‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
 
   
 

If God made us, why did he make us so stupid?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
26 April 2019 14:22
 
TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

Religion and morality is subjective.”  Not if they’re adhering to the truth.

Subject to correct human interpretation.

 

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“But exist, independent of our emotional position about them, or our opinions, or feelings.
Is a fact a truth?  Because if so, objective truth (small o objective) exists all around us.”  This violates your previous statement that everything we perceive or conceive is subjective.  If your previous statement is to be believed, then nothing can be objective and there is no such thing as truth.  The truth cannot be true for one person, but not another.  The truth must be true in all circumstances.

By definition, human constructs cannot be objective…

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Facts exist.  If they are truth, then truth exists.”  If we accept your previous statement, then how can we say that facts exist since we would be saying this from a subjective perception?

Its an interesting problem of perception, isn’t it?

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“I don’t see how you are connecting the meaning of life to facts in this particular statement, but I have no difficulty finding meaning for my life outside of religious claims or religious philosophies.”  If you adhere to your previous statement, then the meaning of your life that you find can only be subjective.  I don’t doubt that many people have similar philosophy to yours, however, it’s unsatisfactory to the concept of truth.  Our lives cannot only have the purpose that we give them.  If that were the case, then I could justify nearly anything I want to do and call it “good,”

If religious texts are the only thing keeping you from doing “anything you want and calling it good” then you’re probably a shitty person.  Or you have a shakey understanding of good and bad.  Or a poor understanding of how society works.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

which is why atheism cannot give society a foundation for morals and ethics.

Atheism doesn’t claim to.  It only talks about the non-existence of god(s).
(I have mentioned this several times.)

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

And everything that impacts my life matters to me, so I can’t connect your ‘nothing matters’ statement to my life, meaning, goals, or accomplishments.”  I don’t mean that nothing matters to the individual.  I am speaking of the logical concept that nothing can matter.  If everything is subjective and temporary, there is no convincing reason to say that anything we do in our lifetimes matters.

Does anything we do in our lifetimes matter to those who came before?  Or those who come after, once memories of us fade?
(Aside from the noteworthy exceptions, many people do not leave lasting marks in history or mythology.)

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

But many parts of the bible have been shown not to be true…”  Which parts?

See above post…

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Thus the truth of the bible requires rigorous examination and verification…”  Rightfully so with any historical document.

“The truth of the bible is subject to its historical accuracy - which is shakey.”  What parts are shakey?

See above post.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“The truth of the bible is subject to the nature of its authors - which were many, and all were people - possessing all the various limitations, biases, prejudices and opinions that people come with.
The truth of the bible cannot be taken for granted due to past errors, edits, additions and modification…”  Why do you suppose the 66 different books that make up the Bible were canonized?

Politics.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

Something we say can’t be objectively true if we are always saying it from a subjective perception.  Aren’t you painting a target around the bullet holes when you redefine the word “subjective?”

I’m not redefining it.  I’m simply not limiting myself to the top hit of a quick google search for that definition.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

That’s a pretty limited definition.”  It is the definition, however.

In part.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Are we talking about facts now, or are we talking about value statements with questionable veracity and mysterious origins?
Or do you wish to talk about meta-concepts and thought problems?”  If something is a fact, then it is the truth.

On this we mainly agree.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“So this statement is objectively true…”  I agree that it’s objectively true, however, I don’t understand how you are logically able to say that it’s objectively true in light of your belief that everything is subjective.  If everything we perceive or conceive is subjective, then all of your reasoning with me is subjective.

Small o
Small t
No reification.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Even though they may contain nuggets of truth (small t), or rather, nuggets of decent life-instruction within them.”  From your perspective, if there is truth in them, then how do you reconcile that with the subjectivity of everything?

Because the relative value of their acceptance and practice is subject to whether they are ultimately harmful or helpful.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

Are they true only if we perceive then to be true?

Are they false only if we percieve them to be false?  Is it possible to percieve a falshood as the truth?  Is it possible to percieve a truth as a falshood?

All is relative.

[ Edited: 26 April 2019 14:25 by Jefe]
 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  211
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
27 April 2019 06:56
 

“Hey have you read this book?  It was written by the all knowing and all powerful creator of the universe.  He knows everything- you’ve gotta read this!”
Oh, sounds incredible!  What secrets does it reveal?
“You won’t believe it!  There’s this talking donkey, and this burning bush, and all kinds of talk of slavery and what foods you should eat.  Oh and this guy lives in a whale and then this other guy builds a giant ship and puts all the animals of the earth on it.  So good!”
Jesus, sounds like a fairytale.  Anything about mathematics or the far reaches of the universe or the structure of atomic particles?
“Not really, I mean it’s not a science book.  But there’s like people killing on gods command and people coming back to life.  Must read.”
Pass

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
29 April 2019 12:05
 
proximacentauri - 26 April 2019 11:55 AM
TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 10:37 AM
proximacentauri - 26 April 2019 09:44 AM

@TwoSeven1

Morality based on theology is subjective with respect to interpretation of that theology. Different sects of Christianity have differing moral codes based on interpretation. In addition to that, individual Christians have their own personal interpretive take which may differ from the sect. Most Christians I know moderate the official moral stance of their chosen sect based on modern day ethics, especially Catholics.

Further, those who wish to follow Divine Command Theory to the letter still cannot claim perfect objectivity. Why? Because choosing the correct theology is subjective, not objective. Muslims have chosen the Quran as their ‘objective’ model of morality. You can’t fault them, all you can say is they’ve chosen a false theology. But objectively you cannot prove their theology to be false and yours to be true.

Therefore, religious moral codes all reduce to subjectivity.

“Morality based on theology is subjective with respect to interpretation of that theology.”  If the theology correctly adheres to the truth, then what is it?

“Different sects of Christianity have differing moral codes based on interpretation.”  Is the theology of each sect necessarily incorrect?

“In addition to that, individual Christians have their own personal interpretive take which may differ from the sect.”  Similar question as above.  Is the theology of the individual necessarily incorrect?

“Most Christians I know moderate the official moral stance of their chosen sect based on modern day ethics, especially Catholics.”  The Catholic religion includes many things that are taught against in the Bible.

“Further, those who wish to follow Divine Command Theory to the letter still cannot claim perfect objectivity.”  The question of whether or not a person can attain perfect understanding of the truth is different than the question of whether they can know what the truth is.

“Why? Because choosing the correct theology is subjective, not objective.”  But the truth is true in all circumstances.  Can we know the truth?

“You can’t fault them, all you can say is they’ve chosen a false theology. But objectively you cannot prove their theology to be false and yours to be true.”  If we can prove the Bible to be true, then all other religions are proven to be untrue.

“Therefore, religious moral codes all reduce to subjectivity.”  Logically, if a religious moral code is based on the truth, then it’s not subjective.

We should care to know what the truth is.

You cannot objectively determine that your ‘chosen’ theology or it’s attendant moral code is the truth.

So what your left with is the demonstration of your faith and the hope that you’ve chosen the correct theology. ‘Choosing’ the correct theology is a subjective choice, is it not? But most people simply adopt the dominant theology of their geographical place of birth and/or familial theology. So for most, the randomness of one’s geographical birthplace determines one’s adopted theology. Had you been born a Muslim, you would be just as convinced of the objectiveness of Islam’s moral code as dictated by the Quran. And this would be your personal ‘truth’.

Yes, we should all care to know the truth. But many Christians find it difficult to even entertain the thought that they could somehow have hitched their wagon to the wrong theology. Or the much more likely scenario, that all theologies including theirs are man-made.

Back to the ‘truth’ of the morality of the Bible, slavery is accepted to the point where God gives instruction for beating one’s slaves and admonishes slaves to “serve their masters well.” Enslavement of a fellow human being is heinously immoral, and yet the Christian god somehow misses this. Subsequently the human misery of slavery, enabled by a theologically defensible reading of the Bible, continued till the 19th century.

Ask yourself what is more likely. That the Bible represents perfect moral truth, or that slavery was overlooked because the Bible is the product of men who could not imagine a world without slavery.

 

 

“You cannot objectively determine that your ‘chosen’ theology or it’s attendant moral code is the truth.”  Why not?

“‘Choosing’ the correct theology is a subjective choice, is it not?”  That depends on the reasons for selecting a given theology.

“Ask yourself what is more likely. That the Bible represents perfect moral truth, or that slavery was overlooked because the Bible is the product of men who could not imagine a world without slavery.”  Likewise, ask yourself:  Do the laws in the Bible endorse slavery, or do they protect slaves?  The law specifically prevented anyone from abducting people.  If this is true, then indentured servitude was what the Jews were allowed.  The laws regarding slavery in the Bible are to protect the slaves.  Slavery under the Biblical law was not the same as slavery under the American South.

 

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
29 April 2019 12:05
 
Jefe - 26 April 2019 01:47 PM
TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:13 PM

Is one practice more correct than the other?”  Yes, but better wording of your question would be:  Is one correct and the other wrong?  To which, the answer is yes.

Subjective.  Based on who has the more correct interpretation of right/wrong.  And subject to an acceptable definition of right/wrong.  And subject to whether that definition actually describes harm versus benefit - or is simply politics wrapped in religion.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:13 PM

It illuminates the subjectivity of the faith.”  It illuminates the fact that individuals have the ability to believe different things, not that their individual beliefs are true or untrue.

Methinks each group would view their position as true in regard to their doctrinal interpretation.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:13 PM

And yet, catholics, being christians, illustrate the subjectivity of the faith.”  Catholics illustrate that the fact people have the ability to disregard/ignore/change what they don’t like.  If something is the truth and we modify it, then is it still the truth?

You tell me.
Christians in the south US used to embrace slavery upon biblical arguments. Now they don’t (mostly).
Which position is a closer representative of thruth?

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:13 PM

We can certainly know truths.”  In context of your statement, we can only know them subjectively.

Of course our knowledge is subjective from many perspectives.  Reified Objectivity (big O) is a conceptual construct.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:13 PM

... That being said, this statement illustrates that christianity is subject to the veracity of the bible.”  Agreed.

So then are we into sola scriptura here?
Because you and I both know that some of the bible is mere metaphor.  Much of it is not to be taken as “fact”.  Much of it is cautionary tales.  Much of it is borrowed or pirated from previous mythologies.

There was no “first couple”.  Adam and Eve are metaphorical figures.  There was never a time when there were only 2 humans alive on earth.

We know the creation story and yhe ordering of the 6 days is also metaphorical and bears little resemblance to the actuality of the cosmos.

There was no global flood, and that idea may have been borrowed from persian myths.

We know some stories contradict themselves - because they were written by different people at different times.  It can’t even get the story of the tomb after easter straight.  We can’t know whether it was one person, a few people, no one, men or women at the tomb, in the story, because the books differ.

We also see the relative lack of extra-biblical corroboration of the ‘historical’ myths.  Was there a census at bethlehem? The roman records are strangely silent on that topic.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:13 PM

Some of the moral codes derived from the bible have been abandoned as harmful or unjust in the past.
What’s to say more are not in the future?”  If they are abandoned in the future, what does that fact change their truthfulness?

Mixed cloth, while forbidden in deuteronomy and leviticus, seems to be ok now.

Owning slaves from neighboring states, while once biblically acceptable, is now not ok.

Crop rotation and variety, while biblically forbidden, seemd to be helpful for long term sustainability.

There are other examples of ‘incorrectness’ in biblical passages.

Need I go on?

“Subjective.  Based on who has the more correct interpretation of right/wrong.  And subject to an acceptable definition of right/wrong.  And subject to whether that definition actually describes harm versus benefit - or is simply politics wrapped in religion.”  If God exists as described in the Bible, then right and wrong are not relative.

“Methinks each group would view their position as true in regard to their doctrinal interpretation.”  Sure.  People tend to believe that they have the correct perspective on the things they believe.  In relation to the Bible, we have the ability to understand its precise meaning by studying its context.

“You tell me.
Christians in the south US used to embrace slavery upon biblical arguments. Now they don’t (mostly).
Which position is a closer representative of thruth?”  Which group of slaves in the South, or their ancestors, weren’t abducted and brought into slavery?

“Of course our knowledge is subjective from many perspectives.  Reified Objectivity (big O) is a conceptual construct.”  I’m holding you to your previous statement that all the things we perceive or conceive are subjective.  With your statement, you can either have bad logic, or you can have no truth.  Which is worse?

“Adam and Eve are metaphorical figures.  There was never a time when there were only 2 humans alive on earth.”  How can you know this?

“We know the creation story and yhe ordering of the 6 days is also metaphorical and bears little resemblance to the actuality of the cosmos.”  How do you know this?

“There was no global flood, and that idea may have been borrowed from persian myths.”  How do you know this?

“We know some stories contradict themselves - because they were written by different people at different times.  It can’t even get the story of the tomb after easter straight.  We can’t know whether it was one person, a few people, no one, men or women at the tomb, in the story, because the books differ.”  What are the contradictions?

“We also see the relative lack of extra-biblical corroboration of the ‘historical’ myths.  Was there a census at bethlehem? The roman records are strangely silent on that topic.”  Do we have Roman records for every historical event?

“Need I go on?”  Why did God hold the Israelites to a significantly higher standard than the Gentiles of their day?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
29 April 2019 12:06
 
Jefe - 26 April 2019 02:22 PM
TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

Religion and morality is subjective.”  Not if they’re adhering to the truth.

Subject to correct human interpretation.

 

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“But exist, independent of our emotional position about them, or our opinions, or feelings.
Is a fact a truth?  Because if so, objective truth (small o objective) exists all around us.”  This violates your previous statement that everything we perceive or conceive is subjective.  If your previous statement is to be believed, then nothing can be objective and there is no such thing as truth.  The truth cannot be true for one person, but not another.  The truth must be true in all circumstances.

By definition, human constructs cannot be objective…

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Facts exist.  If they are truth, then truth exists.”  If we accept your previous statement, then how can we say that facts exist since we would be saying this from a subjective perception?

Its an interesting problem of perception, isn’t it?

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“I don’t see how you are connecting the meaning of life to facts in this particular statement, but I have no difficulty finding meaning for my life outside of religious claims or religious philosophies.”  If you adhere to your previous statement, then the meaning of your life that you find can only be subjective.  I don’t doubt that many people have similar philosophy to yours, however, it’s unsatisfactory to the concept of truth.  Our lives cannot only have the purpose that we give them.  If that were the case, then I could justify nearly anything I want to do and call it “good,”

If religious texts are the only thing keeping you from doing “anything you want and calling it good” then you’re probably a shitty person.  Or you have a shakey understanding of good and bad.  Or a poor understanding of how society works.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

which is why atheism cannot give society a foundation for morals and ethics.

Atheism doesn’t claim to.  It only talks about the non-existence of god(s).
(I have mentioned this several times.)

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

And everything that impacts my life matters to me, so I can’t connect your ‘nothing matters’ statement to my life, meaning, goals, or accomplishments.”  I don’t mean that nothing matters to the individual.  I am speaking of the logical concept that nothing can matter.  If everything is subjective and temporary, there is no convincing reason to say that anything we do in our lifetimes matters.

Does anything we do in our lifetimes matter to those who came before?  Or those who come after, once memories of us fade?
(Aside from the noteworthy exceptions, many people do not leave lasting marks in history or mythology.)

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

But many parts of the bible have been shown not to be true…”  Which parts?

See above post…

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Thus the truth of the bible requires rigorous examination and verification…”  Rightfully so with any historical document.

“The truth of the bible is subject to its historical accuracy - which is shakey.”  What parts are shakey?

See above post.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“The truth of the bible is subject to the nature of its authors - which were many, and all were people - possessing all the various limitations, biases, prejudices and opinions that people come with.
The truth of the bible cannot be taken for granted due to past errors, edits, additions and modification…”  Why do you suppose the 66 different books that make up the Bible were canonized?

Politics.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

Something we say can’t be objectively true if we are always saying it from a subjective perception.  Aren’t you painting a target around the bullet holes when you redefine the word “subjective?”

I’m not redefining it.  I’m simply not limiting myself to the top hit of a quick google search for that definition.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

That’s a pretty limited definition.”  It is the definition, however.

In part.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Are we talking about facts now, or are we talking about value statements with questionable veracity and mysterious origins?
Or do you wish to talk about meta-concepts and thought problems?”  If something is a fact, then it is the truth.

On this we mainly agree.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“So this statement is objectively true…”  I agree that it’s objectively true, however, I don’t understand how you are logically able to say that it’s objectively true in light of your belief that everything is subjective.  If everything we perceive or conceive is subjective, then all of your reasoning with me is subjective.

Small o
Small t
No reification.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

“Even though they may contain nuggets of truth (small t), or rather, nuggets of decent life-instruction within them.”  From your perspective, if there is truth in them, then how do you reconcile that with the subjectivity of everything?

Because the relative value of their acceptance and practice is subject to whether they are ultimately harmful or helpful.

TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 01:12 PM

Are they true only if we perceive then to be true?

Are they false only if we percieve them to be false?  Is it possible to percieve a falshood as the truth?  Is it possible to percieve a truth as a falshood?

All is relative.

“By definition, human constructs cannot be objective…”  What is a human construct and what isn’t?

“Its an interesting problem of perception, isn’t it?”  It’s an interesting logical problem inherrent to your worldview.

“If religious texts are the only thing keeping you from doing ‘anything you want and calling it good’ then you’re probably a shitty person.  Or you have a shakey understanding of good and bad.  Or a poor understanding of how society works.”  What if the things that I want to do seem good to you also?  It’s all subjective from your perspective anyway?

“Atheism doesn’t claim to.  It only talks about the non-existence of god(s).
(I have mentioned this several times.)”  In light of this fact, where do your morals come from?  Rationality?

“Does anything we do in our lifetimes matter to those who came before?  Or those who come after, once memories of us fade?”  From your perspective, the answer to this question can only be subjective.

“Politics.”  What would the political viewpoints be?

“I’m not redefining it.  I’m simply not limiting myself to the top hit of a quick google search for that definition.”  You have a double-standard.  Either the truth is alway true, or there is no such thing as truth.

“Small o
Small t
No reification.”  This is the paint by which you created your target.

“Because the relative value of their acceptance and practice is subject to whether they are ultimately harmful or hlepful.”  Moral relativism is the solution to nihilism’s shortcoming?

“Are they false only if we percieve them to be false?  Is it possible to percieve a falshood as the truth?  Is it possible to percieve a truth as a falshood?
All is relative.”  Is this the truth?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1878
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
29 April 2019 17:21
 
TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

The laws regarding slavery in the Bible are to protect the slaves.

I did a spit take on that one. Anyway, how does beating them to death protect them???

Ron

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  327
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
30 April 2019 06:39
 
TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM
proximacentauri - 26 April 2019 11:55 AM
TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 10:37 AM
proximacentauri - 26 April 2019 09:44 AM

@TwoSeven1

Morality based on theology is subjective with respect to interpretation of that theology. Different sects of Christianity have differing moral codes based on interpretation. In addition to that, individual Christians have their own personal interpretive take which may differ from the sect. Most Christians I know moderate the official moral stance of their chosen sect based on modern day ethics, especially Catholics.

Further, those who wish to follow Divine Command Theory to the letter still cannot claim perfect objectivity. Why? Because choosing the correct theology is subjective, not objective. Muslims have chosen the Quran as their ‘objective’ model of morality. You can’t fault them, all you can say is they’ve chosen a false theology. But objectively you cannot prove their theology to be false and yours to be true.

Therefore, religious moral codes all reduce to subjectivity.

“Morality based on theology is subjective with respect to interpretation of that theology.”  If the theology correctly adheres to the truth, then what is it?

“Different sects of Christianity have differing moral codes based on interpretation.”  Is the theology of each sect necessarily incorrect?

“In addition to that, individual Christians have their own personal interpretive take which may differ from the sect.”  Similar question as above.  Is the theology of the individual necessarily incorrect?

“Most Christians I know moderate the official moral stance of their chosen sect based on modern day ethics, especially Catholics.”  The Catholic religion includes many things that are taught against in the Bible.

“Further, those who wish to follow Divine Command Theory to the letter still cannot claim perfect objectivity.”  The question of whether or not a person can attain perfect understanding of the truth is different than the question of whether they can know what the truth is.

“Why? Because choosing the correct theology is subjective, not objective.”  But the truth is true in all circumstances.  Can we know the truth?

“You can’t fault them, all you can say is they’ve chosen a false theology. But objectively you cannot prove their theology to be false and yours to be true.”  If we can prove the Bible to be true, then all other religions are proven to be untrue.

“Therefore, religious moral codes all reduce to subjectivity.”  Logically, if a religious moral code is based on the truth, then it’s not subjective.

We should care to know what the truth is.

You cannot objectively determine that your ‘chosen’ theology or it’s attendant moral code is the truth.

So what your left with is the demonstration of your faith and the hope that you’ve chosen the correct theology. ‘Choosing’ the correct theology is a subjective choice, is it not? But most people simply adopt the dominant theology of their geographical place of birth and/or familial theology. So for most, the randomness of one’s geographical birthplace determines one’s adopted theology. Had you been born a Muslim, you would be just as convinced of the objectiveness of Islam’s moral code as dictated by the Quran. And this would be your personal ‘truth’.

Yes, we should all care to know the truth. But many Christians find it difficult to even entertain the thought that they could somehow have hitched their wagon to the wrong theology. Or the much more likely scenario, that all theologies including theirs are man-made.

Back to the ‘truth’ of the morality of the Bible, slavery is accepted to the point where God gives instruction for beating one’s slaves and admonishes slaves to “serve their masters well.” Enslavement of a fellow human being is heinously immoral, and yet the Christian god somehow misses this. Subsequently the human misery of slavery, enabled by a theologically defensible reading of the Bible, continued till the 19th century.

Ask yourself what is more likely. That the Bible represents perfect moral truth, or that slavery was overlooked because the Bible is the product of men who could not imagine a world without slavery.

 

 

“You cannot objectively determine that your ‘chosen’ theology or it’s attendant moral code is the truth.”  Why not?

“‘Choosing’ the correct theology is a subjective choice, is it not?”  That depends on the reasons for selecting a given theology.

“Ask yourself what is more likely. That the Bible represents perfect moral truth, or that slavery was overlooked because the Bible is the product of men who could not imagine a world without slavery.”  Likewise, ask yourself:  Do the laws in the Bible endorse slavery, or do they protect slaves?  The law specifically prevented anyone from abducting people.  If this is true, then indentured servitude was what the Jews were allowed.  The laws regarding slavery in the Bible are to protect the slaves.  Slavery under the Biblical law was not the same as slavery under the American South.

 

Regarding your assertion...“The law specifically prevented anyone from abducting people.  If this is true, then indentured servitude was what the Jews were allowed.”

This is what the Bible says in Leviticus 25:44-46

44 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 - Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Firstly, it appears you were mistaken in your assertion that the Israelites only had Indentured Slaves since this ‘Instruction from God’ allows the Israelites to acquire slaves of other ‘pagan’ nations and keep them in permanent slaves. Perhaps you should know your Bible a little better?

Secondly, do you consider this to be a moral instruction?


Regarding your assertion…“The laws regarding slavery in the Bible are to protect the slaves.”

This is the instruction from ‘God’ in Exodus 21:20-21
20 - If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 - If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

How is this instruction from ‘God’ a “protection”? And do you consider this instruction moral?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
30 April 2019 11:26
 
proximacentauri - 30 April 2019 06:39 AM
TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM
proximacentauri - 26 April 2019 11:55 AM
TwoSeven1 - 26 April 2019 10:37 AM
proximacentauri - 26 April 2019 09:44 AM

@TwoSeven1

Morality based on theology is subjective with respect to interpretation of that theology. Different sects of Christianity have differing moral codes based on interpretation. In addition to that, individual Christians have their own personal interpretive take which may differ from the sect. Most Christians I know moderate the official moral stance of their chosen sect based on modern day ethics, especially Catholics.

Further, those who wish to follow Divine Command Theory to the letter still cannot claim perfect objectivity. Why? Because choosing the correct theology is subjective, not objective. Muslims have chosen the Quran as their ‘objective’ model of morality. You can’t fault them, all you can say is they’ve chosen a false theology. But objectively you cannot prove their theology to be false and yours to be true.

Therefore, religious moral codes all reduce to subjectivity.

“Morality based on theology is subjective with respect to interpretation of that theology.”  If the theology correctly adheres to the truth, then what is it?

“Different sects of Christianity have differing moral codes based on interpretation.”  Is the theology of each sect necessarily incorrect?

“In addition to that, individual Christians have their own personal interpretive take which may differ from the sect.”  Similar question as above.  Is the theology of the individual necessarily incorrect?

“Most Christians I know moderate the official moral stance of their chosen sect based on modern day ethics, especially Catholics.”  The Catholic religion includes many things that are taught against in the Bible.

“Further, those who wish to follow Divine Command Theory to the letter still cannot claim perfect objectivity.”  The question of whether or not a person can attain perfect understanding of the truth is different than the question of whether they can know what the truth is.

“Why? Because choosing the correct theology is subjective, not objective.”  But the truth is true in all circumstances.  Can we know the truth?

“You can’t fault them, all you can say is they’ve chosen a false theology. But objectively you cannot prove their theology to be false and yours to be true.”  If we can prove the Bible to be true, then all other religions are proven to be untrue.

“Therefore, religious moral codes all reduce to subjectivity.”  Logically, if a religious moral code is based on the truth, then it’s not subjective.

We should care to know what the truth is.

You cannot objectively determine that your ‘chosen’ theology or it’s attendant moral code is the truth.

So what your left with is the demonstration of your faith and the hope that you’ve chosen the correct theology. ‘Choosing’ the correct theology is a subjective choice, is it not? But most people simply adopt the dominant theology of their geographical place of birth and/or familial theology. So for most, the randomness of one’s geographical birthplace determines one’s adopted theology. Had you been born a Muslim, you would be just as convinced of the objectiveness of Islam’s moral code as dictated by the Quran. And this would be your personal ‘truth’.

Yes, we should all care to know the truth. But many Christians find it difficult to even entertain the thought that they could somehow have hitched their wagon to the wrong theology. Or the much more likely scenario, that all theologies including theirs are man-made.

Back to the ‘truth’ of the morality of the Bible, slavery is accepted to the point where God gives instruction for beating one’s slaves and admonishes slaves to “serve their masters well.” Enslavement of a fellow human being is heinously immoral, and yet the Christian god somehow misses this. Subsequently the human misery of slavery, enabled by a theologically defensible reading of the Bible, continued till the 19th century.

Ask yourself what is more likely. That the Bible represents perfect moral truth, or that slavery was overlooked because the Bible is the product of men who could not imagine a world without slavery.

 

 

“You cannot objectively determine that your ‘chosen’ theology or it’s attendant moral code is the truth.”  Why not?

“‘Choosing’ the correct theology is a subjective choice, is it not?”  That depends on the reasons for selecting a given theology.

“Ask yourself what is more likely. That the Bible represents perfect moral truth, or that slavery was overlooked because the Bible is the product of men who could not imagine a world without slavery.”  Likewise, ask yourself:  Do the laws in the Bible endorse slavery, or do they protect slaves?  The law specifically prevented anyone from abducting people.  If this is true, then indentured servitude was what the Jews were allowed.  The laws regarding slavery in the Bible are to protect the slaves.  Slavery under the Biblical law was not the same as slavery under the American South.

 

Regarding your assertion...“The law specifically prevented anyone from abducting people.  If this is true, then indentured servitude was what the Jews were allowed.”

This is what the Bible says in Leviticus 25:44-46

44 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 - Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Firstly, it appears you were mistaken in your assertion that the Israelites only had Indentured Slaves since this ‘Instruction from God’ allows the Israelites to acquire slaves of other ‘pagan’ nations and keep them in permanent slaves. Perhaps you should know your Bible a little better?

Secondly, do you consider this to be a moral instruction?


Regarding your assertion…“The laws regarding slavery in the Bible are to protect the slaves.”

This is the instruction from ‘God’ in Exodus 21:20-21
20 - If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 - If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

How is this instruction from ‘God’ a “protection”? And do you consider this instruction moral?

“Firstly, it appears you were mistaken in your assertion that the Israelites only had Indentured Slaves since this ‘Instruction from God’ allows the Israelites to acquire slaves of other ‘pagan’ nations and keep them in permanent slaves. Perhaps you should know your Bible a little better?”  You’re right, I was mistaken when I made my assertion.

“This is what the Bible says in Leviticus 25:44-46”  In context, Leviticus was detailing where slaves could be acquired from; fellow Israelites could not be slaves because God freed Israel from slavery in Egypt.  Israelites could only be indentured servants.

“This is the instruction from ‘God’ in Exodus 21:20-21”  It is a protection from killing slaves.  Striking slaves was allowed in context of this verse, however, Exodus 21:26-37 says, “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.  If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.”  Slaves were considered as property, but if a slave owner injured their slaves in these ways, the slave was to go free.  The spirit of these laws seems to be that if a slave owner permanently injured a slave, the slave would be freed.

In context, these verses serve as protections for slaves.  They do allow for slave owners striking their slaves since they were considered property, however, see Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1.  Everything that God commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament provided the foundation for the conclusions explained in the New Testament.  It seems that God expected the Israelites to understand these concepts.

“And do you consider this instruction moral?”  We know that slavery was pervasive during the time that these laws were given.  The Old Testament verses show that God chose to allow the Israelites to have slaves within constraints.  The verses you refer to aren’t given to allow a slave owner to strike their slaves for any reason.  They are only detailing that there would be punishment for certain results of striking slaves.

Edit: Fixed a sentence.

[ Edited: 30 April 2019 11:56 by TwoSeven1]
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  327
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
30 April 2019 13:16
 
TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“Firstly, it appears you were mistaken in your assertion that the Israelites only had Indentured Slaves since this ‘Instruction from God’ allows the Israelites to acquire slaves of other ‘pagan’ nations and keep them in permanent slaves. Perhaps you should know your Bible a little better?”  You’re right, I was mistaken when I made my assertion.

Thanks for being honest. But again I would ask you, do you consider it moral that God allowed the Israelites to enslave others from “pagan” communities for life?

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“This is the instruction from ‘God’ in Exodus 21:20-21”  It is a protection from killing slaves.  Striking slaves was allowed in context of this verse, however, Exodus 21:26-37 says, “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.  If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.”  Slaves were considered as property, but if a slave owner injured their slaves in these ways, the slave was to go free.  The spirit of these laws seems to be that if a slave owner permanently injured a slave, the slave would be freed.

The context in the prior passage details an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, death for death, etc. as the penalty god prescribes for Israelites when they harm each other. God then provides a caveat in the case of the Israelite permanently injuring a slave. The Israelite can simply free the slave and this avoids for the Israelite the eye for eye, etc. penalty. But remember, an Israelite is still allowed to beat a slave to his death - provided the death occurs more than a “day or two” after the beating. Again, do you consider this moral?

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

In context, these verses serve as protections for slaves.  They do allow for slave owners striking their slaves since they were considered property, however, see Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1.  Everything that God commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament provided the foundation for the conclusions explained in the New Testament.  It seems that God expected the Israelites to understand these concepts.

I’m not buying this explanation. This is just another example of many, when it comes to apologetics that are asserted by Christians so that they can rationalize an immoral god who prescribes immoral laws.

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“And do you consider this instruction moral?”  We know that slavery was pervasive during the time that these laws were given.  The Old Testament verses show that God chose to allow the Israelites to have slaves within constraints.  The verses you refer to aren’t given to allow a slave owner to strike their slaves for any reason.  They are only detailing that there would be punishment for certain results of striking slaves.

You’re rationalizing again here. Slavery is immoral, period. A simple “do not enslave others”  is not forthcoming from an all knowing, all loving god . And Jesus in the NT admonishes slaves to serve their masters well, especially their Christian masters. It’s difficult to imagine a more glaring omission in any moral code. This is a prime indicator that the Bible is the product of men. Men who thought slavery to be quite normal.

 

[ Edited: 30 April 2019 13:32 by proximacentauri]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1878
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
30 April 2019 13:34
 
proximacentauri - 30 April 2019 01:16 PM

A simple “do not enslave others”  is not forthcoming from an all knowing, all loving god . And Jesus in the NT admonishes slaves to serve their masters well, especially their Christian masters. It’s difficult to imagine more glaring omission in any moral code. This is a prime indicator that the Bible is the product of men. Men who thought slavery to be quite normal.

Exactly. If God could declare shellfish and mixed fabrics to be abominations, then why couldn’t he just as easily declare the owning of other humans as your own personal property to be unacceptable under any circumstances?

271’s God is pretty tough when it comes to shellfish and fabrics, but for some reason when it comes to the detestable practice of slavery he can’t bring himself to condemn it. Even in the New Testament.

Ron

[ Edited: 30 April 2019 13:37 by MrRon]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
30 April 2019 16:24
 
proximacentauri - 30 April 2019 01:16 PM
TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“Firstly, it appears you were mistaken in your assertion that the Israelites only had Indentured Slaves since this ‘Instruction from God’ allows the Israelites to acquire slaves of other ‘pagan’ nations and keep them in permanent slaves. Perhaps you should know your Bible a little better?”  You’re right, I was mistaken when I made my assertion.

Thanks for being honest. But again I would ask you, do you consider it moral that God allowed the Israelites to enslave others from “pagan” communities for life?

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“This is the instruction from ‘God’ in Exodus 21:20-21”  It is a protection from killing slaves.  Striking slaves was allowed in context of this verse, however, Exodus 21:26-37 says, “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.  If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.”  Slaves were considered as property, but if a slave owner injured their slaves in these ways, the slave was to go free.  The spirit of these laws seems to be that if a slave owner permanently injured a slave, the slave would be freed.

The context in the prior passage details an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, death for death, etc. as the penalty god prescribes for Israelites when they harm each other. God then provides a caveat in the case of the Israelite permanently injuring a slave. The Israelite can simply free the slave and this avoids for the Israelite the eye for eye, etc. penalty. But remember, an Israelite is still allowed to beat a slave to his death - provided the death occurs more than a “day or two” after the beating. Again, do you consider this moral?

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

In context, these verses serve as protections for slaves.  They do allow for slave owners striking their slaves since they were considered property, however, see Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1.  Everything that God commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament provided the foundation for the conclusions explained in the New Testament.  It seems that God expected the Israelites to understand these concepts.

I’m not buying this explanation. This is just another example of many, when it comes to apologetics that are asserted by Christians so that they can rationalize an immoral god who prescribes immoral laws.

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“And do you consider this instruction moral?”  We know that slavery was pervasive during the time that these laws were given.  The Old Testament verses show that God chose to allow the Israelites to have slaves within constraints.  The verses you refer to aren’t given to allow a slave owner to strike their slaves for any reason.  They are only detailing that there would be punishment for certain results of striking slaves.

You’re rationalizing again here. Slavery is immoral, period. A simple “do not enslave others”  is not forthcoming from an all knowing, all loving god . And Jesus in the NT admonishes slaves to serve their masters well, especially their Christian masters. It’s difficult to imagine a more glaring omission in any moral code. This is a prime indicator that the Bible is the product of men. Men who thought slavery to be quite normal.

“... again I would ask you, do you consider it moral that God allowed the Israelites to enslave others from ‘pagan’ communities for life?”  I don’t consider it immoral of God to allow the Israelites to have slaves like he did, especially since laws were established as protections.  See Deuteronomy 23:15-16.  These verses show that God made a way for slaves to be protected if they escaped from harsh slave owners.

“But remember, an Israelite is still allowed to beat a slave to his death - provided the death occurs more than a ‘day or two’ after the beating. Again, do you consider this moral?”  If you are correct, what logical purpose would the law serve?  I don’t believe that you are drawing the correct meaning from the verses.

Slave owners weren’t prevented from striking their slaves as punishment for wrong doing, but with the context, the verses in Exodus were protections for slave owners.  The laws allowed slave owners to strike slaves, but the laws also prevented them from causing permanent damage or killing the slaves.  If a slave was struck as punishment for something with no permanent damage done, but for some reason that slave died later on, the slave owner was in the clear.  One or two days seems reasonable as a timeframe for this.

Food for thought:  The American military used to strike soldiers in training, but they had constraints.

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  327
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
30 April 2019 19:06
 
TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 04:24 PM
proximacentauri - 30 April 2019 01:16 PM
TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“Firstly, it appears you were mistaken in your assertion that the Israelites only had Indentured Slaves since this ‘Instruction from God’ allows the Israelites to acquire slaves of other ‘pagan’ nations and keep them in permanent slaves. Perhaps you should know your Bible a little better?”  You’re right, I was mistaken when I made my assertion.

Thanks for being honest. But again I would ask you, do you consider it moral that God allowed the Israelites to enslave others from “pagan” communities for life?

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“This is the instruction from ‘God’ in Exodus 21:20-21”  It is a protection from killing slaves.  Striking slaves was allowed in context of this verse, however, Exodus 21:26-37 says, “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.  If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.”  Slaves were considered as property, but if a slave owner injured their slaves in these ways, the slave was to go free.  The spirit of these laws seems to be that if a slave owner permanently injured a slave, the slave would be freed.

The context in the prior passage details an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, death for death, etc. as the penalty god prescribes for Israelites when they harm each other. God then provides a caveat in the case of the Israelite permanently injuring a slave. The Israelite can simply free the slave and this avoids for the Israelite the eye for eye, etc. penalty. But remember, an Israelite is still allowed to beat a slave to his death - provided the death occurs more than a “day or two” after the beating. Again, do you consider this moral?

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

In context, these verses serve as protections for slaves.  They do allow for slave owners striking their slaves since they were considered property, however, see Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1.  Everything that God commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament provided the foundation for the conclusions explained in the New Testament.  It seems that God expected the Israelites to understand these concepts.

I’m not buying this explanation. This is just another example of many, when it comes to apologetics that are asserted by Christians so that they can rationalize an immoral god who prescribes immoral laws.

TwoSeven1 - 30 April 2019 11:26 AM

“And do you consider this instruction moral?”  We know that slavery was pervasive during the time that these laws were given.  The Old Testament verses show that God chose to allow the Israelites to have slaves within constraints.  The verses you refer to aren’t given to allow a slave owner to strike their slaves for any reason.  They are only detailing that there would be punishment for certain results of striking slaves.

You’re rationalizing again here. Slavery is immoral, period. A simple “do not enslave others”  is not forthcoming from an all knowing, all loving god . And Jesus in the NT admonishes slaves to serve their masters well, especially their Christian masters. It’s difficult to imagine a more glaring omission in any moral code. This is a prime indicator that the Bible is the product of men. Men who thought slavery to be quite normal.

“... again I would ask you, do you consider it moral that God allowed the Israelites to enslave others from ‘pagan’ communities for life?”  I don’t consider it immoral of God to allow the Israelites to have slaves like he did, especially since laws were established as protections.  See Deuteronomy 23:15-16.  These verses show that God made a way for slaves to be protected if they escaped from harsh slave owners.

“But remember, an Israelite is still allowed to beat a slave to his death - provided the death occurs more than a ‘day or two’ after the beating. Again, do you consider this moral?”  If you are correct, what logical purpose would the law serve?  I don’t believe that you are drawing the correct meaning from the verses.

Slave owners weren’t prevented from striking their slaves as punishment for wrong doing, but with the context, the verses in Exodus were protections for slave owners.  The laws allowed slave owners to strike slaves, but the laws also prevented them from causing permanent damage or killing the slaves.  If a slave was struck as punishment for something with no permanent damage done, but for some reason that slave died later on, the slave owner was in the clear.  One or two days seems reasonable as a timeframe for this.

Food for thought:  The American military used to strike soldiers in training, but they had constraints.

At this point, I think nothing more can be said to someone convinced that a ‘God’ who allows enslavement of human beings for life is a moral god.

I would also suspect there’s nothing anyone can say to Ben Carson to convince him the pyramids were not built to store grain.

When one’s thinking has been corrupted by religious belief, one’s capacity for rational cognition suffers. Not only with respect to one’s dogmatic religious belief system, but often extending into other areas of one’s life as well.

 

Your answers did not come as a great surprise

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 April 2019 21:42
 
TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

“Subjective.  Based on who has the more correct interpretation of right/wrong.  And subject to an acceptable definition of right/wrong.  And subject to whether that definition actually describes harm versus benefit - or is simply politics wrapped in religion.”  If God exists as described in the Bible, then right and wrong are not relative.

If he does not, they may be.  Since we have insufficient evidence to conclude god(s) exist, let alone the varied interpretatiobs of god(s) held by various religious myths, we must conclude the morality derived from bronze age myths is subjective - based on the relative interpretations of those differing religious groups.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

Methinks each group would view their position as true in regard to their doctrinal interpretation.”  Sure.  People tend to believe that they have the correct perspective on the things they believe.  In relation to the Bible, we have the ability to understand its precise meaning by studying its context.

Its wildly varying contexts, depwnding on whom one talks to.  Relative.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

You tell me.
Christians in the south US used to embrace slavery upon biblical arguments. Now they don’t (mostly).
Which position is a closer representative of thruth?”  Which group of slaves in the South, or their ancestors, weren’t abducted and brought into slavery?

Abduction has nothing to do with it.  Owning people and/or treating them as property is immoral.  (Though abduction is also an immoral act.)

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

Of course our knowledge is subjective from many perspectives.  Reified Objectivity (big O) is a conceptual construct.”  I’m holding you to your previous statement that all the things we perceive or conceive are subjective.  With your statement, you can either have bad logic, or you can have no truth.  Which is worse?

Delusion is also pretty bad.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

Adam and Eve are metaphorical figures.  There was never a time when there were only 2 humans alive on earth.”  How can you know this?

I’ll give you three guesses…

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

“We know the creation story and yhe ordering of the 6 days is also metaphorical and bears little resemblance to the actuality of the cosmos.”  How do you know this?

And a hint…

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

There was no global flood, and that idea may have been borrowed from persian myths.”  How do you know this?

I don’t limit my education to apologetics and false dogma like those contained in AiG etc…

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

“We know some stories contradict themselves - because they were written by different people at different times.  It can’t even get the story of the tomb after easter straight.  We can’t know whether it was one person, a few people, no one, men or women at the tomb, in the story, because the books differ.”  What are the contradictions?

Don’t play dumb.  It doesn’t become you.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

“We also see the relative lack of extra-biblical corroboration of the ‘historical’ myths.  Was there a census at bethlehem? The roman records are strangely silent on that topic.”  Do we have Roman records for every historical event?

They are surprisingly thorough, and largely silent about biblical tales…

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:05 PM

“Need I go on?”  Why did God hold the Israelites to a significantly higher standard than the Gentiles of their day?

Since the story was written by jews, i suspect the mythology reflects author bias.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 April 2019 21:58
 
TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“By definition, human constructs cannot be objective…”  What is a human construct and what isn’t?

Anything made or concieved by people.
Including religion.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Its an interesting problem of perception, isn’t it?”  It’s an interesting logical problem inherrent to your worldview.

My world view is just fine for me.
You can try to project assumptions onto it all you like.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“If religious texts are the only thing keeping you from doing ‘anything you want and calling it good’ then you’re probably a shitty person.  Or you have a shakey understanding of good and bad.  Or a poor understanding of how society works.”  What if the things that I want to do seem good to you also?  It’s all subjective from your perspective anyway?

What if the things you want to be ‘objectified’ via your religion are immoral?

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Atheism doesn’t claim to.  It only talks about the non-existence of god(s).
(I have mentioned this several times.)”  In light of this fact, where do your morals come from?  Rationality?

Rationality and a firm dose of parenting and education.  Dodn’t your parents teach you their brand of morals too?

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Does anything we do in our lifetimes matter to those who came before?  Or those who come after, once memories of us fade?”  From your perspective, the answer to this question can only be subjective.

/shrug

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Politics.”  What would the political viewpoints be?

There are plenty if history texts out there that would help you with this question…

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“I’m not redefining it.  I’m simply not limiting myself to the top hit of a quick google search for that definition.”  You have a double-standard.  Either the truth is alway true, or there is no such thing as truth.

You are caught in a false dichotomy based on the assumption of false absolutes and reification of the concept of truth.

See my coutroom example again…

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Small o
Small t
No reification.”  This is the paint by which you created your target.

This is me doing my best to avoid fallacious thought patterns.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Because the relative value of their acceptance and practice is subject to whether they are ultimately harmful or hlepful.”  Moral relativism is the solution to nihilism’s shortcoming?

Who said anything about nihilism?
Oh right, you keep dragging it back into the conversation.

TwoSeven1 - 29 April 2019 12:06 PM

“Are they false only if we percieve them to be false?  Is it possible to percieve a falshood as the truth?  Is it possible to percieve a truth as a falshood?
All is relative.”  Is this the truth?

Sure seems like it…


Edit: Pardon all my typos. My ham-fisted man-hands have a hard time with lenghthy posts on a portable phone…

[ Edited: 01 May 2019 09:52 by Jefe]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 April 2019 22:09
 
proximacentauri - 30 April 2019 07:06 PM

At this point, I think nothing more can be said to someone convinced that a ‘God’ who allows enslavement of human beings for life is a moral god.

A few missing commandments that a capable omnibenevolent god wouldn’t have missed out on:

Don’t enslave people.

Don’t discriminate.

Treat women as equals.

Avoid toxic dogma.

Do not invest so much authority in the church or clergy that common sense flies out the window.

Love is love.


IMHO of course.

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›