Can morality exist without God cont..

[dougangel]

Involuntary slavery as a form of punishment for evil POWs and criminals is moral.
Indentured servants are cheaper than free workers, because you have to pay them enough to provide their own shelter and food and new clothing if they are free. It is cheaper to let them live in one of your own buildings and let them have food from your own supplies because then you can control any possible waste of food. You can also let them wear some of your own clothes that you no longer use anymore.

Imprisonment is different to slavery.
Slavery isn't a christian principle on the declarations of Jesus.
If a person can leave the agreement made with the employer. It is not slavery.
Also there are tax issues with what your talking about.

 

[dougangel]

Here's the wikipedia article, references are cited within. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

That article in no way says that there is a consensus of christian scholars believing Moses wasn't a real person.
In fact it says Christianity believe Moses was a real person.
And the main reason in that web page is that some modern scholars believe that he didn't exist because there is no physical evidence of him. He was nomadic. He never went into Canaan. There is sort of proof the Israelite's are there as a nation and all that they wrote about him. Even if there is no proof, you can say that about a lot of people in history. some people mainly have poems written about them. For example William Wallace.

I put that with other false unproven theories like Jesus never existed. Jesus married Mary and so on.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Involuntary slavery as a form of punishment for evil POWs and criminals is moral.

I don't buy that.

Indentured servants are cheaper than free workers, because you have to pay them enough to provide their own shelter and food and new clothing if they are free. It is cheaper to let them live in one of your own buildings and let them have food from your own supplies because then you can control any possible waste of food. You can also let them wear some of your own clothes that you no longer use anymore.

They are cheaper than free workers in the modern day society because things like minimum wage exists. Back in the ancient world, that was not the case.

Likewise, free accommodation at the employers place plus some clothing could have been part of the job agreement. Some employers even today will include accommodations or a clothing allowance as part of a job contract. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's no need to make the person an indentured servant, or slave.

What you should be more troubled about is the lengths you're going to in order to try to justify slavery. That's what religious based moral systems lead to.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The point is: Previous leaders and there writings affect countries and there laws and culture. So what your saying not correct again.

That's a strawman, I have repeatedly stated that legislation and whatnot is irrelevant. Abraham and Moses were not said to pass laws to make Yahweh the god of the Jews, they made personal direct agreements speaking on behalf of their people.

I notice you are continually evading my actual question.

If Barack Obama made a similar agreement to some god on your behalf, would you consider yourself bound by his covenant with that god?

 

[Dave Ellis]

That article in no way says that there is a consensus of christian scholars believing Moses wasn't a real person.
In fact it says Christianity believe Moses was a real person.
And the main reason in that web page is that some modern scholars believe that he didn't exist because there is no physical evidence of him. He was nomadic. He never went into Canaan. There is sort of proof the Israelite's are there as a nation and all that they wrote about him. Even if there is no proof, you can say that about a lot of people in history. some people mainly have poems written about them. For example William Wallace.

I put that with other false unproven theories like Jesus never existed. Jesus married Mary and so on.

"The scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical".

The vast majority of scholars on the topic are Christian and Jewish.

I should mention Sir William Wallace is probably the worst possible person in history you could have brought up as an example to me... My maternal grandmother was in that line of Wallace's and I know my own family history well. There's a lot more to back up the historicity of Sir William Wallace than simple poems.

 

[dougangel]

That's a strawman, I have repeatedly stated that legislation and whatnot is irrelevant. Abraham and Moses were not said to pass laws to make Yahweh the god of the Jews, they made personal direct agreements speaking on behalf of their people.

I notice you are continually evading my actual question.

If Barack Obama made a similar agreement to some god on your behalf, would you consider yourself bound by his covenant with that god?

At the time that was there countries laws and statutes, even health laws ectra. And they were in effect for the ancient Israelites. A lot of people through history have taken ideas from them. A lot in my opinion unwisely.

 

[dougangel]

"The scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical".

The vast majority of scholars on the topic are Christian and Jewish.

I should mention Sir William Wallace is probably the worst possible person in history you could have brought up as an example to me... My maternal grandmother was in that line of Wallace's and I know my own family history well. There's a lot more to back up the historicity of Sir William Wallace than simple poems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
Although there are problems with writing a satisfactory biography of many medieval people, the problems with Wallace are greater than usual. Not much is known about him beyond his military campaign of 1297–1298, and the last few weeks of his life in 1305. Even in recent years, his birthplace and his father's name have been argued.

To compound this, the legacy of subsequent 'biographical' accounts, sometimes written as propaganda, other times simply as entertainment, has clouded much scholarship until relatively recent times. Some accounts have uncritically copied elements from the epic poem, The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, written around 1470 by Blind Harry the minstrel. Harry wrote from oral tradition describing events 170 years earlier, and is not in any sense an authoritative descriptor of Wallace's exploits. Much of the poem is clearly at variance with known historical facts and records of the period and is either fabricated using traditional chivalric motifs or 'borrowed' from the exploits of others and attributed to Wallace

 

[dougangel]

If Barack Obama made a similar agreement to some god on your behalf, would you consider yourself bound by his covenant with that god?

I'm not American, but If barack Obama wanted to and got it through legislation to make America a theocracy. IT would affect Americans and would even have consequences in the world. We are affected by what our leaders and administration do in our countries.
Christ separated the church from state and it says that is individual choice to follow God. So after the cross I believe that is an individuals choice to follow God. My opinion is most times in history when the church has got too close to the state corrupt things have happened.

 

[dcalling]

I keep hearing this line of argument from people, and I keep responding the same way.

The fact it was a different time, or things were more difficult, or whatever is completely irrelevant. That has no effect whatsoever on the moral implications of slavery.

If you believe moral principles are unchanging, then if slavery is immoral today, it was immoral thousands of years ago.

A man who needed workers could hire them. Likewise, no woman should ever be "sold" to her future slave owner, or husband.
There is no morally justifiable way to argue against those very basic principles. To argue against those principles is to try to excuse the actions of, or justify the actions of slave masters.

If your god is willing to make moral compromises, then he is not a morally perfect being.

Except our God's standard didn't change. It says not to murder, not to do idol worshiping, not to covet, not to covet (and many in the Torah) and Jesus summarized it as "Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself".

Under that standard, you can do whatever you want, as long as it is truly for the good of the other person.

 

[Dave Ellis]

At the time that was there countries laws and statutes, even health laws ectra. And they were in effect for the ancient Israelites. A lot of people through history have taken ideas from them. A lot in my opinion unwisely.

Nobody copied the ancient Isrealite law system. Our culture is based off English Common law, which descended from the Romans, which did not come from the Isrealites at all

 

[Dave Ellis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
Although there are problems with writing a satisfactory biography of many medieval people, the problems with Wallace are greater than usual. Not much is known about him beyond his military campaign of 1297–1298, and the last few weeks of his life in 1305. Even in recent years, his birthplace and his father's name have been argued.

To compound this, the legacy of subsequent 'biographical' accounts, sometimes written as propaganda, other times simply as entertainment, has clouded much scholarship until relatively recent times. Some accounts have uncritically copied elements from the epic poem, The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, written around 1470 by Blind Harry the minstrel. Harry wrote from oral tradition describing events 170 years earlier, and is not in any sense an authoritative descriptor of Wallace's exploits. Much of the poem is clearly at variance with known historical facts and records of the period and is either fabricated using traditional chivalric motifs or 'borrowed' from the exploits of others and attributed to Wallace

There's no question that there are a number of legends and tall tales regarding him, however there is plenty of historical evidence to show that he actually existed. That is the relevant topic here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm not American, but If barack Obama wanted to and got it through legislation to make America a theocracy. IT would affect Americans and would even have consequences in the world. We are affected by what our leaders and administration do in our countries.

How many times do I have to say this has nothing to do with legislation? I'm on number 3 or 4 now. Why do you keep bringing up legislation?

This has to do with Obama (or the leader of your country) making a promise to whatever god that his country will now follow that god. Would you then consider yourself bound to follow that god? It's a simple yes or no.

Christ separated the church from state and it says that is individual choice to follow God. So after the cross I believe that is an individuals choice to follow God. My opinion is most times in history when the church has got too close to the state corrupt things have happened.

I agree that mixing church with state leads to big problems, however Jesus didn't create church/state separation. That's simply laughable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Except our God's standard didn't change. It says not to murder, not to do idol worshiping, not to covet, not to covet (and many in the Torah) and Jesus summarized it as "Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself".

Under that standard, you can do whatever you want, as long as it is truly for the good of the other person.

But you're ignoring the standards I brought up in my post... you're deflecting, not addressing.

 

[dcalling]

But you're ignoring the standards I brought up in my post... you're deflecting, not addressing.

Below is my original. I think God's standard is, if you do it with love in mind everything is ok. So in case of another human's life is in danger, if you are doing it out of love, it is OK to steal medicine, it is even OK to do things against the other person's will (i.e. do something very painful).

Remember this is at a time when God commended that you should not take interests, should always pay the labor at end of day, should not take other people's cooking set (or something similar) for debt, it is a time of poverty, and God allowed certain things. God even allowed divorce during the time, only to protect (since people's heart is hard), in NT Jesus clearly states God does not like it. So God allowed things he did not like out of care and situation consideration in certain times.

Except our God's standard didn't change. It says not to murder, not to do idol worshiping, not to covet, not to covet (and many in the Torah) and Jesus summarized it as "Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself".

Under that standard, you can do whatever you want, as long as it is truly for the good of the other person.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Nobody copied the ancient Isrealite law system. Our culture is based off English Common law, which descended from the Romans, which did not come from the Isrealites at all

And by "the Romans" you mean "the Holy Roman empire" was a Christian Empire who based their laws on christianity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And how has that been doing ? Not very Good.

Euh... I'ld say very well.
Today, we have things like Universal Human Rights, freedom of religion, the right to express and live your sexual orientation, slavery is not longer allowed, public executions for rather trivial things no longer take place,...

I'ld say today's western secular democracy is a LOT more moral then the culture of the bronze age that brought forward the bible.

There is a lot of preventable suffering going on. The love of money. If more help was given to 3rd world countries alot of people could be prevented from dying. Man can now destroy the world which was prohecised in the New Testament. More and more unstable nations are getting Nuclear arms. Just to name a few.

Sure. Nobody ever claimed that we are living in some kind of paradise free of crime and lunatics.

But what is clearly the case, is that today's society is a lot safer to live in then in the old days.

Again, no more slavery, no more apartheid, universal human rights etc etc

Where would you rather live? In a 21st century secular democracy, or in medieval London?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what if someone disagreed with what others believe to be right or wrong?

They can bring their argumentation and we can have a reasonable discussion about it.

 

[dougangel]

Nobody copied the ancient Isrealite law system. Our culture is based off English Common law, which descended from the Romans, which did not come from the Isrealites at all

I really wasn't talking about that. I was talking about justifying slavery with the OT. Polygamy. Not taking blood transfusions and many other ideas in the OT.

 

[dougangel]

There's no question that there are a number of legends and tall tales regarding him, however there is plenty of historical evidence to show that he actually existed. That is the relevant topic here.

I never said he didn't exist. I gave him as example of many people in history where they don't know much about them for certain and there's a lot of misinformation and legend around them.

 

[dougangel]

How many times do I have to say this has nothing to do with legislation? I'm on number 3 or 4 now. Why do you keep bringing up legislation?

This has to do with Obama (or the leader of your country) making a promise to whatever god that his country will now follow that god. Would you then consider yourself bound to follow that god? It's a simple yes or no.



I agree that mixing church with state leads to big problems, however Jesus didn't create church/state separation. That's simply laughable.

A New Covenant Hebrews 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It's actually a complicated question you are asking if you don't know scripture

Hebrews 8.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

The answer is no because a theocracy is not a christian principle. It's your individual free choice if you follow Jesus or not.

It was an OT principle but the lord disregarded that because the chosen people were not fulfilling it.
If my country became a theocracy would I be affected by that? Yes I certainly would.