Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[night912]

To me, moral choices obey God/are consistent with Bible morals, which requires, for example, at some points, the death of sentient creatures, to execute justice! Capital punishment, for example, favors the wellbeing of potential human prey (future murder victims) over the predator (a known murderer).

So you base your morality on obeying the bible. So you will be committing an immoral act if you put your child to death because he cursed you, since it's illegal according to the government laws to do so, which God said that you must obey the laws of the government. But if you don't, you acting immorally for disobeying God, since a child must be put to death if he cursed his parents.

 

[rational experiences]

In basic terms, some tenets compared/contrasted. Understand the six points below underpin what "educated" people in the West are taught:

1. We can't know whether or not God exists, so it's up to humans to solve our own problems.
* Jesus Christ is source and power for problem solving

2. Research, science, and education hold the keys to human progress.
* Acknowledge God for giving us these tools from the human mind

3. Humans got here through evolution and we continue to evolve.
* Man has a propensity to behave as a degenerate, and needs, therefore, Christian regeneration

4. Humans develop their own moral understanding of right and wrong without the need of divine assistance.
* Babysit children and see this process at work! LOL

5. We should not judge people who arrive at moral conclusions that differ from our own.
* Christians should not judge people with different moral conclusions, but we can discuss and debate the issues

6. The problems we are facing today require governments throughout the world to work together in cooperation with one another.
* The coming one-world government, like all empires, will be at its root antithetical to God

Ie Sus.

Ie means example.

Sus meant in science teaching maths is the false prophet. Jesus nose point...mountain peak. Pyramid. Sacrificed life.

Secret meaning Jesus.

Memory said theism for God mass conversion vision of a mountain peak recorded after nuclear event.

Meant peak not attacked still existed above water. Nose point where vacuum not enabled to cool core planets. Core war gods...released radiation also into vacuum.

Earth man science kept his machine reactive channel open...so UFO came back to earth.

How we were life destroyed. Full wisdom know by scientific mind. Thinker who says I can copy the past.

Vacuum released hot radiation mass came back to peak nose point disintegrated melted peak.

Thesis vision how to copy nose point pi and Phi maths to convert mass.

Did conversions using underground pyramid transmitted from temple cooling of signals

Did not work. Theory fake.

Not only did they open underground water into volcanic rise polluted drinking water the mountain temple blew up.

Must be why my pumped tank water was brown this morning for a moment. Truly sick scientists.

 

[rational experiences]

Science satanism.

Science discussing by talk natural history not satanism.

Philosophy talking not satanism.

Science machine false God satanism.

A practice.

Humans image in clouds man formed by God gas spirit history.

Alien image UFO radiation fallout. Radiation from all planets held in.vacuum burn God gases.

Our water supported by all gases of God history gets used to form alien image.

Spirit of God unnaturally satanic destroyed by machine

Stephen Haw King warning.

The teaching against satanism.

 

[night912]

Yes, the slave does not prosper. How did you come to understand that all humans ought to prosper/benefit? We can see the survival imperative operating much differently in nature--for example, there are species that eat their own.

How did you come to understand that all humans ought to prosper/benefit for a system to be moral?

Why do you protest when humans eat other humans? ... is a question designed to see where you're coming from. I keep getting from atheists at RF silly answers, like "obviously it's wrong, you disgust me." I'm trying to be Socratic, to get you to consider your ways.

Then how come you dodged their questions, don't engage with the ones who have given you their answers that their morality comes from the wellbeing of humans, or strawman them?

 

[rational experiences]

Science reaction b.s. artist.

Basic.

Mountain peak planet existed.

Peak above natural water mass presence earth.

Blue light sky cooled.

Clouds equals why blue light sky exists that equals cold gas not burning.

Each review supports the presence other form.

A teaching.

Relativity before you changed natural law

Stone mass existed you never owned maths that represented mass

Water existed by a volume.

Not maths natural mass.

You theory about it not existing. The reaction.

Evaporates water.
Removed God stone.

What lying in science means....actual a human lying.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I'm Jewish.

Maybe it would have been better to say: Animals aren't the same as people.

WHY aren't animals the same as people? Why is it okay to kill an animal and eat it, but not a human?

My response to these questions would be "Study Tanakh and the NT for more".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, slaves do not prosper. As in, their wellbeing is not being addressed. And, as I said, if morality is about anything, it's about the wellbeing of humans (and sentient creatures).

Humans kill each other too. That doesn't make it moral (though it may be moral in some cases, for example, when a person is suffering. There's that nuance again ). But we recognize that it's not a behaviour that optimizes the wellbeing of human beings or of society. In fact, it's a detriment to society if people have to walk around all day worrying that they could be murdered at any moment. It's also a detriment to society if everyone gets murdered, because then there is no more society and no wellbeing for anyone.


Why do I protest when humans eat other humans?

Well, I do, and I don't. Depends on the situation. If a person is being murdered and eaten, I definitely would protest that. Their wellbeing is completely being taken away from them.
But what if it's a situation similar to one where those Chilean soccer players whose plane went down in the Andes Mountains ended up eating the dead in order to stay alive and attempt to save the remaining survivors? In that case, I would say it's not immoral. The wellbeing of the already-dead person is not being compromised while the wellbeing of those still alive and starving people needs to be addressed.


If Biblical morality is about following orders and commands, then I would have to argue that that is not an exercise in morality at all. That cannot be superior to secular morality, because secular morality involves thinking through our actions and their consequences and weighing out the impact of our actions on those around us. Following commands doesn't involve any of that.



I don't agree that capital punishment is moral. I think it's hypocritical. Once a person is dead, they can't sit and think about the consequences of their actions as a form of punishment. They won't be thinking of much of anything after that. It's the easy way out for them.

This doesn't really answer the question though. I asked what morality is about. Not where or who you think it comes from. It sounds to me like you are saying morality is about following orders from a deity.

We have different definitions of "wellbeing", perhaps, or rather, you are adding "freedom" to wellbeing. Slaves in Israel had a day of rest/Sabbath, worked in humane conditions and have protection and provision.

How did you come to understand that obeying a good leader is more or less moral than "thinking through the issues and obeying". If I'm a cop and my captain orders me to the scene of a domestic violence issue, it is of course LESS moral to "sit and have a good hard think about what I could be doing".

Regardless, my overall point is your morality is all, as you said above re: capital punishment, "I think . . . ". Subjective, coming from a flawed human, not a supremely good Savior. And as I've patiently pointed to, what you think is often at odds with what we see in human culture and the animal kingdom, and has no science basis--then again, we're talking about metaphysical, intangible concepts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sometimes it's also "right" to deprive a person of a snake biting their leg. Your analogy and/or understanding is poor: The point was that it's wrong to deprive someone of anything without their consent. As the depriver, you are not the arbiter of moral justice.



Slavery is "only" wrong in the way that it's never right. Again, I have no problem professing "absolute morals" whatever that means if I can justify them.

Half of this thread is YOU first trying to make the case that the bible is "objectively moral" and "consistent" and that you feel slavery is wrong.

When that didn't work out you changed your tune and instead of admitting to the inconsistency of bible morals, you show us the inconsistency of your morality: Your morals change on a whim.

You went from slavery being wrong to slavery being right to try to justify the "absolute morals" of the bible instead of justifying your own position.

I think morality is subjective: There is no ojective morality. But for the record: Almost all statements of morality are "absolute" in that they say something is either wrong or right.

For example, the ten commandments are absolute. They don't say "thou shalt not murder, except on Tuesdays" for example.

The Bible remains objectively right in all of its doctrine and morals.

How did you come to understand that consent is paramount in this issue? Do you ask a cow's consent before you visit Burger King?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No you're wrong, that's not what moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that whatever that is wrong, it's wrong in all situation. It doesn't compare different actions with one another. It only compares the same actions. Moral absolutism doesn't deal with how to determine what is right or wrong. It deals with being consistent with what is right and wrong.

If someone is a moral absolutist and thinks that slavery is morally wrong(immoral), then no matter on culture, society, what situation it is or who they are, slavery is morally wrong (immoral). If they think that slavery is morally right (moral), then there is no situation where slavery is immoral.

Or if lying is immoral, then no matter what situation it is, lying is always immoral. Even if you lie to save numerous lives, you still committed an immoral act.


So you contradicted yourself by saying that slavery is not immoral, then say that slavery is morally right for the enemies of God's people to be own as slaves, but it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves.

There's a thing called graded absolutism, but first you must understand what moral absolutism before discussing it.

It's important in any debate to define terms.

No you're wrong, that's not what moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that whatever that is wrong, it's wrong in all situation. It doesn't compare different actions with one another. It only compares the same actions. Moral absolutism doesn't deal with how to determine what is right or wrong. It deals with being consistent with what is right and wrong.

If someone is a moral absolutist and thinks that slavery is morally wrong(immoral), then no matter on culture, society, what situation it is or who they are, slavery is morally wrong (immoral). If they think that slavery is morally right (moral), then there is no situation where slavery is immoral.

Or if lying is immoral, then no matter what situation it is, lying is always immoral. Even if you lie to save numerous lives, you still committed an immoral act.


So you contradicted yourself by saying that slavery is not immoral, then say that slavery is morally right for the enemies of God's people to be own as slaves, but it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves.

There's a thing called graded absolutism, but first you must understand what moral absolutism before discussing it.

It's important in a debate to define terms, and mutually agree upon terms: Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia.

You ignored the Wikipedia definition to define a sample "moral absolute".

 

[BilliardsBall]

No you're wrong, that's not what moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that whatever that is wrong, it's wrong in all situation. It doesn't compare different actions with one another. It only compares the same actions. Moral absolutism doesn't deal with how to determine what is right or wrong. It deals with being consistent with what is right and wrong.

If someone is a moral absolutist and thinks that slavery is morally wrong(immoral), then no matter on culture, society, what situation it is or who they are, slavery is morally wrong (immoral). If they think that slavery is morally right (moral), then there is no situation where slavery is immoral.

Or if lying is immoral, then no matter what situation it is, lying is always immoral. Even if you lie to save numerous lives, you still committed an immoral act.


So you contradicted yourself by saying that slavery is not immoral, then say that slavery is morally right for the enemies of God's people to be own as slaves, but it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves.

There's a thing called graded absolutism, but first you must understand what moral absolutism before discussing it.

It's important in any debate to define terms.

Wellbeing consists of all humans. The wellbeing of a human slave is effected.


Has nothing to do with slavery.


Slavery is a human being owning another human being as property. So dogs, cats, horses are not human, therefore your defense is irrelevant and just a red herring.

Also, stay with the same moral act that is being discussed. Animals eating animals have nothing to do with slavery. Humans eating humans have nothing to do with slavery.

Slaves in Israel had wellbeing, including food, protection, a rest day unique in the ancient world/Sabbath, humane work, and much more up to the right to learn about the true God and eternal life.

You are adding to general wellbeing freedom. As I think about it, my secular friends love certain freedoms only, with the more liberal atheists excited about socialist and communist ideals that restrict freedom.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No you're wrong, that's not what moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that whatever that is wrong, it's wrong in all situation. It doesn't compare different actions with one another. It only compares the same actions. Moral absolutism doesn't deal with how to determine what is right or wrong. It deals with being consistent with what is right and wrong.

If someone is a moral absolutist and thinks that slavery is morally wrong(immoral), then no matter on culture, society, what situation it is or who they are, slavery is morally wrong (immoral). If they think that slavery is morally right (moral), then there is no situation where slavery is immoral.

Or if lying is immoral, then no matter what situation it is, lying is always immoral. Even if you lie to save numerous lives, you still committed an immoral act.


So you contradicted yourself by saying that slavery is not immoral, then say that slavery is morally right for the enemies of God's people to be own as slaves, but it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves.

There's a thing called graded absolutism, but first you must understand what moral absolutism before discussing it.

It's important in any debate to define terms.

So you base your morality on obeying the bible. So you will be committing an immoral act if you put your child to death because he cursed you, since it's illegal according to the government laws to do so, which God said that you must obey the laws of the government. But if you don't, you acting immorally for disobeying God, since a child must be put to death if he cursed his parents.

Biblically, you cannot put a child to death for cursing you. Read the whole passage and you'll discover the "Child" was a grown adult drunkard who was known in the town for being difficult and immoral. Punishment in the Bible comes for immorality.

Jewish tradition records that no child was killed for these reasons, and the Bible passage you cited says "All Israel will hear and fear", that is, it would be an extraordinary lesson, even in its abeyance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No you're wrong, that's not what moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that whatever that is wrong, it's wrong in all situation. It doesn't compare different actions with one another. It only compares the same actions. Moral absolutism doesn't deal with how to determine what is right or wrong. It deals with being consistent with what is right and wrong.

If someone is a moral absolutist and thinks that slavery is morally wrong(immoral), then no matter on culture, society, what situation it is or who they are, slavery is morally wrong (immoral). If they think that slavery is morally right (moral), then there is no situation where slavery is immoral.

Or if lying is immoral, then no matter what situation it is, lying is always immoral. Even if you lie to save numerous lives, you still committed an immoral act.


So you contradicted yourself by saying that slavery is not immoral, then say that slavery is morally right for the enemies of God's people to be own as slaves, but it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves.

There's a thing called graded absolutism, but first you must understand what moral absolutism before discussing it.

It's important in any debate to define terms.

Then how come you dodged their questions, don't engage with the ones who have given you their answers that their morality comes from the wellbeing of humans, or strawman them?

I've engaged the ones who are not completely mocking with one-liners and wasting all our time. I'm also engaging you.

We have to define "wellbeing" since slaves were able to live long and prosperous lives in the ancient world and could even buy full freedom and citizenship at times.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ie Sus.

Ie means example.

Sus meant in science teaching maths is the false prophet. Jesus nose point...mountain peak. Pyramid. Sacrificed life.

Secret meaning Jesus.

Memory said theism for God mass conversion vision of a mountain peak recorded after nuclear event.

Meant peak not attacked still existed above water. Nose point where vacuum not enabled to cool core planets. Core war gods...released radiation also into vacuum.

Earth man science kept his machine reactive channel open...so UFO came back to earth.

How we were life destroyed. Full wisdom know by scientific mind. Thinker who says I can copy the past.

Vacuum released hot radiation mass came back to peak nose point disintegrated melted peak.

Thesis vision how to copy nose point pi and Phi maths to convert mass.

Did conversions using underground pyramid transmitted from temple cooling of signals

Did not work. Theory fake.

Not only did they open underground water into volcanic rise polluted drinking water the mountain temple blew up.

Must be why my pumped tank water was brown this morning for a moment. Truly sick scientists.

Ie Sus comes from the Greek NT. Yeshua's name comes from the name we call "Joshua" and means "God who is Savior!"

 

[dybmh]

WHY aren't animals the same as people? Why is it okay to kill an animal and eat it, but not a human?

My response to these questions would be "Study Tanakh and the NT for more".

This still doesn't address the fact that slavery is theft.

 

[sayak83]

You have redacted my moral thought process to cultic, suppressive thought. I have had many influences on my morality, politics, religion, etc.

By demonizing me as your argument opponent, you are losing the chance to learn from me. But I want to learn from you. May I ask you some questions?

Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil? If always, do you accept absolute morals and their creator? How could absolute morals exist, that haven’t evolved over time, without a moral creator rather than moral evolution?

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves?

I can give you a very thorough defense/apologetic for Bible slavery, but I'd like to know your answers to the above, so we aren't bogged down in a few verses of a book you don't believe in, containing myths you think never occurred. It's like reproving the morality of Dune or LOTR, to you, or Game of Thrones, perhaps. All fictional, yes?

Absolute morals can exist eternally just as absolute mathematical and logical laws can exist eternally and uncreated. Provide justification as to why they would need a creator?

 

[Darkstorn]

The Bible remains objectively right in all of its doctrine and morals.

That's what you claim but fail to justify.

So far it only seems moral to those who consider slavery moral but murder immoral. Others will see that as an inconsistency.

I see it as evidence of the fact that the bible is not objectively moral.

I disagree with you therefore one of us is wrong. How do you determine which one of us is being objective in morality?

All I know is that you haven't in any way managed to justify your flip-flop views of slavery. Whereas I've justified my position.

How did you come to understand that consent is paramount in this issue? Do you ask a cow's consent before you visit Burger King?

I'm a vegetarian. I don't go to burger king. I think mass-produced meat is immoral.

I.E I think killing animals is immoral.

Humanism is all about respect to your fellow sentients. If you ignore consent before you break another's rights, you don't care about your fellow sentients. Therefore you are morally bankrupt.

What do you think is the purpose of morality? I'm guessing you think it's about following laws. I say both laws and morality are constructs that are supposed to benefit all sentients as a principle.

Hurting another sentient for any reason seems to defeat the purpose of morals. It makes them arbitrary rules.

 

[night912]

It's important in any debate to define terms.


It's important in a debate to define terms, and mutually agree upon terms: Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia.

You ignored the Wikipedia definition to define a sample "moral absolute".

When using reference sources to define terms, it's important to understand what is being said in the definition. Reading the example helps.

You ignored the Wikipedia example that followed the definition, resulting in you misunderstanding the definition of "moral absolutism."

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.
Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.
Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia.

 

[night912]

It's important in any debate to define terms.


Slaves in Israel had wellbeing, including food, protection, a rest day unique in the ancient world/Sabbath, humane work, and much more up to the right to learn about the true God and eternal life.

You are adding to general wellbeing freedom. As I think about it, my secular friends love certain freedoms only, with the more liberal atheists excited about socialist and communist ideals that restrict freedom.

I dealt with all of this already, back in post #87. There's no point in addressing it again if you're just going to ignore it. Denial won't make your argument anymore stronger than it was before.

 

[night912]

It's important in any debate to define terms.


I've engaged the ones who are not completely mocking with one-liners and wasting all our time. I'm also engaging you.

We have to define "wellbeing" since slaves were able to live long and prosperous lives in the ancient world and could even buy full freedom and citizenship at times.

If you want to engage in an honest discussion, then stop dodging those points. If you expect others to answer your questions to further the discussion, then you should to do the same and answer my questions. They were direct response to question regarding why I think slavery is immoral.

If you answered "No" to those questions, it shows that slavery is immoral. But if you answered, "Yes," then you are just being dishonest (lying) because you've shown in this post that you were offended. And since you feel that it's wrong for you to be treated like that, what do you think a slave that is treated that way feels?

If you weren't being dishonest in this discussion by continuously changing your stance on slavery because you were shown to be wrong, then perhaps those harsher points wouldn't have been required in showing you why slavery is immoral.

Is your wellbeing being violated if you are beaten to near death as long as you didn't lose an eye or tooth? Please explain your health condition in that situation for me.

 

[night912]

b) You are confusing a precept (God’s people have freedom, the enemies of God’s people will be enslaved/destroyed)

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.
Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.
Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia


So if it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves, and if biblical morality is absolute like you claimed, why is it not immoral to own the enemies of God's people as slaves? Slavery is immoral for one group of people but not for another, then it is in contradiction with moral absolutism.

If your morality is based on laws that favors one particular group of people over the rest, then that's a poor moral system that you have. You have not shown why your moral system, biblical morality, is superior to secular morality. All you shown was that you believe that the Jews are superior and should be specially treated morally, compared to all others. Your quote above says it all.