Support NeoGAF

JGS · Jul 13, 2010

Blergmeister said:
So since Gods moral code has not changed, and since you use Gods moral code, you are saying that slavery, as instituted in the Bible, is morally and ethicly fine and dandy in the eyes of God if re-instituted today?

I mean, I agree that society is structered differently today in that we put more of how we operate on our currency than before, but that doesn't change the ethics of slavery if Gods ethics are absolute right?

There is no way to classify all slavery as the same and the slavery practiced by the Deep South not only was cruel and unusual, it also was completely unneeded by the 19th century.

There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest God condoned and encouraged the beating, shipping, murder, & racism that was inherent in the American slave trade.

However, if I lived in BCE or even first century and I had some means, there is no reason to think I wouldn't own a slave a two. I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous for others to say they would be repulsed by the idea. Owning a slave and taking care of them by providing food, shelter, and the possibility of adoption was far from unethical treatment back then.

If God looked down and saw peole who owned slaves and took care of them, why would he smite owners and then leave the slaves themselves to suffer on their own? Would it have been better to kill them in battle? Is he supposed to give the land promised to his people? How would that have stopped other nations from having slaves?

It wasn't an ideal situation, but neither is poverty among the wealthy in our day. In context of the time, no slavery would have meant far more killings and far more suffering.

Now, it would never dawn on me to own a slave now because they are not needed and not a part of today's society. Any treatment of a slave in our day and age would be considered unethical and immoral by our standards because there are plenty of other opportunities- things that didn't exist in ancient times.

Slightly Live · Jul 13, 2010

JGS said:
God didn't change at all regarding slavery, mankind did. God basically said "If you're going to have slaves, then this is what you need to do..."

God's moral code does not change. Slavery was not an issue of morality for him or anyone else. Many are just trying to make it so.

You and others are getting mixed up when it comes to what is allowed and what is encouraged. God didn't encourage slavery and unless he ruled the world could not disallow it since that's what the world wanted.

In ancient times, the planet as a whole did not care about slavery being moral or immoral as it was a normal way of life.

Now the planet as a whole wants to get paid for their work. They want criminals to be in prison rather than slaves. They want to be able to file bankruptcy instead of slavery. Because of those options, it makes no sense to have slavery in place except for immoral purposes - greed, inhumane treatment, racism, etc...

I think you are trying to justify the lack of condoning slavery from God as some kind of retroactive apologist.

Now the planet as a whole wants to get paid for their work? Was there ever really a time where humans didn't value their own efforts and work and wanted to reap the rewards of such efforts?

Your excuses (they aren't explanations, you are simply attempting to excuse the practice) ring hollow. Ancient civilisations did have alternatives to slavery (how else could you explain civilisations that did not practice it?). Greed, inhumane treatment and racism have been at the heart of slavery since the concept itself was first practiced, and no amount of romanticing slavery can ignore it.

In parts of the world slavery is still ongoing and I'm pretty sure that the countries, communities and people that practice it want it to continue. If the majority of people in these areas want to keep slavery as the status quo, are you telling me you would condone this? If not, then why? If you remove racism, greed and treat people "humanely" I don't see why you wouldn't condone it.

The truth of the matter, the bible, both Old and New Testaments, does not have a single passage with God speaking out against slavery is simply because those that have written it simply didn't see slavery as important.

It's also helps with the explanation that the bible is the product of man and not God. Only man would consider cheating on a spouse as being "bad" whilst owning slaves is either good nor bad.

It saddens me to see Christian apologists attempt to defend any form of slavery.

JGS said:
However, if I lived in BCE or even first century and I had some means, there is no reason to think I wouldn't own a slave a two. I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous for others to say they would be repulsed by the idea. Owning a slave and taking care of them by providing food, shelter, and the possibility of adoption was far from unethical treatment back then.

Just wow. Not only do you attempt to defend slavery but you espouse it's benefits? Sick.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Mumei said:
No, I am not getting confused about the difference between "allowed" and "encouraged."

Sure does seem like it, but i apologize for misreading.

Mumei said:
Many Christians make the claim that morality has a supernatural origin, that it is derived from God. This morality is claimed to be not merely a subjective morality, but one that is objective and unchanging. God allows slavery and details how the institution might be ethically run; according to God's morality, slavery is acceptable and moral.

I never made the claim that morality is supernatural so I can't argue that point.

I also think I made it clear that slavery was not an issue of morality any more than roads and minimum wage are issue of morality in our day.

Mumei said:
So, I have to repeat my question: On what basis do you decide that slavery is immoral now? Your explanation which you already gave was that today there are other options besides slavery, which meant that the only reason left to have slavery would be "greed, inhumane treatment, racism, etc." I had a few problems with that explanation that I'm hoping you'll address:

I answered these already but I guess I will answer again.

Slavery's morality was always on the basis of their treatment which could have been based on motive/prejudice. Since there is no treatment of a slave that is acceptable in our day (Including fantastic treatment akin to being a part of the family), in contrast to ancient times, that is the reason for it's immorality. However, that's not connected to God in any event. Men decided to maintain slaves and they decided to end the practice. Neither of those have changed one iota the morality of the Bible or God.

Mumei said:
First, on what basis do you think that the motivation for slavery in ancient times wasn't also greed? On what basis do you think that slavery in ancient times didn't involve inhumane treatment? If those two things are immoral purposes which make slavery wrong, then why would God allow slavery in the first place? Second, if God is omniscient,
wouldn't he know that greed was a motivator for slavery? Wouldn't he know that inhumane treatment would result from slavery? If God did not believe that greed or inhumane treatment made slavery immoral, why do you believe greed or inhumane treatment make slavery immoral?

Thanks.

First, there were any number of basis for slavery which is again why how they were treated was the paramount issue, not whether there were slaves.

Further, slavery was not the only thing used for immoral/greedy/selfish purposes. Would that mean God should condemn all practices used for immoral purposes? If someone rapes a woman should he ban sex?

For your second point. God knows that men are a bunch of screw-ups. He's known that for ages. I'm not even remotely omniscient and I know that. They have bad motives for everything. But again, why is God responsible for their motives unless you want your entire lives controlled by him?

Look at it from an either...or proposition. Either you accept all of what God says or you don't and face the consequences.

What he said is that if you have slaves, you can't treat them immorally. Ownership in and of itself was not an immoral act.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Dani said:
Just wow. Not only do you attempt to defend slavery but you espouse it's benefits? Sick.

Yawn

I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous for others to say they would be repulsed by the idea.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

astroturfing said:
what about the not so ancient times, African slaves in America? it's not a long time ago.

how did Christian people in the USA justify slavery then? did they perhaps look in the Bible and see that it's not a huge issue for God if there's some slaves around? i think they did exactly that.

This is what I said in another post:

me said:
There is no way to classify all slavery as the same and the slavery practiced by the Deep South not only was cruel and unusual, it also was completely unneeded by the 19th century.

There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest God condoned and encouraged the beating, shipping, murder, & racism that was inherent in the American slave trade.

People can use the Bible to justify anything. That doesn't mean it's accurate to do so.

They could have seen in the Bible that slavery wasn't that big of a deal (After all, it wasn't), but they would not have seen anywhere in the Bible the method they dealt with them.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Mgoblue201 said:
Except most suffering has nothing to do with choice. It is never proportionate to our actions. What kind of thing does a person do to have a hurricane destroy one's life? Why should randomness exist at all? These things only limit choice. In fact, if I am born with the wrong genes and live my life with a low IQ, how can I choose what I cannot understand? Christianity's dogma is at odds with itself. It espouses free will, yet the very fact of "evil" limits free will. And as I was arguing earlier, no one really chooses to sin. If we commit our first sins before we are fully cognizant of our actions, then how can we be culpable?

What does this have to do with what I'm talking about?

But what the heck...The only thing I can think a person does is that they live in a plce prone to hurricanes.
No one said that our entire life is about choices from Biblical knowledge. After all, many flat out refuse to touch the thing much less read it.

Further, the Bible does not concern itself with the little things in our life that we think are big except for how to deal with it. Our lives are about many choices and unforseen occurrences.

The Bible is concerned primarily with only one choice. If you never knew the choice to begin with out of ignorance (But not stupidity), then whose to say God will hold that against you. Slaves in Israel were educated so a slave there was far from ignorant or stupid.

Mgoblue201 said:
It's almost comically deplorable that you defend the idea of choice yet excuse slavery.

No one is condoning slavery and only an idiot would think I was doing so.

I am merely pointing out something that even a second grader should know. Slavery existed throughout history including Bible times. It was the norm way before Bible times. Deal with it. get over it. Try not to enslave anyone now.

My ancestors were probably owned by other gaffer's ancestor's. Should I be bent out of shape over that now?

Mgoblue201 said:
I'm still waiting for the reply to this post.

Please tell me you're joking.

Dude Abides · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
No one is condoning slavery and only an idiot would think I was doing so.

Yes you are. You're arguing there's nothing inherently immoral about it.

I am merely pointing out something that even a second grader should know. Slavery existed throughout history including Bible times. It was the norm way before Bible times.

Comments like this make me think you're just trolling. Nobody disputes it was the norm in "Bible times." The argument is about whether it was moral in Bible times. Some people think the concept of owning another person is inherently wrong no matter if the culture of the time finds it acceptable. Apparently God is not among those people. He goes with the flow. Pretty laid-back and chill of him, I have to admit.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Dude Abides said:
Yes you are. You're arguing there's nothing inherently immoral about it.

Again, only an idiot would think that is the same thing.

soul creator · Jul 14, 2010

I think I've seen it all now: A Christian whose belief is somehow reinforced by moral relativity

No one disagrees with the statement "slavery has been a part of humanity since early times". We understand that. We're just wondering how that meshes with "A loving god who is the only reason why objective morality exists, and has ability to prevent things like that, or at least clarify it is a bad thing, pretty much didn't do anything about it, and just went along with it".

Now, I think JGS may have mentioned that he doesn't think morality "comes from god", but plenty of other Christians (I think this discussion started with Metaphoreus) do in fact believe this, and that's what most of this discussion is an actual response to. So, JGS once again disagrees with a number of other Christians. Fine.

It's been asked a million times, what neutral methodology do we use to determine that JGS' version of Christianity and Morality is correct, and Metaphoreus' is wrong?

Dude Abides · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
Again, only an idiot would think that is the same thing.

If by idiot you mean "someone who understands plain English," then yes.

Slightly Live · Jul 14, 2010

Dude Abides said:
If by idiot you mean "someone who understands plain English," then yes.

He's not going to say slavery is immoral because the bible doesn't say it. He obviously derives his morality from the bible so slavery is acceptable to him under certain conditions. Conditions not present now but were present in biblical times up until an unspecified arbitrary time.

Funny thing, in these modern times, if a vast majority of people decided to reintroduce slavery and it became, once again, the status quo, then, as JGS proves, there are folks out there that would argue it's morally acceptable or neutral.

The fact is many religions either ignore or give passive acceptance to slavery.

Mgoblue201 · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
What does this have to do with what I'm talking about?

But what the heck...The only thing I can think a person does is that they live in a plce prone to hurricanes.
No one said that our entire life is about choices from Biblical knowledge. After all, many flat out refuse to touch the thing much less read it.

Further, the Bible does not concern itself with the little things in our life that we think are big except for how to deal with it. Our lives are about many choices and unforseen occurrences.

The Bible is concerned primarily with only one choice. If you never knew the choice to begin with out of ignorance (But not stupidity), then whose to say God will hold that against you. Slaves in Israel were educated so a slave there was far from ignorant or stupid.

It's not that hard to see the point. You argued that god, by inteferring, would eradicate choice. But god, by doing nothing or allowing certain events to occur, allows choice to be eradicated. I already know what a Christian is going to say, however, because it's always the same defense mechanism: god eventually corrects all injustices, or they simply don't matter. Which is bullshit because it doesn't answer the fundamental question of why god would allow such things to begin with. God, in all of his infinite wisdom, could easily create a world in which everybody gets the exact same equal choice. Instead, he sends a message that if I'm born with an IQ of 70, I get a free pass to heaven? You are trying to square a fundamentally unjust event, with the idea that the consequences of our actions matter, with the idea that injustice is eventually corrected. But that is impossible. If we have to live with the consequences of injustice, then god cannot simultaneously obviate that injustice and render it inert. It would be obviating the consequences. The obvious answer is that there is no god who judges us, so things just happen, and there are no eternal consequences. That is logically consistent with the facts that events seem to be random and unfair. How do you know that you are not simply trying to somehow contrive some explanation for why god still exists in a world that seems so capricious and antithetical to choices and belief?

No one is condoning slavery and only an idiot would think I was doing so.

I am merely pointing out something that even a second grader should know. Slavery existed throughout history including Bible times. It was the norm way before Bible times. Deal with it. get over it. Try not to enslave anyone now.

My ancestors were probably owned by other gaffer's ancestor's. Should I be bent out of shape over that now?

But you are trying to excuse the act of slavery with the existence of god, which leads you to water down your own standards of morality and belief. You have no problem believing in a god who outright judges entire nations, who punished David for a single sin, who killed Achan and destroyed everything he ever owned or cared about for disobedience, yet you'll excuse a god who passively allows slavery. You'll make subversive excuses for it. "Well, it's better than being dead." Yes, slavery did happen, and that's the exact problem here.

Please tell me you're joking.

It's completely relevant to the discussion. I am not going to make all my arguments again. If you want to bring an old discussion up, then pick up where it was left off.

Slightly Live · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
What he said is that if you have slaves, you can't treat them immorally. Ownership in and of itself was not an immoral act.

I decided to see if what you are saying bears any fruit. The bible doesn't endorse slavery, fair enough. You say that the bible simply instructs people how to treat slaves. Well, I decided to have a look at this and see exactly what the bible says about slaves treatment.

I believe what the bible states about the treatment of slaves is an endorsement. A sick endorsement that starts in the Old Testament and continues with Jesus in the new testament.

Ephesians 6:9 said:
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Do not threaten slaves. Sounds simple enough and I guess this could be considered "positive".

Colossians 4:1 said:
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Again this seems to be fairly positive. Provide for them fairly and what is right. I won't argue about relative issues about right and fairness and assume this passage is endorsing positive treatment.

Leviticus 25:44-46 said:
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.

So all foreigners, native and not, are game for the slave trade, children too.

Exodus 21:2-6 said:
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

So, marrying off your slaves and ensuring they have children is a good way to ensure your slaves will never gain freedom and become your slave under God. I like how it recommends holding the wife and children hostage. Fuck.

Exodus 21:7-11 said:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Sex slavery? Interesting endorsement for a holy book. And men can have as many sex slaves as he wants as long he continues to please his wife and each of the slaves and provide for them? Fuck.

Exodus 21:20-21 said:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Sexual equality for beating slaves? So not only does it clearly state you can beat up a female slave as equally as a male slave but if you kill them while beating them, it's absolutely fine fine if they don't die straight away.

Additionally, it states that slaves are property first and foremost. I assume this would mean they are human beings second then. Fuck.

Ephesians 6:5 said:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

The biblical treatment of slaves continues with Christ. Also, slaves should have a healthy dose of both respect AND fear for their masters. Fuck.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 said:
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Slaves should show full respect to their masters otherwise they are shaming God. Great.

Luke 12:47-48 said:
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

Jesus speaking about how slaves should be punished for refusing their masters. And also endorses punishing slaves that didn't even realise they were disobeying their masters. Fuck.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Mgoblue201 said:
It's not that hard to see the point. You argued that god, by inteferring, would eradicate choice. But god, by doing nothing or allowing certain events to occur, allows choice to be eradicated. I already know what a Christian is going to say, however, because it's always the same defense mechanism: god eventually corrects all injustices, or they simply don't matter. Which is bullshit because it doesn't answer the fundamental question of why god would allow such things to begin with. God, in all of his infinite wisdom, could easily create a world in which everybody gets the exact same equal choice. Instead, he sends a message that if I'm born with an IQ of 70, I get a free pass to heaven? You are trying to square a fundamentally unjust event, with the idea that the consequences of our actions matter, with the idea that injustice is eventually corrected. But that is impossible. If we have to live with the consequences of injustice, then god cannot simultaneously obviate that injustice and render it inert. It would be obviating the consequences. The obvious answer is that there is no god who judges us, so things just happen, and there are no eternal consequences. That is logically consistent with the facts that events seem to be random and unfair. How do you know that you are not simply trying to somehow contrive some explanation for why god still exists in a world that seems so capricious and antithetical to choices and belief?

Cliff Notes version:

You obviously don't know what I'm going to say. But if you think so, then just go ahead and make essays instead of discussing a topic. It would save you time.

The biggest flaw of this thread and it's debaters is the idea of an answer being yes or no or black and white. They claim to use logic but then fail to use logic in their response except when to tell me I'm not using it.

Case in point, God interferes with people all the time in the Bible and we have had numerous discussions in this very thread about the idea that people are helped by God or at least think they are. That is not the same thing as controlling peoples lives.

Badness does not eradicate choice. A person who is a free man is more than simply that. A person who is a slave is more than just that. They both still have addtional choices in their lives to make.

Who said slavery wasn't unjust? I believe I repeatedly said that it just is - just or unjust it existed and did so because of humans. I have repeatedly said that it was the lesser of two evils- the other being death.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear why slavery is considered immoral except on the grounds of why it is immoral now. Some of you seem to think that the only slavery that existed was in the Bible & Deep South which is also silly.

Things do just happen. I think I've mentioned that scores of times too. If you don't believe God is judging you then he's not. If you think ALL slavery for ALL time was pure evil incarnate as you reflect on it with your 21st century brain, then more power to you. God and the Bible are not for people who don't believe in it so live your own life.

Mgoblue201 said:
But you are trying to excuse the act of slavery with the existence of god, which leads you to water down your own standards of morality and belief. You have no problem believing in a god who outright judges entire nations, who punished David for a single sin, who killed Achan and destroyed everything he ever owned or cared about for disobedience, yet you'll excuse a god who passively allows slavery. You'll make subversive excuses for it. "Well, it's better than being dead." Yes, slavery did happen, and that's the exact problem here.

It's completely relevant to the discussion. I am not going to make all my arguments again. If you want to bring an old discussion up, then pick up where it was left off.

No one is excusing slavery- just acknowledging it's existence and the facts from the Bible that God did not view it as a moral issue. Good Lord (err...Good Nothing) you would think atheists around the planet would be happy with this as it confirms they made the right choice to be mad at a God they don't believe exists.

I have no problems believing in a God anymore than I believe that Hitler or Benjamin Franklin or Einstein existed. Just because you don't agree with particular actions does not dissolve the existence.

i have no problem with a God that judges nations because I don't see it as out of the ordinary with what we do and see everyday. You're judging me although I haven't hurt a fly. But just to keep this on a rightous idignation tone- He was right.

The nations in question were judged because they wouldn't give up the land promisied to his people. People who surrendered didn't die. Sounds fair to me.

David did not commit a single sin unless there is a single crime of lying, adultery, & murder that I'm not aware of.

Achan was a thief that knew the ramifications of his actions (Which affected the whole nation) or else he would have hid them. Duh...

Your examples are horrible unless you think that people without God should not have the right to judge people for crimes either which would make you an anarchist.

The arguments you made 2 months ago were covered already and just like now, you like repeating yourself. I had no interest then repeati8ng myself and I have no interest bringing up something old that you brought up with a link no less asking for a reply on. Trust me, I'll let that sleeping mangy dog lie.

Slightly Live · Jul 14, 2010

JGS, could you point out the differences in slavery from biblical times and modern slavery? I have a hard time understanding why you think there are differences and why it was acceptable then but not now.

astroturfing · Jul 14, 2010

wow, those passages from the Bible are pretty shocking. i didnt realize even Jesus spoke so acceptingly about slavery.. some strange word of God that book seems to be. completely fucked up if you ask me.

jdogmoney · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
No one is excusing slavery- just acknowledging it's existence and the facts from the Bible that God did not view it as a moral issue. Good Lord (err...Good Nothing) you would think atheists around the planet would be happy with this as it confirms they made the right choice to be mad at a God they don't believe exists.

In no particular order:

1. God did not view it as a moral issue, but it's clearly a moral issue.

2. One doesn't choose to be angry.

3. Atheists aren't mad at God.

4. You're kind of excusing slavery.

5. its

6. Atheists don't make a deity out of nothingness. Atheists don't need a deity at all.

J-Rod · Jul 14, 2010

Dani said:
JGS, could you point out the differences in slavery from biblical times and modern slavery? I have a hard time understanding why you think there are differences and why it was acceptable then but not now.

The bond-service and indentured servitude of Biblical times was rough, but it wasn't race-based, life-long, chattel slavery established through kidnapping like recent times. Deuteronomy 24:7, I Timothy 1:9-11

Slightly Live · Jul 14, 2010

J-Rod said:
The bond-service and indentured servitude of Biblical times was rough, but it wasn't race-based, life-long, chattel slavery established through kidnapping like recent times. Deuteronomy 24:7, I Timothy 1:9-11

Actually, modern slavery as it exists today has more in common with biblical slavery than you may think. Debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, adoption in which children are effectively forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage are the primary methods employed in these times and as you can see it has little to do with race.

The main difference is that prisoners of war are not today put into slavery - considering the inter-racial wars that occurred in biblical times, I would argue that biblical slavery was much more racially focused than it's modern counterpart.

Dude Abides · Jul 14, 2010

Dani said:
He's not going to say slavery is immoral because the bible doesn't say it. He obviously derives his morality from the bible so slavery is acceptable to him under certain conditions. Conditions not present now but were present in biblical times up until an unspecified arbitrary time.

Oh I know. It's just interesting watching a Biblical literalist appealing to moral relativism on God's behalf and unsuccessfully struggling to square it with the notion of God as an unchanging source of moral truth. He finally straight-up admitted that it's not immoral for one human being to own another as a piece of property. If that doesn't show that the moral frivolity of strict Biblical literalism I don't know what does.

Mgoblue201 · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
Badness does not eradicate choice.

I'm not talking about slavery here. The only time I mentioned slavery within the context of choice is one throwaway barb two posts ago that wasn't even intended to be an argument. It all boils down to this one line, but it's completely unsupported. If someone dies, either through the actions of an individual or a random occurrence, then how does that not eradicate choice? Every single choice that a person could make from that point forward is gone. And how is in the hell is god possibly controlling people by ending genetic diseases that actually affect a person's intelligence and take away a person's ability to choose? Why is it more problematic that god stops something from controlling someone's life and giving them more freedom of choice?

No one is excusing slavery- just acknowledging it's existence and the facts from the Bible that God did not view it as a moral issue. Good Lord (err...Good Nothing) you would think atheists around the planet would be happy with this as it confirms they made the right choice to be mad at a God they don't believe exists.

I have no problems believing in a God anymore than I believe that Hitler or Benjamin Franklin or Einstein existed. Just because you don't agree with particular actions does not dissolve the existence.

i have no problem with a God that judges nations because I don't see it as out of the ordinary with what we do and see everyday. You're judging me although I haven't hurt a fly. But just to keep this on a rightous idignation tone- He was right.

The nations in question were judged because they wouldn't give up the land promisied to his people. People who surrendered didn't die. Sounds fair to me.

David did not commit a single sin unless there is a single crime of lying, adultery, & murder that I'm not aware of.

Achan was a thief that knew the ramifications of his actions (Which affected the whole nation) or else he would have hid them. Duh...

Your examples are horrible unless you think that people without God should not have the right to judge people for crimes either which would make you an anarchist.

The post above yours does seem to indicate that it is a moral issue. It's a question of fundamental human rights, since the Bible clearly endorses enslaving other people and turning them into property.

The arguments you made 2 months ago were covered already and just like now, you like repeating yourself. I had no interest then repeati8ng myself and I have no interest bringing up something old that you brought up with a link no less asking for a reply on. Trust me, I'll let that sleeping mangy dog lie.

I was the last one to post in that thread. I would appreciate it if you could point me to the place where those specific questions - the ones about hell - were addressed.

Mumei · Jul 14, 2010

Meus Renaissance said:
Yes. Then is it even worth distinguishing these wars when they're fought for the same reasons and people are motivated using a passionate subject? It's religion there, it's race over there, love, nationality, ethnicity etc. Take your pic. However the religious factor seems to warrant more of intrigue for people to be suspicious of when those other listed factors are predominantly tearing social fabrics in many countries. How many discussions do you see on the net about the problem of 'nationalism' or 'racism' when it comes to war compared to religion's history of warfare

I think it's as relevant to point out religious differences as a contributing cause for a particular conflict as it would be to point out racial or ethnic differences as a contributing cause for some other (or possibly even the same) conflict.

As for why religious motivations receive more suspicion than other motivations for going to war, I can only speculate. Probably because these debates about the causes of war are usually between atheists and theists, so the debate becomes centered around religious / nonreligious reasons for going to war.

JGS said:
I never made the claim that morality is supernatural so I can't argue that point.

I also think I made it clear that slavery was not an issue of morality any more than roads and minimum wage are issue of morality in our day.

When I say that many Christians believe that morality has a supernatural origin, I mean that they believe that morality is derived from God. God is commonly defined as being beyond nature - supernatural, as it were. That's what I mean by a supernatural origin for morality.

Perhaps you don't believe that morality comes from God, though?

As far as your answer goes, I think that other posters (Dani's posts, especially, I thought were good) have identified some of the problems with it while I've been away, so I won't belabor their points.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Mgoblue201 said:
I'm not talking about slavery here. The only time I mentioned slavery within the context of choice is one throwaway barb two posts ago that wasn't even intended to be an argument. It all boils down to this one line, but it's completely unsupported. If someone dies, either through the actions of an individual or a random occurrence, then how does that not eradicate choice? Every single choice that a person could make from that point forward is gone. And how is in the hell is god possibly controlling people by ending genetic diseases that actually affect a person's intelligence and take away a person's ability to choose? Why is it more problematic that god stops something from controlling someone's life and giving them more freedom of choice?

So you are saying that that we have no choice unless we live forever?

I agree that choices end at death. However, keep in mind that many choices prior to death may have lead to the premature one. For example, most hurricanes occur in places prone to them. So it would stand to reason that your risks for death goes up dramatically in those places. It's true that some people can't choose where they live or afford to leave, but again that and a million other situations in life are not God's responsibility to fix.

I've ansered the bolded question a few times already. You cannot ask God to stop/heal/prevent a naturally occurring imperfection but then be upset with him for also allowing people who are not ill complete and absolute freedom to do whatever they want...until they get sick with some horrible disease.

Maybe choice is the wrong word & I'll think up another way to look at it, but it still will never equate to God being responsible for bad stuff happening.

Mgoblue201 said:
The post above yours does seem to indicate that it is a moral issue. It's a question of fundamental human rights, since the Bible clearly endorses enslaving other people and turning them into property.

It's a human rights issue now. Slavery was not a human rights issue then. It may have been a class structure or economic issue for sure, but only their treatment was a human rights issue from God's viewpoint. The post from the guy with all the Bible verses backs that point up.

Mgoblue201 said:
I was the last one to post in that thread. I would appreciate it if you could point me to the place where those specific questions - the ones about hell - were addressed.

I said they were answered before that. If you couldn't figure out my views on Hell, then you weren't looking especially since I was getting it from both sides. Iirc, you were trying to convince me that Hell is a Biblical teaching in order to prove how bad God was, but it may have been someone else.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Mumei said:
When I say that many Christians believe that morality has a supernatural origin, I mean that they believe that morality is derived from God. God is commonly defined as being beyond nature - supernatural, as it were. That's what I mean by a supernatural origin for morality.

Perhaps you don't believe that morality comes from God, though?

As far as your answer goes, I think that other posters (Dani's posts, especially, I thought were good) have identified some of the problems with it while I've been away, so I won't belabor their points.

I do believe morality comes from God, but there's nothing supernatural about it. It's simply a code and it's one that makes sense that we would have had a tough time coming up with on our own. It isn't designed to address all things.

For example, God knew that addictive drugs existed (even in Bible times), but the code doesn't specifically address them.

Likewise, God knew slavery existed and that men were predisposed to it (Actually they still are, they just pay you to do work you don't want to do) and set up rules that took care of them in some form or another.

Kinitari · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
I do believe morality comes from God, but there's nothing supernatural about it. It's simply a code and it's one that makes sense that we would have had a tough time coming up with on our own. It isn't designed to address all things.

For example, God knew that addictive drugs existed (even in Bible times), but the code doesn't specifically address them.

Likewise, God knew slavery existed and that men were predisposed to it (Actually they still are, they just pay you to do work you don't want to do) and set up rules that took care of them in some form or another.

Your implication is that before the word of God was spread, that humans had no morality?

Here let me ask you this, do you think the people from 3,500 years ago with their little villages and rules for the villages, do you think they thought they were moral or immoral? Even if some of their actions don't gel with what you believe to be moral, would it be possible that they had a different standard of morality?

On the same token, in 1,000 years wouldn't it be possible that the standards of morality could change drastically, and people would look back at you and call you immoral, even claiming that in your ignorance of the true meaning of God's written word, you sinned left right and centre?

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

jdogmoney said:
In no particular order:

1. God did not view it as a moral issue, but it's clearly a moral issue.

2. One doesn't choose to be angry.

3. Atheists aren't mad at God.

4. You're kind of excusing slavery.

5. its

6. Atheists don't make a deity out of nothingness. Atheists don't need a deity at all.

1. It's not clearly a moral issue or people for thousands of years would have been viewing it as such. It is relative to time and it is progressive which means were all kinds of reasons for existence in the past but there are none now.

2. Sure they do

3. I know they've told me that. They're writings indicate otherwise.

4. You can't excuse something that happened over a long period of time. It's like excusing the Rocky Mountains or WWII. They existed. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.

5. ??

6. Of course atheists don't need dieties. However, they also don't have the right or inteligence to tell religious folk that they don't need a deity.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Dani said:
I decided to see if what you are saying bears any fruit. The bible doesn't endorse slavery, fair enough. You say that the bible simply instructs people how to treat slaves. Well, I decided to have a look at this and see exactly what the bible says about slaves treatment.

I believe what the bible states about the treatment of slaves is an endorsement. A sick endorsement that starts in the Old Testament and continues with Jesus in the new testament.

None of the verses contradict what I say, you're just explaining your reaction to them. But let's have a go of it, but I'll leave out the "positive" ones for the most part. I'll bold too since some focus on my more inflammatory setups (Unintentional but they get you guys stirred up)

Dani said:
Do not threaten slaves. Sounds simple enough and I guess this could be considered "positive".

The intersting thing about Ephesions 5 & 6 is how it explains all human interactions at that time and how they bundle them up into one simple premise. If you worship God, you're a slave. So don't think yourself superior. You all are under Jesus as head of the church/congregation even if you have particular postions of authority over others. Therefore, don't get a big head about it.

Symbolically, slavery has been used figuratively and literally for two purposes - humility & deliverance. Ephesians covers both of those- Colossians too for that matter. All of them indicate that even if you have a slave, you will treat them as you do yourself. There should have been no difference in how slaves were treated than an employer treats employees now. There are different grades of how sucky some bosses are, but all of them will work under the same framework of labor laws.

Those verse are the framework for a master/slave relationship. I find it odd that you would quote scriptures out of that context, but to each his own.

Dani said:
So all foreigners, native and not, are game for the slave trade, children too.

Yup, and...?

That would be the definition of slavery. God's primary interest was on his people so he set up different legal standards. Israellites could never be permanent slaves (Except for something coming up later) because there was land to be dealt out. Foreign slaves never had a land inheritance. However, a provision in the Law gave them the ability to acquire it.

Dani said:
So, marrying off your slaves and ensuring they have children is a good way to ensure your slaves will never gain freedom and become your slave under God. I like how it recommends holding the wife and children hostage. Fuck.

I'm starting to think that people don't know what slavery is. It's owenership. Anything produced by something owned belongs to the owner. If you get rid of the owned thing (in this case a slave), that doesn't mean they keep everything else they produced.

The solution would be to marry before or after you're a slave.

Dani said:
Sex slavery? Interesting endorsement for a holy book. And men can have as many sex slaves as he wants as long he continues to please his wife and each of the slaves and provide for them? Fuck.

Uhh, marriage is sex slavery? OK. The rest of your bolded does not indicate sex slavery, it indicates whether she's a good slave.

This rule was put in place for the girl's protection, not the Master's. If you want a more detailed history lesson why, I'll provide one, but otherwise I'll assume you remain disgusted by marriage practices of the day.

Dani said:
Sexual equality for beating slaves? So not only does it clearly state you can beat up a female slave as equally as a male slave but if you kill them while beating them, it's absolutely fine fine if they don't die straight away.

Context. If you had read the entire chapter you would have seen that any type of severe beating would have resulted in freedom for the slave. Since the slave is property, the Master could hit him to act right, just like parents used to (still do) hit their kids to act right.

In addition, the punishment was the same if they killed a slave as a freeman.

Dani said:
Additionally, it states that slaves are property first and foremost. I assume this would mean they are human beings second then. Fuck.

This is true. This would be the definition of slavery. People as property.

Dani said:
Slaves should show full respect to their masters otherwise they are shaming God. Great.

Christian slaves are to act as Christians. There aren't too many Christians in the first century that revolt, riot, and refuse to accept what they are. Few people know the careers of the most famous people in the Bible because in the end it wasn't relevant. The primary goal of a Christian was to be an example to be followed. So Masters were to act like Jesus & slaves were to act like Jesus.

Since slavery wasn't illegal or improper at the time, then why would a Christian slave go against the law just because he wasn't happy with being a slave?

Dani said:
Jesus speaking about how slaves should be punished for refusing their masters. And also endorses punishing slaves that didn't even realise they were disobeying their masters. Fuck.

I already commented on this with Exodus.

However, again, Jesus is linking being a Christian with being a slave that does the will of his master well. Further the beatings were linked to the fact that the slave was beating others. Jewish Law is full of equivalent punishments- the whole eye for an eye thing.

Again, all these quotes show is what I've been saying all along - slavery wasn't a moral issue but their treatment was. The only difference is you don't like the treatment of them on the basis of their position in life. In other words, they are slaves, therefore they are treated wrong. This is not the case.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Dani said:
JGS, could you point out the differences in slavery from biblical times and modern slavery? I have a hard time understanding why you think there are differences and why it was acceptable then but not now.

It depends on the culture. In some instances there may not be any differences. However, from an American slavery standpoint the differences between it and Israel. Christians are huge and they're all tied to cruelty and evil intent which I don't believe occurred in Israel. I know we will disagree on that.

Slavery in Bible times (Which spans thousands of years) was more accepted, encompassing the majority of civilizations. I don't even get how people can disagree with that. I really don't. I get the whole slavery is immoral/moral thing, but the idea that slavery were virtually non-existent until God's people came on the scene is silly and contradicts what a bunch of supposed rational minds should be admitting to.

Some civilizations treated their slaves cruelly, others, like the Israellites, did not.

The US was one of a few nations left practicing slavery. They fought hard to hold onto the practice and many died trying to keep it in place. There is no record of Christians or Jews being that gung-ho about slavery or about it being based on race. Well, with the Israellites I guess it's always about race since they were a chosen people, but they essentialy treated Jewish slaves and foreign slaves the same.

The US beat, maimed, raped, shipped slaves on the basis of racial superiority and economic prosperity even though the rest of the world and a good chunk of the US had switched to a paid labor economy. They kept the slave institution around because they wanted to, not because of a perceived need (right or wrong) like in ancient times.

Jews in particular were slaves on a few occasions, so they understood what it meant to be a slave and even then they did not view it as a moral issue except on the basis of whether it would affect their worship. Christians were supposed to have the mind of Christ which prohibited them from acting cruelly.

Since Christians in particular were supposed to pay Caesar's things to Caesar, then a Christian would be the first to obey a law that abolished slavery even if they were the best masters in the world to have.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Dude Abides said:
If by idiot you mean "someone who understands plain English," then yes.

You should learn English ASAP.

Dani said:
He's not going to say slavery is immoral because the bible doesn't say it. He obviously derives his morality from the bible so slavery is acceptable to him under certain conditions. Conditions not present now but were present in biblical times up until an unspecified arbitrary time.

Funny thing, in these modern times, if a vast majority of people decided to reintroduce slavery and it became, once again, the status quo, then, as JGS proves, there are folks out there that would argue it's morally acceptable or neutral.

The fact is many religions either ignore or give passive acceptance to slavery

I was trying to figure out whether to reply to this one since I was replying in reverse, but there are many instances where I explain my stand on slavery which makes this posts pretty irresponsible and also explains the wall of verses you put up that did nothing but show that you are too emotional attached to see a known reality. You don't read or listen just bark. You deduced my stand before you understood it. That is typical on this thread. Let me see if I can dumb this down further:

- I derive morality from many places.
- The primary one is religious.
- The Bible does not address the morality of slavery.
- You do, but you don't have the ability or the right to add morality laws to the Bible. Yu just need to write up your own.

However, you will have to show me where I am looking forward to slavery in our day and age or that I change my views on a whim which obviously I don't or I would have revised history along with the rest of you a long time ago.

Seriously though, I'll give you five bucks if you can find me wanting to start up a new plantation.

But thanks Professor X for reading my thoughts and motives on the topic.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

soul creator said:
I'm guessing this is the disconnect. To me, the act of "creating" something does in fact mean you have full responsibility for it, especially if the creator is the all powerful source of all things, or whatever. With human beings, sure, there are all sorts of unforeseen things we can't ever fully account for. But you don't have that problem with a god. That's why he's god!

That's why God doesn't have any problems!

Your viewpoint does not match up with anything from a biological context I can think of. Even manufacturers have a limitation on their products, but God is supposed to provide a lifetime one when his creation actively tries to not do his wil? I can't follow that reasoning no matter how powerful God is. This isn't an issue of whether he can take responsibility, it's whether he should. I say no. I'll refrain from from parent/child analogies.

soul creator said:
Actually, I can't do "what I like", because I'm limited physically by the constraints of my human brain, and human body parts. I would like to fly around the world by flapping my arms, but I can't, because I wasn't "created" that way. So, if God was sooo concerned about sin and bad things, the most straightforward way to avoid that was just make us physically incapable of it (just like how we're physically incapable of millions of things). He created humanity after all (or so the story goes)

This is nit-picky, but I apologize for not making it clear that we can do what we like within our frail himan limitation.

If God was so concerned about sin and bad things, he should have just wiped us out and started over.

soul creator said:
Yes, when Microsoft offers a replacement warranty for 360's with the 3 red lights, it was undeserved kindness, not a defective creation.

This is what tells me people around here are really just looking for snappy retorts.

You should have read quite clearly responsibility requires agreement. God does not accept the responsibility for our dumb actions. A better analogy would be to expect Microsoft to fix a PS3 controller that we through against the wall.

soul creator said:
So if god decreed one day that "there is now no such thing as child rape or earthquakes that destroy cities", that would be "eradicating choice"? And would make this into a world where everyone thinks the same?

Are we assigning evil intent to natural occurrences now?

From your child rape scenario, are you implying that God should stop sex or stop desire or stop other emotions? I'm confused on that one.

To answer your question, I'm saying it is not fair or rational to demand God to pick and choose what bad aspects of mankind you want deleted.

soul creator said:
As mentioned above, I think it does, in god's case. Humans don't have 100% control of every possible physical action that their kids are capable of, so no one expects 100% ability to prevent every bad thing that can happen. God, being super powerful and what not, does have that power. That's why he's god! Unless you're saying that God isn't actually God.

They don't need control of every possible action. They have more than enough control to get through their lives. The whole point of God is for us to rely on him since we can't do it all.

soul creator said:
It's like you're saying no one should ever criticize a US President for any military decisions, even though they are the commander-in-chief.

I din't even come close to saying that. Criticism is not the same thing and being coddled though which is what I get that you want.

You can criticize God as much as you want.

soul creator said:
So if he wants peace so badly, what's exactly the point of this whole "earth" thing? Why not just skip straight to the heaven part? Are you now saying that choice is eradicated in heaven and everyone thinks the same?

Who says that peace = heaven? lot of scriptures indicate peace will be on earth.

soul creator said:
So if God doesn't "control the earth". Who does? Us? We are now more powerful than god when it comes to earth? How could we be more powerful than god, unless god is essentially "handicapping" himself?

Scipture indicates that the earth is run by:

1. Satan, called the ruler of the world &
2. Humans who have a strong desire to rule themselves

Scripture also indicates this is not a permanent arrangement.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

Dude Abides said:
Oh I know. It's just interesting watching a Biblical literalist appealing to moral relativism on God's behalf and unsuccessfully struggling to square it with the notion of God as an unchanging source of moral truth. He finally straight-up admitted that it's not immoral for one human being to own another as a piece of property. If that doesn't show that the moral frivolity of strict Biblical literalism I don't know what does.

I thought I was done, I think I've seen it all when someone non-religious is saying that God's morality is the only one out there!:lol

Also, this whole issue started when I said it was not a Biblically moral issue so why you're making up that I'm dodging the issue when I started it (For kicks & giggles no less

) is beyond my non-logic using reasoning faculties.

So if you could enlighten me on that too it would be appreciated.

jdogmoney · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
Since slavery wasn't illegal or improper at the time, then why would a Christian slave go against the law just because he wasn't happy with being a slave?

I just wanted to point this line out; it might have been easy to miss.

JGS · Jul 14, 2010

jdogmoney said:
I just wanted to point this line out; it might have been easy to miss.

Noted.

What's wrong with it?

I thought I said more controversial stuff than that!:lol

Slightly Live · Jul 14, 2010

I will reply later but thanks for addressing the points I've raised, even if I disagree with your stance JGS.

soul creator · Jul 14, 2010

JGS said:
That's why God doesn't have any problems!

Your viewpoint does not match up with anything from a biological context I can think of. Even manufacturers have a limitation on their products, but God is supposed to provide a lifetime one when his creation actively tries to not do his wil? I can't follow that reasoning no matter how powerful God is. This isn't an issue of whether he can take responsibility, it's whether he should. I say no. I'll refrain from from parent/child analogies.

Don't tell God what he can't do!

Well of course, God doesn't have to do things like "make human beings incapable of genocide". The point is that, being the divine creator of all things, that would imply he has the ability to do so. If he has that ability, but doesn't, then for whatever reason, he prefers a world where genocide takes place. Your response seems to be that the only possible way to remove genocide is by denying human beings all choices, and making them some kind of robot. So, this whole "choice/free will" thing is more important to God apparently than preventing genocide. Which is fine. I just don't see how that's a point in God's favor :lol

Never mind the fact that when genocide occurs, it's pretty obvious that the victim's "free will" is being denied. But somehow, that never seems to factor into these discussions.

This is nit-picky, but I apologize for not making it clear that we can do what we like within our frail himan limitation.

Human limitations placed on us by God. Assuming you think God created us. I'm just wondering why it's apparently ok to prevent human beings the choice of "flying to the moon by flapping my arms", but it's not ok to prevent human beings from "committing genocide".

Once again, if we're assuming that God set up this world and everything in it, essentially nothing happens without his "permission".

If God was so concerned about sin and bad things, he should have just wiped us out and started over.

haha. Although I suppose that's pretty much what happened, if one accepts the biblical account of the flood. I'm guessing you don't, since you're not a "literalist" though.

This is what tells me people around here are really just looking for snappy retorts.

Snappy retorts are fun!

You should have read quite clearly responsibility requires agreement. God does not accept the responsibility for our dumb actions. A better analogy would be to expect Microsoft to fix a PS3 controller that we through against the wall.

Wait, did Microsoft manufacture the PS3 controller, and did Microsoft also knowingly create human beings with the propensity to throw controllers? That would make it a more accurate analogy.

Are we assigning evil intent to natural occurrences now?

But it's a natural world we live in is supposedly created by god. Maybe you're a Christian who doesn't think God knowingly created the universe and our planet?

From your child rape scenario, are you implying that God should stop sex or stop desire or stop other emotions? I'm confused on that one.

Is the only possibly way the all powerful creator of the universe can prevent child rape is to completely remove all instances of sex and emotions?

I think the larger point here that is throwing me off is that you're taking the world as it is now, and keep acting as if God is limited by it. Your God doesn't seem that godly all of a sudden.

You seem to be discussing this as if God had no hand in setting up the world, human beings, its "rules" and so on and so forth. Instead, God fiddled with things way back when, and then Planet Earth and human beings came about and did all those unforeseen surprising things that God just never saw coming. If so, then honestly, none of the points I've raised really apply to you. They just apply to those other millions of Christians who do think God can do whatever he wants and made everything

To answer your question, I'm saying it is not fair or rational to demand God to pick and choose what bad aspects of mankind you want deleted.

I would say that it's rational to think that if God actually thinks genocide is a "bad" thing, has the simple ability to keep it from happening, yet let's it happen anyway, then that means that genocide actually isn't tops on his list of priorities. Of course, it's certainly possible that God doesn't think genocide is a bad thing. If one believes the OT and the flood story, he committed it himself, after all.

They don't need control of every possible action. They have more than enough control to get through their lives. The whole point of God is for us to rely on him since we can't do it all.

I can't single-handedly stop genocide. The president of the United States, though not all powerful, can certainly influence far more things than I ever could to prevent some types of genocide. The Divine Creator of All Existence certainly could prevent it from even being on the list of possible human actions...if he wanted to.

I din't even come close to saying that. Criticism is not the same thing and being coddled though which is what I get that you want.

The creator modifying his own creation to not do a specific action = coddling? Never mind that you're once again taking the world now and acting as if God has to fit into that. When what most people have been taught is that God is the one who set things up in the first place.

Of course, maybe all those millions of Christians who believe that are wrong, and you actually have the correct version of God. As I always ask...how is this determined?

You can criticize God as much as you want.

Who says that peace = heaven? lot of scriptures indicate peace will be on earth.

So what's taking so long? Is God plotting his strategy? Getting the kinks worked out? Going through some test runs first?

And if peace will eventually be on Earth, than that means it's certainly possible for a planet Earth to exist that is 100% peaceful. So, the reason for not just making that world in the first place is...?

Scipture indicates that the earth is run by:

1. Satan, called the ruler of the world &
2. Humans who have a strong desire to rule themselves

Where do Satan and Human beings come from?

Scripture also indicates this is not a permanent arrangement.

alrighty

Saren is Bad · Jul 15, 2010

soul creator said:
Don't tell God what he can't do!

Well of course, God doesn't have to do things like "make human beings incapable of genocide". The point is that, being the divine creator of all things, that would imply he has the ability to do so. If he has that ability, but doesn't, then for whatever reason, he prefers a world where genocide takes place. Your response seems to be that the only possible way to remove genocide is by denying human beings all choices, and making them some kind of robot. So, this whole "choice/free will" thing is more important to God apparently than preventing genocide. Which is fine. I just don't see how that's a point in God's favor :lol

Never mind the fact that when genocide occurs, it's pretty obvious that the victim's "free will" is being denied. But somehow, that never seems to factor into these discussions.

Human limitations placed on us by God. Assuming you think God created us. I'm just wondering why it's apparently ok to prevent human beings the choice of "flying to the moon by flapping my arms", but it's not ok to prevent human beings from "committing genocide".

Once again, if we're assuming that God set up this world and everything in it, essentially nothing happens without his "permission".

haha. Although I suppose that's pretty much what happened, if one accepts the biblical account of the flood. I'm guessing you don't, since you're not a "literalist" though.

Snappy retorts are fun!

Wait, did Microsoft manufacture the PS3 controller, and did Microsoft also knowingly create human beings with the propensity to throw controllers? That would make it a more accurate analogy.

But it's a natural world we live in is supposedly created by god. Maybe you're a Christian who doesn't think God knowingly created the universe and our planet?

Is the only possibly way the all powerful creator of the universe can prevent child rape is to completely remove all instances of sex and emotions?

I think the larger point here that is throwing me off is that you're taking the world as it is now, and keep acting as if God is limited by it. Your God doesn't seem that godly all of a sudden.

You seem to be discussing this as if God had no hand in setting up the world, human beings, its "rules" and so on and so forth. Instead, God fiddled with things way back when, and then Planet Earth and human beings came about and did all those unforeseen surprising things that God just never saw coming. If so, then honestly, none of the points I've raised really apply to you. They just apply to those other millions of Christians who do think God can do whatever he wants and made everything

I would say that it's rational to think that if God actually thinks genocide is a "bad" thing, has the simple ability to keep it from happening, yet let's it happen anyway, then that means that genocide actually isn't tops on his list of priorities. Of course, it's certainly possible that God doesn't think genocide is a bad thing. If one believes the OT and the flood story, he committed it himself, after all.

I can't single-handedly stop genocide. The president of the United States, though not all powerful, can certainly influence far more things than I ever could to prevent some types of genocide. The Divine Creator of All Existence certainly could prevent it from even being on the list of possible human actions...if he wanted to.

The creator modifying his own creation to not do a specific action = coddling? Never mind that you're once again taking the world now and acting as if God has to fit into that. When what most people have been taught is that God is the one who set things up in the first place.

Of course, maybe all those millions of Christians who believe that are wrong, and you actually have the correct version of God. As I always ask...how is this determined?

So what's taking so long? Is God plotting his strategy? Getting the kinks worked out? Going through some test runs first?

And if peace will eventually be on Earth, than that means it's certainly possible for a planet Earth to exist that is 100% peaceful. So, the reason for not just making that world in the first place is...?

Where do Satan and Human beings come from?

alrighty

Lol you suck at arguing

Mgoblue201 · Jul 15, 2010

So you are saying that that we have no choice unless we live forever?

I agree that choices end at death. However, keep in mind that many choices prior to death may have lead to the premature one. For example, most hurricanes occur in places prone to them. So it would stand to reason that your risks for death goes up dramatically in those places. It's true that some people can't choose where they live or afford to leave, but again that and a million other situations in life are not God's responsibility to fix.

I've ansered the bolded question a few times already. You cannot ask God to stop/heal/prevent a naturally occurring imperfection but then be upset with him for also allowing people who are not ill complete and absolute freedom to do whatever they want...until they get sick with some horrible disease.

Maybe choice is the wrong word & I'll think up another way to look at it, but it still will never equate to God being responsible for bad stuff happening.

You are once again making the leap from "injustice occurs" to "god has no responsibility to change that". But that whole concept is incoherent. In order for god to judge, we must all be given a proper choice. However, is a 70 year old man who converts on his death bed given more of a proper choice than a 30 year old who dies in a hurricane? The only way to make sense of this is to say that god interferes to smooth out the injustices, or in fact simply controls the entire thing, so that justice is equal for all. But if god allows injustice to occur, then he cannot judge. The inequality present in the world is just too rampant. In fact, you have already made that consolation by saying that perhaps people of low IQ are not judged the same. Therefore, you're already giving into my arguments. You're saying that god does have a responsibility to correct injustice. So instead of saying, "God must judge unequally to make up for the unequal justice in the world," I am asking why god doesn't just make the world more equal so that he can judge equally.

Anyway, the only reason why diseases are naturally occuring is because god created the world that way. There wouldn't be diseases without biology. Biology is a product of god's imagination. Therefore, god is sanctioning those diseases. But even the rest of what you said isn't necessarily true. If you wanted to be consistent, you would say, "God gives freedom, therefore he should at least try to correct things that limit freedom, including disease." God allowing freedom in one sense but then allowing it to be limited by unfortunate circumstances is not consistent.

It's a human rights issue now. Slavery was not a human rights issue then. It may have been a class structure or economic issue for sure, but only their treatment was a human rights issue from God's viewpoint. The post from the guy with all the Bible verses backs that point up.

A fundamental question of freedom, a question of equal stature and treatment, must always be a human rights issue if it is at any one time. If the rights of one human can be elevated over another, and beatings are at least sanctioned, even if some regulations are in place, then that must be a function of human worth, the product of some eternal truth if we are fashioned after the divine. If there is nothing objective about this, then there is no objective morality. You're just picking up the banner of freedom only when it suits your interests.

I said they were answered before that. If you couldn't figure out my views on Hell, then you weren't looking especially since I was getting it from both sides. Iirc, you were trying to convince me that Hell is a Biblical teaching in order to prove how bad God was, but it may have been someone else.

Explicating your views on hell is not the same thing as debating. I'm not here just to learn what your views are. I'm here to debate, and you didn't answer the specific points. Show me where you answered the fact that the idea of eternal punishment was considered doctrine by many church fathers since the time of Jesus. You also gave some really vague point about how the interpretation means destruction and death, yet I said that the language in that verse could literally mean enternal punishment. You never answered that specifically. These are open questions. The issue is hardly closed.

JGS · Jul 15, 2010

soul creator said:
Don't tell God what he can't do!

Well of course, God doesn't have to do things like "make human beings incapable of genocide". The point is that, being the divine creator of all things, that would imply he has the ability to do so. If he has that ability, but doesn't, then for whatever reason, he prefers a world where genocide takes place. Your response seems to be that the only possible way to remove genocide is by denying human beings all choices, and making them some kind of robot. So, this whole "choice/free will" thing is more important to God apparently than preventing genocide. Which is fine. I just don't see how that's a point in God's favor :lol

Never mind the fact that when genocide occurs, it's pretty obvious that the victim's "free will" is being denied. But somehow, that never seems to factor into these discussions.

This is warmed up soup. We will never agree about what is man's responsibility and what is God's. Despite your argument making no sense from any scenario than the one you feel is reserved for the omnipotent, you cling to it. Try giving me something a little better than your opinion and this debate could go further. Otherwise, we're just repeating ourselves on this point.

soul creator said:
Human limitations placed on us by God. Assuming you think God created us. I'm just wondering why it's apparently ok to prevent human beings the choice of "flying to the moon by flapping my arms", but it's not ok to prevent human beings from "committing genocide".

Once again, if we're assuming that God set up this world and everything in it, essentially nothing happens without his "permission".

Uhh, one is easier than the others. One requires no change in Scientific law whereas the other one does. Most critters don't fly and humans could live just fine and dandy without killing each other. You make it sound as if humans can't fly, thus they must kill. Again, it's a no sense argument.

soul creator said:
haha. Although I suppose that's pretty much what happened, if one accepts the biblical account of the flood. I'm guessing you don't, since you're not a "literalist" though.

That isn't what happened at all.

Further I'm waiting for the definition of a literalist before I accept whether I am one or not. Atheists are the only literalist I know so far. But again, I'm waiting for the definition to come about.

soul creator said:
Snappy retorts are fun!

If only they were funny.

soul creator said:
Wait, did Microsoft manufacture the PS3 controller, and did Microsoft also knowingly create human beings with the propensity to throw controllers? That would make it a more accurate analogy.

I honestly can't even remeber what this had to do with anything. All I know is I have a strong desire to play UNO on Live now.

Wait a minute I remeber now. It had to do with you demanding that God answer for human's stupid decisions when he never agreed to that. So same old soup again.

soul creator said:
But it's a natural world we live in is supposedly created by god. Maybe you're a Christian who doesn't think God knowingly created the universe and our planet?

What does that have to do with natural occurrence again. It's dstarting to sound like tyou're debating whether God should allow science to work.

soul creator said:
Is the only possibly way the all powerful creator of the universe can prevent child rape is to completely remove all instances of sex and emotions?

You tell me. What does God need to do to take care of child rape? Roam the lands and castrate every potential pervert out there? You're the one keen on telling God what he should do, so tell him!:lol

soul creator said:
I think the larger point here that is throwing me off is that you're taking the world as it is now, and keep acting as if God is limited by it. Your God doesn't seem that godly all of a sudden.

You're throwing yourself off because you can't understand why I don't see things in the same spoiled brat kind of way you do. God is not limited by what we do at all.

soul creator said:
You seem to be discussing this as if God had no hand in setting up the world, human beings, its "rules" and so on and so forth. Instead, God fiddled with things way back when, and then Planet Earth and human beings came about and did all those unforeseen surprising things that God just never saw coming. If so, then honestly, none of the points I've raised really apply to you. They just apply to those other millions of Christians who do think God can do whatever he wants and made everything

God definitely did set up the world. he made a few rules, we said no thanks we can do better and he said OK, prove it.

He's giving us what we want and now you're whining about it. You're like the people I give loans to. They love the fact that we can give them $30,000 to buy a car, but then whine about the interest rate.

soul creator said:
I would say that it's rational to think that if God actually thinks genocide is a "bad" thing, has the simple ability to keep it from happening, yet let's it happen anyway, then that means that genocide actually isn't tops on his list of priorities. Of course, it's certainly possible that God doesn't think genocide is a bad thing. If one believes the OT and the flood story, he committed it himself, after all.

I can't single-handedly stop genocide. The president of the United States, though not all powerful, can certainly influence far more things than I ever could to prevent some types of genocide. The Divine Creator of All Existence certainly could prevent it from even being on the list of possible human actions...if he wanted to.

As you said yourself but I'll say a little more forcefully, we have the ability to stop genocide so why not blame humans for not preventing it? It is perfectly acceptable to blame the people for inaction that help cause the action.

Genocide is a worse example than the child rape one although neither has a solution beyond the two options you shrugged off before if God were involved.

You and others are so limited in solutions that all you can do is say God should do something!:lol

The solution is pretty easy.

soul creator said:
The creator modifying his own creation to not do a specific action = coddling? Never mind that you're once again taking the world now and acting as if God has to fit into that. When what most people have been taught is that God is the one who set things up in the first place.

Yup

You are also correct that God set things in place to ensure that no one had to endure the things you bring up.

soul creator said:
Of course, maybe all those millions of Christians who believe that are wrong, and you actually have the correct version of God. As I always ask...how is this determined?

All we both have is our belief. If a billion people practiced a way contrary to what the Bible says, then why would I start believing their way? Strength in numbers does not equal accuracy.

One things for sure, they don't believe your way either.

soul creator said:
So what's taking so long? Is God plotting his strategy? Getting the kinks worked out? Going through some test runs first?

And if peace will eventually be on Earth, than that means it's certainly possible for a planet Earth to exist that is 100% peaceful. So, the reason for not just making that world in the first place is...?

Opportunity.

You don't actually read the Bible much do you?:lol

The only way to make the world a peaceful place is to get rid of the ones that make it unpeaceful. The ones that make it unpeaceful are the ones that don't follow God. In other words, the unpeaceful ones include...you.

The whole time things have been unpeaceful there have been ones to decide to worship God so the time (Which is relative to God's timetable not ours, so it's not that long) has given opportunity to a lot of others.

The hows of that are prophecy which I don't really get into.

soul creator said:
Where do Satan and Human beings come from?

Well, Satan is from heaven and humans live on earth.

Satan is simply a name meaning what he is. The guy who became Satan simply believed he could do better than God.

People, as i've already stated, believe they can run things better. Since God is giving them the chance to prove they're right, they've got earth. After all, God doesn't live there.

soul creator said:
alrighty

Not sure what that's for. Are you saying the Bible doesn't say it's temporary?

JGS · Jul 15, 2010

Mgoblue201 said:
You are once again making the leap from "injustice occurs" to "god has no responsibility to change that". But that whole concept is incoherent. In order for god to judge, we must all be given a proper choice. However, is a 70 year old man who converts on his death bed given more of a proper choice than a 30 year old who dies in a hurricane? The only way to make sense of this is to say that god interferes to smooth out the injustices, or in fact simply controls the entire thing, so that justice is equal for all. But if god allows injustice to occur, then he cannot judge. The inequality present in the world is just too rampant. In fact, you have already made that consolation by saying that perhaps people of low IQ are not judged the same. Therefore, you're already giving into my arguments. You're saying that god does have a responsibility to correct injustice. So instead of saying, "God must judge unequally to make up for the unequal justice in the world," I am asking why god doesn't just make the world more equal so that he can judge equally.

I'm not sure where you're getting the injustice part in my comments. You are given a proper choice as soon as you hear about the opportunity to worship God. That's all it takes.

Your standard that you can only judge by eradicating injustices not caused by you makes no sense. Our disagreement is right there. You seem to feel God is causing injustices by either directly causing them or not preventing them.

The correct view is to judge factoring all of a person's life into it.

Mgoblue201 said:
Anyway, the only reason why diseases are naturally occuring is because god created the world that way. There wouldn't be diseases without biology. Biology is a product of god's imagination. Therefore, god is sanctioning those diseases. But even the rest of what you said isn't necessarily true. If you wanted to be consistent, you would say, "God gives freedom, therefore he should at least try to correct things that limit freedom, including disease." God allowing freedom in one sense but then allowing it to be limited by unfortunate circumstances is not consistent.

Disease doesn't hinder worship anymore than dying of old age does. Further, you can flip it around and say our bodies should be able to resist illnesses better. Why don't they? Further, we should consider how those diseases are developed (If you take a bath in the same water you poop in, you're going to get a disease).

Mgoblue201 said:
A fundamental question of freedom, a question of equal stature and treatment, must always be a human rights issue if it is at any one time. If the rights of one human can be elevated over another, and beatings are at least sanctioned, even if some regulations are in place, then that must be a function of human worth, the product of some eternal truth if we are fashioned after the divine. If there is nothing objective about this, then there is no objective morality. You're just picking up the banner of freedom only when it suits your interests.

So you say. What history says is clearly that freedom was not a fundamental right until a few hundred years ago. You can revise it and be a piolitical correctedness apologist if you want to, but a simple click to Wikipedia shws that the majority od time mankind has been around, freedom was not fundamental.

Mgoblue201 said:
Explicating your views on hell is not the same thing as debating. I'm not here just to learn what your views are. I'm here to debate, and you didn't answer the specific points. Show me where you answered the fact that the idea of eternal punishment was considered doctrine by many church fathers since the time of Jesus. You also gave some really vague point about how the interpretation means destruction and death, yet I said that the language in that verse could literally mean enternal punishment. You never answered that specifically. These are open questions. The issue is hardly closed.

there's was nothing to debate. You were debating me to believe the way other religious people do about hell only to turn around and disprove that one. I don't have time for those kind of gymnastics.

Bottom line is that I believe Christian Doctrine does not teach eternal torment. If you also don't believe in Hell then what the heck is there to debate about?

There was nothing vague about my interpretation of what fire does

lol ) and you didn't ask for further clarification iirc. I'll be more than happy to discuss/debate Hell (after all, I went to the thread), but not so I can see you play both sides of the fence.

soul creator · Jul 15, 2010

I think I'll just go ahead and admit that I have no idea what type of God JGS actually believes in :/ I suppose that's kind of the whole point of a personal god...it's personal so it's pretty much impossible to debate in any sort of meaningful way. After all, you can just kind of make up the rules on the fly, lol.

You essentially just said that God (the supposed creator of "scientific law") can't change something...because it would require a change in scientific law. So, does that mean JGS' god is bound by the limits of scientific law? That's...a new interpretation of god.

But then you say that god isn't limited by that. So someone asks "well, why not just stop earthquakes/hurricanes from destroying thousands of human lives? No one chooses for that to happen, so the free will defense doesn't factor here", that's apparently being a spoiled brat. Or that people should just move to a different country. Or something.

And, if I follow you correctly, even if a god creates the natural world (including human brains) the subsequent actions of those human brains, and the natural world are completely separate from god and he has no responsibility at all for what happens as a result of that. That's so odd to me :/

(as a sidenote, the same powerful mystical powers god used to prevent human beings from being able to flap their arms and fly to the moon can be used to instantly switch thoughts/actions of child rape to wanting to buy ice cream and candy. Voila, no more child rape.)

The only way to make the world a peaceful place is to get rid of the ones that make it unpeaceful. The ones that make it unpeaceful are the ones that don't follow God. In other words, the unpeaceful ones include...you.

You're missing the most obvious way to make the world a peaceful place (assuming we're the creator of all existence and starting from scratch) - not creating human brains capable of "unpeaceful" action in the first place. That would be the most straightforward way to prevent that. Of course, that doesn't make for as interesting of a story, *shrug*. And this doesn't require making us robots or "eradicating choice".

A lot of your responses seem as if you're taking the world as it is now, and fitting God and Christianity into it, rather than looking at the world from the very beginning when God (supposedly) created everything. God doesn't have to come down here and "fix" every bad thing that human beings do. God, being God, could just make bad things never happen in the first place. Just like he made billions of other things never happen in the first place. "Unpeaceful actions" would just be one of those things we would be physically incapable of doing.

Sh1ner · Jul 15, 2010

I got the Pope on the line, he would like to know why in the hell does a Christian think that there is no eternal hell.

edit:
For clarification, heres a snippet from the Brick Testament on the Hell sectiony bit.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hell/mt25_41.html

Heres from the beginning of the speech on hell:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hell/mt25_31.html

edit 2:

just to hit the hammer home further, heres the last page:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hell/mt25_46.html

Matthew 25:46
'Then they will go away to eternal punishment.'

So JGS, what is your version of Christianity called?

Mgoblue201 · Jul 15, 2010

JGS said:
I'm not sure where you're getting the injustice part in my comments. You are given a proper choice as soon as you hear about the opportunity to worship God. That's all it takes.

Your standard that you can only judge by eradicating injustices not caused by you makes no sense. Our disagreement is right there. You seem to feel God is causing injustices by either directly causing them or not preventing them.

The correct view is to judge factoring all of a person's life into it.

Disease doesn't hinder worship anymore than dying of old age does. Further, you can flip it around and say our bodies should be able to resist illnesses better. Why don't they? Further, we should consider how those diseases are developed (If you take a bath in the same water you poop in, you're going to get a disease).

Except most people in the world and throughout history have never been given that choice. Some - once again, children and mentally challenged - don't have the capacity to accept that choice even if it's given. And then there is the fact that simply hearing about something will not convince you of the truth. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Islam is the one proprietor to heaven. You are technically given the "opportunity" to worship Allah, but you'd dismiss it. There has never been any proof that people are simply supposed to "know" the truth. The truth that most people "know" has been presented to them by someone else. We have minds prone to deep delusion - not a moral failing, but an intellectual failing - that tend not to question assumptions once they are entrenched. When we are presented with an idea, it is not a self-evident thing.

So what is a "proper choice"? That's an impossible question for a few reasons. 1. The mind always makes decisions based on limited information. It's all about what you think you know about the Bible. Maybe I make a decision of Christianity based on something I believe to be true about it, but maybe I'm also wrong based on a limited knowledge of how a word is interpreted, or an argument I simply haven't considered, or even a part of the Bible I'm not aware of. We literally cannot consider every single angle and fact. There are things which we may never know. 2. Sometimes we don't know why we think the way we do. A thought is not a tangible thing. It does not have real weight. It has abstract weight. Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that an idea has power or weight in my mind. Even if something is true, that does not mean that I am apprehended by it in my mind.

Anyway, I'm being diverted from the larger point about "proper choices", that much of it is based upon randomness. Consider two people who have flouted religion for their entire lives. Both of them get shot on the same night. One of them dies because the bullet hit a critical area. The other lives because the bullet missed a critical area by centimeters, and that person then later becomes a Christian. Should something as frivolous and random as those centimeters decide a person's eternal fate? I know what many Christians would say. Such a person left it up to fate. But that does not make sense. How can one person be two different people at two different moments in time, one condemned and another saved, and yet that individual is judged because of a freak occurrence? That is essentially saying that the person is worth saving and should be saved...except he won't be. Death is just an arbitrary cutoff. Why should I be judged at that moment? Why not another time? Why is the "me" at death more worthy of judgment than the "me" five years ago or five years from now?

And you give absolutely no reason for this line: "Your standard that you can only judge by eradicating injustices not caused by you makes no sense." Except you've already agreed that god eradicates some form of injustice during judgment. Christians argue the same thing all the time: it would be unjust to judge a child, therefore god doesn't judge children. What I am arguing is that this simply adds another layer of injustice by giving people free passes into heaven. It would shortchange the people who actually had to make a choice. The fundamental problem here is that you cannot say, on one hand god expects belief, and on the other hand he creates a world that does not always give us a choice. I am asking why god, if he expects belief, wouldn't create a world in which the choice is always fair, always equal. I am arguing the Christian position here more vociferously than most Christians: everybody should be given an equal chance to believe in god. How does that not make sense?

Lastly on this point: I have already given an extreme case in which a genetic disease, by interfering with intelligence, clearly would prevent someone from worshiping god. And most diseases have nothing to do with choice. Genetic diseases don't. I cannot possibly always know where a microbe is lurking. Even sanitation isn't much of a choice. I cannot wish proper sanitation into existence. It is based on where and when someone happens to live and the socioeconomic circumstances.

So you say. What history says is clearly that freedom was not a fundamental right until a few hundred years ago. You can revise it and be a piolitical correctedness apologist if you want to, but a simple click to Wikipedia shws that the majority od time mankind has been around, freedom was not fundamental.

I am not talking about what people choose to believe or do in specific moments in history. I am talking about what is, if god is real, supposedly eternal, objective morality. Humans are either equal under the sight of god or they aren't. And if we are all supposed to be fashioned after the divine creator, you have to explain why some people should be treated differently at different points in history. Are you saying that one divinely inspired being may be unequal to another divinely inspired being?

there's was nothing to debate. You were debating me to believe the way other religious people do about hell only to turn around and disprove that one. I don't have time for those kind of gymnastics.

Bottom line is that I believe Christian Doctrine does not teach eternal torment. If you also don't believe in Hell then what the heck is there to debate about?

There was nothing vague about my interpretation of what fire does lol ) and you didn't ask for further clarification iirc. I'll be more than happy to discuss/debate Hell (after all, I went to the thread), but not so I can see you play both sides of the fence.

Jesus Christ. The basic question is one about the truth of doctrine. Whether or not I believe in that doesn't change the answer to the question. It's like saying this: "What does President Obama believe about health care? It doesn't matter, I'm against health care reform anyway." How does that possible make sense? You tried to do the same thing with the young earth creationism argument. So I have to believe in hell before I can argue with you what other people believe about hell?

And I wasn't talking about interpretation of fire (though one can certainly make an argument that the text itself says that the fire does not destroy and is eternal). I was talking about the interpretation of the phrase "eternal punishment".

freethought · Jul 15, 2010

JGS said:
Maybe choice is the wrong word & I'll think up another way to look at it, but it still will never equate to God being responsible for bad stuff happening.

The religious mind in a nutshell.

Mumei · Jul 15, 2010

JGS said:
I do believe morality comes from God, but there's nothing supernatural about it. It's simply a code and it's one that makes sense that we would have had a tough time coming up with on our own. It isn't designed to address all things.

For example, God knew that addictive drugs existed (even in Bible times), but the code doesn't specifically address them.

Likewise, God knew slavery existed and that men were predisposed to it (Actually they still are, they just pay you to do work you don't want to do) and set up rules that took care of them in some form or another.

I think you're misunderstanding something. If morality is derived from God, and God is supernatural ("supernatural" being defined as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil"), then morality itself has supernatural origins.

That doesn't mean that it is not a code or that it is supposed to be designed to address all things. If you believe that morality comes from God, then you believe that morality has a supernatural origin, unless you believe that God is a part of the observable universe (in which case you would need to be prepared to explain why God has not been observed, if he is observable).

And, again, Dani made the point quite well in his post that the rules that proscribed proper treatment of slaves was not all that beneficial to the slaves and did nothing to condemn or even dissuade slave holding. Instead, by laying out rules for how it should be properly engaged in (rules that still included all of the barbarism of slavery in, say, the nineteenth-century American South), God gives tacit approval of slavery.

You still also have failed to explain how if the morality which comes from God represents true, objective morality that God managed to get it wrong. You keep attempting to say that he was, more or less, going along with the flow of things, but as Mgoblue201 pointed out, it is illogical for a God who is responsible for handing down absolute, objective moral laws to treat people differently at different points in time. You use moral relativism - "Slavery in Biblical times was not the same or less bad than slavery would be today" or some variation - which even if it weren't wrong on its face (and it is wrong), still isn't an applicable argument for you. You cannot use moral relativism to defend the inconsistencies of an agent meant to represent moral objectivity.

JGS · Jul 15, 2010

Mumei said:
I think you're misunderstanding something. If morality is derived from God, and God is supernatural ("supernatural" being defined as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil"), then morality itself has supernatural origins.

That doesn't mean that it is not a code or that it is supposed to be designed to address all things. If you believe that morality comes from God, then you believe that morality has a supernatural origin, unless you believe that God is a part of the observable universe (in which case you would need to be prepared to explain why God has not been observed, if he is observable).

OK, it had supernatural origins. I understand that. But if God created us, then you could say we had supernatural origins as well. In other words, it doesn't make much difference about the origin as much as it does the implementation.

Mumei said:
And, again, Dani made the point quite well in his post that the rules that proscribed proper treatment of slaves was not all that beneficial to the slaves and did nothing to condemn or even dissuade slave holding. Instead, by laying out rules for how it should be properly engaged in (rules that still included all of the barbarism of slavery in, say, the nineteenth-century American South), God gives tacit approval of slavery.

This is going in circles. I've explained a hundred times why this isn't necessarily true. How much benefit a slave got was dependent on how he was treated.

Did anyone want to be a slave? Of course not (Usually). But life and morality are not based on wants. In fact Godly morality is based specifically on you doing what he tells you- even if society says you can do otherwise.

Rights are different from morality. Rights are largely established by society and tend toward being progressive which is why it would be flat out impossible for slavery to be the worldwide instiution it used to be.

God's morality allowed (in fact required) that all people who lived by it, slaves or freemen, worship him and follow his guidelines. As most of Dani's verses showed, this provided more equalization or the opportunity for complete equalization between them than anywhere else in ancient civilization. That's as good as it got. It's beating a dead horse to say in hindsight what God should do when humans weren't doing it until a short while ago in the stream of time.

Mumei said:
You still also have failed to explain how if the morality which comes from God represents true, objective morality that God managed to get it wrong. You keep attempting to say that he was, more or less, going along with the flow of things, but as Mgoblue201 pointed out, it is illogical for a God who is responsible for handing down absolute, objective moral laws to treat people differently at different points in time. You use moral relativism - "Slavery in Biblical times was not the same or less bad than slavery would be today" or some variation - which even if it weren't wrong on its face (and it is wrong), still isn't an applicable argument for you. You cannot use moral relativism to defend the inconsistencies of an agent meant to represent moral objectivity.

I have answered repeatedly this issue and you keep failing to see another person's opinion on the matter. Debate is worthless and asking questions is worthless if you really don't want to know another view.

Further, God wasn't going with the flow. When people say that, they are essentially saying that God needs us for direction which is totally untrue. He was not tasked with solving all mankind's problems based on the terms and conditions of mankind. That would be a disaster. In fact, Israel proved it was disasterous to live for God and hold onto human wants. It doesn't work.

I didn't even know I was tasked with the responsibility of explaining morality. I'm questioning whether you actually read these walls of text I type or else you would know already that I don't believe Godly morality is the end all be all. Therefore, I'm not the one qualified to address what you're asking so I'll just copy what I said earlier. Godly morality is based specifically on you doing what he tells you- even if society says you can do otherwise.

Honestly, I could not care less about where people get their moral center. If you don't worship God, then it doesn't matter at all where your morality comes from except to you. As you said if I believe I was created by God than morality by extention would be based on him as well. However, humans also have thinking ability and so they can add and remove to morality as they wish and do so all the time.

This is why it is fine and dandy (moral) to have sex with whoever you want in this day and age although the Bible specifically condemns fornication (aka immorality). God's morals didn't change on that, society's did. The same can be said for other things like gay marriage, origin of life theory studies, charitable works, etc...

In addition, God allowed things based on societal need or at least what society thought they needed regardless of what he felt about it. Although a man was supposed to have one wife, he allowed multiple marriages. He hates divorces but at least during Israel's time, he allowed them. Israel didn't need a king since he was running things, but since they wanted to see someone on the throne, along came Saul.

I know that you and others like to paint things in black and white which is your right I guess. However, it's silly to apply that code to someone who is, as you say, so much better than us, when he has to deal with us low life free willers that we are.

We want what we want and in ancient times, slavery was a want. IMO, people still want to have people work as much as possible and pay them as little as possible, so the times haven't changed that much on the side of owners. What has changed is the ability of the worker to leave at will (theoretically).

JGS · Jul 15, 2010

freethought said:
The religious mind in a nutshell.

So the non-religious think someone should do everything for them?

How odd "freethought":lol

freethought · Jul 15, 2010

JGS said:
So the non-religious think someone should do everything for them?

How odd "freethought":lol

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I was simply pointing out that you have an intractable position and you fit your arguments around them. If an argument no longer works, you discard it and look for another to support your position, rather than call your initial premise into question. That is the religious mind in a nutshell.

JGS · Jul 15, 2010

Mgoblue201 said:
Except most people in the world and throughout history have never been given that choice. Some - once again, children and mentally challenged - don't have the capacity to accept that choice even if it's given. And then there is the fact that simply hearing about something will not convince you of the truth. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Islam is the one proprietor to heaven. You are technically given the "opportunity" to worship Allah, but you'd dismiss it. There has never been any proof that people are simply supposed to "know" the truth. The truth that most people "know" has been presented to them by someone else. We have minds prone to deep delusion - not a moral failing, but an intellectual failing - that tend not to question assumptions once they are entrenched. When we are presented with an idea, it is not a self-evident thing.

You keep worrying about ones that never got the choice. I'm not sure why.

However, dismissal or refusal is not even remotely the same as not given the choice. That is no one's fault but your own. There is not a mandate to convert everyone or else no one dies.

Mgoblue201 said:
So what is a "proper choice"? That's an impossible question for a few reasons. 1. The mind always makes decisions based on limited information. It's all about what you think you know about the Bible. Maybe I make a decision of Christianity based on something I believe to be true about it, but maybe I'm also wrong based on a limited knowledge of how a word is interpreted, or an argument I simply haven't considered, or even a part of the Bible I'm not aware of. We literally cannot consider every single angle and fact. There are things which we may never know. 2. Sometimes we don't know why we think the way we do. A thought is not a tangible thing. It does not have real weight. It has abstract weight. Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that an idea has power or weight in my mind. Even if something is true, that does not mean that I am apprehended by it in my mind.

The proper choice is to go with the one that can help you the most. If you have daubts, you don't have faith anyway by definition. To your points:
1. The mind can make right decision on the limited information it has easily. If you dismiss the book as soon as you read it, you're making a decision. If you are already satisfied with your outlook on life, then how does making the wrong choice affect you in the slightest?

2. If you don't know why you think the way you do, then you need to figure it out and then proceed. If you don't believe in God but don't know why, it should be an easy, non-therapeutic way to figure out why. If you do believe in God and don't know why, then you research/study more until you do. If you believe in God it requires effort. If you don't though, it requires none unless you want to "debate" about it.

Mgoblue201 said:
Anyway, I'm being diverted from the larger point about "proper choices", that much of it is based upon randomness. Consider two people who have flouted religion for their entire lives. Both of them get shot on the same night. One of them dies because the bullet hit a critical area. The other lives because the bullet missed a critical area by centimeters, and that person then later becomes a Christian. Should something as frivolous and random as those centimeters decide a person's eternal fate? I know what many Christians would say. Such a person left it up to fate. But that does not make sense. How can one person be two different people at two different moments in time, one condemned and another saved, and yet that individual is judged because of a freak occurrence? That is essentially saying that the person is worth saving and should be saved...except he won't be. Death is just an arbitrary cutoff. Why should I be judged at that moment? Why not another time? Why is the "me" at death more worthy of judgment than the "me" five years ago or five years from now?

I don't get the eternal fate.

Your example is flawed because it does only look at one point in time while acknowledging the two individuals had multiple opportunities

If both of them flouted religion their whole life, then they had multiple opportunities to change their choice. I guess you feel that people should should have unlimited choice until they hit a magic age, never, or if they are already living in a paradise to begin with. Thus, God is wrong simply for setting up the choice which is odd. Choice is the only proof that we have free will which kind of makes sense by definition.

God doesn't judge at points in time necessarily, but the point of rejection is a good marker- and one that can change depending on the amount of time the person has left as you demonstrated in your example.

Scripture indicates that many people who did not know him can be "saved" by him. However, those are largely based on ones who are ignorant. If you reject him, I see no reason why second chances after death.

Mgoblue201 said:
And you give absolutely no reason for this line: "Your standard that you can only judge by eradicating injustices not caused by you makes no sense." Except you've already agreed that god eradicates some form of injustice during judgment. Christians argue the same thing all the time: it would be unjust to judge a child, therefore god doesn't judge children. What I am arguing is that this simply adds another layer of injustice by giving people free passes into heaven. It would shortchange the people who actually had to make a choice. The fundamental problem here is that you cannot say, on one hand god expects belief, and on the other hand he creates a world that does not always give us a choice. I am asking why god, if he expects belief, wouldn't create a world in which the choice is always fair, always equal. I am arguing the Christian position here more vociferously than most Christians: everybody should be given an equal chance to believe in god. How does that not make sense?

You're twisting things. Judgement has always been in the context of living on this planet including and a result of the injustices. The religious you have spoken to are incorrect imo. God usually deals with children based on the actions of their parents or caregivers until they are old enough to decide things are their own- earlier than the legal age of 18 in most instances.

He didn't create this world as it is. We did. The injustices are ours which is why I said it's not fair to expect him to both eradicate it and THEN let you make the decision in a vacuum or paradise conditions we would have already had set up if not for our screw ups. The whole point was to see whether we live better on this planet as run by us- a place you admit is full of injustice. The choice is fair since it involves two options and [probably] no punishment for the ignorant.

Mgoblue201 said:
Lastly on this point: I have already given an extreme case in which a genetic disease, by interfering with intelligence, clearly would prevent someone from worshiping god. And most diseases have nothing to do with choice. Genetic diseases don't. I cannot possibly always know where a microbe is lurking. Even sanitation isn't much of a choice. I cannot wish proper sanitation into existence. It is based on where and when someone happens to live and the socioeconomic circumstances.

Genetic disease are a result of imperfections we have. If someone has lost their faculties, I'm not sure why God would hold that against them.

Your orginal argument was why God created the disease. My reply was the point that we prone to the disease in the first place and how do we contract them.

It's an entirely different issue why the world doesn't have proper sanitation. Proper sanitation has been existence since Bible times too so it's odd that humans still haven't figured that one out even without plumbing.

Mgoblue201 said:
I am not talking about what people choose to believe or do in specific moments in history. I am talking about what is, if god is real, supposedly eternal, objective morality. Humans are either equal under the sight of god or they aren't. And if we are all supposed to be fashioned after the divine creator, you have to explain why some people should be treated differently at different points in history. Are you saying that one divinely inspired being may be unequal to another divinely inspired being?

People are equal in God's eyes, it's human eyes that view them as differently.

The only partiality God shows is he favors the ones who worship him which makes sense.

Mgoblue201 said:
Jesus Christ. The basic question is one about the truth of doctrine. Whether or not I believe in that doesn't change the answer to the question. It's like saying this: "What does President Obama believe about health care? It doesn't matter, I'm against health care reform anyway." How does that possible make sense? You tried to do the same thing with the young earth creationism argument. So I have to believe in hell before I can argue with you what other people believe about hell?

That's the problem. I explained my "truth of doctrine". Other religious folks have not nor have you because you are repeating what they say - even though you don't believe it. I gave specific answers that you call vague because they don't match up with what you were ready to "debate" about.

It is either impossible for you (I'm talking about you personally) to understand something you don't believe or you are extremely condescending. You are stating your view in the form a question which doesn't work. I don't have a problem talking about it in the context of my beliefs, but not because it's really a debate of any kind. It's why I have to continually reanswer questions, because my answers did not compute. All you're trying to do is educate your view which is fine even though incorrect.

Mgoblue201 said:
And I wasn't talking about interpretation of fire (though one can certainly make an argument that the text itself says that the fire does not destroy and is eternal). I was talking about the interpretation of the phrase "eternal punishment".

That's fine, but one verse with potentially vague wording does not overshadow dozens if not hundred of verses that indicated punishment for sin = death.

From my view, you can't get much more eternal of a punishment than death...

JGS · Jul 15, 2010

freethought said:
I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I was simply pointing out that you have an intractable position and you fit your arguments around them. If an argument no longer works, you discard it and look for another to support your position, rather than call your initial premise into question. That is the religious mind in a nutshell.

Give me an example of an argument that no longer works that I dismissed & I will undismiss it.

In all honestly, you are not showing the qualifications to make that judgement about me, I simply did not agree with the other person's view. and continue to do so. If you are suggesting I dismiss because I refuse to conform to popular opinion (of a forum), then you are still contradicting your user name to me.

Sh1ner · Jul 15, 2010

no reply to the eternal hell comment? I'm hurt!

Support NeoGAF

The Official Religion Thread

Banned

Dirty tag dodger

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Dirty tag dodger

Won't stop picking the right nation

Dirty tag dodger

Banned

Dirty tag dodger

Member

Member

Member

Dirty tag dodger

Banned

Won't stop picking the right nation

Member

Banned

Banned

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Dirty tag dodger

Member

Member

Won't stop picking the right nation

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Won't stop picking the right nation

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Similar threads