Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
He allows us free will. Satan uses that knowledge.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...?
The change is the victory over sin by accepting Christ.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...!
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.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...
Drawn by someone who doesn't believe that God exists in the first place, and who is not taking the verses in context.No it's not a subjective opinion. It's a logical conclusion drawn from evidence...
No.You. Are. Joking.
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.
Obviously.Have you even studied the history of your religion...?
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...
Read above.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....
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.So, your god can be forgiven for demanding that children be murdered, because some human beings choose to have abortions...!?
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.That is so weak......I'll bet you felt uncomfortable typing 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?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...!
He allows us free will. Satan uses that knowledge.
The change is the victory over sin by accepting Christ.
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.
Drawn by someone who doesn't believe that God exists in the first place, and who is not taking the verses in 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]
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.
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?
You are just mouthing bumper stickers.....what is any of that supposed to mean...?
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 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 girls 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....?
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)
YOUR context....
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...?
Then, use the humanity you were born with and stop condoning it...!!
Retreat to ignorance when all else fails..........and it's a failure in itself.....
Absolutely.
Speak for yourself.....and your god. I DONT ignore it......!
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...?
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...
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.
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.
To get the idea across. It encourages survival the same way a cold day encourages the wearing of sweaters. That's all I meant.
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.
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.
All true. They can potentially be useful for survival.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't agree with that. I don't see any reason why intelligent beings cannot invent such things.
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.
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.
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.
Ideas like good and evil come later when humans develop intelligence to invent 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Layering the supernatural atop the supernatural does not, for me, do a better job of explaining things than a purely natural view.
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.
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.
Well I can't agree with that - mine doesn't require anything supernatural.
Back at'cha.
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...?
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...?
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.
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.
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.
Good, I needed to hear that.
So are you a wind up and let it all go kind of guy or just what is your take on all that?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.
I like you believe God created everything and that ToE is man's interpretation of that process.
How do we have free will if are brains are just chemically wired to be what they are?No, we all have both free will, and the God-given, evolved morality that says that rape is wrong.
If you look at evolution without God's input, I don't think that that is possible.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.
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.
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.
In a mindless process such as evolution, how does intelligence arise?
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.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?
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.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?
Group behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Even fish and insects do it.That is a description of behavior of more complex life forms, but how in the very beginning would this arose?
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.If we see moral looking behavior in lower animals, we have to have it is simpler life forms and that has to be addressed.
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.So morality didn't really exist until man gave it definition and asserted it was certain behavior? I lost you on this one.
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.Where in the animal world do animals ever sacrifice themselves for others?
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.Evolution can not explain logic. Logic is like you see above. Absolute truth, absolute reason which can not be explained by naturalistic processes.
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.How do the simplest life forms such as Cyanobacteria evolve this instinct for survival?
The former first.Invent them or explain them?
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.When did this ability arise?
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.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 understand that position. Question - assuming that's actually correct, where did God get this morality he engrained into life from?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.
No reason why we couldn't, as I said.We see it counter in our own species.
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.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?
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.But that basic starting point is not moral, it is selfish. So when did it become unselfish or selfless?
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.So do you think that morality is a new adaptation or one from antiquity?
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.How do you know?
Every human being would say no. That is why I call the question stupid.
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?
I said nothing about "stealing people"..... So, no, we won't be "moving forward" while you choose to lie about my position.......
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"......
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?