religion and morality

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Yep, but again (for the second or third time) I must state what my original posts were about. I wasn't saying atheists didn't offer anything to society or Christians offered the most, or the best, or the first. I was responding to sweetmoose who said the world would be better off w/o religion. While I accepted the fact that much harm has been done in the name of God by Christians and Christian groups we shouldn't negate the good churches have done. [/explaining] because if you haven't got it by now you ain't getting it.

And I am just explaining for the umpteenth time (although not to you) that atheism isn't a belief system or an institution, it is a mere absence of same; and thus any discussion or reference to atheism as though it is a belief system or an institution is based upon an invalid premise.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Man's attempt at moral law falls short.

The Bible is man's attempt at moral law?!

Say it again, I think I just fainted.

If you're going to misrepresent what I said, you shouldn't quote exactly what I did say in the same post. It looks silly.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And I am just explaining for the umpteenth time (although not to you) that atheism isn't a belief system or an institution, it is a mere absence of same; and thus any discussion or reference to atheism as though it is a belief system or an institution is based upon an invalid premise.

and you are certainly entitled to your 'belief' in this case

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Nice SPIN there. Slavery is more outrageous than working on the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's ass donkey.

You don't get to insert what you think should be moral law into what God has declared as the moral law.

Besides, slavery in those days was very different from what we think of as slavery based on our relatively recent history. It was common practice and a way of life in Biblical times. Slavery was certainly not something God initiated or condoned. He, however, tollerated it but declared ethical rules for treating them. This was counter-culteral to the practices of surrounding nations who abused theirs. It was often practiced as an act of mercy to provide for the poor rather than exploitation. These rules for slave treament existed to protect the slave. Abuse was forbidden and a time limit for servitude was even established. It seems to have been kind of similar to a person bound to a master for a period of time to work for him for mutual benefit. Comparison of Biblical slavery with that of the African slavery in our past is not a very good one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Nice SPIN there. Slavery is more outrageous than working on the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's ass donkey.

You don't get to insert what you think should be moral law into what God has declared as the moral law.

Oh yes I do. I just did. I believe very firmly that there's no comparison between the evil of slavery (condoned by your God) and the evil of working on the Sabbath (Punishable by your God).

Quote

Besides, slavery in those days was very different from what we think of as slavery based on our relatively recent history. It was common practice and a way of life in Biblical times. Slavery was certainly not something God initiated or condoned. He, however, tollerated it but declared ethical rules for treating them. This was counter-culteral to the practices of surrounding nations who abused theirs. It was often practiced as an act of mercy to provide for the poor rather than exploitation. These rules for slave treament existed to protect the slave. Abuse was forbidden and a time limit for servitude was even established. It seems to have been kind of similar to a person bound to a master for a period of time to work for him for mutual benefit. Comparison of Biblical slavery with that of the African slavery in our past is not a very good one.

I wonder if the slaves were happy with that idea? Weak, lame answer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I wonder if the slaves were happy with that idea? Weak, lame answer.

the concept seems to work pretty well with teacher's assistants in academia

but less so with pages in political realms

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[philh 0]

lets not forget that the fact that the bible tolerates slavery was used an argument for it right up until the last century. Now if god is all powerful and all seeing then he would have known this was going to happen and all he had to do was get jesus or Moses or whoever to condemm it and perhpas slavery would not have continued in this world as long as it did(and perhaps still does). But instead he said nothing.
This seems very consitent with the view that the bible is the word of ancient men with ancient views not an all loving god.

Interesting to see a Chrstian defence of slavery. given god both carries out genocide and condones an encourages the Hebrew armies to follow suit , perhaps you would like to give us your defence of that too?

[champu 1]

Quote

Your point of veiw, or those of the atheistic thinkers in this thread is that we have morals built into our DNA through evolution. No need for any outside guidance or correction.

I would dare say that alot of gangbangers scoff at religion and the need for any kind of moral structure concerning the society around them.

You sure don't see the edification of lives or property in places where these people exist.

My theory is simply that the more complex feelings of guilt, honor, love, etc. were arrived at through evolution just like the more simple and obviously beneficial feelings like hunger, physical pain, and sexual desire. Morals, as I've stated before, are artificial and highly circumstantial conclusions about what is right or wrong based on how a certain series of described events makes us feel.

If you tell someone, "you shalt not steal or else you shall be plagued by guilt and burn in hell" enough times, they're going to feel guilty if they ever steal something. This shouldn't be a surprise, remember, you can ring a bell and make dogs salivate. This practice doesn't make the words "thou shalt not steal" any more fundamental, absolutely true, or even more profound than the sound of a ringing bell.

Religion is a ringing bell that attempts to attach a bunch of stuff to feelings we've evolved as humans, and then tell us all that stuff is as fundamental as the feelings themselves. It works pretty well too, for the same reason religion works elsewhere: it placates the mind by explaining supernaturally what science hasn't yet. In this case, that those feelings we don't understand the evolutionary benefit of having were painted there by a higher power.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

lets not forget that the fact that the bible tolerates slavery was used an argument for it right up until the last century.

What have the wrongdoings of men and their misuse of Christianity got to do with God or his standards?

Quote

Now if god is all powerful and all seeing then he would have known this was going to happen and all he had to do was get jesus or Moses or whoever to condemm it and perhpas slavery would not have continued in this world as long as it did(and perhaps still does). But instead he said nothing.
This seems very consitent with the view that the bible is the word of ancient men with ancient views not an all loving god.

How could you possibly know what God would or should have done or what he would have known? How could you possibly know the mind of God or his ultimate plan for mankind?

Quote

Interesting to see a Chrstian defence of slavery.

I’m not “defending slavery” in any way. The context of it in the Bible has been explained already. There is a difference between toleration and acceptance. There is also a big difference between the concepts of slavery in ancient Biblical times compared with the slavery that you’re referring to. You have to apply context to anything for proper understanding.

[sweetmoose 0]

>>How could you possibly know what God would or should have done or what he would have known? How could you possibly know the mind of God or his ultimate plan for mankind?

Wow, exactly, just like he could not know what god would or should have done or what he would have known, how can you know god exists at all???

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[philh 0]

What does the misuse of Christianity have to do with God? Thats a good question. The answer is that if god can see the future, something all Christans must accept du to their claim that prophecy is real and also that god can do anything then he would know that his silence/toleration on the matter would be used to justify slavery. yet he proceeded.

What he should have done is denounce slavery, could he have forseen events? If he exists as described in the bible yes of course. The more likely explanation is that he doesnt exist as described in the bible. How can I know the mind of god? Well ok lets suppose that is impossible, lets say I grant you that. then you must agree he may be entirley evil if he exists. If you deny that possibility you are contradicting your argument that its impossible to knowd gods plan/mind.
As to your defence of slavery pease reread your passge, this time imagine you are the slave and see if you think its so acceptble.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I wonder if the slaves were happy with that idea? Weak, lame answer.

the concept seems to work pretty well with teacher's assistants in academia

but less so with pages in political realms

No-one has been kidnapped and forced into being a TA - yet. I believe slavery involves an absense of consent.

The slavery topic indicates pretty clearly that the 10-Commandments were simply a reflection of the political and social realities of the time, and not divinely inspired at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As to your defence of slavery pease reread your passge, this time imagine you are the slave and see if you think its so acceptble.

That's a horrible tactic. and you do Paj a real disservice by being so slimy.

A discussion of the social context of a historical period and it's relation to a subject of the time should never be construed as a personal position of acceptance on the topic.

Paj is digging a hole by anthropomorphizing his diety way too much. Intelligent and sometimes missionary type religious people tend to do that as they wish for understand or factual support (in conflict with general acceptance of faith). If you don't see that clearly and think that some sophmoric discussion on the nature of free will and omniscience will help you, then you are really missing the point. But even so, it's still fair fodder for discussion.

But pretending that his discussion of the times means he is defending slavery of any type is just a pretty crappy tactic.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

If you don't see that clearly and think that some sophmoric discussion on the nature of free will and omniscience will help you....

Ooh, ooh, I have one of those! (shamelessly stolen)

God: Man, I have a great gift for you, it is called free will!
Man: Thanks, but I don't think I need any right now, I'm getting along pretty well without it.
God: Well you're having it anyway.
Man: Oh, ok. So, uh, what do I do with it?
God: Nothing. You must continue to follow all my commands or I will cast you into the fire!
Man: Riiiiight.

Quote

then you are really missing the point.

Oh well, disregard the above then!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

You fail to see the defenders of slavery used the bible as a very real defence of slavery. If we accept that god is able to see the future, and Christians do accept this then god would have known this would happen and he let it happen. I have provided evidence fo rthis in previous posts. THis clearly indicated that if the bible gives our morals then we hsould accept slavery as moral. If you wish to argue that the bible was only expressing the morals of the time, thats fine. But then that leads to the conclusion that morality does not come from the bible. You can't have it both ways.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You fail to see the defenders of slavery used the bible as a very real defence of slavery.

I actually did not fail to see that. Nor am I saying that aspect of your post is presented poorly (a previous post, not the one I responded to). I consider morality to have developed as a means for society to keep it's members in check. At the time, the bible was used as a mechanism (IMO, a man-made tool) to codify some of that. If you look at his argument, he's acknowledging that the content of the bible was contextual to address the times. Thus it supports your root thesis that the bible is a man-made artifact and not something devine. (I'm sure that wasn't his intent, but the substance of his post actually supports your context).

I am saying that calling Paj, specifically, as defending slavery is a dirty trick and weakens your credibility in the argument. Don't you think so?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

Who inspired the Code of Hammurabi before God gave the Jews the 10 Commandments, anyway?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[philh 0]

Well i cant speak for Pajs motivation. But if I critique child labour laws in Thailand and a representative of the Thai government immediatley rebutts me quoting me how well Thai child workers are treated in their factories I would think Im quite justified as considering that as a justification of such labour practices. Thats exactly what happened on previous posts. i criticsed the morality of the bible because it allows slavery and Paj rather agreeing in my condemnation gives us reasons why slavery wasnt so bad after all. Soudns like a defence to me.
Paj may have explained slavery as due to mans free will, but he doesnt explain why making graven images is prohibited by god but slavery is not.That speaks volumes in my opinion.

[Butters 0]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch