Atheism/Morality

[Bodhitharta]

So stoning children who curse at their parents is completely moral, right? In fact, it would be immoral not to do so.

This term "curse" does not mean using profanity as it does today it means to actually place a curse on your parents by evil means. So yes, if someones child seeks to put an actual evil curse on their parents they should be stoned.

 

[Bodhitharta]

So, why is that moral?

Because God says protect those who need protecting, therefore in the course of helping the sick and the needy it is moral to strike down evil wherever it is found.

 

[Bodhitharta]

Of course. But I said murder, not killing.



Oppression, maybe. But mischief?

Yes! Mischief such as the great mischief that has caused people to lose their entire livelihoods by unscrupolous corporate embezzlers and those like them or crooked authorities that knowingly imprison innocent people because of their prejudices.

 

[JGG]

This term "curse" does not mean using profanity as it does today it means to actually place a curse on your parents by evil means. So yes, if someones child seeks to put an actual evil curse on their parents they should be stoned.

Yes, but understand to me putting a curse on someone is probably about as effective as thumbing your nose at them. It seems a slight overkill.

How about smiting (a child who hits their parent)? Also stoning?

What about disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)?

 

[JGG]

Because God says protect those who need protecting, therefore in the course of helping the sick and the needy it is moral to strike down evil wherever it is found.

But if God says to protect those who need protecting, why is it necessary to kill Saddam Hussein? Why not just jail him?

 

[Bodhitharta]

Yes, but understand to me putting a curse on someone is probably about as effective as thumbing your nose at them. It seems a slight overkill.

How about smiting (a child who hits their parent)? Also stoning?

What about disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)?

If you are a believer you will understand that evil does exist and therefore someone can place a curse on someone such as the case of Balaam.


21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:


21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
<A href="http://www.godrules.net/library/treasury/treasurydeu21.htm#20">
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.
<A href="http://www.godrules.net/library/treasury/treasurydeu21.htm#21">
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


First of all these laws were established to insure a strong and peaceful community. Now, if you are raised to believe that your rebellious and stubborn behaviour is likely to result in your death, will you pursue that course?

These laws seem to only be a problem for those who want to make excuses. Simply this the Law is for Law Breakers but if you do good and what's right then what shall be your loss?

 

[Bodhitharta]

But if God says to protect those who need protecting, why is it necessary to kill Saddam Hussein? Why not just jail him?

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

The scripture allows for other punishments such as fines or Jail time but where there is chronic mischief involved then to put the person to death is showing mercy and compassion to his victims.

 

[JGG]

If you are a believer you will understand that evil does exist and therefore someone can place a curse on someone such as the case of Balaam.

Well firstly, I'm not a believer, so its gonna take some explaining. Secondly, has this "cursing" been done a little more recently so I can investigate it as something other than an ancient superstition?

First of all these laws were established to insure a strong and peaceful community.

Yes, it sounds very peaceful.

Now, if you are raised to believe that your rebellious and stubborn behaviour is likely to result in your death, will you pursue that course?

Well, based on the effectiveness of the death penalty today...it would probably still happen, yes. Let me state my question outright: Is it moral to stone a disobedient son?

These laws seem to only be a problem for those who want to make excuses. Simply this the Law is for Law Breakers but if you do good and what's right then what shall be your loss?

Again, do you advocate stoning disobedient children today?

 

[JGG]

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

The scripture allows for other punishments such as fines or Jail time but where there is chronic mischief involved then to put the person to death is showing mercy and compassion to his victims.

It seems to me that this is referring to a very specific crime. Again, why it is moral to kill Saddam Hussein?

Actually, there is a guy near my hometown has just been sent to jail for life for the murder of a couple. Is it moral to put him to death?

 

[The Nihilist]

Just so we're clear, some atheists (or at least me) have no problem at all saying that morality is a complete and more or less meaningless fabrication

 

[tcampen]

Everyone picks and chooses their own morality, even if they label it "God's morality". Just think about it. Even within Christianity, you have people who claim to follow God's will using the bible as the source for objective morality, yet the same people come down on different sides of big moral issues, such as capital punishment, war, abortion and divorce. The only reasonable explanation of the obvious phenomena is that everyone chooses what they want to believe is right and wrong.

Luckily, we usually agree as a society on most issues of morality, regardless of what we claim as the source. Criminal laws are largely legislating morality, prohibiting such conduct as lying, stealing, and hurting others. Yet, the basis of these laws are reason, not dogma or religion. In any legislative body in the U.S. today, you really won't find people passing statutes based on the rationale of "the bible says so." (Even the "Defense of Marriage Act" had to find a rational basis beyond religious beliefs.)

Thus, in a free, non-theocratic society, reason is the only viable basis for a common morality, for reason transcends any religious or non-religious persuasion.

Unless, of course, you want to choose something else.

 

[moogley]

Everyone picks and chooses their own morality, even if they label it "God's morality"

Exactly, for example: for catholics its not "moral" to use contraception, but for other strains of christianity it is?

 

[.Sabre.]

Exactly, for example: for catholics its not "moral" to use contraception, but for other strains of christianity it is?

Yeah.

Ask a question about any moral issue and you will get a whole lot of different answers.

 

[Ohioprof]

Sorry, but you will have to battle with your fellow Atheists whom wish to sit on the unifying qualifier of "Atheist" as nothing more than a lack of belief in a god.

There is going to be some difficulty in someone trying to box in how Atheism arives at any given standard. But if that is true and leaving the unifying factor of Atheism being a specific "lack", then you're simply not qualified to speak for all Atheists - despite being one.

You could speak for only yourself, use anectdotal references, or even band together as a group of like-minded Atheists who share similar opinions on other issues, but making assertions "for Atheists" will not fly as long as there are Atheists insisting that there is but one simple qualifier.

Your use of "we" must no doubt be a generalized reference to Atheists who have certain 'other traits' - an example being those who might frequent a Christian forum. But there are, in fact, a great more Atheists in the world who agree with Christians on a multitude of points - homosexuality being one of those. A word of advice, I would not use the term conflate right before doing the same in your post - it just looks bad.

Obviously, I don't fully agree with the over-generalized example in the video. But knowing what I know, I assumed the use was referring to the version of Atheism that is more anti-religious as opposed to speaking for 'all' Atheists. That required a bit of my 'reading into' what was being said, but I find my inference a bit more accurate.


Objectively, it would simply mean that an Atheist can arrive at the same conclusion as Christian belief would on a given topic, but based on a possible variable for the rational. It doesn't make it moral unless you are referring to social morals and the conclusion matching that localized standard. You may be forgetting that Christian belief is set in a standard that would be described more as an absolute than how a non-believer may arrive at a conclusion.

And not to be confused as in conflict with the objective point - the spiritual point would be:
Sharing the same conclusions with Christianity on any given topic may carry benefits to your self and others, but if you don't have the Lord in your heart, it would ultimately be vanity regarding your eternal soul.

You cannot speak for all Christians either, as there is no one version of Christianity, no single doctrine that all Christians believe. You can speak only for yourself, as our atheist friend can.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You cannot speak for all Christians either, as there is no one version of Christianity, no single doctrine that all Christians believe. You can speak only for yourself, as our atheist friend can.

Perhaps next time you may want to address something actually found in my post. I can only assume that you must be mistaking anyone "speaking for all Christians" with anyone pointing to what is already there that outlines Christian belief.

Unlike Atheism with being a void, Christians have been blessed with tools for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training regarding Christian faith.

As for your mentioning people, you must also be confusing Who is the head of what. Christ is the head of the body, not the inverse where people dictate to God what Christianity 'should be'. If someone wants to call their self a Christian and has no fruit showing that the claim matches the foundation or demonstrates a life of contradiction, then that's sad for them. Hopefully a mature brother or sister will help them grow or rebuke them if a rebuke is needed. But it doesn't make their claim equal to or superior to what God has given us.

Besides, your claim(s) or implied above are simply that. Christ is THE way and THE truth and THE life. If people want to try to cast doubts, try to divide, try to say there are many ways, etc. - that rides along in the same boat as the example of anyone claiming to be a Christian, but the fruit doesn't match up.

1 Peter 2:6-8
6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message&#8212;which is also what they were destined for.



While there may have been some confusion on what you were replying to, the simple fact is that you can't really compare one mindset that is defined by a void as if it was in the same context of a faith that has a set foundation. I hope that clears things up a bit.

 

[Ohioprof]

Perhaps next time you may want to address something actually found in my post. I can only assume that you must be mistaking anyone "speaking for all Christians" with anyone pointing to what is already there that outlines Christian belief.

Unlike Atheism with being a void, Christians have been blessed with tools for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training regarding Christian faith.

As for your mentioning people, you must also be confusing Who is the head of what. Christ is the head of the body, not the inverse where people dictate to God what Christianity 'should be'. If someone wants to call their self a Christian and has no fruit showing that the claim matches the foundation or demonstrates a life of contradiction, then that's sad for them. Hopefully a mature brother or sister will help them grow or rebuke them if a rebuke is needed. But it doesn't make their claim equal to or superior to what God has given us.

Besides, your claim(s) or implied above are simply that. Christ is THE way and THE truth and THE life. If people want to try to cast doubts, try to divide, try to say there are many ways, etc. - that rides along in the same boat as the example of anyone claiming to be a Christian, but the fruit doesn't match up.

1 Peter 2:6-8
6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message&#8212;which is also what they were destined for.



While there may have been some confusion on what you were replying to, the simple fact is that you can't really compare one mindset that is defined by a void as if it was in the same context of a faith that has a set foundation. I hope that clears things up a bit.

I am pointing out that your admonition to an atheist that he cannot speak for all atheists is an admonition that can be thrown back at you. You do not speak for all Christians either. And while there may be core beliefs that most Christians agree on, not all Christians do, and the meanings of Christianity for different Christians are multiple.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I am pointing out that your admonition to an atheist that he cannot speak for all atheists is an admonition that can be thrown back at you. You do not speak for all Christians either. And while there may be core beliefs that most Christians agree on, not all Christians do, and the meanings of Christianity for different Christians are multiple.

Again, the one point you are arguing against wasn't found in my post and the other is simply unsubstantiated opinion. But even if you don't seem to get the bulk of my post that pointed out a few key items, I'm confident that other members can read what was given, see the basis and are able to confirm or find the correction based on substantiated fact from what defines Christian faith.

The relativism your argument relies on is just that. Judas, who betrayed Jesus Christ, was also counted among the disciples. But Christ is still the One that judges who is His faithful brother or sister - He knew who would betray Him. Judas may have served his purpose, but it didn't require Jesus saying Judas was faithful by the contradictions of what Judas cherished or didn't cherish.

 

[Ohioprof]

Again, the one point you are arguing against wasn't found in my post and the other is simply unsubstantiated opinion. But even if you don't seem to get the bulk of my post that pointed out a few key items, I'm confident that other members can read what was given, see the basis and are able to confirm or find the correction based on substantiated fact from what defines Christian faith.

The relativism your argument relies on is just that. Judas, who betrayed Jesus Christ, was also counted among the disciples. But Christ is still the One that judges who is His faithful brother or sister - He knew who would betray Him. Judas may have served his purpose, but it didn't require Jesus saying Judas was faithful by the contradictions of what Judas cherished or didn't cherish.

I'll take my chances with the judgment of Jesus, thank you. I am not worried.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'll take my chances with the judgment of Jesus, thank you. I am not worried.

Well, there we have it...
We now can clearly see a pattern of using the quote feature, but arguing against what simply isn't in the quote.

 

[Ohioprof]

Well, there we have it...
We now can clearly see a pattern of using the quote feature, but arguing against what simply isn't in the quote.

I don't know what you are talking about, but in truth I don't care. So please don't explain. I get tired of seeing these posts with long Bible quotes that I don't bother to read, since they mean nothing to me.