious matters based on these scriptures. I have enjoyed reading Jefferson’s Bible and better understand Shakespeare’s heavy use of it throughout his plays.

        When you suggest I must read a book about slavery in biblical times, you assume that all the various religious apologetics and hermeneutics I have also read do not mention it. Many do. Heavily. But the plain fact of the matter is that nowhere does the bible condemn the use of slaves and this is the point – the only point – I raise in regards to you telling me with a flase certainty that you draw moral guidelines from scripture when you, in fact, do the opposite: you apply your morality – common in today’s moral zeitgeist – in place of biblical guidance. Because this fact destroys your moral argument that you get it from god through scripture, you grow ever more annoyed with me for sticking to this important point.

        This raise an important question for your consideration: why will you not face it head on and deal with the discrepancy honestly? Why pretend that because my morality can be shown with mounds of evidence to come from my biology as well as my reasoning, it somehow less worthy than the one you mistakenly assume comes from scripture?

        Like

      • tildeb, Genesis and Job are not books about rules and regulations governing slavery. You know that. So, you still didn’t answer my questions (4th time). Oh well.

        Now here’s some shocking news for you: I have no problem with slavery as regulated in ancient Israel. It had a distinct, practical basis and use at that time, before there were banks and chain stores. Overall, there is still a principle that underlined the entire system: justice and fairness.

        Remember I had asked you if you had a job and went to work and why? The idea was that you’ve probably incurred debt for things (property, food, housing) and you have to pay them off. Now, how would you go about acquiring property, food, housing, and livestock in an era where there were no bank accounts or credit cards? Tell us. (And your methods have to be legal.) Are you seeing anything now? Can you see that selling labor was the only way for people to acquire those things (apart from a generous grant or theft)? Do you recall the details of Jacob’s life? How did he gain his wealth and wives? Maybe you’ll say they could just buy them. Well, where’s the money going to come from? (Fractional reserve banking hadn’t been invented yet, so they couldn’t just make money out of thin air like the US Federal Reserve.)

        And the rules regulating slavery in ancient Israel were very different from slavery in recent times. Your biggest mistake is equating the two. Slaves in ancient Israel had rights, days off, justice/remedies from mistreatment (example: Exodus 21:26, 27), and they were set free after six years of service or the year of Jubilee, whichever came first. They could even become rich (Leviticus 25:47). And Israelites were not to assume that foreigners (non-Israelites) were inferior or could be abused (Leviticus 19:33-34).

        Now, you’ll probably accuse me of being a hypocrite because I can object to slavery as it was practiced in recent times, but not object to slavery in ancient Israel. But honest observers will see that the details put distinctions where there are distinctions. Slaves in recent times were slaves for life, they were not treated fairly or justly in general, they had no rights, they were abused (horrendously sometimes), and they were part of a racist institution which specifically targeted Africans.

        Essentially, the moral code of the Bible is based on justice and fairness. Contrast that with your own morality which is based on biology, the end result of which is arbitrary and suggests that anything which “comes natural” should not be prohibited or condemned. Every action is permissible, as long as we don’t get caught. We should merely follow the dictates of our biology, which could have, in your world view, evolved differently and resulted in a morality that was contrary to your currently held version of it which, interestingly, are only “moral” accidentally.

        The evolutionary process, however, is interested in fitness and survival, not in true belief. The problem with naturalistic evolution is that not only is objective morality undermined; so is rational thought. Our beliefs — moral or epistemic — may help us survive, but we can have no confidence that they are true. So we may believe that we have intrinsic value and moral duties and that our free actions make a difference, and these beliefs could well help us survive as a species; but they may be completely false. If we are blindly hard-wired by nature to accept certain beliefs because of their survival-enhancing value, then we would not have access to the truth-status of these beliefs. They may aid our survival, but how could we know whether they are true or false?

        source: Steward, Robert B. (editor) The future of atheism. p. 153

        Like

      • Josh, I’m not talking about indebted servitude only of male hebrews. You can pretend this is the only kind of substitute ‘slavery’ I’m talking about but it’s not true. I’m talking about slavery, meaning ownership of other human beings as property, as chattel. The biblical god awards humans as property, as booty, all the time. This god condones all kinds of behaviour – not just slavery but pillaging, raping, and murder – that you would find morally reprehensible (I would hope, anyway). And yet you would try to make me believe that this divine anti-social psychopathic tyrant is the source code for your ‘objective’ morality. Oh please. How ironic is it that you then proclaim that my biology is insufficient to stop me from pillaging, raping, and murdering! And yet I don’t. How can you explain this? How is it that my biologically based morality achieves what your divinely inspired morality does not: moral behaviour?

        Funny, that.

        Like

      • Well, I touched on slavery in ancient Israel and slavery in recent times in my previous comment. If you’re unwilling to read carefully, the problem is not mine.

        I’ve already shown your opinions about the Bible are uninformed at best and intentionally ignorant (and self-deceptive) at worst. Not I nor anybody else needs to be taking your uninformed critiques of religion or the Bible seriously. And I won’t.

        Besides, you still didn’t answer my questions for the fifth time.

        Now, I’m not spending anymore precious time responding in this thread to a person who takes every comment for granted and is content with wasting another person’s time by ignoring genuine questions and answers. And on top of that, you seem to enjoy being self-righteous.

        Well, enjoy yourself!

        Joshua

        Like

    • I am going to answer those questions for you: you – like I and all other primates – are moral beings to the core. We are born with capacities: we biologically respond to the suffering of others and this is the building block on which we develop sympathy, compassion, fairness, internalize social rules, share, and negotiate influence and consideration. The evidence from our primate cousins is overwhelming; like we do, they too have the ability and capacity to put oneself in place of the Other and guide our behaviour accordingly.

      It is only by suspending these capacities or interfering with these abilities that we can act contrary to the guidance of our inherited moral compass. In the same way that we can subdue our fight or flight impulses to receive painful medical intervention when we think it is warranted, so too can we subdue our compassion and urge to implement reciprocity with another when we think it is warranted. And one of the ways we do this is by social interaction of our reasons where we test our moral sense (and the various considerations we have applied) against the presented responses of others.

      Appealing to authority is a simplistic and relatively naive way to support some ought, the kind of response we expect from immature thinkers like children who do this all the time; they insist that the rest of us we must act submissively to their chosen authority because: it’s the rule, because mommy told me so, because it’s the Law, because god commands it. These are not moral reasons but an avoidance technique – a passing the buck to someone or something else, so to speak – of taking personal responsibility for moral considerations for the consequences of our our chosen behaviours.

      Like

      • Trying to find the source of our morality without first appreciating just how central it is with our biology is not just blinkered but blind to this reality.

        Like

      • Care has no place in an atheistic materialistic universe, or at the very least, no genuine evolutionary advantage. In fact, love, empathy, mercy — these actions have no place in your universe. In the current one we live in that God created, these actions have real meaning and are considered virtues. However, in your reality, these are merely the results of different choices springing from the pink goo between the ears of a bag of bones and meat. They are no better and no worse than any other, just different. The highest dignity you can raise them to is “suggestions.”

        I see fine. Thank you. In fact, I now understand that no matter how far we look or how close we look both without ourselves and within ourselves, we can see God’s fingerprints.

        Joshua

        Like

      • Care has no place in an atheistic materialistic universe, or at the very least, no genuine evolutionary advantage. In fact, love, empathy, mercy — these actions have no place in your universe.

        From the universe’s point of view, this is true: it does not care. The sun will continue to burn as it undergoes the chemical reactions and physical forces that cause it regardless of what effects this burning may have on the rest of the universe. The planets will continue to orbit, the solar systems spin, the galaxies rotate, the universe expand. Love, as far as I can tell, plays no part in the ongoing passage of time.

        But from the human point of view, we do care. We care very much about these actions you list – actions we express and experience with each other. And there are a multiple number of reasons and explanations for this that do not require some divine overseer to explain it. You make it sound as if this is a dichotomy that cannot coexist. I see no such dichotomy nor any need to make up intervening gods meddling in what we eat or how we dress or by what methods of contact we rub our gonads to be able to care.

        Like

  5. Best reasons… as compared to this kind of religious-based thinking. I submit this to show Hitchen’s point, that people do crazy stuff based on religious belief that an atheist based on good reasons simply could not justify. Wartick seemed to have difficulty with the point the Hitch raised.

    Like

    • Not sure which part of “do not murder” (Exodus 20:13) is hard to understand for you and the pathetic, duped people in the article you linked to. Anyone who has read the Bible would understand it. Furthermore, from my perspective, people don’t need much of an excuse to murder someone, especially these days.

      Of course, I do find it concerning that an atheistic evolutionist would attempt to extol the virtues of their non-violence (which I am totally in agreement with), especially since aggression, anger, and hate are maintained by some evolutionist to be “fitness-enhancing behaviors” that evolved in order to “increases your genes’ chance of survival” and are, as such, “useful” (source: “The Evolution of Human Aggression”).

      However, if I borrowed your logic, I could maintain that homosexuality can cause people to do crazy stuff, like cannibalism, vanity, and evil: Cannibal porn star captured in Berlin looking up stories about himself

      The point is, I have a standard by which I can judge people who claim to be Christians or even followers of Judaism. In contrast, if a homosexual cannibal eats his lover, what can you appeal to in order to say it’s wrong other than appealing to reason? Don’t forget, as you can see in the story, Luka Magnotta’s actions seemed perfectly reasonable to his reason. Wait! I know! Maybe Luka Magnotta can claim to be a Christian, so now we can pin the blame on someone and something other than the guilty person and their evil decisions and actions.

      Sorry, my sarcasm button was stuck…

      God will judge each and every one of us according to our actions by one standard, regardless of who or what we claim to be.

      Joshua

      Like

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