Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Naz_st wrote: »
    You could have a legitimate argument about any one of your assumptions. Why would I bother "accepting" so many obviously unsupported assumptions so that we can argue about how your assumptions lead or not to your conclusions on the morality and authority of God when it so much easier to stop at the first assumption and be done with it. No God, no biblical authority, morals are formed naturally in a human society, no God and moral authority dilemmas.
    Much easier.

    Moral relativism fails at the first hurdle. It's all well and good until you hit the stumbling block of something that you must condemn.

    Strict moral relativism has to fail. We all appeal to an universal morality whether we like it or not. When it comes to Stalin, Hoxha, Hitler and so on, the first instinct is to condemn. Why? Due to the fact that we know that it is universally unacceptable to do so.

    Why do we appeal to each other "you should know better"? Aren't we expecting the other person to hold a common morality?

    I know no human being who when they are wronged say "Ah well, different strokes for different folks". It doesn't work in practice and it fails immediately.

    If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.

    1. There exists a Moral Law.
    2. Every law has a law giver.
    3. Therefore there is a Moral Law giver.

    Even if we object to be subordinate, if we appeal to universal morality we are subordinate to the Moral Law, and the Moral Law giver.

    As for God and suffering, and so on, feel free to start another thread in the Christianity forum. That's a separate question, it involves the Philosophy of Religion moreso than this one.


  • Options
    #213
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I don't see the point in discussing this, no matter how well i argue my point you will twist everything i say in a bid to try and justify your own logic. I think theres been enough talk of god being lousy(not to mention sullying the reputation of the noble bear) on this thread already.

    Why is it the theist who the atheist claims is "twisting" anything?

    You're trying everything you can to justify your disbelief, and fair enough. I'm contending that there is a God who has created the world, and has a unique purpose for your life, and most importantly that loves you and has left the door ready for you to seek forgiveness.
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I accept there may have been a jesus, but i doubt he was anything but a man. I don't think the Qu'ran or the teachings of the mormon church are fact either, does that make me dogmatic too. Oh wait,they're not the right religion,my mistake.

    Well the general consensus is that there was a Jesus who was crucified on the site of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. There are secular historical accounts of Y'shua (God is Salvation) ben Nazerat's existence, I don't see any reason to dismiss it.

    I find the Qur'an an interesting text and there is a level of truth to it. As for the Book of Mormon, I have yet to read it.

    The multiverse of religions argument isn't really one that is effective for me. There is only one that can be the truth, and Christianity has rung true in my life. Convincingly so.
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    In a way i agree with you, if there is some sort of supreme being it's undoubtedly not comparable to humans, which is why i think the god of the bible is so implausible. A supreme being would not be jealous for a start. This is a human trait, even a trait of animals, not a trait befitting a god, even humans can overcome jealousy.

    Who on earth are you to decide what is befitting for a God? You are a mere man. God isn't who we want Him to be but rather who He has shown Himself to be. Also, who gave humans their traits I wonder? Perhaps God due to the fact that we are meant to be in His likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). We share a spirit nature with God in most Christian and Jewish views of that passage.


  • Options
    #214
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.

    1. There exists a Moral Law.
    2. Every law has a law giver.
    3. Therefore their is a Moral Law giver.

    Even if we object to be subordinate, if we appeal to universal morality we are subordinate to the Moral Law, and the Moral Law giver.
    You're dead right, there is a moral law giver.

    It's called pain.


  • Options
    #215
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.

    1. There exists a Moral Law.
    2. Every law has a law giver.
    3. Therefore their is a Moral Law giver.

    You seem to have confused the word 'logic' with 'wishful thinking'.


  • Options
    #216
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH wrote: »
    You seem to have confused the word 'logic' with 'wishful thinking'.

    Is it really wishful thinking that moral relativism is a poor way of dealing with moral questions? If so why so?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    It's only a poor way of dealing with moral questions if you believe there's an absolute answer. It's a catch-22, you either believe in an absolute morality, and it's a poor way of dealing with the question, or don't, and thus there is no absolute answer.


  • Options
    #218
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,190 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why is it the theist who the atheist claims is "twisting" anything?

    You're trying everything you can to justify your disbelief, and fair enough. I'm contending that there is a God who has created the world, and has a unique purpose for your life, and most importantly that loves you and has left the door ready for you to seek forgiveness.

    I decide my own purpose thanks.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Well the general consensus is that there was a Jesus who was crucified on the site of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. There are secular historical accounts of Y'shua (God is Salvation) ben Nazerat's existence, I don't see any reason to dismiss it.

    I find the Qur'an an interesting text and there is a level of truth to it. As for the Book of Mormon, I have yet to read it.

    The multiverse of religions argument isn't really one that is effective for me. There is only one that can be the truth, and Christianity has rung true in my life. Convincingly so.

    I havent read the book of mormon either but i have read up on some of their beliefs, its a hoot :)

    Thinking people in the bible existed is fair enough, but any of the supernatural stuff...well thats just silly. I trust you're not a new world creationist? I'm sure jesus was a very influential and charismatic guy, but he sure as hell didnt walk on water.

    Thats fair enough if christianity rings true for you, more power to ya.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who on earth are you to decide what is befitting for a God? You are a mere man. God isn't who we want Him to be but rather who He has shown Himself to be. Also, who gave humans their traits I wonder? Perhaps God due to the fact that we are meant to be in His likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). We share a spirit nature with God in most Christian and Jewish views of that passage.

    but before you said he couldn't be comparable to humans. :rolleyes:

    Nobody gave us our traits, we are what we are. You'll never understand that and i cant make you understand that. Things just are. There doesnt have to be a reason for everything.


  • Options
    #219
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Moral relativism fails at the first hurdle. It's all well and good until you hit the stumbling block of something that you must condemn.

    Strict moral relativism has to fail. We all appeal to an universal morality whether we like it or not. When it comes to Stalin, Hoxha, Hitler and so on, the first instinct is to condemn. Why? Due to the fact that we know that it is universally unacceptable to do so.

    Why do we appeal to each other "you should know better"? Aren't we expecting the other person to hold a common morality?

    I know no human being who when they are wronged say "Ah well, different strokes for different folks". It doesn't work in practice and it fails immediately.

    If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.

    1. There exists a Moral Law.
    2. Every law has a law giver.
    3. Therefore their is a Moral Law giver.

    Even if we object to be subordinate, if we appeal to universal morality we are subordinate to the Moral Law, and the Moral Law giver.

    As for God and suffering, and so on, feel free to start another thread in the Christianity forum. That's a separate question, it involves the Philosophy of Religion moreso than this one.

    Actually, none of what you just said makes sense.

    1) We don't all appeal to a universal moral authority. I mean it's patently obvious that we don't. We currently have multiple cultures & religions with their own views on what is right and wrong. You can't even show that all Christians conform to the same moral authority. That's not to mention the multiple beliefs throughout history (human sacrifice?). We share a common moral framework within the society of which we are a part. It's a moral framework that is based on innate values and which has evolved over time. We've had the civil rights movement, free speech and democracy. We're slowly getting rid of tyrannical monarchies and despotism and tribalism. We've had the emancipation of Women, after thousands of years of religious oppression. Our moral framework has grown and evolved over time despite the teachings of a 2000 year old book holding us back.

    2) It's "universally unacceptable" because our morals aren't linked to a holy book and are an innate trait of an intelligent societally structured animal. Morality is a necessary condition for a society to exist. It is a pre-cursor of society, not the other way around. Genocide was morally acceptable in parts of the bible where "right" was on "God's" side. Now it's not, as you rightly point out. We no longer think it's acceptable to execute the entire male population of a people, and their sons and their married women as was done to the Midianites (Numbers 31). Nor is it right to execute the entire civilian population of a city as happened to the Amalekites (Samuel 15)

    3) The 1-2-3 argument you propose is nonsense, and sounds like you took it directly from that most rational of fundamental creationists Ray Comfort, which he used in an ABC debate where he and Kirk Cameron were destroyed by their rationalist opponents. It was nonsense when he said it, it's still nonsense.

    In fact, the biggest problems occur when religion's version of what's right and wrong is in conflict with our innate knowledge of what's right and wrong. It's wrong to kill someone, unless God sanctions it (worked on the Sabbath, wasn't a virgin female before marriage etc), then it's righteous. Suicide is wrong, unless you are in a holy war and you take a bunch of infidels with you. Stephen Weinberg had it right on this score:
    "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

    That's it from me - it takes up too much time and effort to no real purpose refuting your fallacious reasoning.


  • Options
    #220
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Naz_st wrote: »
    It's wrong to kill someone, unless God sanctions it (worked on the Sabbath, wasn't a virgin female before marriage etc), then it's righteous.

    Even if God doesn't sanction it, sometimes it's still righteous. Say you came across one of your own people (a slave) being beaten by an Egyptian, then it's fine to kill the Egyptian there and then, bury him in a shallow grave, and when your acts become known flee the jurisdiction until the heat dies down.

    Now obviously the Egyptians didn't have a fine moral and legal guide like the Torah to specify exactly how much slaves can be beaten, but it seems that there's a huge gap between 'no punishment' for beating a slave and summary execution, it almost seems that even God's chosen people have rules for themselves and different rules for others.


  • Options
    #221
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.
    Who do you mean "we"?

    Clearly there is no universal moral law. Every culture has different ideas of what is moral. Even within the various branches Christianity there is disagreement. What every culture shares is an acknowledgment that certain acts cannot be permitted if society is to not develop into anarchy, for example: murder and theft. Even there the situation is not black and white - abortion and/or the death penalty are legalised murder in many people's eyes.

    The idea that there exists a 'universal moral law' is frankly ludicrous. And, imo, even more so when it is suggested that it comes from the Bible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Naz_st wrote: »
    1) We don't all appeal to a universal moral authority. I mean it's patently obvious that we don't. We currently have multiple cultures & religions with their own views on what is right and wrong. You can't even show that all Christians conform to the same moral authority. That's not to mention the multiple beliefs throughout history (human sacrifice?). We share a common moral framework within the society of which we are a part. It's a moral framework that is based on innate values and which has evolved over time. We've had the civil rights movement, free speech and democracy. We're slowly getting rid of tyrannical monarchies and despotism and tribalism. We've had the emancipation of Women, after thousands of years of religious oppression. Our moral framework has grown and evolved over time despite the teachings of a 2000 year old book holding us back.

    I'd say that there is a large affinity between what has been prescribed for us in the Bible and how people who have never heard it carry out their lives. Even Paul regarded this as possible in Romans ch 2.
    Romans 2:13-14 (ESV) wrote:
    For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
    For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

    I think there has been a sense within us constantly to seek what is right and wrong in our lives. Sometimes we can be mistaken, and sometimes we can find moral truth.

    Sorry. You don't have a case on "Christian mistreatment" of women.
    Galatians 3:28 (ESV) wrote:
    See There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus

    Jesus also reached out to many women in the Gospels, just actually take a read of it and let your barriers down. Actually try and be open to it and you will find some truth in it.

    You have yet to explain why we don't fall back to an ultimate morality, in cases of genocide, and you have yet to explain why we appeal to others to "know better" if there isn't a common source of morality.

    Just to explain my source on this, this is a commonly argued point by C.S Lewis in the start of Mere Christianity. If you want a fuller view of his reasoning, I would suggest you go out and buy the book or take it out from the library.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    2) It's "universally unacceptable" because our morals aren't linked to a holy book and are an innate trait of an intelligent societally structured animal. Morality is a necessary condition for a society to exist. It is a pre-cursor of society, not the other way around. Genocide was morally acceptable in parts of the bible where "right" was on "God's" side. Now it's not, as you rightly point out. We no longer think it's acceptable to execute the entire male population of a people, and their sons and their married women as was done to the Midianites (Numbers 31). Nor is it right to execute the entire civilian population of a city as happened to the Amalekites (Samuel 15)

    Firstly, you criticise theists for making claims about their faith, yet you do the same about your atheism at the start of your post:

    "Our morals are not linked to a holy book" - Tell me why!

    Ever wonder why we have that innate sense of morality, or how possibly we received it?

    Also your innate sense of morality argument does fall short, in looking at people who evidently are deceived into thinking that immoral acts such as murders are acceptable. Hence why I suggest that universal morality can be rejected, and people can fall short from it.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    3) The 1-2-3 argument you propose is nonsense, and sounds like you took it directly from that most rational of fundamental creationists Ray Comfort, which he used in an ABC debate where he and Kirk Cameron were destroyed by their rationalist opponents. It was nonsense when he said it, it's still nonsense.

    It's called a syllogism, and has been used in logic since Aristotles time. The definition of a syllogism:
    "deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises "
    Therefore a 1, 2, 3 argument was used since pretty much the beginnings of philosophy. I guess Aristotle must have been a creationist too? :D

    Naz_st wrote: »
    In fact, the biggest problems occur when religion's version of what's right and wrong is in conflict with our innate knowledge of what's right and wrong. It's wrong to kill someone, unless God sanctions it (worked on the Sabbath, wasn't a virgin female before marriage etc), then it's righteous. Suicide is wrong, unless you are in a holy war and you take a bunch of infidels with you. Stephen Weinberg had it right on this score:
    "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

    Biggest problem: When people put themselves in the place of God.

    You have yet to learn how Christians view Torah. Punishing people for falling short of God's standard isn't what Christians are meant to do because we are under grace not under the law. Christ has taken on the punishment of our sins, then how on earth could we punish others by death for theirs. Yes we are all deserving of death for our sins, but we have been forgiven.

    Naz_st wrote: »
    That's it from me - it takes up too much time and effort to no real purpose refuting your fallacious reasoning.

    You could just tell me the real reason, instead of putting up a front.

    However, if you aren't going to respond, which would be a shame, I'd like to thank you for a good discussion. I merely disagree with your views, not anything else :)


  • Options
    #223
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    In the interest of brevity I'm going to try to keep this short.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd say that there is a large affinity between what has been prescribed for us in the Bible and how people who have never heard it carry out their lives.
    I'd say you're wrong. As demonstrated repeatedly in previous posts. This is part of the reason why I'm tired of answering you, you're just repeating the same old mantra.
    Sorry. You don't have a case on "Christian mistreatment" of women.
    I don't huh? First off, I didn't say "mistreatment" did I? Second, I didn't say "Christian". Please quote what I actually say next time. I said "religious oppression". And it's a whole other debate, and though I would argue that the catholic religion has been a cornerstone in the male-dominated nature of the society in which we live, if I had to nominate a single example out of the multitudes I could, it would have to be Sharia Law. I'd love to hear your reasoning on how Sharia Law is not oppressive to women.
    You have yet to explain why we don't fall back to an ultimate morality, in cases of genocide, and you have yet to explain why we appeal to others to "know better" if there isn't a common source of morality.

    Eh, what? Are you telling me you need a 2000 year old book to tell you that genocide is wrong?
    "Our morals are not linked to a holy book" - Tell me why!
    I did.
    It's called a syllogism, and has been used in logic since Aristotles time. The definition of a syllogism:
    "deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises "
    Therefore a 1, 2, 3 argument was used since pretty much the beginnings of philosophy. I guess Aristotle must have been a creationist too? :D

    Are you serious? Ok, let me try one in the same vain:
    1. There exists pink unicorn hunters
    2. Hunters have to hunt something
    3. Therefore there exists pink unicorns

    Wow, I'd never have believed it, but it must be true since I've just proved it!

    The abstract form of a syllogism is (for example):
    Major premise: All M are P.
    Minor premise: All S are M.
    Conclusion: All S are P.

    E.g.
    All animals are mortal.
    All men are animals.
    All men are mortal.

    You're taking as your first premise something we disagree on, that I've contended is demonstrably false, and then using it to "prove" something else we disagree on. :confused:
    You could just tell me the real reason, instead of putting up a front.

    The real reason is that it takes time to post here, and I'm busy, and that it's to no avail in the face of your circular dogma.


  • Options
    #224
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think that God wants people to violate His law, however when they do it can often turn out for good as is written in Romans 8:28.

    So what, is it not a law anymore, more of a guideline? And if it "often" can turn out for good, how do you know when to go against his law?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed, NRSV does use the word seizes. I have yet to see the significance though to your argument.

    Are you purposefully being dim? The verse says "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her,". You see how it says "and seizes her and lies with her"? If the passage just concerned otself with a man sleeping with an unmarried woman why would it use the word "siezes" (or takes or lays hold on") if it didn't mean that the man was forcefully sleeping with the woman? Why the ambiguity?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for the NIV, didn't you say that 21 out of the 22 translations use the word "seize", or "take". Yet because one says "rapes", you accept it blindly. I don't think that's good research somehow.

    I don't accept it blindly. I accept because 21 out of 22 other translations use words which imply the sexual act was forced on the woman by the man. It is you, with one translation out of 23 (a translation not based on what the word taphas actually means, read your link again) that is accepting anything blindly.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    We've already gone through what the Hebrew word is, and if most English modern day translations render it as "seizes" or "takes", I think one would deem that most reasonable. Actually it should cause you to question why does the NIV use the word "rapes" rather than the other common translations.

    So if a man in court on rape allegations claimed he didn't rape his victim, he just seized her (or "took her" or "lay hold on her") and slept with them, would you honestly see a distinction? You dont see the implication of force involved?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Exodus 22 says that when a man seduces a young virgin and has sexual relations, he shall give the bride price to her father and they shall be married if the father approves, but if the father does not approve he will keep the money.

    Deuteronomy 22 says on the same issue, that the man who has relations with the virgin, shall pay the bride price of 50 shekels, to the father and they shall become married.

    There are two differences:
    1) The bride price in Deuteronomy 22 is 50 shekels, in Exodus 22 it merely mentions the bride price. Logically could one assume after reading it that the bride price in Exodus 22 could well have been 50 shekels?

    2) The fathers consent isn't included in Deuteronomy 22. Exodus 22 provides extra information in this regard. I'm starting to see why the Jewish Rabbinate saw that it was necessary to include the other Torah writers when they were compiling it.

    If they are simply two complementing passages, why have both? Why have price laid out in one passage, and an extra stipulation in another? Why not combine them into one passage, with all the information in one place? Maybe its because the Jewish Rabbinate knew they where two different scenarios.


  • Options
    #225
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.

    1. There exists a Moral Law.
    2. Every law has a law giver.
    3. Therefore there is a Moral Law giver.
    Leaving aside the considerable assumptions in your post and assuming for a moment that the christian deity exists and has provided a universal moral code, why do you believe that people have such a tough time answering even the simplest of moral questions -- is it ok to have state-sponsored murder?

    Of the small sample who've replied to a recent poll in the christianity forum, over 20% think that it's ok with the deity.

    If people can't agree on what guidance the deity has provided on such an overwhelmingly simple issue, what chance is there of agreeing on anything more complicated?


  • Options
    #226
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who on earth are you to decide what is befitting for a God?

    Who on earth are you to decide what is befitting for a god? Who on earth are the men who the bible, any bible, for that matter?
    Religion is such an odd mixture of inferiority and superiority complexes. You think that there is no way that the universe could come into being by itself, that stars, planets and other heavenly bodies can form under natural conditions, that life can start all by itself and evolve simply because the conditions are right. It has to involve a god, you just couldn't even consider a situation where god didn't have a hand in everything because people are nothing, planets are nothing, the universe is nothing without god. And yet, despite how powerful you think god is, despite the fact to an all powerful god, all things are equal and equally meaningless, you think you are important to him.
    Bizarre


  • Options
    #227
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Leaving aside the considerable assumptions in your post and assuming for a moment that the christian deity exists and has provided a universal moral code, why do you believe that people have such a tough time answering even the simplest of moral questions -- is it ok to have state-sponsored murder?

    Of the small sample who've replied to a recent poll in the christianity forum, over 20% think that it's ok with the deity.

    If people can't agree on what guidance the deity has provided on such an overwhelmingly simple issue, what chance is there of agreeing on anything more complicated?

    You disingenuous, dishonest, manipulative God-hating ass! Moderator?? I don't think you know the meaning of moderate!


  • Options
    #228
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    Of the small sample who've replied to a recent poll in the christianity forum, over 20% think that it's ok with the deity.

    I'm a part of the 70% who opposed it, but I don't consider the death penalty to be against God's law, but rather on the understanding of mercy through Jesus Christ, I think we should be a second chance people.

    So, I don't consider the death penalty immoral as such, but I see it preferable to show mercy, if one has received mercy.

    I'll deal with some of the other points later.


  • Options
    #229
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jakass you even said yourself (if I'm not mistaken) that slavery was okay "at the time" (of the Israelites etc.), but that it is not anymore. How does that fit in with your idea of a universal moral absolute? Is it a fluctuating absolute...?


  • Options
    #230
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    JimiTime, leaving aside that you were addressing a mod - consider yourself 'carded for insulting talk.


  • Options
    #231
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Dave! wrote: »
    Jakass you even said yourself (if I'm not mistaken) that slavery was okay "at the time" (of the Israelites etc.), but that it is not anymore. How does that fit in with your idea of a universal moral absolute? Is it a fluctuating absolute...?

    An absolute morality is compatible with sanctioning different actions in different conditions.

    For example, if I was living in London during the blitz and I saw my neighbour had their windows lit up during the blackout, then I would see it as morally permissible to forcibly enter their house and to close their curtains to prevent the entire street becoming a target for Nazi bombs. However, such actions would be immoral if I entered my neighbour's house in peace time and forced them to close their curtains.

    Similarly, the kind of indentured servanthood as practiced among the Israelites (and in the early days of European settlement in North America) was, IMHO, morally acceptable. Indeed, for many Scots-Irish immigrants it represented the only legitimate way for them to escape grinding poverty and religious persecution at home. However, now that there are more opportunities and welfare available to most immigrants such arrangements would be morally dubious, and in many cases illegal, today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Dades wrote: »
    JimiTime, leaving aside that you were addressing a mod - consider yourself 'carded for insulting talk.

    No problem. Fully understandable, and thoroughly deserved.


  • Options
    #233
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No problem. Fully understandable, and thoroughly deserved.

    ;) at least you practice the sentiments you keep in your signature :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #234
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dave! wrote: »
    Jakass you even said yourself (if I'm not mistaken) that slavery was okay "at the time" (of the Israelites etc.), but that it is not anymore. How does that fit in with your idea of a universal moral absolute? Is it a fluctuating absolute...?

    Where did I say that it isn't okay now? I suggested that our understanding of labour has moved to a different position, but Torah slavery which is under humane, respectful circumstances is not immoral no. The New Testament writings in Christianity solidify this further suggesting that there should be equality between slave and free (Galatians 3:28), and that slaves should be respected as masters have a heavenly Father in heaven (Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9).

    Carrying on, I explained that since:

    1) the laws concerning slavery are state laws of the Biblical State of Israel and were enforced by the Sanhedrin of High Priests in Judaism.
    2) There is no such Torah bound state of Israel.
    3) Even if there was Jesus is the High Priest of Christianity, so we take his judgement on how slaves should be treated.
    4) We are bound under the state laws of our respective countries not of Biblical Israel (Romans 13).

    Hence we follow the laws of our country, in our case Ireland, on labour. It's not that the prospect of Torah slavery is immoral, it is merely that these laws are no longer binding on Christians.


  • Options
    #235
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Where did I say that it isn't okay now? I suggested that our understanding of labour has moved to a different position, but Torah slavery which is under humane, respectful circumstances is not immoral no.

    How is it humane and respectful to take prisoners of war as slaves? Or to own the children of your slaves?

    Are you saying that it is ok for people to do that even today?

    what happened to the argument that this was ok at the time because it was a time of sin before Jesus?


  • Options
    #236
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Where did I say that it isn't okay now? I suggested that our understanding of labour has moved to a different position, but Torah slavery which is under humane, respectful circumstances is not immoral no. The New Testament writings in Christianity solidify this further suggesting that there should be equality between slave and free (Galatians 3:28), and that slaves should be respected as masters have a heavenly Father in heaven (Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9).

    So slavery is ok today, so long as slave-owners treat their slaves well? :eek:

    And it's interesting you should quote Ephesians. You conveniently neglected Ephesians 6:5 I notice:

    "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ"

    Fear and obey your masters slaves! Sounds okay to me. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #237
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Naz_st wrote: »
    So slavery is ok today, so long as slave-owners treat their slaves well? :eek:

    And it's interesting you should quote Ephesians. You conveniently neglected Ephesians 6:5 I notice:

    "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ"

    Fear and obey your masters slaves! Sounds okay to me. :rolleyes:

    I don't see any issue at all with Ephesians 6:5, infact I think that Colossians 4 encourages the same. Merely this is the essence: Slaves respect your masters, and masters respect your slaves. Even if we substitute workers, and employers into the place of slaves and masters, it still doesn't happen in reality. In the workers and employers context I think this is the modern context that Christians in work should take.

    Actually I think Ephesians 6 in general on slaves and masters is a good teaching to hold.

    We need to see that passages like these have sense in modern society. Roman law under which they lived did have the practice of slavery, hence in context it's rather apt that Paul should refer to it. Western society has workers who are subservient to employers, hence I would see it apt to read that passage in this context for the life that Christians lead today in the West.


  • Options
    #238
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So, I don't consider the death penalty immoral as such, but I see it preferable to show mercy, if one has received mercy.
    Again leaving aside whether or not the death penalty is in line with the OT's perceived universal moral code, the thing I'm trying to understand is a more general question:

    Given that there's a lot of disagreement on the fairly straightforward question of whether or not it's morally appropriate for a state to murder its own citizens, how credible or useful can any perceived universal moral code be, when it fails to answer simple questions unambiguously?

    Or is it better to derive an ethical code which is as unambiguous as possible through open discussion amongst the people who have to stick to it, using whatever religious or other books as a basis (or not) as people wish to?


  • Options
    #239
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    Given that there's a lot of disagreement on the fairly straightforward question of whether or not it's morally appropriate for a state to murder its own citizens, how credible or useful can any perceived universal moral code be, when it fails to answer simple questions unambiguously?

    Problem: Murder = unlawful killing. If the State is the one who sets the laws, can the State truly murder unless it violates its own laws?
    robindch wrote: »
    Or is it better to derive an ethical code which is as unambiguous as possible through open discussion amongst the people who have to stick to it, using whatever religious or other books as a basis (or not) as people wish to?

    Actually compared to the alternative that you are proposing which I assume is moral relativism, Christian morality is far from ambiguous.


  • Options
    #240
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Moral relativism fails at the first hurdle. It's all well and good until you hit the stumbling block of something that you must condemn.

    Why?

    "I condemn that. I really really don't like that you did that and me and those who agree with me will use force to stop you if you do not desist."

    I fail to see your stumbling block. This is exactly how moral consensus is enforced, except some people are naive enough to couch it in objective terminology. That doesn't mean that it is objective.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Are you having a laugh? God an unjust authority? So unjust that He even offered you forgiveness so you can start afresh when you mess up?

    Presumes he exists, presumes we need forgivness. Frequently it would seem that should the first presumption be true, it wouldn't be us that needs the latter.


Advertisement