Can God be moral?

[halbhh]

I don't get the logic in what you are saying and also don't think it is correctly understood in regards to the bible, besides as I already said, as a good saying, which hold no meaning.

The reason I don't follow your logic, is that if your explanation should be reasonable, the word slave should not appear at all.

The mere fact, that one person is identified as a slave (lesser) than another, demonstrate that the slave owner is not willing or interested in being treated equally to the slave or even being referred to as such.
I don't go grab someone off the street and make them my slave and tell them this saying and then expect them to reply... "Well, fair enough, it make sense, you are treating me fair and all, guess its ok to be your slave then, how generous of you to enslave me."

The logic doesn't work as I see it. And we can't deny that the bible is filled with rules about how to treat slaves, how they are your property and that you can beat them senseless, if you desire. All which is sanctioned by God. And it is even pointed out that God believes that hebrew slaves should be treated differently than other slaves, so even here the saying doesn't seem to be something God agrees with.

One way the saying could have meaning and at least be somewhat consistent, is if Jesus were referring to how the Jews ought to treat each other, as that would be consistent with what God said in the OT.

What is the essence of slavery?

It's to take advantage of someone, such as by stealing their labor, or time, or energy, or the things they have made.

So...therefore, logically, even if the simple form of slavery is outlawed so that it becomes rare (still around, but hidden)....that would not mean the more subtle kinds of slavery that no law talks about have become rare.

More subtle ways of taking advantage of others can continue everywhere, and have.

So, not only has slavery itself continued (even in the U.S.), but if anything, once you include all forms of taking advantage of others, the more general essence of slavery is even today common in reality, here in the U.S.

 

[Nimos]

That's kinda remarkable you would imagine that.

So, I'm a believer not just for a couple of years. I've read through the text of the common bible fully, and more than 1 time. I'm fairly good at logic and reading comprehension (e.g. tested at the 99 percentile in both in standardized tests in youth), and am a life long reader, having read very widely all sorts of stuff, from intricate philosophical stuff to involved texts of many kinds....

...and still am not suppose to be able to know what my own scriptural text is saying, even when it's not even one of the hard parts?

Perhaps you should rethink that guess.

Sorry, but that is completely irrelevant for the point im making. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, you should attack it for where you believe it is wrong, rather than casting doubt about me as person.

The reason for this is, because anyone could do the same:

Bart Denton Ehrman (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

So using your logic, is Bart Ehrman automatically correct compared to you given that he is a professor and have written lots of books?
Obviously you would find that to be a poor argument, as there would be no reason for anyone besides him to decide what is right or wrong about the bible, if they don't have the same qualification as he does.

That is why people attack arguments and not the person behind the argument.

 

[Nimos]

What is the essence of slavery?

It's to take advantage of someone, such as by stealing their labor, or time, or energy, or the things they have made.

So...therefore, logically, even if the simple form of slavery is outlawed so that it becomes rare (still around, but hidden)....that would not mean the more subtle kinds of slavery that no law talks about have become rare.

More subtle ways of taking advantage of others can continue everywhere, and have.

So, not only has slavery itself continued (even in the U.S.), but if anything, once you include all forms of taking advantage of others, the more general essence of slavery is even today common in reality, here in the U.S.

Yes slavery exists today, I even think you could make the argument that its more than earlier, depending on what you consider slavery or slavery conditions. Lots of people are forced into sextrafficking, sweatshops in china and other poor countries so there is lots of slavery in the world.

My point is that I don't really care to much about these "good" sayings, such as "Children wishing for world peace", the thoughts are good and we can appreciate it, but everyone also know that, despite all children wishing for this one time or another in their life, it doesn't happen and it's not how things work. And working with assumptions that is so far from reality, I don't think is very helpful, when trying to deal with serious issues such as moral issues, we have to deal with them as they relate to humans lives in reality.

Again, the saying itself, if one doesn't think to deep into it, is fine I think. But it doesn't work in regards to moral issues. Its sort of like when Sam Harris and other atheists say that well-being is what should define moral issues. It's fine as a general idea of what one aim for, but besides that its useless, because its not defined what is meant by it.

Like I could argue that getting rid of all people with an IQ lower than 80 would increase the wellbeing of societies, and if that is how I define wellbeing, then Im in theory justified in doing it, based on this.

 

[halbhh]

If you believe my reasoning is wrong, you should attack it for where you believe it is wrong, rather than casting doubt about me as person. ...

...
That is why people attack arguments and not the person behind the argument

Very good. That's the right standard.

Interesting. You have stated a moral standard here.....

Have a look:

.... you should... _____ [next follows a statement of a moral principle]

So....moral standards do exist....?

 

[Nimos]

Very good. That's the right standard.

Interesting. You have stated a moral standard here.....

So....moral standards do exist....?

Its not because its a moral standard, but a logical fallacy.

 

[halbhh]

And we can't deny that the bible is filled with rules about how to treat slaves, how they are your property and that you can beat them senseless, if you desire. All which is sanctioned by God.

Sanction: "give official permission or approval for (an action)."

If God in the common bible actually approved of beating slaves, I'd not believe in a 'god' like that, or else would reject the text as being inaccurate (not about God in reality), one or the other.

But, in contrast to your characterization, the actual wording of the initial law reads:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

That's not an approval at all...but merely an inadequate restriction. Not enough by itself. (and there's a reason there was a gradual progression of law in the texts: that Israel could not do Matthew 7:12 at first: they were not ready)

Now, if the God in the common bible had stopped right there (as you seem to suggest in your chosen wording) -- with only this initial restriction -- and gone no further, then I'd not at all believe in a 'god' like that.

But in reality, for the believers, we can easily read messages like this in the OT (I'll chose just one instance, which to a believer has a clear instruction) --

"... you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.

4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.
You cannot fast as you do today
and expect your voice to be heard on high.
...

6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:

to loose the chains of injustice

and untie the cords of the yoke,

to set the oppressed free

and break every yoke?

Isaiah 58 NIV

So that in time, after Christ says that Matthew 7:12 is the essence for all the Law, when after that in Philemon a slave is not only freed but also made entirely equal in all ways to his former master...

It's completely unsurprising to me.

So, you see, while I'd not believe in what you thought God is in the common bible, I can in contrast quite easily believe in what God is in the common bible in the actual reality of the texts in full.

When read in full, getting all the real meaning.

So, if you admit (as you just did) that slavery is still around, and the essence of slavery is common today....then you are admitting the reality of the very same problem God has spent century after century, millennia, working on humanity to change -- the lack of compassion or fairness in us: to change that, so that we would become more caring about others.

 

[halbhh]

Its not because its a moral standard, but a logical fallacy.

And being illogical is...perfectly ok?

Or not?

 

[Nimos]

And being illogical is...perfectly ok?

Or not?

Yes, there is nothing wrong with it as such. But as an argument it's simply not functional.

Claiming that a person is correct based on authority, regardless of the argument made, is a logical fallacy and have nothing to do with morality.

 

[halbhh]

Yes, there is nothing wrong with it as such. But as an argument it's simply not functional.

Claiming that a person is correct based on authority, regardless of the argument made, is a logical fallacy and have nothing to do with morality.

Ok, it might help to notice that we are not using the word "moral" in exactly the same way.

By "moral" what I mean when I use the word is: what works better than other competing ideas to create the most enjoyable life, in terms of what humans as a whole universally value, stuff like safety (peace), love (relationships), and such: universals.

Just in case you'd not seen the list of Universals that all humans want (maybe even 100% of us at least early on in life), this is a handy guide:

Start from the bottom, and rise upward. We don't tend to want things higher up in the pyramid unless we have already satisfied at least in a significant degree the levels below.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia

So, there you have it.

You'd find just about everyone you ask at random over age 20 would agree the stuff in Maslow's list are indeed the things they want in life. Maybe there is an odd internet forum where you could find a few to disagree and say (or claim at least) they don't want these things, but the great majority of random people from any country will indeed want these things.

 

[Nimos]

If God in the common bible actually approved of beating slaves, I'd not believe in a 'god' like that, or else would reject the text as being inaccurate (not about God in reality), one or the other.

Well how did you reach the conclusion that God does not sanction it? If God had said "Thou shall not own slaves" then I would agree with you. But if God say "This is how you should treat slaves.." it automatically follows that owning slaves is sanctioned, especially since God is the only authority.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

So you understand this as God saying that owning slaves is wrong? or do you understand it as God saying that if you own a slave, you have to be careful not to beat them to death? Imagine yourself being beaten so much that for the next 2 days you are not sure if you will die or not. And if you don't die, then you shouldn't complain about it, because someone else owns you as if you were an object.

So, if you admit (as you just did) that slavery is still around, and the essence of slavery is common today....then you are admitting the reality of the very same problem God has spent centuries working on humanity to change -- the lack of compassion or fairness in us: to change that, so that we would become more caring about others.

I don't know how you would react such conclusion, God hasn't done anything to remove slavery, humans have. Simply look at what you have written here, first you argue that God doesn't actually sanction slavery, Then you argue that someone that is a slave, which shouldn't be allowed according to your understanding of God, are then freed and really good off afterwards.

"So that in time, after Christ says that Matthew 7:12 is the essence for all the Law, when after that in Philemon a slave is not only freed but also made entirely equal in all ways to his former master..."

To then argue that God is working on humanity to change it. Im sorry, but there are so many contradictions in this, that its not easy to keep track off. When all this nonsense could have been solved, had God simply stated "Thou shall not own slaves!!"

Its probably the most clear way to tell it, rather than you having to go through 4-5 different texts, trying to explain how God is not sanction it, and that those slaves which he doesn't sanction are treated good, to him actually working on getting rid of it. And my guess is that you answer to this is that it is not God's fault, but humans?

 

[Nimos]

Ok, it might help to notice that we are not using the word "moral" in exactly the same way.

By "moral" what I mean when I use the word is: what works better than other competing ideas to create the most enjoyable life, in terms of what humans as a whole universally value, stuff like safety (peace), love (relationships), and such: universals.

I thought we had already sorted this and that we agreed that this is not what morality is?

Moral in the standard definition means:
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

You can't just add a whole range of things to it and completely change it meaning, it makes no sense. An example could be:

"I throw a rock in the face of a child"... is that a right or wrong behaviour.

Its not about if it would have been better of me to have thrown a metal object in his face instead. And whether that would have made his life more enjoyable. It's about the actual behaviour of throwing something in his face, that he didn't ask for and if that is right or wrong.

Just in case you'd not seen the list of Universals that all humans want (maybe even 100% of us at least early on in life), this is a handy guide:

Yes and that have nothing to do with morality.

How would it fit into this, if I asked you to put this somewhere: "I think we should sacrifice 10 cats to get rid of evil spirits?"

I honestly think you should stick to the standard definition of morality and not create your own, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to understand what you mean by morality.

 

[Nimos]

Ok, it might help to notice that we are not using the word "moral" in exactly the same way.

This might be helpful to give you an idea of what im talking about. (Not meant as an insult, simply so we can avoid a lot of mess.)

 

[halbhh]

I don't know how you would react such conclusion, God hasn't done anything to remove slavery, humans have.

While some assume Jesus was only human and not at all divine, I don't share that assumption.

More to the point of our above discussion though: I'd not agree with anyone that tried to claim that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, Christ all did nothing to help improve the human condition. I'd not agree, because I'm aware of things they did that were significant to change people for the better. So if you don't think they did any good, we might not be ever able to agree on much at all. Ideas matter to change people/culture/civilization. Christ's ideas he spoke have created powerful change for the better --

I think such individuals are the only reason we don't have constant unending war at all times.

.

 

[halbhh]

This might be helpful to give you an idea of what im talking about. (Not meant as an insult, simply so we can avoid a lot of mess.)

Pretty much on principle, I don't watch videos unless I already know they would be among the very rare ones worth my time. If it has a good idea to express, I'm sure you could communicate it, if you try.

 

[Nimos]

While some assume Jesus was only human and not at all divine, I don't share that assumption.

More to the point of our above discussion though: I'd not agree with anyone that tried to claim that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, Christ all did nothing to help improve the human condition. I'd not agree, because I'm aware of things they did that were significant to change people for the better. So if you don't think they did any good, we might not be ever able to agree on much at all. Ideas matter to change people/culture/civilization. Christ's ideas he spoke have created powerful change for the better --

I think such individuals are the only reason we don't have constant unending war at all times.

.

Well I never said that they didn't do anything helpful. I just don't think that Jesus were divine. A lot of people have found comfort and meaning in the bible, both for good and bad things. So I have no objection to that.

 

[Nimos]

Pretty much on principle, I don't watch videos unless I already know they would be among the very rare ones worth my time. If it has a good idea to express, I'm sure you could communicate it, if you try.

It simply explain what is meant by morality and ethics nothing "dangerous" in it. Simply to remove a lot of confusion having to deal with several different definitions, so it is worth you time, you have my word on it

 

[halbhh]

It simply explain what is meant by morality and ethics nothing "dangerous" in it. Simply to remove a lot of confusion having to deal with several different definitions, so it is worth you time, you have my word on it

I'd still rather read. I'm a reader.

Just to remind you, every time above, over the last many days I've referred to "moral" I've always been referring to what works best in outcome.

A testing result. A practical outcome.

 

[Nimos]

I'd still rather read. I'm a reader.

Just to remind you, every time above, over the last many days I've referred to "moral" I've always been referring to what works best in outcome.

A testing result. A practical outcome.

That is fine, it just makes things a lot more "heated" than they have to be when talking about completely different things.

What you do with your definition is probably more along the lines of stating your rules for your moral reasoning, meaning how you decide right from wrong in certain situations, so you are not wrong in using terms like "love", "hate" etc. Because often our reason for doing things are based on emotions.

The issue is that "what works best" is completely subjective, because if we go with the idea of slavery, and using a loose definition that "a slave is a person forced to serve another against their will", then "What works best" is a question of who you ask? For the slave it might not be, but for the slave owner it could be.

And we can apply this to a society as well, which obviously have been done, given that slavery have been justified as it being a good idea for a given society with a lot of expendable workforce, so for people in that society it was good, because it made them a whole lot of money, but probably not so much for the slaves.

So what we can ask is whether slavery is morally wrong?

I don't think you and me disagree on this, that we do think that it is wrong. Because our moral reasoning might be that we think its wrong to own someone against their will. But looking at it from an objective point of view, there doesn't seem to be a golden rule that tells us that we are in fact correct about that. We just collectively (you and me) decided that we think it is wrong. But others might not agree that should they "capture" us, that we are worthy enough humans to not be enslaved and serve them, because their moral reasoning might be that they are superior to us for whatever reason, whether it because of skin color, having the wrong religion etc.

But just as with us, there doesn't seem to be anything telling these people that they are wrong in their views.

So for me, I agree with Sam Harris, in the idea that we need to have some sort of "gold standard" by which we can conduct moral reasoning, but we should not be naive and think that these are objectively truth and that we can simply base them on a loose word like well-being, it needs to be defined and it has to take into account that people do not see eye to eye on how to conduct moral reasoning. Because most of us, if not all are not very good at using logic when it comes to moral issues, often we simply base it on an emotion and throw out moral judgements without actually thinking to much about it, like "Murder is always wrong, therefore murders should be punished.", But this completely fails, when for instance a government decide to assassinate someone they don't like and are not punished for it, even if they got it wrong.

For me, I think we in human history have spend way too much time trying to solve things as if there is an objective moral standard, obviously because religions have lead the way on this and God being the author of this morality. Not blaming religion as such, because that is how things were/is. But rather we should take control of it and work it out ourselves and stop trying to appeal to some higher moral power, it have been done for centuries and still we suffer from the same issues. People/societies don't follow objective moral standards, but subjective ones, sort of like along the lines of the UN Human rights.

In my opinion, morality as part of a philosophy class ought to be taught in much higher degree in schools than it seems to be today, even at the very earliest classes to really learn people what it is, how do reason, in the same way that we learn math, because we all struggle with it and a lot of bad things are being done around the world as a result of bad moral reasoning and judgements. Throw in some serious classes in critical thinking, sceptisms etc. would also help a lot. Basically teach children how be humans and how to function in a society.

 

[halbhh]

That is fine, it just makes things a lot more "heated" than they have to be when talking about completely different things.

What you do with your definition is probably more along the lines of stating your rules for your moral reasoning, meaning how you decide right from wrong in certain situations, so you are not wrong in using terms like "love", "hate" etc. Because often our reason for doing things are based on emotions.

The issue is that "what works best" is completely subjective, because if we go with the idea of slavery, and using a loose definition that "a slave is a person forced to serve another against their will", then "What works best" is a question of who you ask? For the slave it might not be, but for the slave owner it could be.

And we can apply this to a society as well, which obviously have been done, given that slavery have been justified as it being a good idea for a given society with a lot of expendable workforce, so for people in that society it was good, because it made them a whole lot of money, but probably not so much for the slaves.

So what we can ask is whether slavery is morally wrong?

I don't think you and me disagree on this, that we do think that it is wrong. Because our moral reasoning might be that we think its wrong to own someone against their will. But looking at it from an objective point of view, there doesn't seem to be a golden rule that tells us that we are in fact correct about that. We just collectively (you and me) decided that we think it is wrong. But others might not agree that should they "capture" us, that we are worthy enough humans to not be enslaved and serve them, because their moral reasoning might be that they are superior to us for whatever reason, whether it because of skin color, having the wrong religion etc.

But just as with us, there doesn't seem to be anything telling these people that they are wrong in their views.

So for me, I agree with Sam Harris, in the idea that we need to have some sort of "gold standard" by which we can conduct moral reasoning, but we should not be naive and think that these are objectively truth and that we can simply base them on a loose word like well-being, it needs to be defined and it has to take into account that people do not see eye to eye on how to conduct moral reasoning. Because most of us, if not all are not very good at using logic when it comes to moral issues, often we simply base it on an emotion and throw out moral judgements without actually thinking to much about it, like "Murder is always wrong, therefore murders should be punished.", But this completely fails, when for instance a government decide to assassinate someone they don't like and are not punished for it, even if they got it wrong.

For me, I think we in human history have spend way too much time trying to solve things as if there is an objective moral standard, obviously because religions have lead the way on this and God being the author of this morality. Not blaming religion as such, because that is how things were/is. But rather we should take control of it and work it out ourselves and stop trying to appeal to some higher moral power, it have been done for centuries and still we suffer from the same issues. People/societies don't follow objective moral standards, but subjective ones, sort of like along the lines of the UN Human rights.

In my opinion, morality as part of a philosophy class ought to be taught in much higher degree in schools than it seems to be today, even at the very earliest classes to really learn people what it is, how do reason, in the same way that we learn math, because we all struggle with it and a lot of bad things are being done around the world as a result of bad moral reasoning and judgements. Throw in some serious classes in critical thinking, sceptisms etc. would also help a lot. Basically teach children how be humans and how to function in a society.

A thought came up here:

But looking at it from an objective point of view, there doesn't seem to be a golden rule that tells us that we are in fact correct about that.

Ah, but there is a golden rule. heh heh.

And it's objectively testable. (there isn't anything more objective than testing and observation, regardless of how willing one individual is to be objective, testing/observation is the most objective possible general process to detect reality that is independent of our individual viewpoints)

So, we have actually a plausible rule that is also testable: one can actually repeatedly test it in varied situations (in real life for instance) to see whether it results in an increase or decrease of the Universally valued human goals people agree about (posted just above in post #289, as illustrated by Maslow's hierarchy).

The rule in full, proactive form:
Matthew 7:12

 

[Nimos]

Ah, but there is a golden rule. heh heh.

I said there doesn't seem to be a golden rule.