Is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Moral?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Though I do admit the initial question was slightly baited, it's only because this is my own subjective personal view, which is one of the many many reasons I reject claimed 'objectivity' of the Bible, or any other claimed asserted objective text. (I know such a statement also raises a deep chasm of claimed 'absolute truth'; but that too, is for another topic. I gladly accept your apology. However, it is not necessary We are on a 'Debate' forum and it is to be expected. I'll try not to take future posts personally.



I greatly appreciate the response. It eliminates a lot of back and forth... However, I must ask. By what standard were you able to conclude the Bible was God given? Second question, if the word of God is God's chosen mechanism, or vessel for truth, and the translation is flawed by human touch, why does God's correction appear absent? In a nutshell, all we have are long-ago written text, asserting divinity (with error in many 'possibly' observed 'objective' forms). This, of course, is presupposing that Yahweh exists.



Option 1. is the only one 'possibly' demonstrated. Even, in part, when reading the Bible.

If many facets appear not to align in (shared reality), I have no choice but to reject the claim of perfection and God inspired, assuming we are using the 'same' definition of 'God'.

For all intensive purposes, theists will point out that we are flawed in our logic. And yet, want to create a special circumstance, in somehow 'knowing' that the Bible is God inspired. I'm not saying you do this, but just an observation...

You've brought up some concerns which I must say are completely completely valid. I dont think there is a suitable answer that a skeptic would swallow. However, if the question is asked with the presumption that and onmipotently sovereign God exists, I would conclude that God would be able to preserve his word and that in time the truth will "float to the top". The question then becomes "Which God?" Muslims and Mormons both have texts that they claim are divine (Qur'an and Book of Mormon) so how do we know? How is the Christian claim any more valid that any other? Even the Books in the New Testament cannon were heavily debated and wasn't first recognized until the 4th century. Furthermore, the cannon what not officially established until the 16th century in the council of trent. I have done a little digging into the topic and found a source that is somewhat helpful. However, it does appear to be lacking in some regard.

How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

The bottom line is that scripture did not become canon when an authority declared it so. It was cannon when the author was inspired to write it on paper. The Church didn't establish canon, they merely recognized it and affirmed it. I know this is not a suitable answer for most skeptics who are looking for hard criteria to "know with certainty". But the simple answer is that (assuming God exists) divine truth was preserved and protected by the sovereign hand of God and was illuminated to the world through the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible would have been established as divine by those led by the Holy Spirit regardless if any authority declared it so. Naturally, I have had very heated debates with my Catholic brothers over this issue. I will completely understand if the answer is less than satisfying. However, I will do some further research and let you know if I find anything more compelling.

 

[durangodawood]

Basic question:

How could God-given morailty properly be called "objective"?

I mean the existence of God is basically a matter of faith. You cant show God to me in any objective sense.

I'd call a purported God-given morality "absolute", but certainly not "objective"... even IF its true.

 

[RDKirk]

Basic question:

How could God-given morailty properly be called "objective"?

I mean the existence of God is basically a matter of faith. You cant show God to me in any objective sense.

I'd call a purported God-given morality "absolute", but certainly not "objective"... even IF its true.

It's kind of a Kantian concept that there is some greater moral guidance that God Himself must adhere to. No, the moral dictates of God are certainly subjective to Himself. God's moral dictates only look objective from the viewpoint of believers who must themselves hold a deontological morality that characterizes their relationship to God.

 

[durangodawood]

....God's moral dictates only look objective from the viewpoint of believers....

I dont consider the non-demonstrable things that I believe should be called "objective". They arent.

God-given morality is not objective. Ultimately, its a matter of faith.

 

[dmmesdale]

I dont consider the non-demonstrable things that I believe should be called "objective". They arent.

That is opinion. You are entitled to opinion. Nothing is falsified because critics do not like it.

God-given morality is not objective.

It would be in theory. Fear of God alleviates the fear of men. It instills courage. Nonbelievers can be moral but they have no anchor. Not one thing which obligates them to remain steadfast in the face of real and ugly consequences.

''For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?'' Jesus.

Ultimately, its a matter of faith.

Not really. Given its alternative. It is a matter of logic combined with explanatory power. What fails is its alternative since we all intuitively know certain things are wrong. Given an atheistic mindset there is no rational basis to assume moral wrongs apply to all persons. Its rational outcome is to assume amorality as a given. That is why it does not resonate. Its alternative is explanatory impotent and dehumanizing.

 

[durangodawood]

That is opinion. You are entitled to opinion. Nothing is falsified because critics do not like it.

Its not my opinion. Its what "objective" means: empirically accessible to any observer, in principle.

...Given its alternative. It is a matter of logic combined with explanatory power. What fails is its alternative since we all intuitively know certain things are wrong. Given an atheistic mindset there is no rational basis to assume moral wrongs apply to all persons. Its rational outcome is to assume amorality as a given. That is why it does not resonate. Its alternative is explanatory impotent and dehumanizing.

We can devise a reasonable objective basis for morality in the science of human and animal behavior.

But God-given morality awaits any sort of objective verification. Until then, its something else, like "faith based absolute morality".

All that aside, perhaps youre right and God-given morality is actually real. That still does not make it objective - until you can show it to me.

 

[cvanwey]

Nonbelievers can be moral but they have no anchor. Not one thing which obligates them to remain steadfast in the face of real and ugly consequences.

I gladly accept this statement actually. However, just 'because' one can ponder the question, does not 'mean' there exists and actual answer. I can certainly pose many unsolvable questions, which may actually be absurd. Heck, I've been on this form only a few days, and many have accused me of such.

The only 'known' reality, is that consequences do exist, in the sense that (living upon a shared reality), are aware that if someone does something perceived 'bad' to someone else, the do-er might prepare themselves for some type of consequence in return.

This, in and of itself, may be one of the actual 'anchors' to sustain some type of foundation for 'morality.'

?????

 

[cvanwey]

You've brought up some concerns which I must say are completely completely valid. I dont think there is a suitable answer that a skeptic would swallow. However, if the question is asked with the presumption that and onmipotently sovereign God exists, I would conclude that God would be able to preserve his word and that in time the truth will "float to the top". The question then becomes "Which God?" Muslims and Mormons both have texts that they claim are divine (Qur'an and Book of Mormon) so how do we know? How is the Christian claim any more valid that any other? Even the Books in the New Testament cannon were heavily debated and wasn't first recognized until the 4th century. Furthermore, the cannon what not officially established until the 16th century in the council of trent. I have done a little digging into the topic and found a source that is somewhat helpful. However, it does appear to be lacking in some regard.

How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

The bottom line is that scripture did not become canon when an authority declared it so. It was cannon when the author was inspired to write it on paper. The Church didn't establish canon, they merely recognized it and affirmed it. I know this is not a suitable answer for most skeptics who are looking for hard criteria to "know with certainty". But the simple answer is that (assuming God exists) divine truth was preserved and protected by the sovereign hand of God and was illuminated to the world through the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible would have been established as divine by those led by the Holy Spirit regardless if any authority declared it so. Naturally, I have had very heated debates with my Catholic brothers over this issue. I will completely understand if the answer is less than satisfying. However, I will do some further research and let you know if I find anything more compelling.

With all due respect, I looked at the link, and thank you for your time thus far. However, I must admit, providing this link appears about as bias towards Christianity, as me sending you a link from evilbible.com...

I noticed a lot of the same prophecies get used over and over again. I've already spoken to a few pastors about them, and when one reads the verses in context, says very little, in comparison to the claims. The 'prophecy' regarding a '1948 Israel', aligned very poorly between reality and the verses. Ezekiel 36-39 (which mentions open graves, horseback, ancient weapons, etc., all not relevant to 1948 and Israel, or ever; especially when pertaining to open graves). If Israel would have formed a few hundred years prior, at least the transportation and weapons part would fairly match....

And when you state "float to the top", are you stating that God knew humans would eventually adapt later down the road, but God did not care to assure 'objective' morality from the jump? The words are there to translate, 'forever'. If God was aware that human morality would change in time, but write an explicit rule for women not to teach, what are humans to do? This is what I see. Christians rationalize it, to make it align with their reality, verses reconcile that we are either now breaking God's moral objective and never changing law, or, that God somehow knew we would invent our own alternate morals later, which is 'okay' by Him.

Again, it seems that if the God states that the 'word' is the chosen method, and the 'word' is forever, and the 'word' is all God breathed, then such verses appear to conflict with reality. Meaning, I would very much assume that women, being denied a 'teaching' role, due to merely having a vagina, would much more fall in line with something a human thought was 'correct' 2000 years ago, verse an omnibenevolent entity. This is me being intellectually honest.

For anyone to rationalize such a verse, almost seems to reconcile that 'whatever God states, is moral, because God says so.' If this is the case, why study scripture? Just follow orders and don't ask no questions. Whatever God says is right. Which means, we are to be 'amoral' agents. Which, by all accounts, means we might be practicing 'immorality.' However, even if one is to do that, translation still gets in the way, as evident by the many conflicting denominational churches I drive by on a daily basis.

The Bible is all we have. If God did not care to preserve it, in a universal way, then it really appears to present the same level of 'truth' as any other claimed divine book. They are all written by humans, by default, with not external divine source.

 

[Rivga]

. Nonbelievers can be moral but they have no anchor.

This always makes me laugh;

Captain of a ship: "First mate Bob, have you weight down the anchor?"
Bob: "Yes sir, all secure"
Captain: "I can't see it"
Bob: "That's because it is a ghost anchor, sir, but don't worry we have full faith that it will work"
Captain; "Jolly good we can all sleep safe tonight knowing that we will not be dashed against that cliff"

I take a slightly different view, I believe that it is impossible to be called moral if you abdicate your morals to another being, without thought or critical thinking or being guided by your own empath.

The only saving grace for the theists is the fact that the holy books are sufficiently ambiguous for you to assert you own moral code on to the holy books and not the opposite way around.
All those theists with slightly different views supported by a section of the bible.

But it is my word vs your word if only we could get some solid evidence to see who is right????

I mean we can look at the population of Theists to Atheists in jail, and compare them to the population %:
In the US they did this, and guess what - Atheist have the lowest % in jail (only Mormon who equal Atheists), The UK has similar results.

How about when we look at which countries have the least Rapes and Violent crimes, if you are correct those Atheist countries will be high on the list:
Nope you're wrong again: the findings show a direct correlation of More religious a country is more violence and Rapes. (This only includes the 1st world countries - as it seems unfair to include the 3rd world countries.)

 

[the iconoclast]

This always makes me laugh;

Captain of a ship: "First mate Bob, have you weight down the anchor?"
Bob: "Yes sir, all secure"
Captain: "I can't see it"
Bob: "That's because it is a ghost anchor, sir, but don't worry we have full faith that it will work"
Captain; "Jolly good we can all sleep safe tonight knowing that we will not be dashed against that cliff"

I take a slightly different view, I believe that it is impossible to be called moral if you abdicate your morals to another being, without thought or critical thinking or being guided by your own empath.

The only saving grace for the theists is the fact that the holy books are sufficiently ambiguous for you to assert you own moral code on to the holy books and not the opposite way around.
All those theists with slightly different views supported by a section of the bible.

But it is my word vs your word if only we could get some solid evidence to see who is right????

I mean we can look at the population of Theists to Atheists in jail, and compare them to the population %:
In the US they did this, and guess what - Atheist have the lowest % in jail (only Mormon who equal Atheists), The UK has similar results.

How about when we look at which countries have the least Rapes and Violent crimes, if you are correct those Atheist countries will be high on the list:
Nope you're wrong again: the findings show a direct correlation of More religious a country is more violence and Rapes. (This only includes the 1st world countries - as it seems unfair to include the 3rd world countries.)

Hello there my new friend.

How do we define an atheist country ie what makes a country atheist?

Cheers

 

[Rivga]

Hello there my new friend.

How do we define an atheist country ie what makes a country atheist?

Cheers

Clumsy use of language (by me) but by atheist country I mean a country with the majority (50% +) of its population does not believe in a personal God.
For instance Norway, you can find statistics suggesting that a lot are Christian - as they are culturally Christian but when asked only 25% of Norwegians say they believe in God. Due to God not factoring into the discussion much in Norwegian lives their is actually less people who feel the need to self identify as Atheists - but they are atheists when you take the definition of a person who does not believe in God.
I spent a lot of time in Norway and they are always surprised that I self identified as an atheist, as my friend said "Here in Norway it goes without saying".

Other countries like Japan, Denmark, Czech Republic, Austria, Sweden and China.

I would not include the UK as it whilst we have just in the past few years tipped the scale, over 53% have no religion here, we still have legacy issues with the church being given special treatment.

 

[dmmesdale]

Its not my opinion.

Then don't write it as opinion. When your start is I don't consider....'' that is opinion.

Its what "objective" means: empirically accessible to any observer, in principle.

Facts exist autonomous of human brains. Some exist by necessity independent of time space and matter.
They do not have to be empirically accessible. That is just ginned up.

We can devise a reasonable objective basis for morality in the science of human and animal behavior.

Not if the source is exclusively human and its base is nature. The results would be the exact opposite. Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism

But God-given morality awaits any sort of objective verification.

Can't have one without the other. Can't have objective morality without God. If there is no objective morality then throwing women and children into the gas chamber because they are congenitally unfit is simply applied biology. Under your default, there is no justice for the murderers of women and children who escape human courts. We intuitively know we have obligations to the living as well as the dead.

Until then, its something else, like "faith based absolute morality".

Yours require far more faith.
Always the double standards.
Objective or no objective morals for humans then objective has the most explanatory power for the human condition. Yours fails. Besides all the arguments against slavery in the bible by critics is moot if no objective morals. The problem with critics is their contempt for the Bible, not slavery. Slavery is just a means to bash the Bible. It is an irrational appeal to outrage.

All that aside, perhaps you're right and God-given morality is actually real. That still does not make it objective - until you can show it to me.

Yeah, it would make it objective because it would transcend time and culture. The problem with critics is they ignore legit responses. We see over and over on these boards. Atheist morality is counterfeit because it does not have a rational basis given their start point. It would be a brain dysfunction to be altruistic in a time of chaos.

''The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.'' Sigmund Freud.

Just viewed Red Sparrow yesterday. Don't know why it got such negative reviews. The Sparrows, including their bodies, were the property of the state. There is your atheist slave state.

“You sent me to harlot school!” Dominika, the slave, to her uncle.

Jennifer Lawrence & Red Sparrow: Exploitation, Not Empowerment | National Review

 

[durangodawood]

....When your start is I don't consider....'' that is opinion. ....

Only if you ignore the finish.

 

[Rivga]

Not if the source is exclusively human and its base is nature. The results would be the exact opposite. Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism

The Nazi party where very selective when using scientific facts, part of Darwinian thinking was banned, I posted a link to the book ban list which includes Darwinian thinking and any criticism of Christianity.

You could be shot in Nazi German for writing a book stating humans evolved from animals! You'd have your book burned for stating there was no God as a first mover.

Scientology claims it is backed up by actual scientific fact, and they select those scientific facts that back up their claims and scrap the rest, so do you think Science backs the claims of Scientology?

Can't have one without the other. Can't have objective morality without God. If there is no objective morality then throwing women and children into the gas chamber because they are congenitally unfit is simply applied biology.

If I abdicate my moral burden to William Shatner can I also claim Objective morality?

Let's make this clear you do not have objective morality, tell me how you think you get to objective morality and I will tell you the logical fallacy you are making.

Under your default, there is no justice for the murderers of women and children who escape human courts. We intuitively know we have obligations to the living as well as the dead

What this says is - I want this to be true as I wish to abdicate humanity's obligations to make a just world. Wanting something does not mean it is true, the same as claiming you have objective morality does not mean you have objective morality.

Always the double standards.
Objective or no objective morals for humans then objective has the most explanatory power for the human condition. Yours fails. Besides all the arguments against slavery in the bible by critics is moot if no objective morals. The problem with critics is their contempt for the Bible, not slavery. Slavery is just a means to bash the Bible. It is an irrational appeal to outrage.

I am always confused by this, you are clearly stating you have a high source of morality and we should all accept it. When we investigate what that actual source states you are upset, we are not making a strawman, we are not misinterpreting what you bible says, we are not being dishonest the bible supports slavery (both OT and NT).

We don't need objective morality to clearly see slavery is wrong, Empathy covers it. It is hardly an irrational appeal to outrage, I am a human that is able to use empathy in order to understand what another being is feeling and thus am outraged.

I am outraged at the bibles homophobia as well but as a large percentage of the Christians don't seem to have the ability to show their fellow human beings who happen to be gay any empathy at all (or choose not to) then it is not a good example to use to show you that morality based on your holy books is morally bankrupt.

I am not saying that there are not some Christians who are Moral, but they are inspite of their religion not because of it.

 

[the iconoclast]

I mean a country with the majority (50% +) of its population does not believe in a personal God.

Hello you beautiful person you.

I'm confused.

Let's look at Austria first. Catholicism is the largest religion in Austria, representing 57.9% of the total population in 2017.

In fact there are 6m ppl who identify as christian one way or another. Austria population is 8m. Austria has been influenced by christianity for centuries.

Why do you consider Austria to be an atheist country?

How is Austria influenced by atheistism?

Cheers

 

[RDKirk]

I dont consider the non-demonstrable things that I believe should be called "objective". They arent.

God-given morality is not objective. Ultimately, its a matter of faith.

You don't seem to be responding to what I said. You seem to be responding to what someone else has said.

 

[RDKirk]

We can devise a reasonable objective basis for morality in the science of human and animal behavior.

In that regard, author Robert Heinlein has already defined morality:

“Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.”

 

[HypnoToad]

And You have objective morality, how?

Irrelevant to what I said.

 

[Rivga]

Hello you beautiful person you.

I'm confused.

Let's look at Austria first. Catholicism is the largest religion in Austria, representing 57.9% of the total population in 2017.

In fact there are 6m ppl who identify as christian one way or another. Austria population is 8m. Austria has been influenced by christianity for centuries.

Why do you consider Austria to be an atheist country?

How is Austria influenced by atheistism?

Cheers

Latest results of a study this added to the fact it, follows a trend that has been happening in Austria for a while now. Study 2010
44% of Austrian citizens responded "they believe there is a God"
38% answered "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
12% answered "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

Austria is a strange place in these terms, they will claim that they are Christian but don't believe in God, and are just spiritual.
Freedom of religion is a statutorily guaranteed right in Austria, the legal foundation.

General Social Survey by researchers at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago 2008 then again in 2012.
Percent of residents who said they were certain of God's existence:
Austria 21.4%


2008 Smith report (part of same overall study as above)
Do you believe in a personal God - Austria 27.4%

Other reason Austria is widely considered as a non-religious country is the speed at which the Church and Religion is losing ground. Around 10% in 10 years.

But if you wish we can take it out, still will not effect the statistical trend I spoke about.

 

[pat34lee]

According to the above verses, a women cannot be a pastor in a church. What if she is more qualified than all other applicants in her congregation? She is then denied for having a vagina, and because her great great great grandma committed a 'sin'?

As the other person said, your biases are showing,
not the bible's. What makes you think that a man
and a woman are the same? You don't see that in
real life, do you? And it's not just physical.

Is it discrimination for a blind man to be told that
he cannot be a bus driver or a surgeon? Whatever
a woman's credentials, she is not to be put into a
position of spiritual authority over men. That does
not stop her from teaching children or women. In
fact, that is what the bible says. Titus 2:3-5