The Ultimate Sacrifice

[PsychoSarah]

It is cool. It's always fun when I interact with my dog and we seem to have some kind of connection. I do wonder, though, how much of such things is an anthropomorphic projection. With my dog, it often seems the end game is always food.

Well, apes can use sign language and have been known to teach it to each other without encouragement, so I don't think it is so much projection there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point is still the same. I'll rephrase: desire doesn't negate morality. If someone desires to steal, it is still wrong.



Yes. Your scenario is just an attempt to play to sentimentality ... ahh, look at the cute little girl, give her whatever she wants. Why wasn't it the ugly old bag lady who smells and drools on herself and annoys you while you're out trying to shop? But anyway ...

... what if the child steals from a second child who is also starving. Now is it wrong?

The root problem is that the children were starving in the first place. Stealing doesn't somehow fix that. But tell me, are you advocating survival as the ultimate goal? So one can do whatever one pleases as long as it supports survival?



Are we really going to do this? Verse by verse until you think you've trapped me?

1. The slavery spoken of in these verses is not the kind that was practiced in America. It typically involved someone who needed to pay off a financial debt.

2. You can't take one verse in isolation. What about v.1 or v.16? And all the others insisting that people be treated with dignity. Should someone find themselves in a situation where they can't pay their debts, the holder of those debts is under all kinds of obligations to treat them well ... or do you think people aren't obligated to pay back the holders of their debt?

The implication of debt isn't in that verse, you're adding what isn't there to make it more agreeable to your own sense of morality. I don't know why you consider beating someone within an inch of their life "treating them with dignity" but as long as you're pulling bible passages, what's wrong with me doing the same? It's a simple question...is that a moral absolute?

As for stealing for survival...yes, I do think it's almost always going to be morally ok. I say almost because I can't imagine every case...there might be one I disagree with.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, apes can use sign language and have been known to teach it to each other without encouragement, so I don't think it is so much projection there.

Ever heard of the Turing test?

 

[Resha Caner]

The implication of debt isn't in that verse, you're adding what isn't there to make it more agreeable to your own sense of morality.

If you disagree with my comments on slavery in the Bible, then I guess you'll need to do a study on it and show me where I'm wrong.

[edit] BTW, the verse implies exactly what I was saying. Read the end of v.21.

I don't know why you consider beating someone within an inch of their life "treating them with dignity" but as long as you're pulling bible passages, what's wrong with me doing the same?

I think you are misusing that verse, and I quoted additional context to explain why. If you think I have misused Exodus 20:15 (or, as noted above, comments on Biblical slavery) then you are free to do the same. That's the process. The game I'm not going to play is you cherry picking some other example if this one doesn't turn out as you expected.

So, the verse doesn't speak of "beating someone within an inch of their life". It says a master can't murder his slave, which is consistent with Exodus 20:13. Yes, that is an absolute.

At the same time, it allows for corporal punishment. That is also consistent with other verses (such as Proverbs 13:24). So, measured corporal punishment is also a moral absolute. When that punishment can be applied and to what degree requires applying yet other verses.

To that end, I'll simply note Deuteronomy 16:18.

As for stealing for survival...yes, I do think it's almost always going to be morally ok. I say almost because I can't imagine every case...there might be one I disagree with.

So it's OK for one starving child to steal from another. Got it. Great system. [edit] And those who actually have rights to the food - are they allowed to fight back?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you disagree with my comments on slavery in the Bible, then I guess you'll need to do a study on it and show me where I'm wrong.

[edit] BTW, the verse implies exactly what I was saying. Read the end of v.21.



I think you are misusing that verse, and I quoted additional context to explain why. If you think I have misused Exodus 20:15 (or, as noted above, comments on Biblical slavery) then you are free to do the same. That's the process. The game I'm not going to play is you cherry picking some other example if this one doesn't turn out as you expected.

So, the verse doesn't speak of "beating someone within an inch of their life". It says a master can't murder his slave, which is consistent with Exodus 20:13. Yes, that is an absolute.

At the same time, it allows for corporal punishment. That is also consistent with other verses (such as Proverbs 13:24). So, measured corporal punishment is also a moral absolute. When that punishment can be applied and to what degree requires applying yet other verses.

To that end, I'll simply note Deuteronomy 16:18.



So it's OK for one starving child to steal from another. Got it. Great system. [edit] And those who actually have rights to the food - are they allowed to fight back?

Well I'll tell you what Resha, if you're not prepared to defend the whole bible, that's fine with me. Just admit you only ascribe to the parts you like, and you're back to moral relativism with me. If however, you still hold fast to a list of moral absolutes, then just tell me you think it's morally right to own a person as property (for any reason, debt included) and beat that person (as long as they don't die...sorry, I saw nothing in there that said you couldn't just do it for fun).

There's lots of horrible stuff in there, kill all witches, kill your children, etc etc. If you aren't prepared to defend god's moral laws as your own, then just say you pick and choose which ones you like. Lol you seem upset again and this really isn't my fault. I told you at the start there are no moral absolutes.

To answer you're question about stealing, of course the owner can recoup their loss, it's entirely up to them. They can be morally right in doing so, they can be morally wrong in doing so. I told you also that no one is ever completely correct or incorrect in this. Maybe a good analogy would be beauty. I think something is beautiful, you think it's ugly...is either of us wrong? Are either of us right? It's exactly the same with moral judgements of good and bad, right and wrong, so your questions are a bit meaningless.

Let me ask you this, since you seem most comfortable with the stealing example...what if a person were to steal something from you by making a legal claim to it and winning? The property is thereby, his, yet you know (or believe) it was wrongfully stolen from you. Is it ok for you to now steal this thing back from him? Would stealing be alright then?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well I'll tell you what Resha, if you're not prepared to defend the whole bible, that's fine with me. Just admit you only ascribe to the parts you like, and you're back to moral relativism with me. If however, you still hold fast to a list of moral absolutes, then just tell me you think it's morally right to own a person as property (for any reason, debt included) and beat that person (as long as they don't die...sorry, I saw nothing in there that said you couldn't just do it for fun).

There are a lot of situations that aren't covered. You're now trying to hold me to the "cover every scenario" definition of post #113, which I said I would not be held to in post #114. That's why I mentioned Deuteronomy.

For not being a judgmental guy, you're starting to sound very judgmental. In keeping with what you espouse, shouldn't you say, "Well, if that's your desire I'm cool with it."

But in regard to slavery, let me ask you this. I am personally familiar with cases where the modern judicial system had the power to restrict the movements of an individual, garner their wages, and hold all their property in a trust until certain conditions were met. It didn't apply in the particular case I know, but the same state did also have the power to deliver capital punishment. Isn't that very similar to slavery? ... No, there's probably no need to answer that. I think I can guess the direction your answer would go.

To answer you're question about stealing, of course the owner can recoup their loss, it's entirely up to them.

Is this "might makes right"?

Let me ask you this, since you seem most comfortable with the stealing example...what if a person were to steal something from you by making a legal claim to it and winning? The property is thereby, his, yet you know (or believe) it was wrongfully stolen from you. Is it ok for you to now steal this thing back from him? Would stealing be alright then?

You keep asking the same question, and I keep giving the same answer. Would I be upset about the outcome? Yes. Would I steal back my property? No, actually I probably wouldn't. So I'll help you out. With regard to the question about stealing food: would I steal food if I was starving? Yes, there's a good chance I would. But my desire is irrelevant. The point is, I would steal it, and stealing is an absolute wrong. If it were not, I wouldn't steal it, I would take what I deserved.

And you bypassed my comment about the root of the problem. The root problem is that the child is starving in the first place (Isaiah 58:10).

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are a lot of situations that aren't covered. You're now trying to hold me to the "cover every scenario" definition...

And you bypassed my comment about the root of the problem. The root problem is that the child is starving in the first place (Isaiah 58:10).

I bypassed your comment because it has absolutely nothing to do with morality. If a child is starving an I somehow obligated to feed it? Of course not, I couldn't possibly feed every staving child...not that I would be obligated if I could...I don't see any point here so I ignored it.

"There are a lot of situations that aren't covered." What is one to do for situations not covered by your moral absolutes?

I've been awfully kind here in letting you dance around the slavery issue...but now I want an answer. Yes, you condone slavery as morally good as well as beating said slaves. No, slavery is wrong and you think people should never be property of other people. That's the law in your book. Take your pick.

 

[Resha Caner]

If a child is starving an I somehow obligated to feed it?

You are.

I couldn't possibly feed every staving child.

You're right. So where do you draw the line? At tithing.

"There are a lot of situations that aren't covered." What is one to do for situations not covered by your moral absolutes?

Again, Deuteronomy 16:18.

I've been awfully kind here in letting you dance around the slavery issue...but now I want an answer. Yes, you condone slavery as morally good as well as beating said slaves. No, slavery is wrong and you think people should never be property of other people. That's the law in your book. Take your pick.

The Bible gives guidelines. As far as I know, the reasons are if someone owes you a financial debt, or if it is someone who was making war against you. There may be others, but I'm not aware of them. You are not allowed to kidnap people at random and enslave them (Exodus 21:16 as I pointed out to you earlier) as was done during American slavery. Further, there are conditions under which slaves must be freed (for example, if they pay their debt).

I never said I was making judgments of good and bad. We were talking of absolutes. So, yes, if someone owes me a debt or makes war on me, I feel it is acceptable to bind them in some way. It is a moral absolute. In American society there are restrictions on how I can do that. So now that I've answered your question, answer the questions I asked you in my last post. Are you judging me for this answer, or does your idea of "desire" allow me this? How are the ways the state is legally allowed to bind someone different than slavery?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are.



You're right. So where do you draw the line? At tithing.



Again, Deuteronomy 16:18.



The Bible gives guidelines. As far as I know, the reasons are if someone owes you a financial debt, or if it is someone who was making war against you. There may be others, but I'm not aware of them. You are not allowed to kidnap people at random and enslave them (Exodus 21:16 as I pointed out to you earlier) as was done during American slavery. Further, there are conditions under which slaves must be freed (for example, if they pay their debt).

I never said I was making judgments of good and bad. We were talking of absolutes. So, yes, if someone owes me a debt or makes war on me, I feel it is acceptable to bind them in some way. It is a moral absolute. In American society there are restrictions on how I can do that. So now that I've answered your question, answer the questions I asked you in my last post. Are you judging me for this answer, or does your idea of "desire" allow me this? How are the ways the state is legally allowed to bind someone different than slavery?

Just to be clear...you think owning a person as property and beating them is morally acceptable. I don't wanna go on before we're clear on that.

As for appointing judges, you do realize people sometimes (almost always) have to make moral choices without consulting a judge first? So for the scenarios not covered by your book...what do people do?

I'm not judging you at all. I can think of a few situations where I find slavery acceptable as well. Say, if someone wanted to be my slave and have me beat them...I've got no issue with that. I just find it curious you would...I genuinely applaud you trying so hard to cling to these moral absolutes of yours. Shall we continue? The next moral law I'm going to address is the one that says if a child strikes a parent they are to be killed....you're familiar with that I'm sure?

 

[Resha Caner]

Just to be clear...you think owning a person as property and beating them is morally acceptable. I don't wanna go on before we're clear on that.

Neither will we go on from here until you answer my question.

I am interpreting your phrase "morally acceptable" to mean "good" or at least that it's not bad. As I've already said, that was not part of the discussion. But since you're trying to drag these things in, I'll point out a few things:

1) In Mark 10:5 Jesus notes that some laws were written by Moses not because they are "good", but to deal with the nastiness of this world. Note that the definition we agreed on is proper conduct toward a purpose. So, marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. But what if the husband abuses the wife? Yes, because of that nastiness divorce is allowed.

So, now, suppose someone owes you a debt or makes war on you. How do you deal with that person? What if the system under which you live says you make them a slave? Can a Christian use that system? The answer is yes, but there are rules about how to treat that slave. In fact, in the book of Philemon, Paul is telling Philemon he needs to treat Onesimus like a brother. Slavery is not an ideal to seek (just as a broken marriage is not an ideal to seek). It is the result of our sinful world, and the Bible is explaining proper conduct for that situation.

The system in the U.S. is slightly different, and I am supposed to deal with debt and war per the laws laid out by the U.S.

2) I also get the impression you are speaking of "beating" as if it is unjustified and some gleeful sadism by the owner. I've pointed out repeatedly that is an improper facetious translation and I'll not accept it.

I've already said that corporal punishment is acceptable discipline (post #124). Deuteronomy 25:1-3 stipulates that it should be proportional to the misbehavior. It further stipulates that if the one applying the punishment goes too far, they themselves should be punished.

If you're going to disagree with me (and I'm pretty sure you do, but your moral system is blocking you from saying it), then disagree with what I've written. You're not going to tell me how to interpret the Bible - you don't even believe it.

Your turn to answer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Neither will we go on from here until you answer my question.

I am interpreting your phrase "morally acceptable" to mean "good" or at least that it's not bad. As I've already said, that was not part of the discussion. But since you're trying to drag these things in, I'll point out a few things:

1) In Mark 10:5 Jesus notes that some laws were written by Moses not because they are "good", but to deal with the nastiness of this world. Note that the definition we agreed on is proper conduct toward a purpose. So, marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. But what if the husband abuses the wife? Yes, because of that nastiness divorce is allowed.

So, now, suppose someone owes you a debt or makes war on you. How do you deal with that person? What if the system under which you live says you make them a slave? Can a Christian use that system? The answer is yes, but there are rules about how to treat that slave. In fact, in the book of Philemon, Paul is telling Philemon he needs to treat Onesimus like a brother. Slavery is not an ideal to seek (just as a broken marriage is not an ideal to seek). It is the result of our sinful world, and the Bible is explaining proper conduct for that situation.

The system in the U.S. is slightly different, and I am supposed to deal with debt and war per the laws laid out by the U.S.

2) I also get the impression you are speaking of "beating" as if it is unjustified and some gleeful sadism by the owner. I've pointed out repeatedly that is an improper facetious translation and I'll not accept it.

I've already said that corporal punishment is acceptable discipline (post #124). Deuteronomy 25:1-3 stipulates that it should be proportional to the misbehavior. It further stipulates that if the one applying the punishment goes too far, they themselves should be punished.

If you're going to disagree with me (and I'm pretty sure you do, but your moral system is blocking you from saying it), then disagree with what I've written. You're not going to tell me how to interpret the Bible - you don't even believe it.

Your turn to answer.

I've already explained how morality works to you, so I don't know what you want really. Your big question is what? If the system you live in says you're a slave or makes you a slave...then you're a slave. I just don't see what the question actually is. It's almost as if you're trying to claim that wrong and right change for depending upon who makes the rules for the system you live in. Isn't that might makes right lol? Isn't that right back to where I keep telling you it goes....moral relativity? If slavery is an absolute right or wrong....then it's always right or wrong...it won't change with the times or place....sorry, that's what absolutism is.

The more you argue for absolutism, the more you sound like a relativist.

 

[Resha Caner]

Your big question is what?

Are you judging me for this answer, or does your idea of "desire" allow me this? How are the ways the state is legally allowed to bind someone different than slavery?

The more you argue for absolutism, the more you sound like a relativist.

I think that's because your view of it is what I might call absolutism squared. You're coming at it from a different direction than I am.

The Bible is a finite book - a finite number of words. Therefore, no matter how you want to slice it, the list of moral imperatives is a finite list. One of the items contained in that list is, "You shall not steal." That moral is in effect at all places and all times for all people.

That is different than saying absolutism defines what every person should do in every conceivable situation. That position requires an infinite book, which the Bible is not.

- - -

*Note: After the other 2 questions are answered, Ana, I'm a bit curious about your request that law be kept out of this. Note that in the case of Exodus 21:20-21, I pointed elsewhere for the 2 morals (murder is wrong, but corporal punishment is acceptable) in that verse. So is Exodus 21:20-21 a law or a moral? What's the difference? I've stewed over asking this before, but thought it might not be worth the churn.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that's because your view of it is what I might call absolutism squared. You're coming at it from a different direction than I am.

The Bible is a finite book - a finite number of words. Therefore, no matter how you want to slice it, the list of moral imperatives is a finite list. One of the items contained in that list is, "You shall not steal." That moral is in effect at all places and all times for all people.

That is different than saying absolutism defines what every person should do in every conceivable situation. That position requires an infinite book, which the Bible is not.

- - -

*Note: After the other 2 questions are answered, Ana, I'm a bit curious about your request that law be kept out of this. Note that in the case of Exodus 21:20-21, I pointed elsewhere for the 2 morals (murder is wrong, but corporal punishment is acceptable) in that verse. So is Exodus 21:20-21 a law or a moral? What's the difference? I've stewed over asking this before, but thought it might not be worth the churn.

Are you being patronizing? Or do you really not understand the difference between "morals" and "laws"? I don't want to put you on the defensive if you really don't...just say so and I'll explain ...it just seems like a rather silly question to be asking me. After all, your mention of the (legal) "redefining of marriage" suggests you very well see and understand the difference.

My request that we leave law out of the discussion is because you've had a hard enough time grasping morality as I've explained it...add law to this and we could be at it for weeks. I'm not sure I have the attention or patience for that.

I will say though, at least now you seem to be understanding the limits of your book...even if you haven't realized where that leads. For what good are moral absolutes if they do not describe everything and we're left to guess wrong and right for what isn't told to us? How could we possibly be expected to act morally then? The answer, obviously, is that we couldn't be expected to act morally. Well then, what is the point of "any" moral absolutes if we cannot be expected to act morally? Well....there would be no point. Don't feel bad about it Resha, it's the same for any moral code of any religion...not just yours.

If you would like, I can explain to you why "Thou shalt not steal" is...for lack of a better word...stupid as a moral law or standard or whatever you'd like to call it. We can agree that taking someone else's property without their consent is in fact stealing, yes?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You know, even if there was some kind if superior or objective morality, the subjective nature of how people think would prevent it from being applied objectively.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You know, even if there was some kind if superior or objective morality, the subjective nature of how people think would prevent it from being applied objectively.

An excellent point, I didn't want to bring it up though and start a whole other conversation lol. What I call stealing and what someone else calls stealing may be very close in meaning...but contain subtle differences.

I still think my beauty analogy is rather apt. What I think is beautiful, and what someone else thinks beautiful may be very different. It doesn't make either of us objectively correct/incorrect. It's a value judgement. The idea of what is morally "good" or "bad" is essentially the same. It's another value judgement where there is no objective correct/incorrect.

It's the only description of morality which consistently describes reality. It's not a personal choice of mine...it's the way things are. It's also a huge problem for any religion with a moral code or an idea of an afterlife which rewards or punishes "good" or "bad" behavior.

I appreciate your patience in this conversation Sarah. It wasn't my intent to derail this thread.

 

[TillICollapse]

Concerning the OP ... how about a variation of the concept (for anyone still interested lol):

Would you go to prison for someone ? In other words, would you let yourself go to prison in place of someone else going there ? At what point would it matter to you if the person you were going there for was guilty of something or not ? At what point would you willingly forfeit months to years of your own life, letting yourself be placed in horrid conditions, for another person ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Concerning the OP ... how about a variation of the concept (for anyone still interested lol):

Would you go to prison for someone ? In other words, would you let yourself go to prison in place of someone else going there ? At what point would it matter to you if the person you were going there for was guilty of something or not ? At what point would you willingly forfeit months to years of your own life, letting yourself be placed in horrid conditions, for another person ?

Depends on the person. I can only think of one I would for, regardless of guilt, or length of sentence.

 

[TillICollapse]

Depends on the person. I can only think of one I would for, regardless of guilt, or length of sentence.

You wife ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You wife ?

Indeed.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sigh. OK. Don't answer my questions then. And from here forward I won't ask you any more questions. We'll just wind this down.

Are you being patronizing?

No. Our history simply illustrates quite clearly that I shouldn't assume we mean the same thing by a word. The Bible often refers to the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean the modern usage of the word.

I will say though, at least now you seem to be understanding the limits of your book...even if you haven't realized where that leads. For what good are moral absolutes if they do not describe everything and we're left to guess wrong and right for what isn't told to us? How could we possibly be expected to act morally then?

You constantly speak as if you're revealing new things to me. Whereas, my reaction to comments like this is, "Finally! Why was it such a chore to get here?" What you just said above is what we teach our 5th graders at church.

The difference, however, is where we go from here. You and I go different directions. You read Matt 5:48 (You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.) and respond, "Pfft! What a stupid book. That's impossible so move on."

I read it and respond, "But God, I can't do that. I need you to help me."