Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

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?

If you're going to define "murder" as "killing without legal permission", then obviously it's going to be pretty tough to "murder" people if there are legal permissions. However, as far as I'm aware, it's far less common to define "murder" as "unlawful killing" than to define "murder" as "intentional, planned killing of a human being".

With your definition of murder, all one has to do is pass a law saying that murder must take place (say a dictator writes a law over breakfast saying that all Jews are to be executed). And with your morality, such killings would not be considered murder and therefore, they're morally ok. If that's not this "moral relativism" you bring up all the time, then I don't know what is!

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Given that christians can't agree on the straightforward issue of what constitutes "murder" or whether or not the state should permit killings to take place, I think it's quite clear that christian morality is highly ambiguous.

So, to ask my original question again, given that there is such ambiguity, how credible are christian claims to provide a consistent universal moral code?

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Wow. :eek: Eh... ok. You've just gone off the end of the spectrum of wrongness here.

We need to see that passages like these have sense in modern society.

No, we don't. We need to see that this is a book that was written by people 2000 years ago when slavery was seen as a natural part of everyday life. We've grown as a species since then, and our sense of moral values has evolved also. Evolved away from 2000 year old societal structure. You seem to think that having "guidelines" for slavery makes it ok (guidelines such as just how far a master can take a slave-beating session before it becomes wrong). But slavery is not ok. It doesn't matter what way you spin "guidelines" for slavery, it's WRONG. It's dehumanising and is an abomination to life in an egalitarian society. That's why it's enshrined as the 4th article of the universal declaration of human rights 'no one shall be held in slavery or servitude' (while also being implicit in a number of others).

Slavery was probably the first internationally recognised human rights issue and its abolition was a defining moment in the history of our species. The only reason you have to defend it is your misguided belief that it has to be morally defensible because it is sanctioned by your holy book.

Slavery is not ok. Human sacrifice is not ok. Genocide is not ok. Capital punishment for: "adultery", "sex before marriage" and "working on the sabbath" is not ok. Setting bears on youths for disrespecting their elders is not ok! That they are ok is what you have to accept and defend by contending that the bible is a source of moral values.

There's plenty of things in the bible that are of moral value: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" etc. This is known as the "ethic of reciprocity" and has been found across lots of cultures throughout history for thousands of years. It is a morally good idea. And this is the point: in order to decide which parts of the bible represent morally sound concepts and which parts are morally wanting, one has to have a subjective, internal moral compass. It can't be an objective moral compass based on the bible because it's the bible's own moral judgements one is making a judgement on!

Húrin

Nodin wrote: »

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.

The accusation that God is unjust also presumes that God exists.

Húrin

Naz_st wrote: »

There's plenty of things in the bible that are of moral value: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" etc. This is known as the "ethic of reciprocity" and has been found across lots of cultures throughout history for thousands of years. It is a morally good idea. And this is the point: in order to decide which parts of the bible represent morally sound concepts and which parts are morally wanting, one has to have a subjective, internal moral compass. It can't be an objective moral compass based on the bible because it's the bible's own moral judgements one is making a judgement on!

If objective morality doesn't exist then why do you appeal to it to condemn the Bible earlier in your post? How have we morally evolved as a species? We kill more of each other than ever. It was Christians that led the campaign against slavery as a human rights issue (humanists like you typically ignore that) and I suspect that one of the main reasons that they convinced the British government of their cause is that the new industrial technologies made slavery unnecessary. Nothing to do with people being better in modern times than in ancient times.

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

Wow. :eek: Eh... ok. You've just gone off the end of the spectrum of wrongness here.

By saying that Paul's commandment to slave masters to treat their slaves with respect, and for their servants to work with due honour and respect to their master I am "going off the end of spectrum of wrongness"? How about you give a good reason?

In a modern context, why shouldn't workers work as hard as they can for their employers, and why can't employers treat them the way that they deserve? That's basically what is being argued by Paul, and I think that is only a reasonable sentiment to put on the table.

Naz_st wrote: »

No, we don't. We need to see that this is a book that was written by people 2000 years ago when slavery was seen as a natural part of everyday life. We've grown as a species since then, and our sense of moral values has evolved also.

Not really, by and large they are still the same as they were when Paul was speaking about them in Asia Minor to the Ephesians. Paul speaks about the challenges that are facing new Christian communities and with the understanding of Jesus' life and the former Jewish teachings gives them a means of dealing with these issues. I've yet to see how on earth this is wrong.

Naz_st wrote: »

Evolved away from 2000 year old societal structure. You seem to think that having "guidelines" for slavery makes it ok (guidelines such as just how far a master can take a slave-beating session before it becomes wrong).

You've just proven how much you've ignored my previous posts. I think it would be wise to read them first.

Naz_st wrote: »

But slavery is not ok. It doesn't matter what way you spin "guidelines" for slavery, it's WRONG.

If the rights of those who are working for them are respected, I don't see how it is for either. Particularly with the Biblical guidelines of Torah and of the New Testament. Christians do not currently live under 1) the civil laws of the State of Israel, or 2) the laws of ancient Rome. Hence there is no desire for any Christian really to encourage slavery. Rather we should apply the ethics of Paul concerning slave masters to what does deal with our society, labour and work environment.

Naz_st wrote: »

It's dehumanising and is an abomination to life in an egalitarian society. That's why it's enshrined as the 4th article of the universal declaration of human rights 'no one shall be held in slavery or servitude' (while also being implicit in a number of others).

Rather Biblical of you . Emphasis mine of course.

Read what I replied to your previous quote.

Naz_st wrote: »

Slavery was probably the first internationally recognised human rights issue and its abolition was a defining moment in the history of our species. The only reason you have to defend it is your misguided belief that it has to be morally defensible because it is sanctioned by your holy

We have clarified previously that slavery in Torah Israel is a rather different thing from colonial slavery. We've been through this, if you haven't gleaned anything from my previous discussion, that is your loss and not mine. I've defended the Torah by defending criticism of it by Dave.

Naz_st wrote: »

Slavery is not ok. Human sacrifice is not ok. Genocide is not ok. Capital punishment for: "adultery", "sex before marriage" and "working on the sabbath" is not ok. Setting bears on youths for disrespecting their elders is not ok! That they are ok is what you have to accept and defend by contending that the bible is a source of moral values.

1) Torah slavery is different than colonial slavery as discussed in previous posts.

2) There is nothing in the Bible to say that God condones human sacrifice, infact our view of God from Abraham and Isaac indicates that God wanted to do away with the practice entirely.

3) Capital punishment isn't advocated in Christianity for adultery, or sex before marriage. I've asked you to do some research on this. Yes, those people would be deserving of death (Romans 1), but they have received the mercy of Jesus Christ. If we have received God's grace, we cannot put someone to death for theirs. It would be rather hypocritical wouldn't it?

4) God setting bears on mobs of youths who wish to persecute and threaten a Jewish prophet for holding his religion, is what I would call divine punishment. As PDN has argued, God has a foreknowledge of what was to happen, human beings don't.

Naz_st wrote: »

There's plenty of things in the bible that are of moral value: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" etc. This is known as the "ethic of reciprocity" and has been found across lots of cultures throughout history for thousands of years. It is a morally good idea

Amen, and theres a lot more than that too. Turn the other cheek, don't be boastful, don't be arrogant, don't lust after another, don't anger. Take a read of the Gospels and check it out for yourself if you are so cynical.

Naz_st wrote: »

And this is the point: in order to decide which parts of the bible represent morally sound concepts and which parts are morally wanting, one has to have a subjective, internal moral compass. It can't be an objective moral compass based on the bible because it's the bible's own moral judgements one is making a judgement on!

I don't think it is morally wanting. I think the Torah is the inspired word of God that was revealed to Moses and the Jewish people. I also believe that Christ fulfilled some of the Torah commands in bringing the New Covenant to the Gentiles and the Jews who believed (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Matthew 5:17). Why can't it be the objective standard may I add? We don't decide which parts are morally wanting, or which parts are to be held. Rather the Bible explains itself on this issue clearly, as I've told you seek out the truth on the matter in the New Testament.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

The accusation that God is unjust also presumes that God exists.

Would you say the same about Darth Vader?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If the rights of those who are working for them are respected, I don't see how it is for either.

Is prisoner of war slavery "respecting" the rights of captured combatants and civilians alike?

Your argument is someone nonsensically cyclical because you are simply defining the slaves "rights" as the legal situation described in the Old Testament, so it is hardly shocking to find that their "rights" are being respected by these laws.

This of course ignores that fact that based on modern understanding of human civil rights and liberties what is described in the Old Testament, particularly something like the capturing of female civilian populations from war for forced marriage and forced labour is considered one of the most immoral situations.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

The accusation that God is unjust also presumes that God exists.

Well done.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you say the same about Darth Vader?

No, since the purely literary status of.Darth Vader is not in dispute.

If Jakkass' defences of God's reputation presume he exists, then so must Mickeroo's attacks on God. If Mickeroo's attacks do not presume he exists, then neither to Jakkass' defences.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

No, since the purely literary status of.Darth Vader is not in dispute.

If Jakkass' defences of God's reputation presume he exists, then so must Mickeroo's attacks on God. If Mickeroo's attacks do not presume he exists, then neither to Jakkass' defences.

Thats ridiculous, jackass presumes god is not purely literary and i think he is purely literary. Do you really not understand that we may have different views??

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thats ridiculous, jackass presumes god is not purely literary and i think he is purely literary. Do you really not understand that we may have different views??

No, this thread has been based on the assumption that if a God exists, would He be horrible type approach. That's the only way you can get into a discussion really about religion and morality.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

If Jakkass' defences of God's reputation presume he exists, then so must Mickeroo's attacks on God.

No. Mickeroo's attacks on God do not require he exist, any more than booing in Star Wars when Vader chops off Luke's hand requires that one believe he also exists.

Mickeroo's assertion that if God exists we aren't the ones who need forgiving assumes he exists otherwise he wouldn't need forgiving.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

No, this thread has been based on the assumption that if a God exists, would He be horrible type approach. That's the only way you can get into a discussion really about religion and morality.

Well obviously, but you can still have a discussion about it whether you believe in said god or not. When i refer to god being unjust i'm speaking hypothetically. Hurin seems to think just because you think he exists i automatically have to too, or if i dont think he exists then neither do you.

Húrin wrote: »

If Jakkass' defences of God's reputation presume he exists, then so must Mickeroo's attacks on God. If Mickeroo's attacks do not presume he exists, then neither to Jakkass' defences.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

No, this thread has been based on the assumption that if a God exists, would He be horrible type approach. That's the only way you can get into a discussion really about religion and morality.

No, God is horrible either way. He doesn't have to actually exist to be horrible, any more than Darth Vader does. He is described as doing horrible things.

philologos

Actually God is nothing if He doesn't exist surely? I don't agree with you in the slightest that the God of the Biblical text (both Old and New Testaments) is horrible. Theres ample textual support that the God of Israel in the Old Testament was just as loving as in the New Testament.

Tim_Murphy

Theres ample textual support that the God of Israel in the Old Testament was just as loving as in the New Testament.

Only if you realy really want to see it I'm afraid. Not that I think the god the of NT is a particularly attractive proposition but he is an improvement of the OT version at least.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree with you in the slightest that the God of the Biblical text (both Old and New Testaments) is horrible.

Well, perhaps your eyes are closed to the truth about god?

The light is still open to the agnostics, but the theists have well and clearly shut over the blinds...

philologos

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Only if you realy really want to see it I'm afraid. Not that I think the god the of NT is a particularly attractive proposition but he is an improvement of the OT version at least.

It's blaringly obvious, particularly in King Davids Psalms, the book of the prophet Hosea, and infact even in the Torah and the Historical Books. Throughout the entire text of the Tanakh you can see God's love and faithfulness. If you couldn't Judaism would be in serious trouble today.

Dades

The idea that arguing about God's characteristics somehow validates his existence is ridiculous.

In the argument of an atheist, God displays many of the worst characteristics of humans and is therefore deeply flawed. Ergo he is not perfect, but a human construct and does not exist.

Tim_Murphy

Jakkass wrote: »

It's blaringly obvious, particularly in King Davids Psalms, the book of the prophet Hosea, and infact even in the Torah and the Historical Books. Throughout the entire text of the Tanakh you can see God's love and faithfulness. If you couldn't Judaism would be in serious trouble today.

Yes, there are some beautiful passages no doubt. And as you say there are passages where one can see God’s love and faithfulness. I wouldn’t dispute this for a second. However there are also passages where one can see God cruelness, anger and jealousy. Now people who like the nice parts can and will do to any length to rationalise to themselves and others things such as genocide and slavery but at the end of the day they are what they are. It never ceases to amaze me just how much cruelty people such are yourself are willing to justify. Reading through this thread, the amount of mental hoops you have to jump through is quite impressive.

philologos

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

However there are also passages where one can see God cruelness, anger and jealousy.

This is the main point of your post. That depends on whether or not you think that God was justified in punishing people for their transgressions. I think He was, and I think if He created life He can take it away in a second. I don't consider that cruel in the slighest.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

The idea that arguing about God's characteristics somehow validates his existence is ridiculous.

In the argument of an atheist, God displays many of the worst characteristics of humans and is therefore deeply flawed. Ergo he is not perfect, but a human construct and does not exist.

Dades, this isn't the point at all:

Nodin criticised my post for assuming God's existence, whereas in this whold thread God's existence has been assumed. If others have done this, surely it is in context that I do so as well to explain my position?

Tim_Murphy

I think He was, and I think if He created life He can take it away in a second. I don't consider that cruel in the slighest.

A cruel act is a cruel act. Whether or not somebody is justified in doing it or not is an entirely different question. If a King or supreme leader decides that all captured females are to be sold off into forced marriages, to be used by their husbands as they see fit, then you would probably agree with me that this would be an incredibly cruel way to treat priosoners. It is no different to the people who are going to suffer whether a diety, a king or anybody else sanctioned it. All that changes is certain peoples willingness to justify it.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Nodin criticised my post for assuming God's existence, whereas in this whold thread God's existence has been assumed. If others have done this, surely it is in context that I do so as well to explain my position?

I posted really more in response to this:

Húrin wrote: »

The accusation that God is unjust also presumes that God exists.

I would have thought the situation obvious to both sides - Christians believe God exists - atheists don't. This does not preclude a debate on the morality of the actions of God as described in the bible, any more than we can't discuss Ahab's quest for vengeance.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

By saying that Paul's commandment to slave masters to treat their slaves with respect, and for their servants to work with due honour and respect to their master I am "going off the end of spectrum of wrongness"? How about you give a good reason?

Ok, thinking slavery is ok because some book lays out a few guidelines and also thinking that the slave/master relationship is equivalent to the employer/employee relationship is so fundamentally misguided as to go off the end of my own personal subjective scale of wrongness. Maybe to other Christians you're not even towards the wrong end of the scale, I don't know.

In a modern context, why shouldn't workers work as hard as they can for their employers, and why can't employers treat them the way that they deserve? That's basically what is being argued by Paul, and I think that is only a reasonable sentiment to put on the table.

Workers & Employees is not a "modern context" for slavery. We don't have employment laws that let us know how far we can take an employee beating before it becomes wrong. Employees have a right to decide to change employment, get promoted (perhaps above their current manager), have trade unions and ultimately can decide to leave employment and go travel the world or sit on their a*se or whatever they want. The fact that I have to even point out these things is bizarre.

You've just proven how much you've ignored my previous posts. I think it would be wise to read them first.

If the rights of those who are working for them are respected, I don't see how it is for either. Particularly with the Biblical guidelines of Torah and of the New Testament. Christians do not currently live under 1) the civil laws of the State of Israel, or 2) the laws of ancient Rome. Hence there is no desire for any Christian really to encourage slavery.

Read what I replied to your previous quote.

As to reading your previous posts: I have, I just disagree. Reading them and agreeing with them are two different things. The bible tells masters they can beat their slaves, but if they permanently damage their eye or knock out their teeth then the slave is to be let free. It also tells slaves to "fear and obey" their masters. You think this means that the bible is providing just and meaningful guidelines and as such makes the slavery it is legislating vastly different from colonial slavery. I fervently disagree.

1) Torah slavery is different than colonial slavery as discussed in previous posts.

1) "Different type of slavery" - my post wasn't condemning "Colonial Slavery" but the whole concept of slavery. The 4th article in the declaration of human rights doesn't say 'no one shall be held in colonial type slavery, (biblical slavery ok)' for a good reason. Human freedom is a inalienable right of everyone. If you can't see that, that's to your shame.

2) There is nothing in the Bible to say that God condones human sacrifice, infact our view of God from Abraham and Isaac indicates that God wanted to do away with the practice entirely.

2) Yes, God changed his mind at the last minute and so Isaac was not sacrificed. But he didn't relent in the case of Jephthah (Judges 11)?

3) Capital punishment isn't advocated in Christianity for adultery, or sex before marriage. I've asked you to do some research on this. Yes, those people would be deserving of death (Romans 1), but they have received the mercy of Jesus Christ. If we have received God's grace, we cannot put someone to death for theirs. It would be rather hypocritical wouldn't it?

3) So it is advocated, but the Mercy of Jesus means we don't go through with the punishment?

4) God setting bears on mobs of youths who wish to persecute and threaten a Jewish prophet for holding his religion, is what I would call divine punishment. As PDN has argued, God has a foreknowledge of what was to happen, human beings don't.

4) Good old divine punishment. However, since you seem to be pointing out (erroneously) that I haven't read your previous posts, I think it only fair that you should also read what you've written: Remember, you don't believe anything that isn't explicitly revealed in the bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're asking me to speculate on what hasn't been revealed. I can't write a supplement to the Bible.

God didn't reveal that he knew that the incident in question was going to escalate into violence, so obviously you can't believe that?

Amen, and theres a lot more than that too. Turn the other cheek, don't be boastful, don't be arrogant, don't lust after another, don't anger. Take a read of the Gospels and check it out for yourself if you are so cynical.

I never said there was nothing of moral value in the bible, that has been my point all along - that since there are good and bad, we must be applying a subjective moral interpretation to distinguish. You can't use the bible's moral judgements to judge the bible.

Why can't it be the objective standard may I add?

Ok, as to this universal moral authority that we apparently "all" appeal to (your words), answer me this: I believe it's morally wrong to inculcate children into a religion. You obviously would disagree. To what universal, objective moral authority are we both appealing to?

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really, by and large they are still the same as they were when Paul was speaking about them in Asia Minor to the Ephesians.

I contend that humans have moved on over the last 2000 years, I think I've made my reasoning pretty clear on this in previous posts. I mean just take crucifixion as an example - we don't think that is a justifiable punishment anymore, for anything, but it was perfectly ok in Roman times for all sorts of transgressions, as you are no doubt aware!

PDN

Naz_st wrote: »

Ok, as to this universal moral authority that we apparently "all" appeal to (your words), answer me this: I believe it's morally wrong to inculcate children into a religion. You obviously would disagree. To what universal, objective moral authority are we both appealing to?

You are both appealing to an objective moral authority that sees an individual as possessing some inherent worth and therefore an entitlement to certain rights, freedoms and dignities. Where you and Jakkass disagree is as to what is the right course of action in order to give those entitlements to a child.

You think the best way for that to happen concerning religion is to let the child make their own mind up. However, you presumably don't think it is OK for a child to eat whatever it wants (including poisonous toadstools), or to choose whether to go to school or not. So you see it as necessary, in order to protect a child's entitlements, to make some choices on behalf of the child and to leave others to the child itself.

Jakkass believes that a true religious upbringing will, like education, enable the child to grow up enjoying its entitlements.

So you are both appealing to the same moral principles, but you disagree as to precisely where to draw the line in determining which choices you make on the child's behalf.

However, I disagree that we 'all' appeal to thiese same moral principles. A thorough-going relativist may see the human being as possessing no more inherent worth than a centipide and therefore not entitled to any rights, freedoms, or dignities.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually God is nothing if He doesn't exist surely? I don't agree with you in the slightest that the God of the Biblical text (both Old and New Testaments) is horrible. Theres ample textual support that the God of Israel in the Old Testament was just as loving as in the New Testament.

I was referring to 'IRL', rather than the smiting of the whoever. There are people who come into this world, suffer, and then die. Vast numbers live lives of poverty and hardship through no fault of their own.

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

You are both appealing to an objective moral authority that sees an individual as possessing some inherent worth and therefore an entitlement to certain rights, freedoms and dignities. Where you and Jakkass disagree is as to what is the right course of action in order to give those entitlements to a child.

I agree: We (Jakkass and I) disagree a on what morally constitutes the "right course of action" - this is my point. Of course there are broad concepts where we both agree on what is right, as you point out, but there are also areas where we fundamentally disagree (e.g. the slavery concept running through the thread). He has stated that we "all appeal to a universal morality", I'm merely pointing out the inherent contradiction that occurs when you realise that we clearly disagree on the "right course of action" for a number of different specific things.

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

You think the best way for that to happen concerning religion is to let the child make their own mind up. However, you presumably don't think it is OK for a child to eat whatever it wants (including poisonous toadstools), or to choose whether to go to school or not. So you see it as necessary, in order to protect a child's entitlements, to make some choices on behalf of the child and to leave others to the child itself

Not really a fair comparison. We know from plenty of studies the negative effects a child's diet can have on their growth and well-being. We also know that children who attend school are more likely to have a successful career if they go to school. These are hard facts which we can say for certain are in the best interests of our children. When it comes to religion, there are no hard and fast benefits or proven advantages to any one path, be it theistic or atheistic. Therefore any path which you steer a child down is uninformed and potentially misleading, so it is best to let a child make up its own mind, as to the best of our knowledge there are no concrete or lasting consequences to either, it is simply a lifestyle choice.