Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 5:05 AM
48 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 45 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 106 of 161 (521775)
08-29-2009 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Holyfire23
08-29-2009 1:11 AM


Re: Changing People
holyfire writes:

Treat others the way you wish to be treated. This doesn't give man authority over the definition of morality. It gives man a tip on how to be treated nicely. Treat others nicely and you will also be treated nicely.

Interesting interpretation. So Jesus was just pointing out a way to be nice, not talking about morality. What did he mean when he said "for this is the law and the prophets"? THE law and THE prophets, meaning the books of the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Many of the sayings of Jesus are understood to be a summing up of the meaning behind the law and the prophets. But this time he just was just giving friendly advice on how you might be treated nicely. Neat dismissal of your supposed leader.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 1:11 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 107 of 161 (521778)
08-29-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Lithodid-Man
08-28-2009 9:47 PM


Re: Changing People
Matthew 7:12 "In everything do to others as you have them do to you; for this the law and the prophets"

Ripped off from the Pharisees:

quote:
Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. Now go learn it.

(Pharisee Rabbi Hillel to a gentile who had challenged him to recite the whole of the Law while standing on one foot -- 20 BCE, a full half century before Jesus' ministry)


Please note that study in those days involved massive amounts of memorization, a tradition that continued for millenia in Talmudic study -- imagine having to memorize the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Thus, a rabbi would have been expected to have memorized the Law, AKA the Torah, AKA the Pentateuch, but that made the gentile's demand no less impertinent; Rabbi Shammai of the Sadduces had the gentile dismissed (some accounts have him chasing the jerk off with a blunt instrument).

If that story sounds strangely familiar, it might be because of an early first-season episode of the original Star Trek, "Dagger of the Mind". In it, Dr. Adams likens Kirk to the man who challenged a philospher to recite all the world's wisdom while standing on one foot. The writer of that episode was one Shimon bar-David, who, one might assume, was familiar with rabbinic literature. Pity that so many Christians are ignorant of that literature.

If one wishes to seek it out for themselves, it's in the Pirke Avoth, "Sayings of the Fathers".

Edited by dwise1, : Pirke Avoth


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-28-2009 9:47 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 108 of 161 (521780)
08-29-2009 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 12:01 PM


You are trying to change the subject. A local creationist calls that "rabbit trailing", just as a tracking dog can be thrown off the scent he's following in order to chase a rabbit. That creationist warns his followers to not fall for that trick, whereas he habitually (ie, not just repeatedly, but rather it was his standard modum operandi) would employ "rabbit-trailing" in his own actions.

Christians keep beating us over the head about morality being "absolute", whereas you have here attempted to argue that morality is relative and can change according to the circumstances. My impression is that you would be among those who would insist that morality is absolute, but here you are arguing that it is relative. My apologies if you are indeed not an "absolutist", but I feel that I am nonetheless not too mistaken about what you think that you believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:01 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 109 of 161 (521781)
08-29-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rahvin
08-28-2009 2:45 PM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
It would be more honest of them to say "God's will be done" or something similar. They're obviously authoritarian - they don't believe in objective morality either, they believe in following the moral dictates of their deity. If God says kill these people, and then later says that we should turn the other cheek, well God knows best. They just confuse the issue by claiming God to hold up some objective, unchanging standard - when the Bible itself practically screams that that isn't the case.

Just using your post to comment on the thread's title.

I would disagree that fundamentalists are inherently immoral. Rather, I would say that they are amoral. They have no sense of morality. They have virtually no capacity for moral reasoning. They are, as you say, authoritatian. Whatever their god says, or rather what their religious leaders tell them that their god says, is what goes. And, of course, if they believe that their god is speaking to them, then whatever they believe their god is telling them to do, goes. Including murder. Including sacrificing the lives of their own children.

They are legalistic when it comes to morality. What does their god say? What does the Bible say? Years ago I saw a clip from an old silent film, "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm." The lady of the house had baked some pies and Rebecca want to eat them. But then she looked up and there was a sampler (a needle-point of a religious proverb) hanging on the wall admonishing her, "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Dejected, she turns away and sees yet another sampler: "God helps those who help themselves". So she helps herself to the pies.

This is where a legalistic approach leads. You end up looking for loopholes in order to do what you want to do. A moralistic approach would look at how what the actual outcomes of your actions will be. Fundamentalists are legalistic, whereas atheists are moralistic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 08-28-2009 2:45 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jacortina, posted 08-29-2009 8:32 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 9:13 AM dwise1 has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 110 of 161 (521789)
08-29-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Changing People
If you knew the Bible…

I do know the Bible. That is why I know that God is imaginary or insane. But as we have a dozen other pretenders to the throne, and they can't be all real, I pick imaginary. Either way…


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 9:20 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 111 of 161 (521792)
08-29-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by dwise1
08-29-2009 3:54 AM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
I would disagree that fundamentalists are inherently immoral. Rather, I would say that they are amoral. They have no sense of morality.

Isn't that the original and perfectly created state of man (according to them)?

The book says that man was made quite specifically without knowledge of good and evil and was meant to stay that way. There was only supposed to be obedience. And man (or woman, or woman convinced by serpent) blew that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2009 3:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 161 (521798)
08-29-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by dwise1
08-29-2009 3:54 AM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
dwise1 writes:

They have virtually no capacity for moral reasoning.

Malcom Muggridge once said, "If God is dead then someone is going to have to take his place.". That is the essence of atheism. Atheism does not reject the concept of God, they just place man in that place and kick God out. An atheist holds his own reasoning as infallible. All of you are assuming that man is basically good. However, if man is basically good, why is there so much evil in the world? If man has the capacity to reason morally, than how did the Holocaust happen? How come people like Stalin and Mao got the way they were? I heard on the news just last night that a 29 year old girl called the local police. She had been kidnapped in 1991 and had been kept in a cage as a sex slave ever since. Her kidnappers were a husband and wife team. If man can reason morally, how do people get like this? I don't call this an anomoly. Men do these things way too often. I call this humanism in its purest form. Don't get me wrong, I know there are alot of moral people who do not believe in God. But like I said earlier, they are simply living above their philosophical standards.

Here is my point. If there is no perfect and infinite being to define morality, then a finite and imperfect being must take his place. If there is an imperfect being defining morality, how can man reach true morality? If ther is no perfect being to define morality, then man starts to define morality based on his reasoning, and then starts to reason based on his morality. This argument is patheticaly circular.

Answer me this question. What happens when two men reach two different moral conclusions using their own reasoning?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2009 3:54 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2009 9:42 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 116 by Coragyps, posted 08-29-2009 12:26 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 08-29-2009 1:46 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 118 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2009 4:41 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 08-29-2009 5:18 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 113 of 161 (521800)
08-29-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 9:20 PM


Know Your Bible
quote:
I provided my definition of morality. To be clear however, I define sin using the Gospel.
The definition of morality is not the same definition of sin and still you don't give your definition of sin.

quote:
If you knew the Bible you would know that God is an infinite, all-knowing being. He knows what is good for us and makes the rules accordingly.
If you read the Bible, you would know that God is not all knowing and his infinite status is Catholic Dogma. If you disagree, then show verses that clearly prove otherwise.

Genesis 18:20-21
And the LORD said Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grievous I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me and if not I will know.

God knows what is good for us today or for the ancients? According to the Bible authors God hasn't added any new rules since he supposedly talked to Moses.

quote:
Immorality and life are incompatible. Immorality not only leads to death for the immoral, but can potentially affect and/or corrupt the moral. (This is true even if you take God out of the equation.) The problem is, true morality is impossible without an infinite, all-knowing being.
Reality check. Immorality and life are not incompatible. Right and wrong are part of life. Immorality does not automatically lead to death. Yes the immoral can corrupt those whose morals are weak. Now if you are referring to spiritual death, then you need to be clear what you mean by death.

The scenarios presented in this thread deal with reality. Physical death, rape, etc. We aren't dealing with spiritual death.

quote:
You are making moral judgements on the Bible based upon a morality invented by finite, fallible human beings i.e. Neitzche, Kant, Keikergard. Some of your view is consistent with that of the Christian religion (murder, rape, blah blah blah= wrong) some of it is not (the veiw that morality is relative.)
I'm not familiar with the people you mentioned. Actually my morality is very Bible based. Murder is wrong. Murder, the killing of innocent people. In the Midianite story innocent people were murdered by God's direction. He broke his own rule. Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20,

Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Stealing is wrong. In the Midianite story God allowed the Hebrews to plunder (steal) all that belonged to the Midianites. He broke his own rule. Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, Ephesians 4:28

Even Paul considers the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leadership to be inconsistent with God's will.

Romans 2
17. Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
18. if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
19. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
20. an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
21. you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself ? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
22. You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23. You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the l24. As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Do we expect less from God?

Revenge is wrong. Leviticus 19:18

" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

Now you could say they weren't allowed to seek revenge on their own people, but other nations were open game. That's relative morality.

I agree my views are not consistent with Christian Dogma, but then Christian Dogma is not the word of God is it?

quote:
The reason God unleashed His wrath onto so many people in the Bible is because they were corrupting Isreal. The Isrealites were His people. They were the people he picked to be the forefathers of the His Son. When God punished a nation, it was because they were getting in the way of His plan--which was to save humanity, by sending His Son to die for the sins of man.
In the Midianite story the people were simply practicing their religion. So you feel it was right for all men, young boys, old women, and married women to die because some Israelites were weak? Oddly enough, even though they supposedly killed all the Midianites except virgins, the Midianites are again a thorn in the Israelites side. A thorn put there by God.

Judges 6
Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and for seven years he gave them into the hands of the Midianites. ...

So God used the Midianites to harass the Israelites and then turns on the Midianites. Again, messing with the free will issue by having the Midianites in the camp turn on each other.

Judges 7:22
When the three hundred trumpets sounded, the Lord caused the men throughout the camp to turn on each other with their swords....

If he can do that, why not just make all mankind behave and save humanity without all the bloodshed games?

When you say that God planned all this bloodshed to save humanity, you demonstrate Christian hypocrisy. These are war stories that really illustrate that morality is relative.

quote:
You might ask, "Why is God's plan so important that he would kill others in order to achieve it?" Because if he sat back and did not punish people for their actions then the whole world would resort to lawlessness and reject Him. This would lead to the human race dieing out and His plan to have a people that He could spend eternity with would have failed. It wouldn't have failed because of a mistake God made, but because of the corruption that man had brought on himself. The Bible does not teach that men are to define morality. That is a responsibility that only God is capable of holding. That is atheisms real beef with God. Atheists want to be able to define their own morality. As a result, they attack the Bible using their own versions of morality.
Now you're making up your own stories. Please provide Biblical support for what you're saying. Show me from outside sources that nations not under the Hebrew God were lawless.

If you knew your Bible, you would realize that we are capable of defining morality (what is good and what is wrong).

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

We know what is good and what is evil, just like God does. Mankind does define their own morality. Civilizations with laws/rules existed and still exist without the guidance of the Hebrew God.

The Bible is not God. It is the work of men. The sooner people learn that the sooner people can glean the good information and learn from the mistakes of the past instead of making the same mistakes.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 9:20 PM Holyfire23 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Holyfire23, posted 09-05-2009 6:34 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 114 of 161 (521803)
08-29-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Holyfire23
08-29-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
if man is basically good, why is there so much evil in the world?

If God is basically good, why is there so much evil in the world?

If man has the capacity to reason morally, than how did the Holocaust happen?

To fulfill scripture.

How come people like Stalin and Mao got the way they were?

A combination between nihilistic philosophers like Marx and Nietzsche, and physical/mental abuse as children.

I heard on the news just last night that a 29 year old girl called the local police. She had been kidnapped in 1991 and had been kept in a cage as a sex slave ever since. Her kidnappers were a husband and wife team. If man can reason morally, how do people get like this? I don't call this an anomoly. Men do these things way too often.

Why don't you ask the source who allegedly created man. Why don't you ask the manufacturer why the product is broken since the product didn't invent itself.

If there is no perfect and infinite being to define morality, then a finite and imperfect being must take his place. If there is an imperfect being defining morality, how can man reach true morality?

Since you are a finite and imperfect being, why don't you tell us?

Answer me this question. What happens when two men reach two different moral conclusions using their own reasoning?

You have a debate forum.


"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 9:13 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 115 of 161 (521805)
08-29-2009 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 5:10 PM


Re: God Easily Provoked
In every case, the people who are punished are punished because they did not follow God's commands.

You mean like the time when God commanded the Israelites to dash all the children upon the rocks? Wonder what kind of sins those babies affronted God with.


"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 5:10 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 116 of 161 (521823)
08-29-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Holyfire23
08-29-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
An atheist holds his own reasoning as infallible.

Where the hell do you get your ideas about what atheists think? And why would you think all atheists think alike?

I certainly don't think I'm infallible, or a infallible reasoner. Reality shows me I'm not daily.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 9:13 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 161 (521829)
08-29-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Holyfire23
08-29-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
If there is an imperfect being defining morality, how can man reach true morality?

By learning from past mistakes.

If ther is no perfect being to define morality, then man starts to define morality based on his reasoning, and then starts to reason based on his morality.

Yes. What's the problem here, since it is men who have to deal with the everyday choices, I'd say it's best if they decide on which choice is the best one.

This argument is patheticaly circular.

No it isn't. Yours however is pathetically easy to undecut. First of all, proof god exists, and then proof his morality is "perfect" Better yet, define what a "perfect morality" IS.

Answer me this question. What happens when two men reach two different moral conclusions using their own reasoning?

They discuss what to do with each other. Good arguments might sway one.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 9:13 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 118 of 161 (521847)
08-29-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Holyfire23
08-29-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
You know, it would really help you if you were to get to know some atheists. So that you can discover how we really think, rather than just simply believing the nonsense that your religious leaders have been feeding you.

Though you could serve a useful purpose. There are a few ridiculous misconceptions about atheists that I had repeatedly heard from Christians over the years and then about a year ago I saw an ex-Christian provide Bible verses that say exactly the same things. Do you think you could tell us what the Bible says about non-believers? Since the fundamentalist line is that if the Bible is wrong about even one thing, then the entire Bible is wrong, showing that the Bible is dead wrong about what atheists think and believe would do immense good in this world. Well, one problem would be that fundamentalists have such an incredibly bizaare misunderstanding of atheism that they will undoubtedly completely screw things up when their religion suddenly forces them to become atheists.

There have been a few topics here discussing morality. You might want to read through them in order to learn how atheists really do think about morality. That way, you will no longer be trying to argue from ignorance. Just in case it needs to be pointed out explicitly, arguing from ignorance is never a good idea and should be avoided.

I heard on the news just last night that a 29 year old girl called the local police. She had been kidnapped in 1991 and had been kept in a cage as a sex slave ever since. Her kidnappers were a husband and wife team. If man can reason morally, how do people get like this?

Thank you for raising that point again. But when you raised it in Msg #69, you were praising such an action as being good morality, yet now you are condemning it. Why is such rape a good thing in one case and utterly contemptible in another?

The only difference is that your god was behind the one case. So any act, regardless of how contemptible, is worthy of the highest praise if your god did it. How much more relativistic could it possibly get?

Moral reasoning involves thinking about what you need to do and working out and weighing the consequences of your actions on everyone involved. Fundamentalist "absolute moral standards" does not involve any concern for anybody else, but rather involves nothing more than worrying about what you think God has commanded you to do or to not do because you want to escape punishment. And if you believe that God wants you to perform the most deplorable act possible, then that is what you would do ... especially if you fear punishment should you refuse to comply, a point that you have argued strongly. How is that supposed to be moral?

The reason that fundamentalists have virtually no capacity for moral reasoning is that they don't exercise it. They are not taught to use moral reasoning. If anything, they are even discouraged from engaging in moral reasoning. If you're not taught moral reasoning and you fear God's punishment should you dare to use it, then how could you have any capacity for moral reasoning?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 9:13 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 119 of 161 (521854)
08-29-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Holyfire23
08-29-2009 9:13 AM


secular morality
Atheism does not reject the concept of God, they just place man in that place and kick God out

I do not believe that any god exists. I think the role that many theists insist a god is necessary for can be replaced by humanity. In context, the role of policing other human's conduct can be performed by other humans (I have evidence that this is the case, see 'the police force' as a singular example).

There are other animals who probably don't believe in a god who are able to regulate social conduct amongst themselves - I'm fairly sure humans are capable of doing likewise.

An atheist holds his own reasoning as infallible.

Name five atheists that do this.

All of you are assuming that man is basically good.

Nope. Man is basically self-interested (this is a simplification). So when there is good reason to behave (there are rewards for behaving or punishments for not behaving) we behave. Remove those reasons and the tendency to misbehave increases (look at soldiers in warzones where crimes are less likely to be investigated and pursued).

If man has the capacity to reason morally, than how did the Holocaust happen?

The powers that be did fairly well out of it, and would have done very well out of it had they succeeded in their plans. They took a risk.
The rank and file officers and soldiers involved faced a self interest situation (don't do it and get killed, do it and survive). And also the Milgram effect, in which people can essentially be made to commit murder or torture as long as an authority figure tells them to (and assures them that they will take responsibility).

If man can reason morally, how do people get like this?

There is also game theory and morality. In any moral environment there are two possibilities:

1) Cheat and try to gain an advantage
2) Comply.

There are stable mixtures of these strategies that are capable of existing together. This occurs in other animals, can be mathematically modelled and there is no reason to assume we are an exception. See Hawk-Dove for a simplified idea of this.

If you want to study non-theistic morality, there are plenty of resources out there.

I call this humanism in its purest form

You are wrong then. Humanism "attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities" (wiki). Crappy things happening is humanity. You are part of it. You might one day do something terrible yourself (or maybe you already have).

I know there are alot of moral people who do not believe in God. But like I said earlier, they are simply living above their philosophical standards.

I'd wager that you just think their standards are lower than they actually are. I have very high moral standards. I certainly don't live up to my standards.

If there is no perfect and infinite being to define morality, then a finite and imperfect being must take his place

Pretty much.

Evidence seems to suggest that there is a lot of imperfect morality around. Seems indicative of their being an imperfect being (or collection of beings to be more accurate) behind it.

YHWH's instructions seem to be pretty imperfect to me. So how are we to know whose standards are better?

If ther is no perfect being to define morality, then man starts to define morality based on his reasoning, and then starts to reason based on his morality. This argument is patheticaly circular.

Human morality construction seems perfectly linear to me:

Humans have certain motivations and desires.
They try and use their minds to reason how they want others to act.
They also use reason to work out how they should act in relation to others in order to obtain their goals and fulfil their motivations.
Additionally they try and work out ways to encourage others to act that way.

What happens when two men reach two different moral conclusions using their own reasoning?

They disagree. They may act in ways that differ from one another, and then, if called on it, try and justify their actions. You know - exactly what we observe to happen. I'm sure you know this to be true.

If one man disagrees with the consensus, then he will probably be penalised if he does not comply with the social rules set up by the group. He can try to argue his case, he better hope that the group's social rules include allowing him to voice his opinion freely. If they don't, if there are rules against questioning the moral authority (such as blasphemy laws) - then he's out of luck.


That doesn't seem to be a great defence for the charge that fundamentalists are inherently immoral. Is a person who beats a woman with a belt for being disrespectful immoral? If that person is doing so because they believe a deity told them to, are they immoral? How do we know which deities instructions, and whose interpretation of those instructions are the moral ones?

It seems to me that you have to concede that a lot of fundamentalists are inherently immoral because they are following the wrong deity, or the wrong writings about that deity, or the wrong interpretations, or some such.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Holyfire23, posted 08-29-2009 9:13 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 161 (522860)
09-05-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by purpledawn
08-29-2009 9:22 AM


Re: Know Your Bible
purpledawn writes:

The definition of morality is not the same definition of sin and still you don't give your definition of sin.

Ok. I define morality using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That includes the definition of sin.

purpledawn writes:

If you read the Bible, you would know that God is not all knowing and his infinite status is Catholic Dogma. If you disagree, then show verses that clearly prove otherwise.


Revelation 22:13 writes:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Psalm 139 writes:

O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.

9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,"

12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!

18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.

19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

20 They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?

22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.

purpledawn writes:

In the Midianite story innocent people were murdered by God's direction. He broke his own rule. Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20,

Have you read the Old Testament?

Let me put this story into context. As I already said, the Midianites conspired with the Balak to destroy the Isrealites. This just sets the backround. God was already angry with the Midianites. (Numbers 22:1-7)

Numbers 25 writes:


1And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

2And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

3And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

4And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

5And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

6And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

11Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

14Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.

15And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.

16And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

17Vex the Midianites, and smite them:

18For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.


Let us analyze this passage. Look at verse 4-5. God commands Moses to behead the Isrealite people who engaged in the sinful acts and hang the heads up for everyone to see. First of all, this shows that God does not play favorites and punishes everyone who sins against him--not just the non-Isrealites. Second, this explains why the children of Isreal were weeping in front of the Tabernacle. This takes some understanding of Jewish tradition. I shall explain this.

Back then, if someone in your family died, you would rip your clothes off, cover your face with ashes, sit at the door of your dwelling, and weep. When the whole nation of Isreal had a tragedy the whole nation wept in front of the Tabernacle--also known as the Tent of Meeting. As you can imagine, when Moses was ordered to behead his own people and hang their heads for everyone to see, it was pretty traumatic and a great tragedy among the Isrealites. This is why in verse 6 we find the "congregation of Isreal" weeping in front of the Tabernacle door.

Lets go back to verses 1-3. Isreali men were commiting acts of sexual immorality with Moabite women. Now look at verse 2. They (the Moabites and the Middianites) "called the people unto the sacrifices of their Gods.". The Isrealites willingly agreed. This completely goes against commandment number 1 which says: "Thou shalt not have any other graven images.".

Look back at everything that just happened in the first six verses of Numbers 25. So far, a bunch of Isreali men have commited sexually immoral acts which is a sin against God, Isreal has gone and worshiped other gods besides God, Moses has been ordered to behead all the perpetrators, and a plague has come upon Isreal (v. 8-9)

Now for the question. Why did Phineas (v. 7) spear the Isrealite man and the Midianite woman?

Remember why the children of Isreal were weeping? Because Isreal had commited terrible acts against God and were beheaded. Now imagine the anger Phineas felt when, as he was weeping for the sins of Isreal, another Isrealite man "brought a Midianitish woman unto his brethren". Isreal had just been severely punished for mingling with the Midianites and yet here is a man who brings a Midianite woman right into the Isreali camp, AND right in front of the Tabernacle--the most Holy place in Isreal at the time and the very resting place of God. What stupidity! It was downright disobedience. This is why Phinehas killed them both. They were purposely disobeying God. Phinehas punished them. All of the people who mingled with the Midianites had to die. That is what Phinehas did. He killed them, thus obeying the orders of God. As a result, the plague was lifted of Isreal.

Lastly, why where the Midianites punished for what seemed like ignorance? It wasn't ignorace. This was a deliberate ploy that was concieved to destroy Isreal from within. Remember that in Numbers 22 the Moabites and the Midianites had joined forces to try and destroy Isreal. They knew that if Isreal rejected God and joined with them, they would not be destroyed. They were mistaken because God saw their plan. That is why they were punished.

You cannot take the bible out of context. Otherwise, it can be twisted and bent to mean anything. I am not accusing you of doing this purposely, but you definately don't have all the facts. That is whay I asked you if you have read the whole Old Testament. Heck, if you just read the whole book of Numbers it would be more clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by purpledawn, posted 08-29-2009 9:22 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by purpledawn, posted 09-05-2009 8:44 PM Holyfire23 has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019