• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does atheism scare you?

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
OK.... so we have established that abortion is in the bible.

Not really - it was about people who are fighting hitting a pregnant woman and (accidentally) causing a premature birth. I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of anything in the bible that directly addresses deliberate ending a pregnancy.

I don't agree that the Bible condones slavery but rather God working through the limitations of flawed humans.

God didn't seem shy of imposing all sorts of other rules - you'd have thought slavery would be important enough to forbid. But instead of condemning slavery, it actually sets out rules about it. Why not just one rule: do not subject anybody to slavery?

I go back to my position. Slavery... God standard... all men were created equal.

Except for the foreigners who could be enslaved for life (Leviticus 25:44-46).

And you still haven't addressed the fact that unless you can produce a fully objective procedure that works for establishing the morality or otherwise of any act, then any claim of an objective standard is useless because there is no objective way to access it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Except for the foreigners who could be enslaved for life (Leviticus 25:44-46).

And you still haven't addressed the fact that unless you can produce a fully objective procedure that works for establishing the morality or otherwise of any act, then any claim of an objective standard is useless because there is no objective way to access it.

To be honest... in that I am holding a position... anybody can say I am not objective in my position. Not to argue the point (because we can argue ad infinitum) - my position is that there is a God and that it is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

An atheist can say, "that is not objective". IF there is a God and I am right in my belief... then, obviously His standard would be the standard.

I'm sure not matter what either of us say, we will end up just holding out position.

Again... I am using "In the beginning".


Not really - it was about people who are fighting hitting a pregnant woman and (accidentally) causing a premature birth. I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of anything in the bible that directly addresses deliberate ending a pregnancy.

I think the standard is a false standard. It doesn't say anything about pulling someone's tooth out either.

Obviously if it wasn't a baby but just tissue, it wouldn't matter if you caused a premature birth. Anyone extracting a baby (on purpose or by accident) is still extracting the baby.

God didn't seem shy of imposing all sorts of other rules - you'd have thought slavery would be important enough to forbid. But instead of condemning slavery, it actually sets out rules about it. Why not just one rule: do not subject anybody to slavery?

Good question although it is inherit in "love your neighbor as yourself" and precedent dictates that there isn't supposed to be slavery. Perhaps because the "do not" would have to be so extensive and encompassing millenniums that it was easier to "thou shalt" rather all the "thou shalt nots"?

In the beginning... it was not so.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
To be honest... in that I am holding a position... anybody can say I am not objective in my position. Not to argue the point (because we can argue ad infinitum) - my position is that there is a God and that it is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

An atheist can say, "that is not objective". IF there is a God and I am right in my belief... then, obviously His standard would be the standard.

You seem to be missing the point. Of course, if some god exists that sets a standard, then we'd have something to go on but if there is no objective way to access this standard, it's useless in practice anyway. Say I accept that your god exists and that I should look to the bible for the standard, that still doesn't help because there are endless different interpretations of the bible.

That's also before we even consider the Euthyphro dilemma: is what is good and just anything that god wills or does god will it because it is good and just?

Obviously if it wasn't a baby but just tissue, it wouldn't matter if you caused a premature birth.

That doesn't make sense - any damage to a person could be said to be "just tissue" - even if they lost a leg or an eye. And a foetus is neither "just tissue" nor is it a baby.

Good question although it is inherit in "love your neighbor as yourself" and precedent dictates that there isn't supposed to be slavery.

Again, this is your interpretation of the bible, while other people can (and did) look at other verses and use them to justify slavery. Even if there is an objective god-standard, there is no way to objectively access it, so there might as well not be one.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You seem to be missing the point. Of course, if some god exists that sets a standard, then we'd have something to go on but if there is no objective way to access this standard, it's useless in practice anyway. Say I accept that your god exists and that I should look to the bible for the standard, that still doesn't help because there are endless different interpretations of the bible.

That's also before we even consider the Euthyphro dilemma: is what is good and just anything that god wills or does god will it because it is good and just?

That is your interpretation. But then again, are you objective?

That doesn't make sense - any damage to a person could be said to be "just tissue" - even if they lost a leg or an eye. And a foetus is neither "just tissue" nor is it a baby.

It's something that "other people" use. You can argue the point with them. :)

Again, this is your interpretation of the bible, while other people can (and did) look at other verses and use them to justify slavery. Even if there is an objective god-standard, there is no way to objectively access it, so there might as well not be one.

I use to say that too... but I have found that when you actually read and study the Bible, those lines of reasonings just pass away.

Nor does your statement refute my position. ;)
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That is your interpretation. But then again, are you objective?

This is very simple really. I am putting forward the hypothesis that there is no objective method to access your (or anybody else's for that matter) god-standard. My hypothesis can be falsified by you (or somebody else) putting forward a fully objective procedure that we can go through that will tells us if some action X is moral or not. It just has to be fully objective and work for any X.

Either you can do that or you can't.

I use to say that too... but I have found that when you actually read and study the Bible, those lines of reasonings just pass away.

So you're right about the interpretation of the bible and other people, who have also read and studied it, are wrong. Isn't it strange just how many people who claim to follow the bible say that and yet still don't agree with each other?

Nor does your statement refute my position. ;)

Your failure to produce an objective method currently stands as a refutation of your position..
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This is very simple really. I am putting forward the hypothesis that there is no objective method to access your (or anybody else's for that matter) god-standard. My hypothesis can be falsified by you (or somebody else) putting forward a fully objective procedure that we can go through that will tells us if some action X is moral or not. It just has to be fully objective and work for any X.

Either you can do that or you can't.

I don't seem to have a problem doing it... Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, strength and body and love your neighbor as yourself.

Haven't come to any part where I have been unable to do it.

So you're right about the interpretation of the bible and other people, who have also read and studied it, are wrong. Isn't it strange just how many people who claim to follow the bible say that and yet still don't agree with each other?

Well, let me see....

John 3:16-17 King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

If there is a group of people that call themselves Christians and says there is another way to interpret that, then yes, I am right and they are wrong. But I haven't come across anyone that disagrees..... yet

Now... I am sure you can find scriptures where there are discussions... but in those few cases I wouldn't say "I am right and you are wrong"... so still no real disagreements.

Your failure to produce an objective method currently stands as a refutation of your position..

Please see first answer above.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I don't seem to have a problem doing it... Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, strength and body and love your neighbor as yourself.

Do you seriously think that this is anything remotely like an objective procedure for deciding the morality of some action X? Do you understand what the word 'objective' means? How about 'procedure'?

John 3:16-17 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

If there is a group of people that call themselves Christians and says there is another way to interpret that, then yes, I am right and they are wrong. But I haven't come across anyone that disagrees..... yet

Now... I am sure you can find scriptures where there are discussions... but in those few cases I wouldn't say "I am right and you are wrong"... so still no real disagreements.

Are you actually reading/remembering the context here? The discussion was about your interpretation of the bible versus others. Specifically some people using passages to justify slavery (mostly historical but @SA Huguenot is arguing here that it was all just fine). The point (again) is that the bible is open to many interpretations and does not therefore provide an objective way of assessing morality.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Do you seriously think that this is anything remotely like an objective procedure for deciding the morality of some action X? Do you understand what the word 'objective' means? How about 'procedure'?

Yes... procedure... why don't you get a little more practical?

Are you actually reading/remembering the context here? The discussion was about your interpretation of the bible versus others. Specifically some people using passages to justify slavery (mostly historical but @SA Huguenot is arguing here that it was all just fine). The point (again) is that the bible is open to many interpretations and does not therefore provide an objective way of assessing morality.

In the case of slavery... absolutely. Precedent... God made Adam and Eve... He didn't make Adam, Eve and a slave. (I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round)

Do you consciously ignore it was people that believe in the Bible that said, "NO... SLAVERY IS NOT GOD'S WILL". Sure, people can twist truth... happens in everyday life. News media does it all the time but only truth is correct. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and life-producer. iMV

After all, Jesus came to set us free... not enslave us.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes... procedure... why don't you get a little more practical?

Are you even being serious? "Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, strength and body and love your neighbor as yourself." is not a procedure for discovering if something specific is morally right or wrong - let alone an objective one.

In the case of slavery... absolutely. Precedent... God made Adam and Eve... He didn't make Adam, Eve and a slave. (I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round)

Again: this is your (subjective) opinion - nothing more. Others can quote (say) Leviticus 25:44-46 and say slavery is fine.

Do you consciously ignore it was people that believe in the Bible that said, "NO... SLAVERY IS NOT GOD'S WILL".

And other people who believed in the bible said the opposite.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Are you even being serious? "Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, strength and body and love your neighbor as yourself." is not a procedure for discovering if something specific is morally right or wrong - let alone an objective one.
Yes it is :)

Again: this is your (subjective) opinion - nothing more. Others can quote (say) Leviticus 25:44-46 and say slavery is fine.

Nope

And other people who believed in the bible said the opposite.

Nope - they would be wrong. :)
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes it is :)

I can only conclude that you simply don't know the meanings of the words 'objective' and 'procedure'. Is English not your first language?

Let me try and help: objective, procedure.


Yes. You trying to use Adam and Eve as precedent for slavery being bad because god didn't create slaves for them, is nothing but your own (rather convoluted and individual) opinion. Adam and Eve were created without lots of things, are we to conclude that everything that they weren't created with is wrong?

And yes. People did and do justify slavery based on other parts of the bible - there is an example on this very thread.

Nope - they would be wrong. :)

So you're claiming that you're right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong. :rolleyes:

The fact others make the same claim about their views and there is no objective way for some independent observer to choose between the various options neatly demonstrates my contention that there is no objective way of accessing a god-standard even if such a thing exists.

QED. :)
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I can only conclude that you simply don't know the meanings of the words 'objective' and 'procedure'. Is English not your first language?

Let me try and help: objective, procedure.

LOL... a communication gap. Let's stop talking about "objective" and show me an example of procedure. I have two first languages.

Yes. You trying to use Adam and Eve as precedent for slavery being bad because god didn't create slaves for them, is nothing but your own (rather convoluted and individual) opinion. Adam and Eve were created without lots of things, are we to conclude that everything that they weren't created with is wrong?

And yes. People did and do justify slavery based on other parts of the bible - there is an example on this very thread.

As I said... not what people do but what is God's standard. One could have an option that you are a computer generated response... someone has to be wrong.

LOL... Your convoluted is my truth. As free will spiritual agents, we can have different viewpoints. But don't create a strawman, please. ;)

So you're claiming that you're right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong. :rolleyes:

The fact others make the same claim about their views and there is no objective way for some independent observer to choose between the various options neatly demonstrates my contention that there is no objective way of accessing a god-standard even if such a thing exists.

QED. :)

With slaves... do you think slavery is right?

OK... so you don't believe one can't and I believe one can. So... we each go merrily on living and let's just love one another to the best of our objective or non-objective capacity. :)
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
LOL... a communication gap. Let's stop talking about "objective"...

Why? It's the whole point. If there is a god-standard, then that must be objective (something is either right or wrong in the eyes of this god) but it's totally useless to humanity if it's not accessible in an objective way. In other words, if what people think is the god-standard can differ and there is no way to objectively decide who is right.

Something like the rules of chess would be an objective standard - it's easy to check and perfectly clear whether a move is legal or not. I added 'procedure' because the rules of morality may well involve calculation. Things can get complicated, like is it okay to kill one person to save ten, or ten thousand, or ten million? What about the death penalty? If it's ever moral, how bad does the crime have to be? How do we measure badness?

An objective moral standard would answer any moral question unambiguously and -- assuming an obojective way to access it --- everybody would agree that the standard had been followed. Specifically, it wouldn't be a matter of opinion, open to different interpretations, or dependent on how anybody felt about it. The only options would be to accept it or reject it.

With slaves... do you think slavery is right?

No I don't, but I've been arguing here with somebody here who thinks that slavery (as practised in the bible) was "beautiful" and that is far from the first bible believer who I've seen trying to defend it. I've also argued with bible believers who defend genocide.

That sort of thing demonstrates that you can't get objective morality from the bible or from bible-believers. They just have to do their best like everybody else. The only real difference is the awkward things in the bible about slavery, genocide, and so on.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No I don't, but I've been arguing here with somebody here who thinks that slavery (as practised in the bible) was "beautiful" and that is far from the first bible believer who I've seen trying to defend it. I've also argued with bible believers who defend genocide.

That sort of thing demonstrates that you can't get objective morality from the bible or from bible-believers. They just have to do their best like everybody else. The only real difference is the awkward things in the bible about slavery, genocide, and so on.

And they would be wrong, of course...

Although we know there are many twisted thinkers out there, could it be we are mis-communicating "defend" and its application?

I hate divorce but I can defend a reason for a certain divorce. God's standard is being lovingly faithful to your spouse and adultery while married is grounds for divorce even if you hate divorce.

Sounds good to me, anyway, and holds to the "love" principle.
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
I don't agree that the Bible condones slavery but rather God working through the limitations of flawed humans.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter that you disagree with what was written in the bible, your disagreement has no bearing on what's written in the bible. I've come across plenty of people who, just like you, don't want a lot of stuff to be in the bible. But the truth is, those things are written in the bible, there's nothing anybody can do about it.

I'm curious about one thing. If you don't think that God did not condone slavery in the bible, then why would you immediately provide the reason as to why God condones slavery?

I can sum up what you said really quick.

"The Bible condones slavery because God was working through the limitations of flawed humans."
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sorry, but it doesn't matter that you disagree with what was written in the bible, your disagreement has no bearing on what's written in the bible. I've come across plenty of people who, just like you, don't want a lot of stuff to be in the bible. But the truth is, those things are written in the bible, there's nothing anybody can do about it.

I'm curious about one thing. If you don't think that God did not condone slavery in the bible, then why would you immediately provide the reason as to why God condones slavery?

I can sum up what you said really quick.

"The Bible condones slavery because God was working through the limitations of flawed humans."

No... I will repeat the issues again... with so many posts, I'm sure that you would have missed it.

Matt 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

First note, "in the beginning" or in other words precedent or original intent.

One could say God condones divorce... no He still hates divorce but He is dealing with hard hearts and apparently is working through flawed people and making the best out of a bad scenario.

Obviously if you have a wife beater, the only solution is a divorce. But wife beaters isn't what God had in mind.

So we go to the law of firsts, or precedent. God created man and women in His image and in His likeness... the God of love created children with no slaves but simply children of God.

But sin, pride, hard heartedness set in and God had to make the best out of a worst situation. It isn't that He condones it but rather working through man's shortfalls. Wars, indebtedness and other things had to be worked through. God doesn't like it, it was "not so in the beginning", but He had to work through the problems that man creates.

But then we come back to the New Testament where Jesus came "to preach deliverance to the captives" where now there is neither "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Just children of God.

Additionally, when Jesus is sitting on the throne in Jerusalem... there are no slaves either.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
No... I will repeat the issues again... with so many posts, I'm sure that you would have missed it.

Matt 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

First note, "in the beginning" or in other words precedent or original intent.

One could say God condones divorce... no He still hates divorce but He is dealing with hard hearts and apparently is working through flawed people and making the best out of a bad scenario.

Obviously if you have a wife beater, the only solution is a divorce. But wife beaters isn't what God had in mind.

So we go to the law of firsts, or precedent. God created man and women in His image and in His likeness... the God of love created children with no slaves but simply children of God.

But sin, pride, hard heartedness set in and God had to make the best out of a worst situation. It isn't that He condones it but rather working through man's shortfalls. Wars, indebtedness and other things had to be worked through. God doesn't like it, it was "not so in the beginning", but He had to work through the problems that man creates.

But then we come back to the New Testament where Jesus came "to preach deliverance to the captives" where now there is neither "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Just children of God.

Additionally, when Jesus is sitting on the throne in Jerusalem... there are no slaves either.

Genesis 1:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

As far as I know, humans are living things that move around on earth. So according the bible, God told Adam and Eve to dominate humanity from the beginning.

But sin, pride, hard heartedness set in and God had to make the best out of a worst situation. It isn't that He condones it but rather working through man's shortfalls. Wars, indebtedness and other things had to be worked through. God doesn't like it, it was "not so in the beginning", but He had to work through the problems that man creates.

But then we come back to the New Testament where Jesus came "to preach deliverance to the captives" where now there is neither "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Just children of God.

Additionally, when Jesus is sitting on the throne in Jerusalem... there are no slaves either.
So why didn't God do the same thing to slavery like what he did to something that supposedly man also had created, murder.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
No... I will repeat the issues again... with so many posts, I'm sure that you would have missed it.
Murder = God command not to do it, God condemns

Slavery = God commands how to do it, God condones

What's the difference between the two?
 
" With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

That's still one of the stupidest comments anyone has ever made, no idea why people actually like to quote it as some kind of profound insight. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret it as an aphorism not a literal truth, it's still the kind of anti-knowledge that makes the population less knowledgeable about the world for having heard it.

For good people to do evil things just requires humans + some kind of minimal justification that can come from just about anywhere.

"Good people" owned slaves in basically every pre-modern society in human history and didn't require scriptures in order to do it, and there are hundreds of reasons beyond religion that make good people do evil things: ideologies, politics, loyalty, love, family, duty, honour, ambition, fear, Progress, scientific advancement, 'the greater good', 'just following orders', 'just doing my job', 'everyone else was doing it', etc.

"Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic." Arthur Koestler
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Murder = God command not to do it, God condemns

Slavery = God commands how to do it, God condones

What's the difference between the two?
I explained that twice before... have no desire to do it again.

But, one thing that is obvious... in one you are dead and in the other your are alive?
 
Top