Philosophical question? (4 Viewers)

[MadeFromDust]

but the rules are still subjective. if god told you murdering children was moral, you'd have to agree.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

[crowTrobot]

That isn't the case; which is why I just didn't use "Religion". There is "extremests" in every moral concept. In fact, Musselini supported Darwinism and mass murdered thousands of Italians and Africans to purify their race; Adopting of the "Survival of the fittest". Stalin adopted this same concept and killed millions. And there are many "Extreme Factions of Patriots" that killed for what they feel is morally right.

you're saying joshua was just a religious extremist who decided to have the isrealites commit systematic genocide of caanan on his own. it wasn't commanded by god?

 

[ABM]

so god's commands to his followers in the OT are morally preposterous. we agree : )

I didn't live back then, sorry.

As for now....

31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.” ~Jeremiah 31:31-34

The New Covenant effectively came in the form of Jesus. He's my main Dude. What He says, goes

 

[crowTrobot]

Arbitrary and subjective to who and what?

to us.

So that automatically makes them intrinsically more valuable or worth more than "other" animals. For what reason?

i don't believe in objectively existing values. you're arguing with the wrong person.

OK, from a naturalist view why is a human being more important or valuable than a rock in this grand existence of ours? And from who's point of view?




I'd say it really makes no difference whatsoever. If death is just blackness then you're not even aware you're dead. Suffering would have no justice or rectification so it's utterly meaningless, just like everything is. Plus it can just be chalked up to perception and chemical reactions taking place, or an illusion that's no more relevant than being in a state of euphoria.

arguing meaning, not morality. i don't believe morality has any meaning independent of the existence of sentient life. if that's what you're saying i agree.

however we DO exist for now, and we tend to value our existence and well-being, and certain behaviors are better for that than others.

 

[crowTrobot]

I didn't live back then, sorry.

but you could have, so stating the hypothetical is preposterous is just avoiding the question.

 

[magnifier661]

you're saying joshua was just a religious extremist who decided to have the isrealites commit systematic genocide of caanan on his own. it wasn't commanded by god?

You mean the book of Torah, Neb'm and Ketubim? Look up the "King James Bible" and tell me if those books are there.

 

[crowTrobot]

Yes, but fortunately he doesn't. So it's moot

why fortunately? because you have your own moral sensibilities you'd rather rely on?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Yeah...It's pretty clear we are on opposite ends of the spectrum here, so I think we're beginning to enter that "agree to disagree" zone again.

 

[crowTrobot]

You mean the book of Torah, Neb'm and Ketubim? Look up the "King James Bible" and tell me if those books are there.

read joshua

 

[magnifier661]

why fortunately? because you have your own moral sensibilities you'd rather rely on?

You are absolutely right sir. I take the King James Bible as the inspirational word of God. But more importantly, put all my Faith in Jesus Christ.

This is as much to do about nothing. Do you think it's right that Stallin killed millions of innocent people because he believed in the "Survival of Fittest" theory in the "Holy Book of Darwin?"

 

[magnifier661]

read joshua

Why, you are accusing, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[ABM]

but you could have, so stating the hypothetical is preposterous is just avoiding the question.

No it's not. It was a completely different time. Ways, customs, and God's directives were in that context. Again, God established a New Covenant - Jesus - that replaced all that had been in place up until that time. Pretty clear if you asked me.

 

[crowTrobot]

No it's not. It was a completely different time. Ways, customs, and God's directives were in that context. Again, God established a New Covenant - Jesus - that replaced all that had been in place up until that time. Pretty clear if you asked me.

sounds like your answer is yes.

so genocide, stoning homosexuals and disrespectful children etc was moral at that time, but isn't now because jesus died on the cross?

 

[crowTrobot]

Why, you are accusing, so the burden of proof is on you.

accusing what? you compared genocide in the OT to the immoral actions of stalin etc. i'm just asking if you're saying you think god didn't actually command it?

 

[magnifier661]

sounds like your answer is yes.

so genocide, stoning homosexuals and disrespectful children etc was moral at that time, but isn't now because jesus died on the cross?

BINGO! This was at an age that even the most civilized felt it was moral to crucify the innocent. Looking back at it now; would we consider it moral? Looking back at 1 year ago; was it moral for our President to keep our soldiers in Iraq, being killed and killing Muslims?

And with the blood of Jesus Christ; everyone is accepted. Does it bother you that God can forgive?

 

[ABM]

sounds like your answer is yes.

so genocide, stoning homosexuals and disrespectful children etc was moral at that time, but isn't now because jesus died on the cross?

No, all I said was I think it's a bit premature to begin these so-called "fire Nate" discussions.

Have you even been paying attention?!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

if the bible instructed you to murder non-christians would you follow that?

It doesn't.

But it certainly describes God slaughtering people by the multitude and telling a lot of people to kill other people, most famously, of course, his favorite to kill his own son.

 

[magnifier661]

accusing what? you compared genocide in the OT to the immoral actions of stalin etc. i'm just asking if you're saying you think god didn't actually command it?

Yes God commanded it. Pretty cool huh? And you nailed it exactly how I expected you to. Why would you think I brought this up? Why would I use different Faiths and even patriotism as what modern man today feels about morality. They want to play God. You agreed with what Rasta said; therefor you also agree that we as a people can make our own moral judgement. Therefor you want to be God. Funny how theology works. I wanted to see how your intentions were, and you passed with flying colors.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

BINGO! This was at an age that even the most civilized felt it was moral to crucify the innocent.

Are you saying that what people "feel" determines what's moral? Why on earth should we believe that?

Looking back at it now; would we consider it moral?

No, because it wasn't. And wouldn't God have known that at the time?

Looking back at 1 year ago; was it moral for our President to keep our soldiers in Iraq, being killed and killing Muslims?

Either it was or it wasn't. How people feel about it doesn't really enter into it.

And with the blood of Jesus Christ; everyone is accepted.

See, that's the part of Christianity that doesn't even PRETEND to make sense. It's just voodoo. (If that's not an insult to voodoo.)

Does it bother you that God can forgive?

Does it bother you that God is unforgivable? Seriously, look at all the shit he's done.

 

[ABM]

But it certainly describes God slaughtering people by the multitude and telling a lot of people to kill other people, most famously, of course, his favorite to kill his own son.

I guess God meant business, huh? Kinda crazy how things work out that way.

 

[crowTrobot]

BINGO! This was at an age that even the most civilized felt it was moral to crucify the innocent. Looking back at it now; would we consider it moral? Looking back at 1 year ago; was it moral for our President to keep our soldiers in Iraq, being killed and killing Muslims?

so god didn't actually dictate leviticus or command joshua. that's an interesting take for a biblical literalist.

 

[magnifier661]

Are you saying that what people "feel" determines what's moral? Why on earth should we believe that?



No, because it wasn't. And wouldn't God have known that at the time?



Either it was or it wasn't. How people feel about it doesn't really enter into it.



See, that's the part of Christianity that doesn't even PRETEND to make sense. It's just voodoo. (If that's not an insult to voodoo.)



Does it bother you that God is unforgivable? Seriously, look at all the shit he's done.

Did I just get two?

 

[magnifier661]

so god didn't actually dictate leviticus or command joshua. that's an interesting take for a biblical literalist.

Yes keep posting and keep questioning oh great God.

 

[magnifier661]

There are university courses you can take on this if you REALLY want to know. They're called "Ethics". Although you might also be interested in Metaethics.
One point to consider when you're evaluating the relationship between God and morality. There's something called the Euthyphro Dilemma, so called because it comes up in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. To paraphrase to fit the god of the Pentateuch/Old Testament:
"Are the 10 Commandments true because God decreed them, or did God decree them because they were true?"
The first option is called Divine Command Theory and it has been rejected by great theologians and philosophers from Plato through St. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and onwards. It has several problems, the most serious being:
(a) It makes God's commandments completely arbitrary. He could have said "Thou Shalt Rape and Pillage" (well, he pretty much does elsewhere in the OT, but that's besides the point) and then THAT would've been morally right. But we don't believe that. (If you say "But God wouldn't have commanded that" then explain why not. It can't be that rape and pillaging are antecedently wrong, because that's the SECOND option, not divine command theory.)
(b) It makes God completely whimsical. If you ask "Why did God pick THOSE commandments" the answer has to be: for NO REASON AT ALL. Because if there was a reason, then it would imply that things are good or bad before God decrees them, which, again, is the other option.
(c) It means the statement "God is good" is meaningless, because there is no standard of goodness outside of God by which we can assess him/her/it. It would be like saying "God is God" Well, duh. And so what?
So, the generally accepted view is that if what God commands is good, it's because it already was. He's good at recognizing good from bad, but he doesn't MAKE it good or bad.

So, how do we tell what's good and what's bad? Well, the three major theories (none of which suggest that what's good is subjective, by the way) are Utilitarianism, most famously laid out by Jeremy Bentham and then John Stuart Mill; Kantianism (the theory of Immanuel Kant), and Virtue Theory, which dates back to the Ancient Greeks, and the most sophisticated version of which is probably Aristotle's.

Hope that helps.

Just want to post this again. Wanted to post what Rasta, Crow, ABM and whomever all agreed what theoretically correct.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay so now my point. Do the "lawmakers" of the United States feel they are Gods? Do other political leaders around the world believe they are Gods? How can we justify morality unless we are God? And how in the hell did you smart individuals actually fall for this catch-22?

 

[RR7]

I don't think the lawmakers as a generality try to determine good versus bad. They design a set of laws to determine right versus wrong. You can be good, but wrong(stealing to feed family sort of thing, etc.) and bad, but right. Nobody is playing god or thinking they are god. Laws aren't morals. Peoples morals differ case by case, but the laws in the US are, generically speaking, the same for everyone. You can morally agree with abortion, and others can disagree, but the law on it is the law. You can be morally opposed to gays being allowed to marry, and I can be morally in favor, but the laws are the laws.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't think the lawmakers as a generality try to determine good versus bad. They design a set of laws to determine right versus wrong. You can be good, but wrong(stealing to feed family sort of thing, etc.) and bad, but right. Nobody is playing god or thinking they are god. Laws aren't morals. Peoples morals differ case by case, but the laws in the US are, generically speaking, the same for everyone. You can morally agree with abortion, and others can disagree, but the law on it is the law. You can be morally opposed to gays being allowed to marry, and I can be morally in favor, but the laws are the laws.

Exactly... So when the law of the land terminates a convicted serial murder; it's not about morals; but breaking the law. Now do you see where this is going?

 

[RR7]

nope, sure don't. Why don't you just ask what you want to ask, or state what you want to state.

 

[magnifier661]

nope, sure don't. Why don't you just ask what you want to ask, or state what you want to state.

Um, I thought I just did. Was I not clear?

 

[RR7]

clear on where it was going? I guess not. Sorry. I said not about morals, and playing god, but on laws. You asked where it was going. I don't know what you're getting at. Sorry.