Culture huh?

We want it both ways. We want to believe we are all basically human. That way we can thrill to diversity to our heart’s content. Who cares if ISIS terrorists burn people alive or cut off their victim’s heads with hunting knives. We are all just the same.

C. S. Lewis wrote about the “moral law” in his book Mere Christianity. We have an inbuilt moral compass. What we believe, however, makes a difference. If we choose to believe something evil, we can learn to ignore our conscience. The guilt will still eat at our hearts, but less and less with each sin we commit. That’s why parents, not politicians, must take responsibility for the instruction of their children. Parents must do their best to ensure that their children form a properly developed conscience.

The Lions Den

In one of the most illuminating and bizarre exchanges recently online, the following observation was made by a man to defend the insane and absurd notion that ‘there is no God.’

Image result for culture club

‘Culture creates conscience.’ Worth repeating: ‘Culture creates conscience.’ Let this idea sink into your being, and muse upon the filthy implications.

If an Eskimo stole a seal, and was asked by a fellow iglooian: ‘Did you steal my seal?’ and he said ‘no,’ he knows darn well he is lying, and he will be troubled by his conscience; no need to be chastised by a polar bear, he knows he done did wrong, as culture is ancillary to the crime.

If an Asian customer in a Japanese McDonald’s stole a muffin, he does not need to be reminded by the manager that he done did wrong. His conscience will accuse him, as culture is ancillary to the crime.

If…

View original post 451 more words

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Culture huh?

  1. I hope CT your discussion proves fruitful in some fields. I confess I do not have the patience of Job, and maybe even he would have ‘passed the baton.’ 😉

    Tkx for the great comments there and reblog.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for the link to ColorStorm’s great post! On a side note during a “friendly” internet discussion on the evils of moral busybodiness I quoted C.S. Lewis’s infamous line on that. I was then told that Mr. Lewis wrote nice children’s stories but intellectually was a nincompoop. There was no where else to go from there…;)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. 😆

      Jesus said that some people are hopeless causes (Matthew 7:6).

      I admire C. S. Lewis’ writings. They contain many pearls of wisdom. Nevertheless, we will only accept such wisdom when we have become willing that our Lord should prepare us to receive it.

      So it is that some dogs and swine repented and have become Christians.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. archaeopteryx1

    I have no intention of regularly commenting here, but Neil Carter just published a blog post that sums up nicely what I was saying on this same thread at Colorstorm’s site, that religion was primarily guilt-based: So Long Self: How Christianity Teaches You to Hate Yourself

    Knowing that CS would never allow it to be published on his site, I’m placing it here for your consideration. Personally, I don’t care if you publish it or not, it’s only here for you to read if you like, or not, as you choose – it’s just that Neil has very well stated what I was trying to say, but has the advantage of having the space and the autonomy to do so more completely and more elaborately.

    Like

    1. I am not familiar with the music. When I was young, I discovered I had relatively interest in music. I found lyrics repetitious. Love me, love me, love me said a thousand different ways and largely referring to sex, not love. The music itself was sometimes decent, but I learned to prefer books. And what passes for music has only gotten worse since the 60’s.

      I did not become a Christian until I was in my fifties. Never acquired the habit of listening to Christian music. I suppose the angels in heaven’s choirs will either find me a huge disappointment or a welcome challenge.

      Anyway, I looked the link. I have no idea what those lyrics have to do with the Bible. Do you have any idea what Bible passage they refer to? Apparently, the author of that little piece of derision does not know either.

      What Bible teaches us is that the natural man is a slave to sin. You don’t think you are a sinner? I cannot make you believe you are. That’s a realization you have to arrive at on your own. Once you do, perhaps you will understand why we need our Lord’s help to conquer our propensity to sin.

      The Bible teaches us humility. Humility does not require us to give up our identity. God wants us to obey Him because we love him. He expects us to love him more than we love our self because He loves us so much. What has that got do with hating ourselves or destroying our self? Nothing. It just requires us to worship our Creator instead of our self. God is worthy of such love.

      Like

    2. @archaeopteryx1

      I don’t exist just so you can make fun of me. If you are going to post nonsense just to be insulting, I won’t put up with it. No reason to do so. Hence, your silly excuse for a joke is gone.

      Like

      1. archaeopteryx1

        Are you really so divorced from reality, that you can’t see that I’ve not posted a joke of any kind? I feel sorry for you. You needn’t worry about me posting here again.

        Like

        1. archaeopteryx1

          But if you wish to call the truth, straight from your Bible, a joke, your option, though not a very funny one.

          Like

        2. @archaeopteryx1

          I don’t want folks making a mistake as to why you stopped posting here.

          The song was not pertinent to the discussion. Then the picture was not pertinent. What you are trying to do is win an argument using ridicule.

          The Bible is clear as to the nature of sin. The Bible is clear as to why people go to Hell. What Bible is not especially clear about is exactly what Hell might be. Is it a place? I don’t know. I do know that Hell is a place that God as reserved for people whom have chosen to separate themselves from Him.

          You don’t think Hell is necessary? Using such logic, prison is not necessary either. When people commit vile, abominable acts, we should reward them, right?

          When Harry robs and kills Joe, why punish Harry? Why hurt his feeling? Just let Harry keep what he stole and tell him not to do it again. Problem solved.

          Like

        3. archaeopteryx1

          The song was not pertinent to the discussion.

          What song? I posted no song, I posted a link to a Neil Carter post, and a meme – no song. Please do not falsely accuse me, that’s Colorstorm’s job.

          Like

        4. @archaeopteryx1

          You posted link, and you did not read it?

          Sigh.

          I have other things to do. If you cannot regulate yourself, I have not got the time to do it for you.

          Like

        5. archaeopteryx1

          Of course I read it. If there was a song somewhere on that post that offended you, take it up with Neil Carter.

          Like

        6. archaeopteryx1

          What should I have said, CT? ‘Read this post, but don’t listen to the song, as it might offend you!‘ Just because I read it, doesn’t mean I bothered to listen to the song – seems to me, you had the same option.

          Like

        7. archaeopteryx1

          Using such logic, prison is not necessary either.

          Fallacious reasoning – one purpose of prison is to remove the offender from society so he cannot perpetrate a similar crime against other members – your Bible’s hell only receives it’s ‘guests’ after they have already been removed from society.

          Like

        8. @archaeopteryx1

          Revenge? Not so. Think of eternity. Think of spending eternity with someone who won’t behave.

          If someone does not love God, they won’t like it in Heaven. They will be unhappy, and they will just try to make everyone else unhappy.

          So what is the problem? If someone does not love God, there is no way they can be happy. That was the problem Satan encountered.

          Like

        9. archaeopteryx1

          Surely you jest – Satan was a helper, a minion, until the Babylonian Captivity, when the Jews learned of Zoroastrianism with it’s Angra Mainyou (evil god), and suddenly Satan began to take on an entirely new character – literary constructs can do that, you know.

          Like

        10. @archaeopteryx1

          You are going off topic again.

          It is an old trick. Can’t win the argument? Change the topic. Can’t win on the new topic? Change the topic again.

          Sorry, but I have no intention of making it that easy for you.

          1. I answered your question about the necessity of Hell? What is wrong with that answer?
          2. Contrary to your assertion, I pointed out that God does not require us to give up our identity. He requires to love Him. He is our Father, not a dictatorial monster. What is wrong with that answer?
          3. Here (https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/culture-huh/#comment-11865) I answered your question about why parents need to take charge of helping their children form a well developed conscience. What is wrong with that answer?

          Why must you jump from topic to topic?

          I wonder if you know what you believe arch. I wonder how often you sit still long enough to give the matter any serious thought?

          Frighten of Hell? Wrong concern. You might want to give more thought to Jesus. Contemplate the Book of John and what He did for us. If you need a more detailed explanation of how Jesus redeemed us, the Book of Romans provides one.

          Like

        11. archaeopteryx1

          I answered your question about the necessity of Hell? What is wrong with that answer?

          The fact that Hell didn’t exist in the Hebrew Bible until after the Babylonian Captivity and the Jews’ introduction to Zoroastrianism.

          He requires to love Him. What is wrong with that answer?

          I’ve yet to see anywhere in the Hebrew Bible where your god presents himself as the least bit lovable.

          I answered your question about why parents need to take charge of helping their children form a well developed conscience. What is wrong with that answer?

          You mean indoctrinate the children according to the particular brand of religion with which they, themselves have been indoctrinated.

          Frighten of Hell? Wrong concern.

          No more so than of any other fictional literary construct, such as Frankenstein’s monster or Stoker’s Dracula.

          Contemplate the Book of John and what He did for us. If you need a more detailed explanation of how Jesus redeemed us, the Book of Romans provides one.

          Both works written by men who never met the man – yeah, I should glean a lot from their speculations.

          Like

        12. @archaeopteryx1

          Just a flat assertion that “Hell didn’t exist in the Hebrew Bible until after the Babylonian Captivity,” and that makes it a true.
          🙄
          You are aware that Zoroaster started his religion in the 6th century BC.

          Anyway, I am not going there. You are trying find a rationale for changing the subject again. Satan is just a fallen angel, not the opposite of God. So this is nonsense.

          You said Hell is just about revenge. That argument obviously does not work. So now Hell is just a made up, stolen from another religion. Yet you have to make up stuff to “prove” that assertion.

          I’ve yet to see anywhere in the Hebrew Bible where your god presents himself as the least bit lovable.

          What your answer implies is that you like the God of the New Testament. Since the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament, you apparently have not studied the Bible enough to discern that much.

          You mean indoctrinate the children according to the particular brand of religion with which they, themselves have been indoctrinated.

          Here you are just trying to put words in my mouth. I said what I meant to say.

          You say the Book of John and the Book of Romans were written by men who never met Jesus. That’s another statement you cannot prove.

          What is the point of trying to add more and more issues to argue about until we don’t even know what we are talking about? Why bother with such a transparent smoke screen?

          Like

        13. archaeopteryx1

          You are aware that Zoroaster started his religion in the 6th century BC.

          And the Babylonian Captivity occurred when?

          What your answer implies is that you like the God of the New Testament.

          No, it doesn’t.

          You say the Book of John and the Book of Romans were written by men who never met Jesus. That’s another statement you cannot prove.

          Paul made it clear that he never met the man, so no need to prove anything there. As for the anonymous writer that in the 2nd or 3rd century was named ‘John’ – how old would a man, writing in 100 AD, have to have been when he met Yeshua?

          What is the point of trying to add more and more issues to argue about until we don’t even know what we are talking about?

          You’re the one who lay down those issues, I simply responded to them.

          Like

        14. I suppose the only thing to do is show you how little you know about this subject.

          Here are some links on when the books of the Bible were written and an article on the difference between Sheol and Hell. What does Zoroaster have to do with the Bible. Nothing.

          http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/when-were-the-bible-books-written

          https://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it

          http://www.gotquestions.org/sheol-hades-hell.html

          These article deals with the age of the apostles when Jesus began preaching.

          http://bibleq.net/answer/4801/

          This article focuses on John and whether he authored the books he authored.
          http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=228

          Did Paul meet Jesus before Jesus died?
          Maybe.
          http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-and-Paul.html

          Now would you like to get back to the subject.

          Like

        15. archaeopteryx1

          Five of the first six entries of both of your sources concerning when the Bible was written, are seriously in error, and tell me that the author/s of ‘Grace to you’ have no idea what they’re talking about. Clearly they live in a much a bubble of ignorance as you and Colorstorm.

          Genesis–1445-1405 B.C.
          Exodus –1445-1405 B.C.
          Leviticus –1445-1405 B.C.
          Numbers–1445-1405 B.C.
          Deuteronomy–1445-1405 B.C.

          Biblical scholars, since the 1600’s when the Church finally allowed the Bible to be printed in languages other than Latin, have questioned Mose’s authorship of the Torah. Critical research in this area has grown and evolved to the present day, when the Wellhausen Hypothesis has been widely accepted by biblical scholars everywhere, including the Catholic Church, which expounds on it extensively in ‘The New American Bible.

          A group of priests, known to biblical scholsrs as the “Yahwist (J) Source,” writing in Jerusalem, in the Southern Kingdom of Judea, wrote parts of Genesis and Exodus (including Gen 2) around 950 BCE. A second group of priests, now known as the “Elohist (E) Source),” wrote their own versions of various parts of Genesis and Exodus, in about 850 BCE, in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, but fearing the oncoming Assyrian conquest, brought their scrolls south to better-fortified Jerusalem, where they were combined with the J Source material around 750 BCE, by a redactor, who left in such repetitions as the two, contradicting flood stories. Around 800 BCE, either King Josiah or his pet Merlin Jeremiah, wrote Deuteronomy, the “Deuteronimic (D) Source,” whose regulations almost perfectly coincided with the reforms that Josiah was trying to institute. Lastly, the “Priestly (P) Source,” a group of priests in captivity in Babylon, wrote Gen 1, intending that it replace Gen 2 entirely. The P Source wrote other parts of Genesis, much of Exodus, and all of Leviticus and Numbers, during the 500’s BCE. All of this was combined, much like a patchwork quilt, by a Redactor around 400 BCE.

          Your link on hell simply proves my point, that hell is never mentioned in the Bible until after the Babylonian Captivity.

          Despite your link, there is no evidence as to how old the disciples were. As for John writing Revelation, A John may have written Revelation, but there is no evidence that it was John, the son of Zebedee – in fact, the author of the Gospel of John wrote anonymously. According to some modern scholars, the apostle John was not the author of any of these books. [Lincoln, “The Gospel According to Saint John” (2005), p.18.] Bart Ehrman also wrote extensively on this subject in his book, “The New Testament: a historical introduction to the early Christian writings.”

          From your article as to whether or not Paul met Yeshua: “we lack any direct evidence.”

          Like

        16. The Christian Church established universities. Good idea, I suppose, but there is a problem with everything.

          Publish or perish!

          Academics put out some of the silliest nonsense. I have read some of Bart Ehrman’s stuff and blogged about it, for example.

          I have neither the time nor the interest in trying investigate all your claims. What some scholars do is date the Bible based upon the proposition that it cannot be true. To directly refute them, I would have to prove the prophecies in the Bible predate the events predicted.

          I cannot prove how old the Bible using archeological techniques. That is not why people believe the Bible, anyway. People believe the Bible because what it teaches works and because what we do know for certain about our day makes no sense unless the Bible is true.

          Look at the history of Israel and the Jews. Look at the affect Jesus had on civilization. Look at how becoming Christians changed the people of Europe and America. You want to say it does not matter? Well, I use to believe that.

          Like

        17. archaeopteryx1

          You could benefit from this series by Yale professor, Dr. Christine Hayes, “Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)“:

          Like

        18. That’s funny! Less than three minutes into the first video, and it is already obvious the lady has an axe to grind. The slam starts at about 1 minute and twenty seconds into the video. “And scholars have come to the realization that despite the Bible’s pretensions to the contrary, the Israelites were a small…..”

          Contrary to what you might think I enjoy studying different points-of-view. If they are are interesting, I suppose it be worthwhile to listen one video a week. I just don’t take scholars too seriously anymore. Despite the pretensions of some, we don’t know very much.

          Like

        19. archaeopteryx1

          Interesting you chose to eradicate the link – obviously you’re protecting your viewers from any points of view other than your own – how Colorstorm of you.

          Like

        20. I have a daughter who attended Yale. If I did not “protect” her from the influence of that university, I am certainly not going to protect my readers.

          I think you are having a problem with your browser. Try pasting the link into it.

          Like

        21. archaeopteryx1

          OK – it didn’t appear in my email notification, but I can see that it is still on your blog – sorry for equating you with Colorstom, no one deserves that!

          Like

        22. There we have a huge difference of opinion. I think well of ColorStorm. I am honored that you think of him when you think of me.

          One of the problems most of us have is that we are too often more concerned about being heard than hearing. At least, I know I struggle to listen more than I speak.

          Profitable debate requires mutual respect. Consider the presidential debates. Why do we usually see little serious discussion of the issues? Don’t most of the candidates see each other as enemies? Therefore, instead of discussing the issues, too many of the candidates strive to assassinate the character of their opponents.

          If we go to someone’s website, we should go there in the hope of finding out what that person thinks. If they are willing to debate, then so much the better. We each get to understand more about the other.

          Fortunately, blogging provides a structure conducive to debate. To comment intelligently on posts we have to shut our mouths and read. Moreover, comments are generally short and to the point. Otherwise, few read them.

          Nevertheless, we can abuse anything. Plastering another person’s website with comments that are not related to their posts is easy. We can quickly cut and paste gobs of material. Deliberate ridicule is also easy. It only takes a few words, and the entertainment industry provides numerous examples. However, although such behavior may work on TV sitcoms, it is not a good idea to copy what we see on TV. Clowns may be funny to watch, but we only make fools of ourselves when we imitate them.

          Like

  4. I just sighed when I read that ‘Christianity teaches you how to hate yourself.’ Meanwhile back at the ranch we read: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself……………’ Yep, always more to the rrrrrest of the story.

    Good for you CT to at least carry on the attempt at reason, and at least arch popped over to say hi. My observation still stands that you have more patience than I. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.