The Evolution of Morality

[Oncedeceived]

If we were judging the morality of MEN....? Certainly. But, once again, you lot claim that the morality of your god is unchanging and universal...!

I didn't claim otherwise.

Stop making excuses for it...! Your god is supposed to be all powerful, but let's Satan get in the way of its plans...? Who are you kidding...?

He allows us free will. Satan uses that knowledge.

And, there quite obviously HAS been a change...! Your god has a DIFFERENT set of rules that today's people are to live by than that of ancient Jews...That, by definition, is a change...!

The change is the victory over sin by accepting Christ.

And so does your god...it once COMMANDED people to murder, rape, steal and enslave...! I can't think of better examples of a subjective form of morality....and this from a creature whose moral code is supposed to be unchanging...

You still have to take each situation in context. God is the objective judge. If God creates HE has the right to do what he wishes. God didn't ever command rape or to steal. You will have to refresh me on commanding slavery.

No it's not a subjective opinion. It's a logical conclusion drawn from evidence...

Drawn by someone who doesn't believe that God exists in the first place, and who is not taking the verses in context.

You. Are. Joking.

No.

c) Secular Governments
Secular governments did most of the killing in the Burning Times. Lucky Witches were tried by the Church -- the truly damned had to appear before a secular court. Non-religious courts had the worst acquittal rates. Local tribunals were often virtual slaughterhouses, killing up to 90% of the accused. National courts (run by professional judges) killed around 30%. By comparison, religious courts often killed less than 1% of the people they tried. Secular courts also tried far more Witches than religious ones did. Most of the great Witch crazes were carried out by secular officials.
d) Intellectuals
Most intellectuals supported the Burning Times. There were a handful of brave critics like squire Reginald Scot or doctor Johann Weyer. But most jurists, lawyers, and upper class people accepted and supported the trials.
In fact, after the 15th century Witch hunting manuals were predominantly written by non-religious intellectuals. The earliest manuals came from inquisitors like Heinrich Kramer, Bernard Gui, and Johannes Nider. But when the Reformation arose, the Inquisition turned its attention to hunting Protestants, not Witches. So non-religious intellectuals stepped in to take the Inquisition's place. Men like King James of Scotland, judge Pierre de Lancre, and legal professor Jean Bodin wrote the manuals which were most popular at the height of the persecution.


http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/remembrance/burning.htm#1.%20What%20are%20%22the%20Burning%20Times%22?


Hopefully you'll read the entire article. There is a historian that did the research using all the court data but right now I can't remember his name.

Have you even studied the history of your religion...?

Obviously.

Those poor (largely) women (largely) were handed over to the authorities for execution AFTER they had been 'examined' by the clerics.....it was the priests who made the determination as to whether a woman was a witch....her fate was then sealed...

And, had that cruel verse NOT been in your book of horrors, it is arguable whether or not the whole ghastly process would ever have taken place....

Read above.

So, your god can be forgiven for demanding that children be murdered, because some human beings choose to have abortions...!?

I am saying that you are a human being (just like the one that claims babies are just like rabbits) that can be killed. How can you being human and not knowing the reasons behind what was done by God (who has created the universe for us) can you know there could be a completely moral reason to do what He did.

That is so weak......I'll bet you felt uncomfortable typing it...

I don't like killing even with God. But I know God exists and how loving and caring He is in my life. So I know God is good.

Quite easily.....at the outset, I spoke of "overarching principles".......surely one of those is the care and nurturing of children......I can see NO justification, under ANY circumstances, that that guiding principle could be overturned in favour of slaughtering youngsters because they were disobedient...If you can think of such a justification, if you can think of an instance whereby that WOULDN'T be described as "immoral", I'd be most interested to read it...!

We agree this is a objective principle..care and nurturing children correct? If so, why do we ignore it? We can ignore it because we have free will. The objective principle is there but we can ignore it. So millions of babies are killed by their own mothers ignoring this objective principle. It is an objective principle that people's subjective free will ignores. Do you see that?

 

[biggles53]

He allows us free will. Satan uses that knowledge.
The change is the victory over sin by accepting Christ.

You are just mouthing bumper stickers.....what is any of that supposed to mean...?

You still have to take each situation in context. God is the objective judge. If God creates HE has the right to do what he wishes.

This is intellectually cowardly.....it's nothing more than a retreat to ignorance......"I don't understand why my god does these inhuman things, but I'm going to support his decisions any way".............Please explain where you would EVER adopt such an attitude towards wrong-doing, if it were anyone else committing it...?

God didn't ever command rape or to steal.

If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.—Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NJPS)

Just pay dad off and we're all square...?

When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Deuteronomy 20


Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. Samuel 12

Any evidence of the gals agreeing to any of this....?

You will have to refresh me on commanding slavery.

Again, you must be joking.....

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Drawn by someone who doesn't believe that God exists in the first place, and who is not taking the verses in context.

YOUR context....

[=Blue]Hopefully you'll read the entire article. There is a historian that did the research using all the court data but right now I can't remember his name.
[/COLOR]

Let's cut to the chase......you are probably technically correct about who did the trying and killing......BUT...be honest and tell me where "religious" ends and "secular" begins in the 16th Century....!? These charges were brought against women, NOT because they offended any secular laws as we would imagine them, but because they supposedly offended god's laws...! do you really think these trials would have taken place if the church had not reversed it's earlier opinion about the existence of witches...? If it hadn't commissioned the writing of the Malleus Malefactorum...? If the Reformist zeal had not been in play...?

I don't like killing even with God.

Then, use the humanity you were born with and stop condoning it...!!

But I know God exists and how loving and caring He is in my life. So I know God is good.

Retreat to ignorance when all else fails..........and it's a failure in itself.....

We agree this is a objective principle..care and nurturing children correct?

Absolutely.

If so, why do we ignore it?

Speak for yourself.....and your god. I DONT ignore it......!

We can ignore it because we have free will. The objective principle is there but we can ignore it. So millions of babies are killed by their own mothers ignoring this objective principle. It is an objective principle that people's subjective free will ignores. Do you see that?

I see you running away.....your god COMMANDED the murder of innocent children, on several occasions...

So let me repeat the question you won't answer......under what circumstances could you EVER justify such action as "moral"...? I say that it can NEVER be so......what say you...?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are just mouthing bumper stickers.....what is any of that supposed to mean...?

You said asked how God allowed satan to mess with God's plan. I answered.

This is intellectually cowardly.....it's nothing more than a retreat to ignorance......"I don't understand why my god does these inhuman things, but I'm going to support his decisions any way".............Please explain where you would EVER adopt such an attitude towards wrong-doing, if it were anyone else committing it...?

If it were someone else doing it, they wouldn't have complete knowledge so the comparison is not equatable.

If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.—Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NJPS)

I am actually going to let a fellow non-believer take this one:

Atheist? Don't make this insanely stupid argument! | Onyxbits

Just pay dad off and we're all square...?

A big deal as you can see.

When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Deuteronomy 20

You really need to stop getting this stuff off atheist websites without have any references for what they mean in context.

This is very important for the time as well. First the Israelites went to the people they were going to fight and ask if they wanted to surrender to them before any bloodshed. How many people of that time did this...zero. Then if they didn't surrender they attacked. Now if you are going to kill all the men in a city, what happens to the women and children? They have no one to take care of them. This action was humane and made sure those women and children were taken care of. That is why there are verses that tell how to treat slaves. They were to be treated well.

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. Samuel 12

This is about King David and his sin with Bathsheba. This has so much to it that I am not even going to go into it all. I doubt that you even knew what it was about anyway.

Any evidence of the gals agreeing to any of this....?

There is some indication that these wives were to be unfaithful as David was to them. In fact, it is David's own son that they are unfaithful with. So it does sound like perhaps they consent to it.

Again, you must be joking.....

You said commanded.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

You are aware that people sold themselves into slavery when they were really poor and unable to fend for themselves right? The fact that Israel was told not to ever let their relatives to do this means that they were to always care for their own and not let themselves be sold into slavery.

YOUR context....

Why not? You take these from a site that claims things they know nothing about and then claim that taking them as the Bible is meant to be taken you claim it is my context. Who is being more intelligently cowardly, someone who knows God and understands the context of the Bible by the revealing of God Himself or someone who doesn't take it in context at all, but wishes only to show how terrible God is?

Let's cut to the chase......you are probably technically correct about who did the trying and killing......BUT...be honest and tell me where "religious" ends and "secular" begins in the 16th Century....!? These charges were brought against women, NOT because they offended any secular laws as we would imagine them, but because they supposedly offended god's laws...! do you really think these trials would have taken place if the church had not reversed it's earlier opinion about the existence of witches...? If it hadn't commissioned the writing of the Malleus Malefactorum...? If the Reformist zeal had not been in play...?

Ok let's do cut to the chase, you are not willing to accept any reasonable evidence if it does not conform to your viewpoint. You would rather continue to think that the church was responsible for burning witches when in fact that is opposite to what history says. You can't let go of your presuppositions and want to hold to them, even if found wrong. Is this any better than what you claim creationists do when they ignore evidence for evolution? Please be honest with yourself.

Then, use the humanity you were born with and stop condoning it...!!

I find this ironic.

Retreat to ignorance when all else fails..........and it's a failure in itself.....

So calling me ignorant is not a failure? I wouldn't do that to you, even though it is apparent that you used atheist sites to come up with your arguments.

Absolutely.

So if there is an objective principle how do you claim it comes from subjectivity?

Speak for yourself.....and your god. I DONT ignore it......!

Good, glad to hear it.

I see you running away.....your god COMMANDED the murder of innocent children, on several occasions...

Context. You don't seem to know or care about that.

So let me repeat the question you won't answer......under what circumstances could you EVER justify such action as "moral"...? I say that it can NEVER be so......what say you...?

I think I've shown that you can't take passages out of context to determine that.

 

[biggles53]

Once, both our posts are getting too long for a line-by -line dissection, so I'm just going to 'reset' with a few general comments in reply...

For starters, I do not get my ideas from "atheist websites" as you claim (why do I find it strange that someone of faith would make assertions without evidence...?). All of the ideas and philosophies I express concerning morality are my own, except, of course, where I draw upon source material for evidence to back these ideas. I find this claim of yours particularly hypocritical when you choose to "let one of your fellow non-believers" make your argument, rather than constructing one for yourself...!

And, for what it's worth, I would strongly disagree with that person's analysis of those verses as well.....I don't know why you would assume that, just because we have in common a disbelief in deities, that we would be in lockstep in all of our views about morality.....it isn't a club you know.....

Next, I, see that you still resort to hiding in the intellectual coward's castle.... Whenever someone makes an argument from the scriptures you don't like, of course it's " out of context".... a rather worn mantra, don't you think..?

And please stop with the "sold themselves into slavery" rubbish...! It's another cop-out, in lieu of honestly facing the argument. That verse was a commandment for Jews to "BUY theirs slaves from the foreigners" around them....it was specifically NOT about one Jew repaying a debt to another.......please take the blinders off....

And finally, why can you not answer a simple, but seminal question...? I asked you to envisage ANY situation (which gives you ample scope to argue "context" if you wish) in which it would be morally acceptable to murder defenceless children, as your god commanded on several occasions...? By all means, argue the "context" under which you feel such commandments were appropriate........good luck with that...!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, both our posts are getting too long for a line-by -line dissection, so I'm just going to 'reset' with a few general comments in reply...

For starters, I do not get my ideas from "atheist websites" as you claim (why do I find it strange that someone of faith would make assertions without evidence...?). All of the ideas and philosophies I express concerning morality are my own, except, of course, where I draw upon source material for evidence to back these ideas. I find this claim of yours particularly hypocritical when you choose to "let one of your fellow non-believers" make your argument, rather than constructing one for yourself...!

Sorry if I colored you wrong, I have been on this site for a long time, and another one before that and it looked to be the old standards of the atheist sites out there. So I have no problem apologizing for making that mistake.

I let the non-believer blog explain because he did it so well and in accordance to the standard understanding/context of the passage. I wasn't being hypocritical in anyway, I find that somewhat of a strange accusation really.

And, for what it's worth, I would strongly disagree with that person's analysis of those verses as well.....I don't know why you would assume that, just because we have in common a disbelief in deities, that we would be in lockstep in all of our views about morality.....it isn't a club you know.....

Well, I certainly didn't mean any offense.

Next, I, see that you still resort to hiding in the intellectual coward's castle.... Whenever someone makes an argument from the scriptures you don't like, of course it's " out of context".... a rather worn mantra, don't you think..?

You can think what you wish.

And please stop with the "sold themselves into slavery" rubbish...! It's another cop-out, in lieu of honestly facing the argument. That verse was a commandment for Jews to "BUY theirs slaves from the foreigners" around them....it was specifically NOT about one Jew repaying a debt to another.......please take the blinders off....

Slavery, debt and society in ancient Israel

It is true that people sold themselves into slavery when poor, it is true that they were slaves for debt and no longer than seven years.

And finally, why can you not answer a simple, but seminal question...? I asked you to envisage ANY situation (which gives you ample scope to argue "context" if you wish) in which it would be morally acceptable to murder defenceless children, as your god commanded on several occasions...? By all means, argue the "context" under which you feel such commandments were appropriate........good luck with that...

Just like Abraham who took his son like God said to kill him, knowing full well who he was dealing with knew that if God were to kill his son, that God would somehow bring him back to life or something he hadn't thought about. He know that God would not take his son and keep him.

I know God is kind and merciful. I know Him as someone I can trust. So outside looking in it may seems strange and like with the case of Abraham, something that we can't imagine doing but Abraham had a relationship so close to God that he knew it would be fine. I am like that.

 

[biggles53]

Slavery, debt and society in ancient Israel

It is true that people sold themselves into slavery when poor, it is true that they were slaves for debt and no longer than seven years.

You just refuse to face up to it don't you...!

Go look at that reference yourself......go to Leviticus....look at chapter 25, and don't stop at verse 39, which is the one you'd like to focus upon...!

Go on to verse 44....it clearly states that "male or female slaves may be BOUGHT from amongst the foreigners around you"....... Got that...? "BOUGHT..., It then says that "you may treat them as your PROPERTY".....got that?.....OWNERSHIP OF ANOTHER HUMAN...! Then it says that you may pass the slaves "on to your children as a PERMANENT INHERITANCE"...! And, to make the distinction between this and what YOU would only like to refer to, it then says that you may not treat your fellow Jews this way...!

Just like Abraham who took his son like God said to kill him, knowing full well who he was dealing with knew that if God were to kill his son, that God would somehow bring him back to life or something he hadn't thought about. He know that God would not take his son and keep him.

I know God is kind and merciful. I know Him as someone I can trust. So outside looking in it may seems strange and like with the case of Abraham, something that we can't imagine doing but Abraham had a relationship so close to God that he knew it would be fine. I am like that.

More blather and no straight answer.....so let me give you the question that others have shied away from....

If you were convinced that, like Abraham, your god was commanding you to kill your own child, would you be prepared to do it...?

Any chance of a straight answer...?

 

[Oncedeceived]

To get the idea across. It encourages survival the same way a cold day encourages the wearing of sweaters. That's all I meant.

Gotcha.

I think intelligence is a result of the brain functioning. Once brains develop and become large and complex enough, creatures can invent ideas like morality and ascribe them to behaviors.

In a mindless process such as evolution, how does intelligence arise?

I think that's a plausible foundation for concepts of human morality. Humans have piled on all manner of ideas onto it since its simple beginnings, such as the notion that it is supernatural in origin.

If it arises from its simple beginnings, one would assume that in those simpler beginnings the only ability for those simpler forms to survive would be by surviving and there would be no morality in that case. Where does morality arise in the simplest form?

All true. They can potentially be useful for survival.

So if this is true, which we agree, then tell me how the selfishness of this type of behavior brings about morality. Morality to have evolved needed not to just evolve in mankind but in simpler forms of life, or in man himself which we know isn't the case due to seeing moral like behavior in other animals as well. Yet, in simpler life forms how can morality arise?

Like I said in previous posts, co-operative behavior is not the only survival strategy, but it's not a bad one either. Everyone pitches in and good-will and co-operation is fostered among the group. Things are kept stable and stability means you aren't getting killed. It's not always a rose garden, but its the basis for a code of conduct about how members of a group should act.

That is a description of behavior of more complex life forms, but how in the very beginning would this arose?

I think you could argue that every species has a different set of behaviors. There are often similarities though - a good idea is a good idea.

True, but in the simplest forms how did it arise? If it is evolved from the simpler forms of life how can we explain how it applied in action?

This goes to another earlier comment - I argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other. I see you agreed - if it's behavior that contributes to a species' successful survival, there's no reason why evolution, which produces such a wide variety of life and behaviors, couldn't produce a species that would adopt such behavior.

If we see moral looking behavior in lower animals, we have to have it is simpler life forms and that has to be addressed.

I think that's broadly correct, though I'm not sure what question it's begging. My argument is that behavior came first, and then once humans had developed the intellect they started inventing ideas like morality and ascribing it to behaviors.

So morality didn't really exist until man gave it definition and asserted it was certain behavior? I lost you on this one.

I don't agree with that. I don't see any reason why intelligent beings cannot invent such things.

Which intelligent beings? Where did morality start?

I disagree, and I think I've shown how very basic behaviors can form the basis for common human concepts of morality, including sacrifice for others.

Where in the animal world do animals ever sacrifice themselves for others?

I can't link you a research paper or anything if that's what you're asking. I wouldn't know where to start looking for one. But I wouldn't know where to find empirical evidence that 2 + 2 = 4 either, and I doubt you'd find many who'd argue otherwise. I think my logic is pretty solid.

Evolution can not explain logic. Logic is like you see above. Absolute truth, absolute reason which can not be explained by naturalistic processes.

Most life on some level wants to live - it feels life is generally preferable to death. Life strives to survive. Creatures that do not die out. Many living creatures start out with basic instincts for survival - find cover, cry out for help, etc. I couldn't explain to you the science behind how it works, but it seems to without any apparent instruction from other beings. So there's a certain amount of behavior that can be engrained into a living creature that doesn't require intelligent thought or learning from others.

How do the simplest life forms such as Cyanobacteria evolve this instinct for survival?

Ideas like good and evil come later when humans develop intelligence to invent them.

Invent them or explain them?

There's nothing forcing specific humans to follow instinct - people can decide to ignore compulsions or laws and so forth if they want to. Its the dark side of human intellect - you can recognize that you don't have to be bound by ideas if you don't want to be.

When did this ability arise?

But this can't be a notion that's very strange - people clearly do things that are not in keeping with your views on morality, so its not as if they're bound to follow it even if morality is supernatural. They're certainly not bound to follow natural ideas.

I would agree, but if they are not bound to them, in evolutionary methodology, how does morality exist? To get to the point we are now, where we can determine morality ourselves?

This goes back to my comment about evolution not aiming to produce your specific ideas on morality. It isn't, so of course you'd see things that don't match up with them.

That is even more so a reason to ask how it arose. In the evolutionary model there is no design of morality it was just something that had to be acquired. How in the simplest forms did this happen? Where did morality arise?

And as I said people can come along and invent many wildly varying ideas and concepts that layer on top of the basics. Oblierating rival tribes is something that we look on with our specific morality and find abhorent, while others with a differing view might find it justified, even righteous - an act condoned by a higher power that cannot be anything other than perfectly moral.

Morality in the Theist position is that morality is engrained in all life due to God's own morality. It does not equate to God's morality, it is a result of the one creating all life.

Some behavior in other species is seen as counter to the general morality of humans, who have developed their morality from a source of different behaviors. Again, this process isn't aiming to produce your specific ideas on morality, so you're going to see things that don't match up with them.

We see it counter in our own species.

I hope I've been a little clearer with this post. And frankly, I feel the fact that there have been so many differing views on moral behavior throughout human history (not to mention all the different behaviors in the animal kingdom) goes against the notion that there's this one 'true' supernatural morality underpining all of existence.

I see it as the foundational aspect of the Creator with free will acting upon it.

In our posts we've gone over a number of cases where you've pointed out in nature and in other human societies how creatures do not act in accordance with this 'common thread' - how such behavior could not be naturally evolved because it would go against survival and that it might only be a case of 'family members protecting their own'.

I've shown you a case in nature where this is not so and suddenly it's become an example of God's grand design - that all of the animal world has this common element of design. Now any behavior I might describe which could form the basis for ideas of morality becomes an example of supernatural design aiming for a specific human morality.

Which could be the same in your own worldview, whatever I might bring into the conversation all you have to claim is that it is from natural selection which results in morality. So any argument I bring up will be answered with a blanket natural selection did it without showing how this occurred.

I'd bring up how, by your own logic, this then means that anything that goes against your common thread would also be a result of God's design (or a failure thereof), but whenever I see that kind of argument made, generally the 'fallen world tainted by sin' excuse is what follows.

How is your argument different?

Layering the supernatural atop the supernatural does not, for me, do a better job of explaining things than a purely natural view.

Laying evolution over evolution does no better job. Where does morality begin?

I see this common thread arising from the notion that life is generally preferable to death, and living creatures will strive in accordance with this because those who don't will not survive. From this basic starting point, you can get to a lot of different survival strategies - including co-operation which requires interaction and leads to ideas on how to properly behave towards one-another.

But that basic starting point is not moral, it is selfish. So when did it become unselfish or selfless?

Again, this is presuming evolution's is shooting specifically for what you consider to be morality.

Because the survival of the entire species can potentially be improved if its members are not totally selfish. The 'selfishness' (if that's what you want to call the will to live) is on the species' scale, not the individual scale.

So do you think that morality is a new adaptation or one from antiquity?

Well I can't agree with that - mine doesn't require anything supernatural.

How do you know?

Back at'cha.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You just refuse to face up to it don't you...!

Go look at that reference yourself......go to Leviticus....look at chapter 25, and don't stop at verse 39, which is the one you'd like to focus upon...!

Go on to verse 44....it clearly states that "male or female slaves may be BOUGHT from amongst the foreigners around you"....... Got that...? "BOUGHT..., It then says that "you may treat them as your PROPERTY".....got that?.....OWNERSHIP OF ANOTHER HUMAN...! Then it says that you may pass the slaves "on to your children as a PERMANENT INHERITANCE"...! And, to make the distinction between this and what YOU would only like to refer to, it then says that you may not treat your fellow Jews this way...!



More blather and no straight answer.....so let me give you the question that others have shied away from....

If you were convinced that, like Abraham, your god was commanding you to kill your own child, would you be prepared to do it...?

Any chance of a straight answer...?

Unfortunately, I would say I would at this point in my life not be prepared to do so. I say unfortunately because I don't have the relationship that Abraham had with God. Abraham was so close to God that He had no doubt that whatever God told him to do it would turn out to be the right thing. He knew this because God's workings in his life were unquestionable, he had extreme faith and trust in God.

If God were to command me to kill my child, I would doubt that I was hearing Him correctly, I would question whether I was understanding the command correctly. My doubt would most certainly stop me from doing anything like that. I can reason that God would do nothing that He didn't have the ability to make right in some way. Just like God stopping Abraham. God could have let Abraham kill his son and then bring him back to life which is something God has power to do and Abraham knew that. I know that but even though I trust God so much in my life, I would fear that I was lacking full understanding in his wishes. So personally today, I would lack the total trust in me understanding God's commands.

 

[EternalDragon]

You just refuse to face up to it don't you...!

Go look at that reference yourself......go to Leviticus....look at chapter 25, and don't stop at verse 39, which is the one you'd like to focus upon...!

Go on to verse 44....it clearly states that "male or female slaves may be BOUGHT from amongst the foreigners around you"....... Got that...? "BOUGHT..., It then says that "you may treat them as your PROPERTY".....got that?.....OWNERSHIP OF ANOTHER HUMAN...! Then it says that you may pass the slaves "on to your children as a PERMANENT INHERITANCE"...! And, to make the distinction between this and what YOU would only like to refer to, it then says that you may not treat your fellow Jews this way...!



More blather and no straight answer.....so let me give you the question that others have shied away from....

If you were convinced that, like Abraham, your god was commanding you to kill your own child, would you be prepared to do it...?

Any chance of a straight answer...?

That verse is talking about "bondmen", not slaves. Look at verse 38 and 40 and also 47. People sold themselves back then to get out of debt. It was VOLUNTARY for the most part.

You are taking the whole verse out of context and confusing stealing people and selling them against their will as slaves which these verses are not talking about.

So we can move forward now?

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I based that on the fact that you seem to have no knowledge of the common mechanisms proposed, and that you have not stated that you have made yourself familiar with the body of evidence available, or even read a book on it. You don't seem to be familiar with the fact that there are whole journals publishing data on this every month, much less read them. How is it arrogant for me to accept your own description of your situation?​

So due to the fact that I didn't want to read a book that you said I should read you have determined that I have not researched the concepts of biological altruism.
​

No, as stated above, I concluded that because you don't understand the basic mechanisms proposed, in addition to having little interest in a book explaining them, nor in other sources explaining them (such as the montly journals).

I actually have read some interesting studies on different projects that have used children and puppets ......So please don't use your peer reviewed, I understand the issue better than you arguments. I disagree with many, I agree with some aspects of some concepts but I don't do so in ignorance.

Those are all interesting, but few of them seem to be explaining the question of how morality evolved. Look, how about this, I'll take the time to explain some of them in greater detail, but first could you help me see exactly where you are by explaining the mechanism, as you see it, by which evolution is proposed to have given us morality?


​

Why? There is plenty of research in those sources and others, but it's not my job to walk you through your own investigation.

I said to provide a source. That is a big difference from walking me through my investigation.

I already gave you some links (didn't those include some peer-reviewed references?), in addition to all the peer-reviewed work in the footnotes of the book. Let's see how the previous paragraph goes, and then go from there?

​

Good, I needed to hear that.

No problem. Let me know if there are other points, especially those in the Nicene Creed, that could use similar clarification.



​

We are only sort of disagreeing. We both say that they are from God, and that God created them. I further add that God did that creating using evolution, just as he created us using evolution as his method.

So are you a wind up and let it all go kind of guy or just what is your take on all that?

I certainly am not. I see deism as simple heresy, in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words in John 5:17.

​

I like you believe God created everything and that ToE is man's interpretation of that process.

It sounds like we agree on that.


​

​

No, we all have both free will, and the God-given, evolved morality that says that rape is wrong.

How do we have free will if are brains are just chemically wired to be what they are?

Neither we theists nor the atheists have an explanation for free will. We simply rename the problem "soul", but that doesn't explain how a soul has freewill.

Morality is not simply doing whatever we need to help our genes. Our morality includes a wider circle of care than that, and if my genes don't like it, they can go jump in the lake.

If you look at evolution without God's input, I don't think that that is possible.

It may or may not be possible, but that's a moot point for you and I anyway, since we both see God's input as being real (though we may see the exact nature of that input differently).

Blessings-

Papias

 

[bhsmte]

Unfortunately, I would say I would at this point in my life not be prepared to do so. I say unfortunately because I don't have the relationship that Abraham had with God. Abraham was so close to God that He had no doubt that whatever God told him to do it would turn out to be the right thing. He knew this because God's workings in his life were unquestionable, he had extreme faith and trust in God.

If God were to command me to kill my child, I would doubt that I was hearing Him correctly, I would question whether I was understanding the command correctly. My doubt would most certainly stop me from doing anything like that. I can reason that God would do nothing that He didn't have the ability to make right in some way. Just like God stopping Abraham. God could have let Abraham kill his son and then bring him back to life which is something God has power to do and Abraham knew that. I know that but even though I trust God so much in my life, I would fear that I was lacking full understanding in his wishes. So personally today, I would lack the total trust in me understanding God's commands.

Herein lies the problem.

When God tells people what they want to hear (when it fits their agenda) it is really God talking to them. It is curious how God's will always seems to jive with the agenda of those who believe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Herein lies the problem.

When God tells people what they want to hear (when it fits their agenda) it is really God talking to them. It is curious how God's will always seems to jive with the agenda of those who believe.

Eh, you don't the whole God speaking to someone anyway, so that doesn't really surprise me.

 

[biggles53]

Unfortunately, I would say I would at this point in my life not be prepared to do so. I say unfortunately because I don't have the relationship that Abraham had with God. Abraham was so close to God that He had no doubt that whatever God told him to do it would turn out to be the right thing. He knew this because God's workings in his life were unquestionable, he had extreme faith and trust in God.

If God were to command me to kill my child, I would doubt that I was hearing Him correctly, I would question whether I was understanding the command correctly. My doubt would most certainly stop me from doing anything like that. I can reason that God would do nothing that He didn't have the ability to make right in some way. Just like God stopping Abraham. God could have let Abraham kill his son and then bring him back to life which is something God has power to do and Abraham knew that. I know that but even though I trust God so much in my life, I would fear that I was lacking full understanding in his wishes. So personally today, I would lack the total trust in me understanding God's commands.

Where there's doubt, there's hope.........

I think your reply is healthy.....too many rely upon faith to direct their lives....and when it comes down to it, 'faith' is nothing more than "pretending to know what you don't know"......

 

[Golden Yak]

In a mindless process such as evolution, how does intelligence arise?

The same way any other trait arises - by being refined through selection pressure. Just like speed, physical prowess, potent venom, etc. Having some smarts is useful for survival - having lots of smarts is very useful for survival.

If it arises from its simple beginnings, one would assume that in those simpler beginnings the only ability for those simpler forms to survive would be by surviving and there would be no morality in that case. Where does morality arise in the simplest form?

Like I've shown, the basis for a form of morality can be seen in the behavior that animals living in large groups must develop towards one-another to maintain those groups.

So if this is true, which we agree, then tell me how the selfishness of this type of behavior brings about morality. Morality to have evolved needed not to just evolve in mankind but in simpler forms of life, or in man himself which we know isn't the case due to seeing moral like behavior in other animals as well. Yet, in simpler life forms how can morality arise?

Those types of behavior alone might not produce what you or I would regard as moral behavior. But it is not the only type of behavior that living creatures exhibit. Again I think you're assuming what you regard as morality is the intended outcome - it isn't, so you can't regard behavior inconsistent with your view of morality as examples of how it isn't possible.

That is a description of behavior of more complex life forms, but how in the very beginning would this arose?

Group behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Even fish and insects do it.

If we see moral looking behavior in lower animals, we have to have it is simpler life forms and that has to be addressed.

We see behavior in all life forms, bear in mind we often look at it through the lens of our own experiences and our own ideas about morality.

So morality didn't really exist until man gave it definition and asserted it was certain behavior? I lost you on this one.

That's about the size of it. Ideas and concepts can't exist until they're invented. I don't regard morality has having some substantive existence independent of the minds of humans.

Where in the animal world do animals ever sacrifice themselves for others?

Any living creature that puts itself between others and danger is showing a willingness to sacrifice its own safety for others. Like that video I showed you - only two of those buffaloes needed to come if it was purely familial self-interest, but the entire herd showed up.

Evolution can not explain logic. Logic is like you see above. Absolute truth, absolute reason which can not be explained by naturalistic processes.

It doesn't need to the way you're describing. But there are absolute truths - the math I posted. A is A. These are true independent of any naturalistic processes, so they don't need explaining by evolution or anything. There will always be some truths about how we interact.

How do the simplest life forms such as Cyanobacteria evolve this instinct for survival?

Dunno. Maybe the earliest life didn't have it at all and was just one of many species that simply got lucky. Really primitive stuff might have relied purely on chemical reactions to take them towards sunlight, away from predatory cells, etc. The building blocks of survival behavior. It would have become more complex as life did.

Invent them or explain them?

The former first.

When did this ability arise?

Dunno. Some monkeys lie for their own benefit - they'll call out a snake warning to the rest of the group and then steal all the food that's left behind when they make for the trees. Though if they get caught they get beat up. Crime and punishment. So even at that level, living creatures can understand that bending the rules can benefit them, if they're willing to take the risk.

I would agree, but if they are not bound to them, in evolutionary methodology, how does morality exist? To get to the point we are now, where we can determine morality ourselves?

I hope I've been more clear with my thoughts with this post - I see morality as a set of ideas that humans invented, over a great deal of time, based on their group behavior and interactions with one-another.

Morality in the Theist position is that morality is engrained in all life due to God's own morality. It does not equate to God's morality, it is a result of the one creating all life.

I understand that position. Question - assuming that's actually correct, where did God get this morality he engrained into life from?

We see it counter in our own species.

No reason why we couldn't, as I said.

Which could be the same in your own worldview, whatever I might bring into the conversation all you have to claim is that it is from natural selection which results in morality. So any argument I bring up will be answered with a blanket natural selection did it without showing how this occurred.

How is your argument different?

Laying evolution over evolution does no better job. Where does morality begin?

I see natural explanations as more reasonable and more plausible than supernatural ones. I've seen plenty of natural explanations for the world around us verified, but I've yet to see any example of the supernatural at work. If you feel they're equivalent though, or that the supernatural is more likely than the natural, then we're probably stuck here - we each have explanations for morality that we think are more likely than the others.

But that basic starting point is not moral, it is selfish. So when did it become unselfish or selfless?

When behavior that benefits the species takes precedence over behavior that benefits the individual. At its core it's still a survival strategy, it just operates above the level of the individual.

So do you think that morality is a new adaptation or one from antiquity?

Like I said, I think humans have added ideas and concepts to basic behavior to develop our morality - this is something that would have taken place over the course of our entire existence.

How do you know?

How do I know my view of the world doesn't require the supernatural? Because it operates under the premise that the supernatural does not exist. I've never encountered any compelling reason to think it does.

 

[Golden Yak]

Every human being would say no. That is why I call the question stupid.

But do you think 'no' is the correct answer? Or should the correct answer be 'yes, they should both be punished the same'?

 

[biggles53]

That verse is talking about "bondmen", not slaves.

I say "so what..?" on two counts........

1. Depending upon which Bible you look at, the term is either bondsmen, servants, or slaves....

2. The term 'bondman' is interchangeable with 'slave' anyway....

Noun 1. bondman - a male bound to serve without wages
bondsman
bond servant - someone bound to labor without wages
2. bondman - a male slave
bondsman
slave - a person who is owned by someone

Look at verse 38 and 40 and also 47. People sold themselves back then to get out of debt. It was VOLUNTARY for the most part.

Except that, like Once, you are deliberately avoiding the verses which specifically talk about those people who are NOT your "brethren".......,.and how you may BUY them and KEEP THEIR CHILDREN AS YOUR PROPERTY and then PASS THESE SLAVES ON TO YOUR CHILDREN IN PERPETUITY....!!

Do you just flip over these verses when you're reading this thing, or do you shut your eyes...what...!?

Read it again and try to tell me that it's about Jews in debt "volunteering" their labour to pay the debt off...

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Now, I've included the underlined part to show you the difference between how they were to treat their fellow Jews, as opposed to how they could buy and keep people from other tribes.....! Show me how you could possibly read that as people willingly giving themselves over to pay a debt...!!

You are taking the whole verse out of context and confusing stealing people and selling them against their will as slaves which these verses are not talking about.

So we can move forward now?

I said nothing about "stealing people"..... So, no, we won't be "moving forward" while you choose to lie about my position.......

 

[EternalDragon]

I said nothing about "stealing people"..... So, no, we won't be "moving forward" while you choose to lie about my position.......

Your position seems to be an ignorance of the scriptures, the time period and what a slave is. By your definition anyone that applies for a job, sells themselves to get hired and then is subject to most of the whims of the company are slaves.

Are you holding onto your position because it's a way to discredit Christians or are you actually looking for the truth and to learn something?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where there's doubt, there's hope.........

Hope for what?

I think your reply is healthy.....too many rely upon faith to direct their lives....and when it comes down to it, 'faith' is nothing more than "pretending to know what you don't know"......

In your opinion of course. Don't get me wrong, when I am following God's directives in my life, it is so much more beneficial to me. It is amazing. However, in something that would cause me to do something that goes against all the Christ teaches and what I know of my loving and merciful God; I would question my own lack in misunderstanding or questioning the directive in this case. Abraham's experience even has some of that in it, he thought he might have to help things along since God was not bringing him the son that he expected when he expected it. It brought to fruit a chain of calamity that we are still dealing with it today.

 

[Oncedeceived]

These are the moral codes that God presented to mankind. Other than the ones that are to honor God the world lives by them yet today.

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

These are the moral codes that God presented to mankind. Other than the ones that are to honor God the world lives by them yet today.

Um, those religious ones are the first 4 or 5. And these commandments are hardly comprehensive - they say nothing against raping, severely beating, nepotism, etc. They condone both slavery and treating a woman as property. They are in no way a guide for people to live in harmony on earth today.

Note that those are the Protestant Commandments. The Catholic ones have similar content, but are numbered differently.

Plus, as you probably know, there are different versions of the ten commandments in Exodus and Deut, some of which are very different (including things like "don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk"). That's why that list you gave cited which section of scripture it was from.

Papias