The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You haven’t refuted anything; you just refuse to admit the obvious. Numbers 31:17-18 says:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As any reasonable person can see, verse 17 is genocide; verse 18 is kidnapping that leads to rape.

The passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Obviously, for everything humanity does and can do.

Of course, if you long for humanity having an externally intended purpose, you will have to postulate an external intentional purpose giver.
I see no need for that.

You did not answer the question, for what purpose did humanity come to exist? To simply do things is not a very logical answer. But for the sake of the argument, if the purpose for humanity is to simply "do things", who or what created humanity for that purpose. Obviously humanity cannot have created itself. To suggest that is delusional and illogical. So to say that humanity came to exist for any reason to include "to do things" implies something outside of humanity establishing it as so. Note: I am not asking for an explanation as to HOW humanity came to exist. I am asking WHY humanity came to exist.

If you were intellectually honest the only answer in a secular worldview is that there is no WHY for the existence of humanity because humanity was never created for a purpose. It just came to exist through natural evolutionary process.

 

[quatona]

You did not answer the question, for what purpose did humanity come to exist? To simply do things is not a very logical answer. But for the sake of the argument, if the purpose for humanity is to simply "do things", who or what created humanity for that purpose. Obviously humanity cannot have created itself. To suggest that is delusional and illogical. So to say that humanity came to exist for any reason to include "to do things" implies something outside of humanity establishing it as so. Note: I am not asking for an explanation as to HOW humanity came to exist. I am asking WHY humanity came to exist.

If you were intellectually honest the only answer in a secular worldview is that there is no WHY for the existence of humanity because humanity was never created for a purpose. It just came to exist through natural evolutionary process.

Did you read my post that you respond to here?

 

[quatona]

Well, if God had established that the sole purpose for sex was procreation, rape would then be good because it fulfills and promotes that purpose. However, according to scripture, that is not what the purpose of sex is. Scripture explains that sex is a manifestation of love shared between a husband and wife. Since love is a choice that cannot be forced, rape goes against it's divine purpose. Thus, rape is evil.

You missed my point. Whatever.
How fortunate that your God happens to by and large agree with me on this issue.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Man is here to fight the Devil (aka entropy decay disease etc)...

 

[quatona]

Man is here to fight the Devil (aka entropy decay disease etc)

And the devil is here to...?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And the devil is here to...?

To kill music as Don McLean explained.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Did you read my post that you respond to here?

Yes. I asked "Why did humanity come to exist?" You responded with "Obviously, for everything humanity does and can do." Then I responded by stating the obvious fact that the answer was absurd and did not answer the question. I then followed it up with an explanation as to why you answer was absurd. What did I miss?​

 

[quatona]

Yes. I asked "Why did humanity come to exist?" You responded with "Obviously, for everything humanity does and can do." Then I responded by stating the obvious fact that the answer was absurd and did not answer the question. I then followed it up with an explanation as to why you answer was absurd. What did I miss?​

The second part of the post.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The second part of the post.

So you then concede that according to a secular worldview, there is no reason as to why humanity came to exist?

 

[quatona]

So you then concede that according to a secular worldview, there is no reason as to why humanity came to exist?

Not in the way you are using "reason".
That´s nothing to concede - it´s a no brainer.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Not in the way you are using "reason".
That´s nothing to concede - it´s a no brainer.

I am using "reason" as a noun meaning purpose, cause, goal, motivation, rationale, basis, ect... Is that not what you are using? Do you then agree that according to a secular worldview, humanity was never created for a purpose and that there is no possible answer as to why humanity came to exist?

 

[quatona]

I am using "reason" as a noun meaning purpose, cause, goal, motivation, rationale, basis, ect... Is that not what you are using?

For example, if we are using it as "cause" a secular world view is perfectly reconcilable with it.
If however - as you actually do in the line of your reasoning - we use it as intentionally and externally given purpose, then no. That´s what I have been saying all the time.

Do you then agree that according to a secular worldview, humanity was never created for a purpose

...not an intentionally externally given purpose.

and that there is no possible answer as to why humanity came to exist?

Not if you use "why?" as a question for an intentionally and externally given purpose.

Now, before you ask the same question a million times again, you may want to read what I wrote when I answered it several times. The answer won´t change.

 

[Ken-1122]

The passage says nothing about raping the captive women.

It says “keep for yourselves” What else is that supposed to mean?

It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19).

No; verse 19 is about those who have killed; it says nothing about the virgins they kidnapped.

Rape would have violated this command (Leviticus 15:16-18).

Leviticus 15:16-18 is about cleansing of the house; we’re talking about what they did after defeating the Midianites in war; two separate issues going on here.

The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

It says nothing about marriage; it says keep the virgins for yourselves. There is nothing that would have prevented these evil soldiers from raping the kidnapped women.

However; since you seem to be in the business of defending such war practices, and you seem to believe morality is objective rather than subjective, would you defend such a practice today? If the US went to war with another country, and defeated them, would you consider it okay if we killed all the civilians of that country except for the virgin women and allowed the soldiers to keep the virgin women for themselves?[/QUOTE]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

For example, if we are using it as "cause" a secular world view is perfectly reconcilable with it.
If however - as you actually do in the line of your reasoning - we use it as intentionally and externally given purpose, then no. That´s what I have been saying all the time.

...not an intentionally externally given purpose.

Not if you use "why?" as a question for an intentionally and externally given purpose.

Now, before you ask the same question a million times again, you may want to read what I wrote when I answered it several times. The answer won´t change.

So if there is not an "intentionally externally given purpose" for humanity, is it then possible for humanity to have a purpose that is anything other than subjective opinion?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It says nothing about marriage; it says keep the virgins for yourselves.

It says nothing about rape either. How interesting.

 

[Ken-1122]

It says nothing about rape either. How interesting.

It doesn't have to; my point is there was nothing stopping them from committing rape. Again; do you defend this practice? Would you defend it if it were done today?

 

[Belk]

I am using "reason" as a noun meaning purpose, cause, goal, motivation, rationale, basis, ect... Is that not what you are using? Do you then agree that according to a secular worldview, humanity was never created for a purpose and that there is no possible answer as to why humanity came to exist?

No, but I would agree that we know of no intelligent agent that assigned us purpose.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well it took me practically no time and energy to refute Ken that in the texts he referenced there was anything about rape. And I have refuted others pretty easily that the Bible does not condone slavery, in fact it was a strong force against slavery in Western societies. And the claim that the Bible condones genocide I have also easily refuted without spending much time and energy.

I believe that you believe you've done all of that.

WellIf they arise from the Creator of the universe's objectively existing moral character, then they do have an objective basis which secular morality does not have. God's moral character exists outside the human mind, so therefore it is objective.

That's is, of course, blatant special pleading. Objective does not mean 'outside the human mind'.

If it derives from a mind, it is necessarily subjective. You don't get to just ad-hoc you're way out of that.

Yes, we have them in propositional form

You have the writings of anonymous people purporting to speak on Yahweh's behalf. Nothing else.

We generally learn this when we get to know Him personally,

Which is useless, of course. Anyone can claim their own personal experience of Yahweh and come up with completely different conclusions than you, and you stand on no ground whatsoever in saying their experiences are 'wrong'.

there is also scientific evidence that points to following Christian morality is best for humans.

Only in the most superficial sense. There is a great deal of evidence that, for example, refraining from killing and stealing is best for humans, but that idea is not remotely unique to Christianity.

Christian moral philosophy has none of those characteristics.

It has all of them. You've spent a great deal of time in this thread engaged in apologetics for atrocities. So has William Lane Craig. So have a number of other apologists. And you have no coherent ontology or epistemology to speak of.

As such, I dismiss your vacuous nakedness assertions out of hand.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You haven’t refuted anything; you just refuse to admit the obvious. Numbers 31:17-18 says:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As any reasonable person can see, verse 17 is genocide; verse 18 is kidnapping that leads to rape.

People who engage in apologetics for such things don't get to lecture me on morality.