Theists, please tell me why you believe murder is wrong.

[InChrist]

And if there was no God, would it still be a crime?

Why should it be a crime? If there is no Creator who gave life, to Whom humanity is accountable, why would destroying another life be wrong? If humans simply evolved naturally and arose due to survival of the fittest why would murder be wrong if it’s part of that process?

 

[InChrist]

So you have no internalized moral system, make no personal judgements, and have no personal beliefs regarding right and wrong, but just consult a rule-book when an issue comes up?

How would this differ from sociopathy?

Of course I have an internalized moral system, it’s called a God-given conscience, which God has placed within every person.
Romans 2:14-15

 

[Wandering Monk]

Why should it be a crime? If there is no Creator who gave life, to Whom humanity is accountable, why would destroying another life be wrong? If humans simply evolved naturally and arose due to survival of the fittest why would murder be wrong if it’s part of that process?

Humans have the capacity for empathy. Creator not needed.

 

[Valjean]

No, I don’t believe God could or would say murder is good. That would go against God’s Being and Character, which according to the scriptures is Holy and perfectly good and righteous.

Yet God, especially in the OT, seems quite enamored of bloodshed and genocide. If law is defined as God's will, that would render this not-murder, yet the effect is the same. Much of what God wills or advocates in the Bible would be considered monstrous crimes against humanity today, by any sensible person.

 

[Valjean]

Of course I have an internalized moral system, it’s called a God-given conscience, which God has placed within every person.
Romans 2:14-15

Yet you subscribe to a divine command, or at least some sort of deontological moral system. How does that work? Which system takes precedence?

 

[EconGuy]

That would go against God’s Being and Character

Would you say that past actions are a good indication of character?

If so, have you actually read the Bible?

 

[InChrist]

Would you say that past actions are a good indication of character?

If so, have you actually read the Bible?

Yes, I have read the Bible.

 

[InChrist]

Yet you subscribe to a divine command, or at least some sort of deontological moral system. How does that work? Which system takes precedence?

What do you mean, which system takes precedence?

 

[Valjean]

What are the problems in a religious context? What is the harm?

We're not talking about harm. We're talking about facts, logic and truth.

For what purpose? Is it just fun to point out other people's errors? It might be a little, I'm not judging. But it seems like you had a, forgive me, higher purpose?

Because this is a discussion forum. We're supposed to discuss!

My purpose is exploring the subject at hand. How is discussion possible without presenting opinions and one's justifications for them?

Politics? Never comes up? How often are politics the topic of discussion and/or included in your media consumption?

No, not politics. Religion, morality, moral systems, theology, epistemology. These only come up here in RF.

OK, it seemed like that was a valued ideal you were intending to bring to other people.

Reason and logic are the ideals I'm presenting.

Unwarranted? How? Sloppy reasoning? So what? What's the harm?

We're not talking about consequences, we're talking about epistemology and ontology; about facts, errors, techniques of assessment, and truth.
The facts are what they are, the consequences are what they are. Whether they're helpful or harmful is irrelevant to their truth.

Eh... I'm not so sure that when a person presents their religious beliefs as "rational" they are asking for people to correct them. And naturally, there's more than one version of "death" for a religious forum. As has been stated by others, they **claim** they wouldn't care one little bit if the "religious" forum dies. They don't need or desire arguing about religion. So, "killing" it by silencing, discouraging, mocking actual religious discourse has no negative motivating pressure on these people, if what they're saying is consistent and true.

Why bring a subject up if you're not interested in discussing it?

All that needs to be done to "kill" the "religious" forum is to discourage "religious" people from sharing their beliefs while concurrently getting new religious people to leave, rapidly, if and when they show up. And THAT is precisely what happens around here.

If you don't want your ideas discussed, RF is not the forum for you. If what you want is approbation there are plenty of Christian, Muslim and other fora that will pat you on the back, praise your faith, and question nothing.

 

[InChrist]

Yet God, especially in the OT, seems quite enamored of bloodshed and genocide. If law is defined as God's will, that would render this not-murder, yet the effect is the same. Much of what God wills or advocates in the Bible would be considered monstrous crimes against humanity today, by any sensible person.

I don’t agree. For the most part the OT is a historical narrative revealing the sinful violence of humans against each other. In the few case where God directed destruction of people it was for the specific purpose of judgement against prevalent ongoing corruption and evil. As the Creator and ultimate Judge, God has the wisdom and right to pass judgment upon evil. That is not murder or genocide. Besides, if you study the scriptures God always gives warning and opportunities for people to change and repent from their evil ways. In the OT accounts that you are likely referring to, the people and cultures were given hundreds of years of warning and time to change, before God exercised judgment.

 

[Valjean]

What do you mean, which system takes precedence?

A deontological system vs the conscience-based morality.

 

[InChrist]

A deontological system vs the conscience-based morality.

From my perspective, they are inseparable. God is the ultimate and final moral authority and lawgiver.

 

[EconGuy]

If you are not Jewish, you are not invited.

<attempting incredulity> Well, I never!

But I was trying to answer your questions as honestly and correctly as possible.

That's fair, and I'm interested in answers and anyone willing to discuss.

I'm here and happy to answer your questions from a Jewish perspective, if you choose to offer them. If you are specifically interested in my input, feel free to tag me, it's @dybmh.

And I apricate that, and my goal isn't to take something that's working for you, your faith, I'm more interested in testing my own thoughts and how they stand up to scrutiny. Well, if you ever need a well thought out secular opinion, look me up.

 

[Valjean]

No.... the vowels would not shift a /w/ into a /v/. There is no /w/ in the original language. And conflating the two contradicts the meaning of the name.

We're not talking about the original language. We're talking about the German transliteration and subsequent adoption into English orthography.
The transliteration had nothing to do with meaning. It was about an orthographic transliteration for spoken convenience.

The transliteration you brought is false. Here's a whole slew of people using YHVH. -- LINK

I already posted this: In Modern Hebrew, the word וָו vav is used to mean both "hook" and the letter's name (the name is also written וי״ו), while in Syriac and Arabic, waw to mean hook has fallen out of usage.

Calling it /w/ is not Hebrew! It's Arabic!

Let me say it again. /w/ does not fit the meaning of the name.

It's not about meaning. It's about pronunciation, and adding vowels to an abjad. Sure, you can write it as WHWH or YHVH, but how do you pronounce it? Jehhovah and Yaweh are proposed pronunciations, nothing more.

Abjad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is like mistaking Dan with Dawn. Totally different names. Totally different meanings.

They are absolutely NOT made up spellings, or pronounciations. People who are knowledgable about the Hebrew language and its roots KNOW that it is a pictoral alphabet where the letters have MEANING.

Again, the linguist who came up with the transliteration, using his native German orthography, was not interested in meaning, or what the original, pictoral origins of the Hebrew characters were. He was just adding vowels so the word could be pronounced.

I brought proof for this. Naturally it will be ignored by those who are determined to render everything that can be imagined into a nullified non-dual homogenzied reality.

Proof for what?

That is not what יהוה represents. Overlaying non-dual philosophy onto it is false. A Non-dual perspective might render the spelling meaningless and "made-up" as you say. But that doesn't make it true.

Who said anything about philosophy? The transliteration is not about meaning or philosophy. It's a translation of an abjad into an alphabet.
And where the heck did you come up with non-dualism?

If you transliterate an abjad into an alphabet, you need to add vowels. If the abjad is not pointed, you have to guess at the vowels.
"Jehovah" is a simple transliteration, with added vowels, and with consonants from the language it was transliterated into.

 

[Valjean]

From my perspective, they are inseparable. God is the ultimate and final moral authority and lawgiver.

They're entirely different systems, and will frequently clash. Which will you go with?

If, as you say, God is the ultimate authority, then any conscientious objection to executing homosexuals, argumentative children, critics of the true religion, or the wives, children and livestock of the Amalekites, or the first-born sons of the Egyptians, is entirely just and proper. Conscience does not enter into it.

 

[InChrist]

They're entirely different systems, and will frequently clash. Which will you go with?

Maybe you could explain further how you think they are entirely different systems that frequently clash. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

 

[Valjean]

I don’t agree. For the most part the OT is a historical narrative revealing the sinful violence of humans against each other. In the few case where God directed destruction of people it was for the specific purpose of judgement against prevalent ongoing corruption and evil.

So God orders the total slaughter of innocent women and children and you believe this was just? Where is this conscience you claim?

There was no corruption and evil. It was an imperialist invasion and slaughter -- for territory. The winners wrote the history.
Even if there was corruption, why slaughter the women, children and livestock. Why carry off the virgin daughters for slaves?

As the Creator and ultimate Judge, God has the wisdom and right to pass judgment upon evil. That is not murder or genocide.

OK. I'm seeing pure divine command morality here. What God says, goes, and there's an end on it.
I'm not seeing any personal assessment here at all. No conscience, no personal morality, no notion of right and wrong.

And we non-religious are criticized for our "situational ethics?!" It's you who is abdicating moral judgement.

Besides, if you study the scriptures God always gives warning and opportunities for people to change and repent from their evil ways.

No. He doesn't.

In the OT accounts that you are likely referring to, the people and cultures were given hundreds of years of warning and time to change, before God exercised judgment.

Horsefeathers! Have you actually read the Bible?

 

[Valjean]

Maybe you could explain further how you think they are entirely different systems that frequently clash. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

Divine command: Whatever God does is just, proper and moral, period. My opinion counts for nothing. In fact, I have no opinion.
Conscience: I decide what's just and moral, according to my personal ideas of right and wrong.

 

[EconGuy]

Yes, I have read the Bible.

You didn't answer my other question, probably because you sensed I was going somewhere with that so you didn't want to commit. That was wise.

But let's go back here...You said:

That would go against God’s Being and Character

You say you've read the Bible, so let's discuss gods being and character.

In the book of 2 Kings, God sends two bears to kill 42 children who mocked a prophet named Elisha. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

So now let's evaluate right and wrong using your own definition and test it.

You said that God ordering murder would be inconsistent with God's Being and Character, thus:

1. Actions consistent with Gods Being and Character are moral while those that are inconsistent are immoral

2. Gods actions are always consistent with God's Being and Character

3. Considering 1 and 2 Gods actions are always moral.

4. God causes the deaths of 42 children with the intention of punishing them for teasing Elisha's baldness.

5. Therefore it is moral to kill children for teasing someone because they are bald.

Now most apologists will engage in some form of special pleading at this point, that immoral acts when done by God aren't immoral, sort of like, God's actions are the definition of good, regardless of what God does, but when humans do do these things it's immoral and reading back a few posts that's indeed what you do. And that's fine you can engage in that line of reasoning, as messed up as it is, but what you cannot say is that gods actions are the standard for what is morally right and morally wrong for human beings.

Now the question is, why is killing 42 children wrong? Whatever the answer, clearly it's not gods Being and Character that are the standard.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[Valjean]

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against rocks"
-- Psalm. 137:9

What's up with that?