|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2012 : 02:46:16 [Permalink]
|
| OK most of the events of the Torah took place in the Iron age. My mistake. |
Common mistake, however most of the events in the Torah--and other texts of the Hebrew Bible [HB--Ed.] never took place. As a tangent, this includes the genocidal passages. One might wonder why one would "make up" committing genocide.
| Since you seem to somewhat civil in your latest. . . . |
"Measur'd in manner and speech."
post I'll answer your question, I receive my morality from the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings Jesus Christ.
|
Curious. Which one? Further, do you believe that denying salvation to those who seek it, or reveling in the slaughter of innocents fits any definition of "moral?"
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
 |
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 13:27:02 [Permalink]
|
I apologize for coming into this discussion late.
I do think "morality" comes from feeling empathy for others and perhaps identifying with others pain and suffering. Homo sapiens have been successful because of social groups and interactions. For this to succeed you do need empathy and certain morality and rules.
Humans are capable of more morality than just having empathy with the people in our social group. We are able to feel empathy for others in a country across the world. It is also important to have empathy for one's "enemies."
Of course, morality is more than what I outline above. I think everyone agrees that morality is not so black and white. The best kind of morality is one that is always evolving
"Regarding this and situation ethics. Do any Atheists think that certain things we regard as immoral today such as patriarchy, genocide, rape, murder, torture, infanticide when placed in the setting of the bronze age for example, were ever morally justifiable?
People are shocked at the brutality of the old testament. But think of the situation, if you were a tribe under threat, maybe you would have to make a decisive blow against your enemy. Giving the defeated enemy's virgins over to your men was not only common practice, it was necessary to ensure the continued loyalty of your men. When we look at it in context today it's shocking to anyone who reads it. But that is exactly what you'd expect to find in a document written in that era. With that in mind, were those the actions of evil people? Or ordinary people?
Discuss.
[/quote]
Is it moral to sacrifice one person to save 10 people or a hundred people or a thousand people? If someone believes that a sacrifice to a god will save others, they will believe it is moral to do so. One could argue that is more moral to let god kill people rather than us doing the killing
It is never moral to kill your enemies' children because you think those children may grow up with the idea of killing you. YOu are assuming what these children will think before they even have a chance to grow up.
It is not moral to "give" women to your men to maintain their loyalty. Why can't a leader maintain loyalty in other ways? Why must these women suffer. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 14:23:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
I apologize for coming into this discussion late. |
This response may seem a little "out from left field."
| People are shocked at the brutality of the old testament. But think of the situation, if you were a tribe under threat, . . . |
That is not the situation. First thing you must understand is that it never happened--the Sojourn, Exodus, Conquest, United Monarchy--are all mythic. On that point, perhaps another topic and those who wish "evidences" for that may PM me so as not to totally change this discussion.
Second, in the stories they are the invading aggressors and they are commanded, by YHWH, to sacrifice populations to him. Hardly moral but morality does not enter into a discussion with respect to deities. Sort of the message of Job--"I am king, you are scum, you submit and, maybe, you get a present . . . or not." It is rather late in the game to seek a moral message in such stories.
Third, since these stories did not happen, why were they made up? Sort answer: because it happened to them:
Thus to your point:
| But that is exactly what you'd expect to find in a document written in that era. |
Particularly those that construct a mythic past to resemble that of conquerors.
Now to your larger question:
| Is it moral to sacrifice one person to save 10 people or a hundred people or a thousand people? |
No, it is never moral; it is never good. It may be necessary.
In the stories you note, the god does not do the killing--he has either another agent--"Destroyer"--or demands the humans do it. He also punishes them if they fail to kill every last living thing in devotion to him. So I would deem that neither moral, nor good, nor necessary. But that is a different question, perhaps.
As a species, one would hope, we have progressed.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 14:24:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
| Simple answers to complex questions might be nice, but are generally wrong. |
You have any evidence of that? |
Yes. All of creationism, for example.| Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. |
Really? I thought you were the expert. |
The expert on detecting sarcasm in text? How did you ever get that idea?| And then we would lack the other benefits of the space program. |
And you still can't make a case for a space program not conflicting with a primary goal of reducing human suffering. |
I already have, you just disagree. Beyond what I've already said, human suffering also comes in the form of ignorance, which the space program directly seeks to alleviate. Also, I already spoke about how everyone has goals which sometimes conflict, and so prioritization is necessary. Having a "primary" goal doesn't mean that all other goals need to be ignored 100% of the time (or even 90% of the time). Plus, goals are often highly intersectional, and so working on a secondary goal can move one closer to one's primary goal.| I don't think you are stupid enough to believe research with negative results is useless. |
It sure isn't helpful to "reducing human suffering" (except in the way that I just outlined above, which you weren't considering anyway).| I think you're just arrogantly unwilling to concede a point you clearly lost. |
"Clearly?" Ha!| Not exactly. More like when Jesus talks to a small group of people he isn't necessarily addressing every Christian who will ever live. Some advice given to certain people at a certain time is not a law or commandment. Somewhat obvious really. |
How is that in any way not situational? It is exactly that.| But Buddhists are relevant? |
No, they were mentioned only as a contrast to Christianity. Your mention of Muslims was a rebuttal to that, as if Muslim doctrine could somehow save Christianity from selfishness.| Gotcha, one rule for you another for me. |
If I were doing that, it's only because you're such a good example for me to follow.| You mention Buddhists, fine, I mention Muslims, condescending sarcasm. Starting to see how this works. Also Muslims are certain of their morality too, no? I fail to see a difference. |
Yeah, you just go ahead and leave out all of the context in order to try to score a rhetorical point.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
AyameTan
New Member
Japan
36 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 15:10:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Originally posted by AyameTan
You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the term "selfishness". Vindictiveness and selfishness are not mutually exclusive. Burning one's cash would be selfish because it denies anyone else the ability to benefit from it.
|
You're an idiot.
|
Thanks for conceding defeat. Now if only WLC, Ravi Zacharias et al would be as honest with their insults. But again, being utter sociopaths would preclude them from losing their temper. Or severing their ties to pathological lying. |
"Tatti hitori no inochi wo sukuu mono wa zensekai wo sukuu." |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 18:43:46 [Permalink]
|
| Not directly relevant perhaps, but here is an example of someone going by the OT "morality". |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
AyameTan
New Member
Japan
36 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 01:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Regarding this and situation ethics. Do any Atheists think that certain things we regard as immoral today such as patriarchy, genocide, rape, murder, torture, infanticide when placed in the setting of the bronze age for example, were ever morally justifiable? |
No, because they didn't think through their options. They simply wanted to make their tribe in their little corner of the world look superior, so they'd have a reason to be condescending to all other nations.
Have you read the rules for war that the OT advocated? Give the enemy a choice - be your slaved, or be wiped from existence. Genocide or slavery. How compassionate is that? How is that in the least bit enlightened?
Originally posted by On fire for ChristPeople are shocked at the brutality of the old testament. But think of the situation, if you were a tribe under threat, maybe you would have to make a decisive blow against your enemy. Giving the defeated enemy's virgins over to your men was not only common practice, it was necessary to ensure the continued loyalty of your men. When we look at it in context today it's shocking to anyone who reads it. But that is exactly what you'd expect to find in a document written in that era. With that in mind, were those the actions of evil people? Or ordinary people?
Discuss.
|
But as you probably know, history is written by the winners. Without opposing viewpoints to check and verify, how can we take the word of the bible as the undisputed truth, as historical consensus for what actually occurred?
If your soldiers were so whimsical as to require fresh virgins to secure their loyalty, then they weren't very loyal to you in the first place, now were they? |
"Tatti hitori no inochi wo sukuu mono wa zensekai wo sukuu." |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 01:40:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by AyameTan
Without opposing viewpoints to check and verify, how can we take the word of the bible as the undisputed truth, as historical consensus for what actually occurred? |
[Tangent--Ed.] Actually, we do have opposing view points from those who actually won and recognize the biblical history proves mythic. [End Tangent.--Ed.]
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
AyameTan
New Member
Japan
36 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 01:52:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Originally posted by AyameTan
Without opposing viewpoints to check and verify, how can we take the word of the bible as the undisputed truth, as historical consensus for what actually occurred? |
[Tangent--Ed.] Actually, we do have opposing view points from those who actually won and recognize the biblical history proves mythic. [End Tangent.--Ed.]
--J.D.
|
Thanks for the assist. :) Although OFFJ and others would have us rely solely on the bible and dismiss any evidence that either disproves it or makes it look embarrassing and/or immoral. |
"Tatti hitori no inochi wo sukuu mono wa zensekai wo sukuu." |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 02:09:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by AyameTan[quote]Thanks for the assist. :) Although OFFJ and others would have us rely solely on the bible and dismiss any evidence that either disproves it or makes it look embarrassing and/or immoral.
|
Then they would dismiss the biblical texts themselves. In that they would share kinship with a great many who worship something they do not actually know; who merely "read into"--eisegesis--things like texts and history what they WANT to believe.
However, I am always willing to be surprised: this is why I asked him the source of his morality. Since he finally answered I must ask him to designate which one to follow and, more importantly, does he also advocate the abhorrent practices demanded by the various versions of his source.
Returning to the tangent, what I find fascinating is why authors/mythmakers would make up genocides. In a way it makes sense: like any war movie--Chuck Norris/Stalone DEFEAT Vietnam/Russia/Des Moines with lots of people exploding. Nothing like a good slaughter for good history!
--J.D.
[Edited for he is wont to misspell "want," what?--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/07/2012 02:10:50 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 12:09:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
However, I am always willing to be surprised: this is why I asked him the source of his morality. Since he finally answered I must ask him to designate which one to follow and, more importantly, does he also advocate the abhorrent practices demanded by the various versions of his source.
|
What I gather is that they say something like: That was in the Old Testament! We're not supposed to do that stuff anymore!
Never mind the fact that that is where their 10 Commandments comes from, as well as their hatred of homosexuals.
So it's just the OT punishments we're supposed to ignore but still keep a selective bunch of OT prohibitions?
It's hard to deal with people when they cherry-pick and dodge from their own holy book like that. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 15:41:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
What I gather is that they say something like: That was in the Old Testament! We're not supposed to do that stuff anymore! |
Then they should never, ever cite the Hebrew Bible for support of anything. Further, they would then reject, utterly, the Matthean Junior. 
| Never mind the fact that that is where their 10 Commandments comes from, as well as their hatred of homosexuals. |
Given one of the versions of the misnamed "10 Commandments" demands sacrifice of the first born and there is no actual proscription against homosexuality--it is against a position: "better to give than receive"--I suspect they start with a conclusion then, as you suggest, cherry pick their way through the texts hoping to find support.
This applies to the NT texts. There are a lot of nasty things attributed to Junior. As I chide those who declare various "nice" sayings as "t3h or1gin4l" why not the nasty ones? Are they not more reliable since, well, there would be every reason not to make them up?
Hogwash on both sides, actually. We have nothing original--wrong language.
It's hard to deal with people when they cherry-pick and dodge from their own holy book like that.
|
Just have to hold their feet to the point, so to write. Which is why I asked both my questions: I was interested in the answers even if I knew what they were going to be.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
wantfreethinking
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 09/17/2012 : 23:48:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Usually examples given by atheists of moral behaviour are ones which everyone can agree are "good", charity for example. But this is cheating, they are taking concepts that religious people are taught are good and moral, then using this baseline as a yard stick against their own behaviour because there is no universal moral code and they have never defined one of their own. Even when they try not to they are taking their moral framework from religion.
|
Consider the possibility that moral behavior, in general, is the result of secular understandings of right and wrong. Any resemblance to religious teachings could be due to the fact that religion is the product of man. Few people would suggest God actually wrote the Bible. It was written by men. These men were fully aware of the social constructs that made up society. These social constructs provided for a legal and moral foundation for every member of society to follow.
www.wantfreethinking.com |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2012 : 06:53:31 [Permalink]
|
Welcome wantfreethinking, to Skeptic Friends Network.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2012 : 07:04:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by wantfreethinking
Consider the possibility that moral behavior, in general, is the result of secular understandings of right and wrong. Any resemblance to religious teachings could be due to the fact that religion is the product of man. Few people would suggest God actually wrote the Bible. It was written by men. These men were fully aware of the social constructs that made up society. These social constructs provided for a legal and moral foundation for every member of society to follow.
www.wantfreethinking.com
|
Yes I'm aware of that line of thinking. My point was that anything assumed to be "Moral behavior in general" is always compared to pre-existing religious benchmark because atheists are unable to define any standards of their own. That was my original conjecture anyway, the discussion has obviously influenced my thoughts on this. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What would you say to this argument about atheists
