jerryR34 Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) a universal moral is something i think a lot about. i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple: your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you. you shoot him down because he's a treath to you. you have done good, because otherwise you were dead. at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve. i have many other exemples of this kind of situation. my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one. Survival is not an issue of morality. In survival you do anything it takes survive even if it means committing evil. When we start defining good with such irrational notions as survival, anything no matter how murderous or heinous can be justified as "good" and that leads to lawlessness where morality is defined by each person rather than having one objective standard that governs how we live. So, given the opportunity, would you watch your child starve to death rather than steal to feed her? Edited June 11, 2014 by jerryR34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".the perfect basis for morality is the Bible. Which Bible? Who's interpretation? Edited June 11, 2014 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 OK, another than survival then: suppose there is a man and he likes killing people, just for fun. in himself, he thinks it's good. while we think it's bad. then moral is a matter of opinion. the man will be depicted as bad, because the majority of the other people think it's bad. imagine now that the other people think the same as that man. then that act will be good, as well as the man, because majority wins. now moral is also a matter of majority. ~ I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God". the perfect basis for morality is the Bible. Which Bible? Who's interpretation? ~ Beloved, Morals What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Romans 3:3 (NIV) Is Never A Matter Of Majority Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:“So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” Romans 3:4 (NIV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God". the perfect basis for morality is the Bible. Which Bible? Who's interpretation? No "interpretation" needed. The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is wrong. What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?" What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 No "interpretation" needed. The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is wrong. What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?" What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right? The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No "interpretation" needed. The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is wrong. What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?" What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right? The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok? I assume you are talking about slavery. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery but it regulates it. And unlike in other cultures, the Bible gives slaves rights and privileges that you don't find in slavery in the context of cultures that surround Israel. Slavery was a part of ancient near eastern culture. The Bible reflects that culture but again, regulates it. A "slave" in the Bible isn't necessarily "property." Unlike other ancient near eastern cultures, the Bible doesn't dehumanize those who are slaves. And some slavery was voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) No "interpretation" needed. The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is wrong. What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?" What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right? The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok? I assume you are talking about slavery. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery but it regulates it. And unlike in other cultures, the Bible gives slaves rights and privileges that you don't find in slavery in the context of cultures that surround Israel. Slavery was a part of ancient near eastern culture. The Bible reflects that culture but again, regulates it. A "slave" in the Bible isn't necessarily "property." Unlike other ancient near eastern cultures, the Bible doesn't dehumanize those who are slaves. And some slavery was voluntary. Well more precisely put there were more rules in place for Jewish slaves. YHWH didn't want Jewish slave owners treating Israelite slaves "harshly". They were allowed to own slaves for life if they weren't Israelites: “When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” —Exodus 21:2-6. Also Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV) 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. So it seems to me, if I find a person being sold as a "slave" I have complete freedom to purchase them and to keep them for life. If I provide this person a family they are also under my ownership. You seem to use the term "property" differently than what I'm accustomed to. The Bible actually spells that out for us pretty clear as well: Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. If you notice the verses above merely state that it's not moral for a slave owner to outright kill his slave in anger. Beating him is/was obviously ok. So I'm confused now as to why I'm not allowed to own people when the Bible clearly says it's ok using various guidelines. Edited June 11, 2014 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well more precisely put there were more rules in place for Jewish slaves. YHWH didn't want Jewish slave owners treating Israelite slaves "harshly". They were allowed to own slaves for life if they weren't Israelites: “When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” —Exodus 21:2-6. Also Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV) 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. So it seems to me, if I find a person being sold as a "slave" I have complete freedom to purchase them and to keep them for life. If I provide this person a family they are also under my ownership. You seem to use the term "property" differently than what I'm accustomed to. The Bible actually spells that out for us pretty clear as well: Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. If you notice the verses above merely state that it's not moral for a slave owner to outright kill his slave in anger. Beating him is/was obviously ok. So I'm confused now as to why I'm not allowed to own people when the Bible clearly says it's ok using various guidelines. I am saying that that they were not dehumanized as "property" the same as we would consider cattle or other livestock as "property." I really don't see the rub with the Scriptures you posted. Again, the Bible regulated slavery. Slavery was part of the cultural reality of that part of the world and God permitted it. In our day and age, and in the western world, slavery is repugnant, but in the ancient near east it was as natural as breathing. The Bible allows for the reality of ancient near eastern realities, but it regulates how Israel relates to those realities. There was a moral and immoral way to handle slavery in those days. Slavery wasn't seen as immoral in and of itself. If the Bible were written in 21st century America it would reflect our modern realities and regulate aspects of our culture as well. What we should not do is impose our western modern sensitivities on the Bible which is an eastern book written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 I am saying that that they were not dehumanized as "property" the same as we would consider cattle or other livestock as "property." I really don't see the rub with the Scriptures you posted. Again, the Bible regulated slavery. Slavery was part of the cultural reality of that part of the world and God permitted it. In our day and age, and in the western world, slavery is repugnant, but in the ancient near east it was as natural as breathing. The Bible allows for the reality of ancient near eastern realities, but it regulates how Israel relates to those realities. There was a moral and immoral way to handle slavery in those days. Slavery wasn't seen as immoral in and of itself. If the Bible were written in 21st century America it would reflect our modern realities and regulate aspects of our culture as well. What we should not do is impose our western modern sensitivities on the Bible which is an eastern book written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm. Okay but keep in mind it was you that suggested that we could use this collection of books that were "written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm". This doesn't seem to be a very well grounded clear understanding of morality. We forbid slavery in Western society because we know [from human experience] that the ownership of one human over other humans often leads to abuse. If we allow ourselves to view other humans as "property" what usually follows isn't good. So as we can see with this one issue we already have reason to be concerned that the Bible is going to be a handy book to guide us through good moral behavior. We haven't even bothered to establish how we would know that the Bible is moral in any way shape or form other than to just declare it so. Right now our society [in the US] is struggling with whether it's ok to allow people to smoke marijuana. It was unthinkable to allow it before but now peoples' views are changing. We wrestle with "how much freedom is too much freedom". It's not an easy thing to figure out sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Okay but keep in mind it was you that suggested that we could use this collection of books that were "written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm". This doesn't seem to be a very well grounded clear understanding of morality. We forbid slavery in Western society because we know [from human experience] that the ownership of one human over other humans often leads to abuse. Yes but you raised the issue of slavery and try to use that as an example of of why we have a problem with presenting morality as defined by someone we call God. So the problem lies in the fact that in our modern cultural paradigm, slavery is immoral. But you need to come to grips with the fact that in the age in which the Bible was written and in the part of the world the Bible was written slavery wasn't immoral in and of itself. There was a right way and a wrong way to deal with slaves. The morality is seen in how God regulates that cultural reality. We often try to impose what slavery looked like in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries on to the biblical paradigm as if the horror stories that came out of the slavery experience in the US defines all slavery even the regulated form that the Bible presents. If we allow ourselves to view other humans as "property" what usually follows isn't good. So as we can see with this one issue we already have reason to be concerned that the Bible is going to be a handy book to guide us through good moral behavior. We haven't even bothered to establish how we would know that the Bible is moral in any way shape or form other than to just declare it so. There is a difference and I have already pointed it out and you have evidently chosen to ignore it. Namely that the Bible doesn't use "property" in a way that means to dehumanize them and that is borne out in all of the regulations God places on the Israelites as to how they are to treat their slaves. In other nations, slaves were dehumanized, were treated with cruelty and in inhumane ways. God forbids that and while he allows the Israelites to make slaves of conquered people, they are not to be treated like cattle. If the Bible permitted the cruel and inhumane treatment of captured slave, then we would have a reason to question the morality of the Bible. But the fact that the Bible gives many regulations that gives the slaves more rights and protections than they would have gotten from any other nation in that time period speaks to the Bible as a trustworthy source of morality. More to the point, the Bible doesn't actually advocate slavery. There is no command to go out and conquer to gain slaves. God doesn't have a "thou shalt have slaves" anywhere in the Bible. Right now our society [in the US] is struggling with whether it's ok to allow people to smoke marijuana. It was unthinkable to allow it before but now peoples' views are changing. We wrestle with "how much freedom is too much freedom". It's not an easy thing to figure out sometimes. Not sure what that has to do with slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts