Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
How did they know that it was good to trust him if knowledge of good and evil was withheld from them and forbidden to them?
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.
How did they know that it was good to trust him if knowledge of good and evil was withheld from them and forbidden to them?Why do you say they lacked anything? They knew God, they just needed to trust him.
Who said that Adam and Eve knew it was good to trust God?How did they know that it was good to trust him if knowledge of good and evil was withheld from them and forbidden to them?
No one. That's the point. Do try to keep up.Who said that Adam and Eve knew it was good to trust God?
Now I see what you're doing. You're intentionally confusing the issue of slaves and indentured servants to make it harder to argue. You quoted me and changed my quote to: "Lots of ways to convince slaves to obey against their will" cut and pasted. Now are we talking about indentured servants or slaves? Pick one and stick with it.
So here is where I am at. If by objective morality you simply mean that which is something everyone ought to do, or that everyone ought not to do, then that exists. If you mean something that everyone agrees on, then no, objective morality does not exist. And yes, when I say "everyone" I mean even God.
What a god wants our purpose to be does not mean that he didn't give us free will to choose our own.
So if you are equating morality with purpose, then we disagree on the definition of morality itself and we'll need to take a few steps back and start with that definition first.
Irrelevant to the hypothetical. I am just trying to see where this "justice" is in your theology.
Now, you have the serial killer going to Heaven, as long as he is a believer. From what I gather from other Christians, the victim - an unbeliever, in this case - is going to Hell for not believing in the same god, or she is simply not convinced.
Is this still "justice" in your eyes? Or should the victim get to go to Heaven to be with her killer?
No one. That's the point. Do try to keep up.
Not for you.A point which didn't need to be made. Do you have another?
That depends on what Sapiens says in response to my post.For Sapiens then?
That depends on what Sapiens says in response to my post.
Do you mind if I took a stab at the topic?Indeed. It sounds delightful.
You asked a question stated in a general form of "slave" and "corporal punishment". Your question didn't ask specifically about the verse in question, so I'm not confused by when the Bible means slave and when it means indentured servant. Also, there were different rules for the two different things, so slaves weren't treated the same way as indentured servants, which is another distinction that should be made between the two.It is confusing, I don't blame you. The ancient hebrew language did not have a word to describe indentured servitude.
You have a very warped view of the Old Testament, in my opinion. You accused me earlier or reading Bible verses cherrypicked and placed on "a website" but I'll let you know, I tried to read the Bible, cover to cover. I made it through a good chunk of the OT, but I couldn't make it past some of the worst stuff. As a kid I tried to read the NT from start to finish, but I only made it through a few books cause I was a lazy kid, admittedly. Now I use Biblegateway.com as my source when I want to look up a topic.In war, it was an act of mercy for the Israelites to enslave defeated enemies. The only other option they had was to kill them. Think about it. If you were defeated in battle would you rather be killed or become a slave who was protected by jewish law?
No, I don't believe in your warped definition of "objective". Again, I ask, is it an objective fact that the Earth is round, or is it a subjective opinion?Thank you. You finally agree to my point and the point of the "moral argument " that objective morality cannot exist without a god. You don't believe in a god thus you cannot believe objective morality exists. Congratulations.
You're right. "Sin" brings with it a lot of "magical" connotations like it being hereditary and affecting the weather... I believe in wrongdoing would be the better word to use.I agree. However, creating a purpose for yourself that is contrary to the purpose God gave you is an act of rebellion which is where sin originates. Christians define sin as rebellion against God's will. Of course you do not believe in God so sin cannot exist.
As I have stated in numerous posts, it is based on cooperation, which is motivated by fairness, which is balanced by the measure of suffering vs. pleasure. It is a complicated system that has all of these concepts intermingled. We cooperate to achieve a better balance of suffering vs. pleasure, but we have no reason to cooperate if it isn't fair. One person's suffering should balance out with another person's pleasure so that it achieves a larger amount of pleasure over all.Ok. That is fine. So tell me, how would you define "good" and "bad"?
Anything goes, as long as you believe? This is morally bankrupt. No "justice" there.James 2:13 "because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
Of course the senario that you provided is with the assumption that the God of Abraham exists so I will answer your question with that assumption in hand. Technically, God has one punishment for sin...death. (Romans 3:23) So it would be just that everyone should go to hell. Mercy is one of the foundations of the Christian faith. The fact that even a wicked man who spent his entire life in wickedness can be saved on his deathbed is not unjust, it is merciful. God's mercy is a gift that can be given to all who desire it. Including the wicked man.
Too bad, so sad?As far as the victim....well I will let Jesus explain that to you.
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Matthew 20:1-16 NIV
You asked a question stated in a general form of "slave" and "corporal punishment". Your question didn't ask specifically about the verse in question, so I'm not confused by when the Bible means slave and when it means indentured servant. Also, there were different rules for the two different things, so slaves weren't treated the same way as indentured servants, which is another distinction that should be made between the two.
The thing is, we're arguing about the most moral way to treat people that are in a position that it was immoral to put them in in the first place. You could still pay slaves you purchased, you could still incentivize work for indentured servants, but that would ruin the whole point of having an exploited, and cheap workforce.
You have a very warped view of the Old Testament, in my opinion. You accused me earlier or reading Bible verses cherrypicked and placed on "a website" but I'll let you know, I tried to read the Bible, cover to cover. I made it through a good chunk of the OT, but I couldn't make it past some of the worst stuff. As a kid I tried to read the NT from start to finish, but I only made it through a few books cause I was a lazy kid, admittedly. Now I use Biblegateway.com as my source when I want to look up a topic.
So an act of mercy, by the Israelites, who at times had just pretended to offer a peace treaty to a city, and then conquered it... No, they weren't good folk.
No, I don't believe in your warped definition of "objective". Again, I ask, is it an objective fact that the Earth is round, or is it a subjective opinion?
You're right. "Sin" brings with it a lot of "magical" connotations like it being hereditary and affecting the weather... I believe in wrongdoing would be the better word to use.
As I have stated in numerous posts, it is based on cooperation, which is motivated by fairness, which is balanced by the measure of suffering vs. pleasure. It is a complicated system that has all of these concepts intermingled. We cooperate to achieve a better balance of suffering vs. pleasure, but we have no reason to cooperate if it isn't fair. One person's suffering should balance out with another person's pleasure so that it achieves a larger amount of pleasure over all.
An example. You stated that rape is immoral because that is not the intended purpose of sex. But that already demands a creator and a designer to state that there is a purpose, which makes your definition of morality tainted from the beginning in this argument. Instead, rape is wrong because the balance of the rapist's pleasure that he derives is minuscule to the amount of suffering that his victim endures. And people aren't going to cooperate with each other if some people are allowed to derive a little bit of pleasure at the great, great expense of others.
In contrast, a hypothetical situation. If I were to flick you in the nose, and it caused you no more suffering than a flick in the nose would, but it caused me to be happy and content for a whole year, then it would be immoral of you to not allow me to flick you in the nose.
Anything goes, as long as you believe? This is morally bankrupt. No "justice" there.
You asked a question stated in a general form of "slave" and "corporal punishment". Your question didn't ask specifically about the verse in question, so I'm not confused by when the Bible means slave and when it means indentured servant.
You could still pay slaves you purchased, you could still incentivize work for indentured servants, but that would ruin the whole point of having an exploited, and cheap workforce.
So an act of mercy, by the Israelites, who at times had just pretended to offer a peace treaty to a city, and then conquered it... No, they weren't good folk.
No, I don't believe in your warped definition of "objective". Again, I ask, is it an objective fact that the Earth is round, or is it a subjective opinion?
As I have stated in numerous posts, it is based on cooperation, which is motivated by fairness, which is balanced by the measure of suffering vs. pleasure. It is a complicated system that has all of these concepts intermingled. We cooperate to achieve a better balance of suffering vs. pleasure, but we have no reason to cooperate if it isn't fair. One person's suffering should balance out with another person's pleasure so that it achieves a larger amount of pleasure over all.
It is not surprising therefore that you would say something like, "the Israelites conquered cities after pretending to offer them peace treaties because the Israelites were not good folks."
If I remember correctly, the Israelites were punished by God for it. So objectively what they did was wrong.
It would only be a subjective opinion if the earth did not exist or was without shape. We are not talking about if facts can be objective or subjective. If something is a fact, it is objective.
Now my definition may be considered "opinion" in that the greater good is the most moral thing, but my definition is not an opinion on how to reach the greater good. It isn't specific enough to be challenged in any other way than to say the greater good should not be achieved.As I stated before. Your definition is nothing more than popular opinion for the greater good.
This, unless you invoke the sovereignty of God and therefore He can do what He pleases with his clay pots, is objectively wrong:
Deuteronomy 20:10-17
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestockand everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 19
Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
Jason, you're saying that they were punished for doing "as the Lord your God has commanded you"? Like I said, I haven't read it all, so can you point me to that spot in the Bible?
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?