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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Some immoral quotes from the bible i'd like to ask about...
Comments
-
Well of course they're immoral for me, but what, is there a difference between our standards? Do you not find them immoral or something? I'm afraid I don't really get your question!
I don't see how an atheist can't be a moral relativist. So unless you are saying that these things are absolutely wrong, you are in fact merely saying that you don't like them.
Never mind what my views are.I really really don't get this christianity thing. How can you worship such an evil God?
Your moral standards come from God. If you deny this, where do they come from?
Unless you have some justification that I have not thought of, you should not be declaring things to be evil. It should be a meaningless concept to you.AtomicHorror wrote: »That's the core issue really, isn't it? For some of you guys, the morality of God supersedes your own morals and even your values in all circumstances.
I don't feel like a moral authority. Do you?AtomicHorror wrote: »On the subjective level, we each have to judge right and wrong for ourselves. Morality is complex and ever changing based on circumstances and information.
Then it is pointless to condemn things done thousands of years ago if you admit that your standard of judgement is essentially contemporary.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »The common source is that we're all biologically, psychologically and emotionally quite similar. Or at least generally situated around various means. It would be shooting myself in the foot to suggest that there were no such common values, because then we'd really need an authority-based morality system to keep society in one piece.
But that is not morality. Morality is prescriptive. Biology is a description of history. Nobody ever needs or wants to tell someone else to obey gravity, but people appeal to each other to obey morality. Thus, descriptive explanations of its origins demolish this prescriptive power.0 -
But that is not morality. Morality is prescriptive. Biology is a description of history. Nobody ever needs or wants to tell someone else to obey gravity, but people appeal to each other to obey morality. Thus, descriptive explanations of its origins demolish this prescriptive power.
I would love to be able to live in your head for a while and see what the world looks like when the above appears to make sense.
Biology does explain morality. Due to our genetics we are almost identical in so many ways. That's why we have the same shaped bodies, why medicine is broadly applicable, why we experience similar emotions in similar situations, why we follow similar lines of thought about our lives, the future and the problems we face.
In the exact same way, we all tend to share a moral basis, because our brains follow the same design.0 -
Your moral standards come from God. If you deny this, where do they come from?
Do we really have to get into another argument about where morals come from? Do you have evidence to back up your claim that my morals come from god? How do you know this?
And by the way, I do deny that my morals are from god. If I was ignorant of biology & evolution then sure, why not, god blessed me with a sense morality, and he also created the Earth in 7 days.
But the sciences offer me a much more satisfying explanation than: "God did it."0 -
But that is not morality. Morality is prescriptive. Biology is a description of history. Nobody ever needs or wants to tell someone else to obey gravity, but people appeal to each other to obey morality. Thus, descriptive explanations of its origins demolish this prescriptive power.
Eh?0 -
I do believe that God is the only correct God. I also believe that Christianity is the only correct faith. I do not believe that my variety of Christianity, my denomination, or my individual Church are the only correct ones.
I also believe that all who know the Gospel of Christ and reject it will go to hell
By that you are saying all those who believe in Christ differently to your beliefs are wrong. They will be sent to hell specifically. You may not think yours is the only correct one but it certainly leaves you with vast room to say some are not truly understanding (knowing) the gospel of Christ and going to hell.
You seem sure that some of this stuff has been taught incorrectly if that is all the person hears and rejects it they aren't actually rejecting the the gospel just a distortion of it.
What happens to people who never hear of Christ?Hell for them too?
It think you should be fully aware that you often get personal and make snide remarks. In this post you have and I have seen you do it numerous times. My remarks were made about the method of your arguments which I see as evasive and intentionally drawn out.How about you try to address the points raised in posts instead of just getting personal?
I mean by actual gifts, actual words and direct action. I understand Moses received the ten commandments directly from God. God actually killed the first born,he turned a rod/staff into a snake etc... These action appear to have ceased. Can you give me a modern day example of such actions. Now try to resist quoting the bible (use reference) and jumping on God didn't do it he ordered an angel to do it. Magical events and actions seemed to have stopped unless you go along the views of Pam111. I consider your answer evasive thus farYou mean by prophecy etc? I don't think He has stopped communicating in that way.
It seems to many people that such picking and choosing doesn't appear to be following the text just using it. There are obviously scholars that reject your notions and substitute their own. It seems pretty rough that if you are exposed to the wrong view you end up in hell. You have stated quite firmly that will happen.That's why you need to study Scripture properly and determine its meaning and context. Some teachings are not relevant today - at least not to any situation I'm ever likely to encounter. Some of them are solely of historical value.Again, you begin with a position that I, and millions of others, would not agree with. Therefore it is hardly surprising that you end up with an erroneous conclusion.
So are you saying there is no discernible difference how God behaves between the OT and NT? He certainly seems less involved or at least changed tactics. Does the OT not refer to his "chosen people" in reference to the Yiddish people exclude all other until the NT?0 -
Kipperhell wrote: »So are you saying there is no discernible difference how God behaves between the OT and NT? He certainly seems less involved or at least changed tactics. Does the OT not refer to his "chosen people" in reference to the Yiddish people exclude all other until the NT?
No, you could convert to Judaism and many Gentiles did when living in Israel.
Anyhow, as for "chosen people". Paul wrote in the book of Romans that Gentile Christians are attached to the tree of Israel through faith, and that they are descendants of Abraham through adoption (also in Galatians). Likewise we are told that we have been chosen by grace in Jesus Christ in the book of Ephesians. I may edit my post to put in citations later.0 -
-
No, you could convert to Judaism and many Gentiles did when living in Israel.
Anyhow, as for "chosen people". Paul wrote in the book of Romans that Gentile Christians are attached to the tree of Israel through faith, and that they are descendants of Abraham through adoption (also in Galatians). Likewise we are told that we have been chosen by grace in Jesus Christ in the book of Ephesians. I may edit my post to put in citations later.
Thanks nice clear answer.
But God not changing character? He seems different to me from my understanding0 -
Advertisement
-
By the way Hurin, on a sidenote, the quote in your signature:"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Sam Harris, atheist writer, in The End of Faith (2004), p52
is out of context. But it's probably fun for you to use it as a sig. Have you even read that book?0 -
-
I think Jimitime was joking...0
-
-
No, that is not all what I said. That is one reason why I sometimes have to give a rather long answer - because some people (by accident or by design) are likely to misrepresent one's views.Kipperhell wrote: »By that you are saying all those who believe in Christ differently to your beliefs are wrong. They will be sent to hell specifically. You may not think yours is the only correct one but it certainly leaves you with vast room to say some are not truly understanding (knowing) the gospel of Christ and going to hell.
I believe that those who know and understand the Gospel, yet reject Christ's offer of salvation, will go to hell. However there are numerous varieties of Christian who hold beliefs that are radically different to my beliefs. However, they have accepted Christ and, I believe, are saved.
It is certainly true that some of this stuff has been taught incorrectly. If contradictory views of Christ are taught then it stands to reason that at least one of them may be wrong. And I am not so arrogant as to be unable to entertain the possibility that in the end I might be mightily embarrassed to discover that my version was wrong.You seem sure that some of this stuff has been taught incorrectly if that is all the person hears and rejects it they aren't actually rejecting the the gospel just a distortion of it.
I have always maintained that God will judge people according to the light they have received. Therefore if they only ever heard a distorted version of the Gospel then I will trust God to judge them accordingly. Unfortunately (well, actually very fortunately) I am not God so I can't say what that judgement will be. I simply don't know.
Again this has been discussed at length in other threads in the past. My answer then, as now, is that we don't know. Everybody has received some revelation of God - so it is up to God how He judges them according to the light they have received.What happens to people who never hear of Christ?Hell for them too?
If I encounter poor logic or downright stupidity in a debate then I don't suffer fools gladly. And I expect, and frequently receive, the same treatment from others. I have no problem at all with somebody objecting to a statement or argument I have made and criticising it in forthright terms.It think you should be fully aware that you often get personal and make snide remarks. In this post you have and I have seen you do it numerous times.
What I do object to is when people make snide and personal remarks on a generalised basis. (eg "You're evasive" "You're a nasty person" "You're stupid because you believe in a sky-fairy" etc.).
I think you misunderstand the purpose of this forum. This is not the "Hey atheists let's come and throw some crap at the Christians and ask them 20 questions forum." It is a forum to discuss Christianity.My remarks were made about the method of your arguments which I see as evasive and intentionally drawn out.
You are not the quiz-host on Mastermind, and I am not a contestant who has to answer every one of your questions at the moment of your choosing, with a brevity of your choosing, and woe betide me if I actually dare to enter into a discussion on Christianity (which is the stated purpose of this forum).
If you want to discuss Christianity with Christians and on the understanding that you are a guest on this forum then you are free to do so, but don't try to dictate the terms of the discussion. You are free to answer any questions I ask in as long or as short a form as you feel, or you are free not to answer them at all. The same goes for me.
Now let's not have to have this little reminder again, OK?
Sigh. I was hardly being evasive when the question was not clear. Thank you for clarifying it (you see how clarification is sometimes inevitably a bit more wordy?)I mean by actual gifts, actual words and direct action. I understand Moses received the ten commandments directly from God. God actually killed the first born,he turned a rod/staff into a snake etc... These action appear to have ceased. Can you give me a modern day example of such actions. Now try to resist quoting the bible (use reference) and jumping on God didn't do it he ordered an angel to do it. Magical events and actions seemed to have stopped unless you go along the views of Pam111. I consider your answer evasive thus far
I know people who have heard God speaking to them in an audible way. I have seen God work miracles of healing. As for God killing people, I know of several incidents from China and Korea where those torturing Christians dropped dead on the spot, including instances where the believer had prophesied that this would happen.
BTW, you don't have the authority to come onto the Christianity forum and tell Christians that they mustn't quote the Bible. Please never do that again.
I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to interpret language in its context. We do that with everything else, so why not the Bible?It seems to many people that such picking and choosing doesn't appear to be following the text just using it. There are obviously scholars that reject your notions and substitute their own. It seems pretty rough that if you are exposed to the wrong view you end up in hell. You have stated quite firmly that will happen.
Lots of scholars disagree with me about lots of things, but I'm unaware of any statement I've made that they therefore go to hell.
Your initial proposition, one I stated that and millions of others would disagree with, was It is clear that the god of the bible is a different character as the book moves on.So are you saying there is no discernible difference how God behaves between the OT and NT? He certainly seems less involved or at least changed tactics. Does the OT not refer to his "chosen people" in reference to the Yiddish people exclude all other until the NT?
That is very different from saying that God behaved in different ways in different situations and contexts.
I, and millions of others, believe that the Bible contains the record of the same character (God) as He progressively reveals Himself to mankind. When He was dealing with the Israelites He was nurturing one small tribe who were under attack from every side, and He protected them so that eventually, from their number, would be born the Promised Seed of Abraham (Jesus) who would die for the sins of the world. In the New Testament we deal with a different situation where Jesus has revealed God in a much fuller way and the emphasis is now on building a Church that can take the message of salvation to all nations. So of course God behaves differently. Just as I behave differently with my daughter now she drives herself to College than back in the days when I had to strap her into the backseat of the car in a baby seat.
In fact, 20 years ago it would have been immoral for me not to have forcibly strapped my daughter into a babyseat when we travelled anywhere. Now it would be considered immoral for me to do the same action. I guess that proves I'm a different character from that guy that was her father 20 years ago?0 -
Cheers for answering pdn, now it seems even more cracked tbh. With stoires like these I really don't see how the bible can stand up as a source of good morals. I know somebody could quote endless peaceful passages, but they are utterly negated by these acts of genocide.
What constitutes good morals is adhering to the standard set out by the standard maker. If God (one standard maker) says "don't kill" then it is good morality (according to that standard) not to kill. That might not be good morals according to some other standard. If you don't figure the Bible to be a source of good morals its merely because you don't accept the standard set out in it. This doesn't make it bad in any absolute sense - just bad in your (you think) subjective opinion.
The error you make appears to arise from your conflating two things. It is wrong for man to kill man according to Gods standard - God being the standard setter. It is not wrong for God to kill man however (or instruct man to kill man on Gods behalf). Your conflation involves supposing God to subject to the law he is entitled, as our owner, to subject us to. If anything is "cracked" it's that confusion..
God gives people life for a time and when that time is up (with God being the decider in these things) the life is taken away again. No one can have much cause to complain about that. Men, on the other hand, don't give other men life, so anothers life is not their posession to take away.
Basic notions of property rights would tell you that this is as it should be.
So when you accuse God of genocide (in the sense of his committing a crime or doing something wrong) you are talking a nonsense. God can't commit the crime of illegitimately taking a life given that he owns most everything in the first place.Killing somebody is immoral, is it not?
Hopefully, your error is now clearer to you.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Biology does explain morality. Due to our genetics we are almost identical in so many ways. That's why we have the same shaped bodies, why medicine is broadly applicable, why we experience similar emotions in similar situations, why we follow similar lines of thought about our lives, the future and the problems we face.
In the exact same way, we all tend to share a moral basis, because our brains follow the same design.And by the way, I do deny that my morals are from god. If I was ignorant of biology & evolution then sure, why not, god blessed me with a sense morality, and he also created the Earth in 7 days.
Is it not obvious to both of you that if our 'morality' is simply a natural result of biology, then it is not an objective morality at all. Do you understand the word prescriptive? We evolved to gather and hunt, however, this is not taken as a prescription to continue gathering and hunting forever.
Similarly, if we evolved feelings about what is right and wrong, without them being objectively right and wrong, then there is no prescriptive power to the criteria of morality. These categories are simply explanations for our feelings. Ultimately, it means that you have no right to brand the acts described in the Old Testament as immoral (objective, prescriptive): you simply can say that you don't like them (subjective, descriptive).
I'm not interested in disputing evolutionary explanations for morality. I'm disputing your implicit assertion that this purely natural morality has any prescriptive power.
Overblood I'm sure you know that I'm not an ignorant young earth creationist, so the attempt to flame me about these is misplaced.0 -
-
Yes, when presented with a deity performing some act which is self-evidently wrong, most religious people will say that the deity's will cannot be understood. On the other hand, when presented with an act which is self-evidently right, most religious will say that the deity's act can be understood. In this way, religious people implicitly judge the acts of their deities according to one set of human standards or another, while denying that they do so.If one is willing to judge the actions of the deity as above, then yes you can praise it or condemn it as much as you like. However, again as above, this requires you to judge the actions of the deity and to assign moral values to them before you can know whether to praise or condemn.
This, btw, assumes that the Euthyphro dilemma has been resolved in favour of an moral system which exists independent to any deity.
Most religious people, however, appear to assume the opposite resolution of the Euthyphro -- that what the deity does is "moral" by definition. In which case the deity can do anything at all that it likes, and if the deity is so inclined, can legitimately demand praise for whatever acts of violence it wants and humanity has no choice but to approve.
Thats pretty much what I would have thought (though better put) and thanks for the link, I was not aware of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
That being said, I would still genuinely like to hear from some of the resident christians on this question, as I cannot understand how they unite the two seemingly contradictory propositions: 'God is not subject to human morality' and 'God is good'0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No, that is not all what I said. That is one reason why I sometimes have to give a rather long answer - because some people (by accident or by design) are likely to misrepresent one's views.
You know what you are dead right I have no authority over this forum yet I never claimed to have. I requested general answers rather than long winded ones. It appears you are particularly sensitive about some questions and probably rightly so. Really meant no offense
You have genuinely clarified some points I didn't know the view point on
I think you are reaping what you sow then and should realistically note that you should be more moderate.If I encounter poor logic or downright stupidity in a debate then I don't suffer fools gladly. And I expect, and frequently receive, the same treatment from others. I have no problem at all with somebody objecting to a statement or argument I have made and criticising it in forthright terms.
I know people who have heard God speaking to them in an audible way. I have seen God work miracles of healing. As for God killing people, I know of several incidents from China and Korea where those torturing Christians dropped dead on the spot, including instances where the believer had prophesied that this would happen.
I am certainly interested in hearing about this. I have known people who believe God talks to them audibly and history is littered with them too. Many religions have a similar belief how do they compare?
The healing of people suddenly has happened with many faiths but also with absence of faith is how I would understand it.
I have never heard of such claims of sudden death or torturers and would love to know more.
Sorry for further questions but they arise from what you are stating.0 -
Sorry, couldn't tell you much about other religions. You could try asking in other fora. However, be careful, the Islam and Paganism forums, for example, are moderated much more strictly than this one.Kipperhell wrote: »I am certainly interested in hearing about this. I have known people who believe God talks to them audibly and history is littered with them too. Many religions have a similar belief how do they compare?.
Again, I can only answer in respect to my own experience. I witnessed no miraculous healings when I was an atheist, but I have seen a number of them as a Christian.The healing of people suddenly has happened with many faiths but also with absence of faith is how I would understand it.
Every year I meet with some of the victims of torture in China. They have recounted several such events to me. Generally they were where torturers taunted them by saying stuff like, "Where is your God now? If God exists then why doesn't he stop me doing this to you?"I have never heard of such claims of sudden death or torturers and would love to know more.0 -
Exodus 35:2 wrote:For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.Overblood wrote:Why must somebody die for working of a Sunday?The Hebrews were a hated people surrounded by hostile tribes that would love to kill them or drive them into the sea (nothing new there). They had a strict code of rules and ethics that kept them distinct from their enemies. It seems horrible to us in our cosy society today - but would probably make more sense to someone in the Warsaw ghetto or somewhere similar
PDN. Is there any action or opinion or choices of God that you would not agree with? In many posts of yours, you come across as a blind apologist. There surely must be some parts in the Bible where Christians must have to utterly disagree with.0 -
PDN. Is there any action or opinion or choices of God that you would not agree with? In many posts of yours, you come across as a blind apologist. There surely must be some parts in the Bible where Christians must have to utterly disagree with.
There are many things that God says and does that I don't understand, but I decided long ago not to disagree with God as a matter of principle.0 -
Fair enough that you wouldn't know about other beliefs but you would be aware that other religions also claim miracles too. I would kind of expect there to be a view of such things absent of fully knowing what those beliefs are. I know some Christian faiths believe that belief in further miracles are the work of the devil and even magic shows are paving the way for the devil.Sorry, couldn't tell you much about other religions. You could try asking in other fora. However, be careful, the Islam and Paganism forums, for example, are moderated much more strictly than this one.Again, I can only answer in respect to my own experience. I witnessed no miraculous healings when I was an atheist, but I have seen a number of them as a Christian.
What kind or miraculous healing? They would seem pretty important to many people. There is a slight suggestion that you are saying you would not see them as miracles unless you were ChristianEvery year I meet with some of the victims of torture in China. They have recounted several such events to me. Generally they were where torturers taunted them by saying stuff like, "Where is your God now? If God exists then why doesn't he stop me doing this to you?"
Have these people written down accounts of such events? It would seem important that they would.
Again further questions but you are only stating very brief statements of fact which I think would obviously warrant further explanations. How one would distinguish somebody with mental illness and somebody who actually hears the voice of God must be quite difficult. I know people who believe in superstition and claim it is evident by results but I would think that you would consider them misguided.0 -
There are many things that God says and does that I don't understand, but I decided long ago not to disagree with God as a matter of principle.
There are parts of the bible that, to put it mildly, are a cesspool of immorality - parts of Leviticus in particular.
It seems to me that many Christians take the good parts literally but fail to challenge the bad, and write them off a either being methapors or not being relevant today or stuff that we don't have the capacity to understand properly.
Seems like a bit of a cop out to say that since you accept God as being good, He cannot be challenged on some of the questionable bits of Christianity.0 -
I'm not going into the details. I've done that before in threads and, due to people's presuppositions they always respond in one of two ways:Kipperhell wrote: »What kind or miraculous healing? They would seem pretty important to many people.
a) "The evidence isn't convincing." I once shared on here about a miraculous healing that was confirmed by three doctors, including a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. I was informed that unless they wrote about in a peer-reviewed journal then it didn't happen.
b) "The evidence is too convincing." If I report something where I saw undeniable evidence, then I'm accused of lying or of being insane because, by definition "such things don't happen."
So I hope you'll understand that I'm not particularly interested in giving such zealots an opportunity to vent their spleen.
No, not at all. I was simply saying that when I was an atheist I didn't spend a lot of time among praying people - so I wouldn't have seen much answered prayer.There is a slight suggestion that you are saying you would not see them as miracles unless you were Christian
I've read one or two similar accounts, but I don't see any internet links. Those being persecuted for their faith, for obvious reasons, aren't that quick to write articles about their experiences.Have these people written down accounts of such events? It would seem important that they would.0 -
I'm not going into the details. I've done that before in threads and, due to people's presuppositions they always respond in one of two ways:
a) "The evidence isn't convincing." I once shared on here about a miraculous healing that was confirmed by three doctors, including a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. I was informed that unless they wrote about in a peer-reviewed journal then it didn't happen.
b) "The evidence is too convincing." If I report something where I saw undeniable evidence, then I'm accused of lying or of being insane because, by definition "such things don't happen."
So I hope you'll understand that I'm not particularly interested in giving such zealots an opportunity to vent their spleen.
That's a fair point. Sounds like something I'd say!
For me to believe in it, the miracle would have to be done more than once by the same performer, in lab conditions, on request, scrutinized like one would scrutinize a magic trick, repeated, recorded, documented, and then reviewed by James Randi Himself.
Kinda takes the whole mystical aspect away doesn't it.0 -
I'm not going into the details. I've done that before in threads and, due to people's presuppositions they always respond in one of two ways:
a) "The evidence isn't convincing." ...
b) "The evidence is too convincing." ...
So I hope you'll understand that I'm not particularly interested in giving such zealots an opportunity to vent their spleen.
They certainly aren't mutually exclusive views or really even a separate view as you have described. I'll settle for vague details of illness type or even to a post you already stated these views.
I have spent time with people who believe in homoeopathy and they tell me of the curing properties. They certainly believe it with absence of god.No, not at all. I was simply saying that when I was an atheist I didn't spend a lot of time among praying people - so I wouldn't have seen much answered prayer.
I would think anybody who believes they were directly saved by God would write about it. Especially if they are willing to tell people at meetings.I've read one or two similar accounts, but I don't see any internet links. Those being persecuted for their faith, for obvious reasons, aren't that quick to write articles about their experiences.
I still don't get how you can distinguish these happenings from those of other faiths similar claims or even mental illness. You are aware that such claims are made?
Are there particular claims you find unbelievable such as the girl in the coma that makes statues drip sacred oil and the vision of Christ in a door? I curious how one could gage such events as I would assume a percentage would be faked for personal gain. I know on Penn and Teller they spoke of one of the claims by a woman healed by JPII that her husband refuted her claims. Not a great source and it doesn't even suggest somebody is lying just they could be wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a fair point. Sounds like something I'd say!
For me to believe in it, the miracle would have to be done more than once by the same performer, in lab conditions, on request, scrutinized like one would scrutinize a magic trick, repeated, recorded, documented, and then reviewed by James Randi Himself.
Kinda takes the whole mystical aspect away doesn't it.
Well, it certainly takes the force of kipperhell's argument away if nothing else.
His point was: Why doesn't God speak and act today like He did with Moses etc? As far as I am aware Moses never had any access to lab conditions, and God didn't produce miracles on request to satisfy the curiosity of a guy with a clipboard and pen.0 -
Oh, no I was never claiming that. There's no such thing as objective morality.
Good, so how can one appeal to "morality" to condemn the Bible? Surely you or Overblood really mean to simply say that you don't like what is written. Invoking morality is unnecessary.
I don't see why Overblood would expect the ancient Israelites or contemporary Christians to take account of what he likes.0 -
Ultimately, it means that you have no right to brand the acts described in the Old Testament as immoral (objective, prescriptive): you simply can say that you don't like them (subjective, descriptive).
That doesn't make sense. If morality is not objective you cannot appeal to an objective moral standard to say that they have no right to say the Old Testament is immoral.
You do not lose all standards of morality when discussing subjective morality. You simply move to subjective standards.
This seems to be a very common charge on this forum, the idea that if morality is not objective then I cannot say that someone else is morally right or wrong. Of course I can!
The idea, if I follow, is that I can't say my moral standards are the "right ones". The flaw in such a change is of course that without objective morality there is no "right ones". There is universal right or wrong. Charging that I cannot say my morality is right and Hitler's was wrong makes no sense. Right and wrong based on what standard? I certainly can say Hitler's morality was wrong because I'm using my standard of right and wrong.
The only way I wouldn't be able to is if morality was objective where we are assuming it isn't. If morality is subjective then of course I can say someone is immoral because the standard used to say that is my own, since morality is subjective. You are immoral means you are immoral based on my standard, since there is no other standard that matters (there is no universal standard)
I really don't follow what is so hard to understand about this.0 -
Perhaps I should have said that it doesn't make sense for him to make such a claim.That doesn't make sense. If morality is not objective you cannot appeal to an objective moral standard to say that they have no right to say the Old Testament is immoral.You do not lose all standards of morality when discussing subjective morality. You simply move to subjective standards.
This seems to be a very common charge on this forum, the idea that if morality is not objective then I cannot say that someone else is morally right or wrong. Of course I can!
The only way I wouldn't be able to is if morality was objective where we are assuming it isn't. If morality is subjective then of course I can say someone is immoral because the standard used to say that is my own, since morality is subjective. You are immoral means you are immoral based on my standard, since there is no other standard that matters (there is no universal standard)
I really don't follow what is so hard to understand about this.
But the problem with this is that morality ceases to be a useful word, instead becoming synonymous with what you like and don't like. Your moral standard becomes another term for your tastes.
Thus, why should any of us care if Overblood finds the Old Testament distasteful? Especially if he does not think that we should find it immoral?0 -
But I don't understand why you think that makes morality useless. To me that is all morality ever has been, a set of ethical values of what humans think is ok or not ok. And it certainly never has been useless.But the problem with this is that morality ceases to be a useful word, instead becoming synonymous with what you like and don't like.
All Christians do is move the opinion to (what they think) is a deity. It still ends up just being what God likes and doesn't like, rather than what you like and don't like.
As opposed to what?Your moral standard becomes another term for your tastes.
You should only care if you agree, if you share common moral ideas and standards with Overblood. I certainly do, I find things like the genocide, slavery and rape in the Old Testament horrific.Thus, why should any of us care if Overblood finds the Old Testament distasteful?
But I know plenty of Christians on this forum don't, they think it was fine.
Again it comes down to your own moral standards. It may be possible to convince some of you that this stuff is immoral, others not so much (particular those who believe anything God does is moral simply because he did it).
But it is important to say that just because you think this stuff was all fine doesn't mean everyone does.0 -
It makes it useless because it lacks prescriptive power. There is no way to determine one morality to be better than another, just as we determine evolution to be a better explanation for species than young earth creationism.But I don't understand why you think that makes morality useless. To me that is all morality ever has been, a set of ethical values of what humans think is ok or not ok. And it certainly never has been useless.
A very crucial point.All Christians do is move the opinion to (what they think) is a deity. It still ends up just being what God likes and doesn't like, rather than what you like and don't like.
A standard that one can credibly argue ought to be applied to all, as Overblood seems to be appealing for.As opposed to what?
Why would Overblood expect Christians, who believe that God is the author of their own reasoning power, to agree with his moral ideas and his application of them to this text?You should only care if you agree, if you share common moral ideas and standards with Overblood. I certainly do, I find things like the genocide, slavery and rape in the Old Testament horrific.
But I know plenty of Christians on this forum don't, they think it was fine.
Again it comes down to your own moral standards. It may be possible to convince some of you that this stuff is immoral, others not so much (particular those who believe anything God does is moral simply because he did it).
But it is important to say that just because you think this stuff was all fine doesn't mean everyone does.
It seems to me that Overblood is actually assuming some sort of universal morality. My interest in this thread was not to defend the OT but to question his assumptions.0 -
Why do you need to do that?There is no way to determine one morality to be better than another
Religious people seem to have an innate fear of taking responsibility for their own opinions and judgements, which possibly explains why they are religious in the first place.
The idea that God will tell us what the "right" thing to do is so we don't have to make that judgement ourselves is some what childish. Besides who said God's opinion is the right one in the first place? All you are doing is saying that it is right according to God. And there are plenty of things that God thinks are right that I disagree with. So how do you determine that God's morality is better than mine? You just take it that it is. You haven't solved the problems you have just defined it out of existence.
Not really, you are actually doing the thing that you complain about others doing, making a personal, subjective, assessment on something (God exists and his opinions are always right). But it seems you don't even notice you are doing this and convince yourselves that this is just objectivity involve, no subjectivity.A very crucial point.A standard that one can credibly argue ought to be applied to all, as Overblood seems to be appealing for.
Overblood can apply his morality to all. I can apply my morality to all. It is a Christian fallacy to suggest that because morality is subjective I cannot say what you, or anyone else are doing is immoral. I can say that. I do say that. You might not agree with me but I still think it is immoral. And if you disagree bring a big stick.
Well I imagine he assumes that Christians aren't brain dead zombies and can determine things for themselves. You (subjectively) determined that God was good didn't you?Why would Overblood expect Christians, who believe that God is the author of their own reasoning power, to agree with his moral ideas and his application of them to this text?0 -
Overblood can apply his morality to all. I can apply my morality to all. It is a Christian fallacy to suggest that because morality is subjective I cannot say what you, or anyone else are doing is immoral. I can say that. I do say that. You might not agree with me but I still think it is immoral. And if you disagree bring a big stick.
This is precisely why morality is an absolutely meaningless word without objectivity. With this view, there is actually no right and wrong, only ones preferences. Wickight, Jimitime, the pope, whoever can say hitler was immoral, but its meaningless. All it means is, Wicknight, JT etc, don't like what Hitler done. Nazi's will say, it is the jews who are immoral, and their view is just as useful. Neither view is right or wrong, its just opinion. The fallacy in all of this, is that you think you actually believe this.0 -
You need to do that if you're going to be like Overblood and accuse some Bronze Age people, or indeed any other people, of being immoral.Why do you need to do that?
On the contrary, it is a desire to exercise the will freely to choose what is the right, moral action to take. Just following the orders of one's conditioned tendencies - embracing determinism - leads to renouncement of responsibility.Religious people seem to have an innate fear of taking responsibility for their own opinions and judgements, which possibly explains why they are religious in the first place.
Any God worth his salt would be the author of an objective moral law.The idea that God will tell us what the "right" thing to do is so we don't have to make that judgement ourselves is some what childish. Besides who said God's opinion is the right one in the first place?
All you are doing is saying that it is right according to God. And there are plenty of things that God thinks are right that I disagree with. So how do you determine that God's morality is better than mine? You just take it that it is. You haven't solved the problems you have just defined it out of existence.
It is silly to say that God is wrong and I am right, because if God exists then my reasoning power comes from him.
Not really relevant to this discussion. All of our assessments are subjective. The full story, the objective truth, is probably not available to humans about anything. I don't object to Overblood making subjective judgements. I object to him calling it morality without appearing to even question why he thinks this is morality.Not really, you are actually doing the thing that you complain about others doing, making a personal, subjective, assessment on something (God exists and his opinions are always right). But it seems you don't even notice you are doing this and convince yourselves that this is just objectivity involve, no subjectivity.
How and why can you apply your morality to all?Overblood can apply his morality to all. I can apply my morality to all. It is a Christian fallacy to suggest that because morality is subjective I cannot say what you, or anyone else are doing is immoral. I can say that. I do say that. You might not agree with me but I still think it is immoral. And if you disagree bring a big stick.
Yes, it is written in the Bible.Well I imagine he assumes that Christians aren't brain dead zombies and can determine things for themselves. You (subjectively) determined that God was good didn't you?0 -
Advertisement
-
You need to do that if you're going to be like Overblood and accuse some Bronze Age people, or indeed any other people, of being immoral.
Indeed. Viewing morality in such a way would basically mean the conversation would be thus.
OB: I think God is Immoral
Hurin: I don't
Conclusion: OB thinks God is immoral and Hurin doesn't. Again, its absolutely meaningless. Personally, I think if anyone views morality in such a way, the next step in their 'reasoning' is to discard the word as useless. I would certainly have no use for such a concept.0 -
-
We don't care. Either join the discussion in adherence with the charter or don't post here at all. OK?0
-
Actually we are quite ignorant to assume that the Israelites of Moses' time were in the Bronze Age. Iron tools are mentioned in the book so they must have been in the Iron age.0
-
As opposed to what?This is precisely why morality is an absolutely meaningless word without objectivity. With this view, there is actually no right and wrong, only ones preferences.
Even if God there is "no right and wrong" only one's preferences, God's, and your preference to agree with him or not. Of course that, to you, is right and wrong. Right and wrong have always been personal preferences.
Not to Wicknight Jimitime or the Pope (put entered a bar and you have the making of a good joke..)Wickight, Jimitime, the pope, whoever can say hitler was immoral, but its meaningless.
It is like someone saying "I think that movie is really good" and turning around saying saying "That is a meaningless statement because that is just your personal opinion and you have no way to objectively measure if that movie was actually good or not, it is just your opinion". Slap!
Yes.All it means is, Wicknight, JT etc, don't like what Hitler done.
What did it mean before? God didn't like what Hitler had done?
What? How is it "useful"?Nazi's will say, it is the jews who are immoral, and their view is just as useful.
And some people think "The Shawshank Redemption" is the best movie ever. I think they are wrong and idiots (apologies any fans here).
Groan. Seriously why do you guys always do this?Neither view is right or wrong, its just opinion.
You can't have a discussion where we have removed objective morality and then yonk it in at the last second to expose a flaw in subjective morality.
If we are discussing subjective morality there is not universal right or wrong, so your statement that we can't tell if the Nazis are right or wrong is meaningless. Right or wrong based on what?
The Nazi's were wrong based on my values. And to me that means they were wrong, period. I don't care if they think otherwise, of course they think otherwise, they are Nazis.
I don't need someone else, such as a god, to tell me I am in fact right and they are wrong. I can figure it out myself. And even if God did go "Hey, Wicknight, I think they were wrong too" that would simply be his opinion and I would still be left to figure out if I agreed with it or not.
When ever this discussion comes up I remember back to a kid I used to know in primary school who when ever we were discussing something would always end his statements with "my mum/dad says so". Bruce Springsteen (my god) isn't any good, my dad says so. Spain is horrible my mum says so.
This kid needed to justify his statements with what he obviously believed was the universal standard, his parents. His parents were objective opinion. If his dad says Bruce Springsteen isn't any good then Bruce isn't any good.
That made sense to him, his parents opinion and objective reality went hand in hand.
I am reminded of that kid every time this discussion comes up, this idea you guys have that us atheists down here we just have our meaningless subjective opinions but you guys have objectivity and that is the good stuff!
And trying to discuss this with you is like trying to tell that kid that his parents opinion was just their opinion. You still had to agree or disagree with your own opinions.0 -
so you don't just do what God tells you to do. You make your own opinion about what is right and wrong and follow that, irrespective of if you know it is universally right or wrong.On the contrary, it is a desire to exercise the will freely to choose what is the right, moral action to take. Just following the orders of one's conditioned tendencies - embracing determinism - leads to renouncement of responsibility.
Great, so why are you and Jimi arguing that doing that is in fact meaningless because you don't know if you are right or wrong?
That doesn't make any sense. You can't author objective moral law, if the moral law is objective it just exists, universally, independent of anything, like Pi or 1+1=2Any God worth his salt would be the author of an objective moral law.
Objective moral law would, by definition, exist even if God didn't. He can't create it. If he does it is subjective moral law based on his opinion.
What does that have to do with it? My reasoning power comes from my parents, doesn't mean I wouldn't say they are wrong.It is silly to say that God is wrong and I am right, because if God exists then my reasoning power comes from him.
I get the impression Overblood knows more about the nature of morality than you do.I don't object to Overblood making subjective judgements. I object to him calling it morality without appearing to even question why he thinks this is morality.
The how is easy, I say "I think that is immoral"How and why can you apply your morality to all?
The why is because I think it is immoral
Under your own logic though doesn't that make your opinion meaningless?Yes, it is written in the Bible.0 -
Advertisement
-
Groan. Seriously why do you guys always do this?
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but your view of what morality is, is quite useless. Thats why I would state what i did. I don't see the need for the term if you view things the way you do. Like you said in your analogy about the film being awful. That in itself conveys a fairly useless piece of information, i.e. Wicknight thinks the film is awful. It informs us of nothing but the personal movie preferences of wicknight. Your view on morality is as useful/less as this. May as well not use the word.0 -
No, it means I believe that free will exists, and that I try to seek that which is the universal moral law, regardless of what I feel like initially. How does it prove that I don't take responsibility for my actions?so you don't just do what God tells you to do. You make your own opinion about what is right and wrong and follow that, irrespective of if you know it is universally right or wrong.
Because using "morality" is pointless if there is no difference between that and personal taste. It's just abusing language to puff up a statement of preference.Great, so why are you and Jimi arguing that doing that is in fact meaningless because you don't know if you are right or wrong?
I think you misunderstand the nature of a creator God. He's not just another human. If he creates everything then he creates logic, reason, physical laws and moral laws. God's opinion is the law. God has the objective view of things.That doesn't make any sense. You can't author objective moral law, if the moral law is objective it just exists, universally, independent of anything, like Pi or 1+1=2
Objective moral law would, by definition, exist even if God didn't. He can't create it. If he does it is subjective moral law based on his opinion.
No, the brain you use comes from your parents. The laws of logic that you follow do not come from them.What does that have to do with it? My reasoning power comes from my parents, doesn't mean I wouldn't say they are wrong.
Explain.I get the impression Overblood knows more about the nature of morality than you do.
That's a circular argument.The how is easy, I say "I think that is immoral"
The why is because I think it is immoral
I think you misunderstand. I didn't say, or mean, that God is good because he meets my personal tastes (or "moral standard" as you might call it).Under your own logic though doesn't that make your opinion meaningless?0 -
That made sense to him, his parents opinion and objective reality went hand in hand.
I am reminded of that kid every time this discussion comes up, this idea you guys have that us atheists down here we just have our meaningless subjective opinions but you guys have objectivity and that is the good stuff!
And trying to discuss this with you is like trying to tell that kid that his parents opinion was just their opinion. You still had to agree or disagree with your own opinions.
So, out of interest, how do you know that this guy's parents did not have objectively correct opinions?
I don't claim to possess the objective view of things. I only believe that such a view exists and that God possesses it - nobody else could.0
Advertisement