In order to compare any two or multiple entities, there needs to be a finite criteria to serve as a measuring stick of sorts. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the criteria is whether or not it is moral to stone someone to death for a minor infraction. I think we would all opine that it's not. It's not something I would personally recommend, anyhow. Yahweh (AKA: Mac Daddy of the OT), on the other hand, not only recommends it, He prescribes it. Do a logical comparison to determine which entity displays a higher level of morality. I give you three guesses .....but the first two don't count.
Ok, Raf,
So here morality is subjective. I suppose it is.
Is Yahweh's morality subjective?
Are we setting ourselves equal to a god and then making comparisons?
It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures?
Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so. That is, if you're equating the eastern mindset with God's will. Otherwise, we're off topic again. I'm not asking if you are more moral than Bronze Age Israelites. I'm asking if you are more moral than the God they worshipped.
Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?
Ok. Here Raf says morality is objective and absolute.
Okay . . . suppose people lived in a culture with various practices. Like slavery.
Maybe in moves Yahweh and adds Law to guide things in a better direction. Starting with practices already present. Did Yahweh initiate owning slaves??
Kind of like U.S. culture changed over time. Not that long ago. In fact, I believe (some) white folks used God as their argument to own slaves. Was that Yahweh's fault or the people's attitudes? Didn't other religious folks make aggressive campaigns to change things?
You've got God being used on both side of an argument. It's clearly the people, not Yahweh.
(Just a reminder I don't view God from a Fundamentalist view)
It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures?
. . . .
Raf you appear to hold an objective, absolute view of morality.
People's morality is subjective. IMO. We have evolved behaviors, emotions, capacities, instincts, potentials and gut feelings of many sorts that not only conflict within ourselves, but conflict with other people. And we all meet in unique circumstances throughout history.
We all come together with our own subjective moralities, talk, argue, fight a war, make peace, overthrow another government and whatnot . . . but hopefully mostly dialogue by taking full responsibility for our Free Speech . . . and try to reason out what the objective morality is. Ideals and abstract concepts that merge and evolve from all this conflict over time could be called God. Or Yahweh on some threads. Yes God in a sense, compared to the rest of us, is all-knowing, all-powerful etc. Each generation we are socialized by the practiced understanding of the culture's cumulative understanding of God, and other gods. That knowledge is greater than any single person.
To say any one person is more moral than any god from any time in history . . . it's just wrong. IMO.
God as an abstract concept is also a transcendent one. It is above the system. (take out a dollar bill and look at the pyramid, why is the cap lifting?)
He's outside the group and within it. NO human can do that. Unless you are VPW. And we know how that works.
The statement "you are more moral than Yahweh" is to lift a person above the system of people. Aren't we to argue together and not lift ourselves over each other?
1. For how many crimes do you feel it is appropriate to kill the perpetrator by having everyone in town surround him and throw heavy rocks at him until he dies?
1.a. Did a child being disobedient to his parents make the list?
1.b. Did picking up sticks after sunset on a Friday make the list?
2. If you were to start a society from scratch, how many laws regulating slavery would you require?
2.a. Would any of those laws crack your Top Ten list?
2.a.i. Why the hell not?
3. What difference should the marital status of a raped woman make in determining the punishment meted out to the rapist?
3a. Who is the victim in a rape case, and how much restitution is he due?
To be continued...
Okay so you're asking . . . .WOW . . . just because someone wouldn't do these things and even would be adverse to them . . . that makes them MORAL?
(Answer: God's morality is derived from the people who created Him, not the other way around. God gets his morality from us. That's why He evolves and gets kinder and gentler as history progresses. A God who really existed and was the source of objective morality would not evolve).
This again, is another strawman.
You put God in a conscience creation. What science is there to back that?
Actually, the primary purpose (or intent) of the law was not to establish or improve morality. Remove that from the equation, and perhaps what you think of (or how you view) God (and the law) changes. Little did they know or realize it at the time, but the law was set forth to convict (all) mankind. Why? Well, because the acceptance of being worthy of death points a man towards the need (and acceptance) of the savior from death.
Actually, the primary purpose (or intent) of the law was not to establish or improve morality. Remove that from the equation, and perhaps what you think of (or how you view) God (and the law) changes. Little did they know or realize it at the time, but the law was set forth to convict (all) mankind. Why? Well, because the acceptance of being worthy of death points a man towards the need (and acceptance) of the savior from death.
That seems very sensible to me, TLC. The Law had a practical purpose. With a direction.
I think the initial posts argues . . . God is omnipotent . . . it should have been a better law. Then begin to poke random holes at random in God's work. This is the same argument you see in all creation. Our eyeballs have a faulty design . . . therefore God doesn't exist. The initial post's argument is unoriginal.
In this case though imperfect morality is used.
edit to add (I know the argument is not a disproof of God, OT version, just an attack on his credibility.)
Also not sure why the focus is on The Law. Why not complain about the Garden of Eden and how the design had a flaw? That's a typical complaint, and rather straight to the point. Same as looking for flaws in creation (i.e. nerves in the eye)
Or why we're terming God as Yahweh. Is there some meaning in doing that or is it just for show?
That and the question of the Law's purpose, which was not necessarily about morality.
I think much is missed if what is said about Eden doesn't consider and view it as being flawless. But, such thoughts undoubtedly veer sharply off course from anything being discussed on this thread...
In short, anything less than "very good" just isn't the same condition that's intended and communicated in the word "Eden."
The argument usually goes, God put a self-destruct button in Eden (the tree), an All knowing all loving God wouldn't have done that. Therefore, the story is all B.S.
I just see the parallel with that argument with the thread topic. We think we can imagine better, therefore Yahweh messed up.
You know, my cat can't do as much harm as I can. Does that make it more moral than me? . . . It can't do as much good either. Does it have a right to compare us?
The interpretation I'm most comfortable with concerning Eden is one that lays out our early humanities' awareness of our own capacity for good or evil. We are capable of either at any time. And we are aware of what we can do to others and what they can do to us. That's somewhat frightening if you think on it. Consequences of sin is because we are aware of the control we have to change things, and don't do it. (that's a short version)
Get to Noah's time and only he is doing things the best way. Everyone else is goofing off to the extreme. The flood represents catastrophe built by their own hands. There's a lot of detail in maintaining a stable society. Noah was just wiser than the rest, was able to see down the road, and his wisdom spared himself and his family. That's not a crazy story.
The Law comes in some time after that . . . TLC you're basically saying the Law was to prepare for the need of JC. Convicting people would make sense. You're not supposed to help people who won't help themselves. At least that's bad practice. It sounds like The Law was just a way to get people to that point where they would act themselves?
If that's so, Yahweh doesn't look bad in that light.
Actually, the primary purpose (or intent) of the law was not to establish or improve morality. Remove that from the equation, and perhaps what you think of (or how you view) God (and the law) changes. Little did they know or realize it at the time, but the law was set forth to convict (all) mankind. Why? Well, because the acceptance of being worthy of death points a man towards the need (and acceptance) of the savior from death.
Do you know if The Law is meant for the Group (Israel), or at the individual level, or both?
Laws are usually meant to help a group function . . . just curious.
This totally reminds me of I, Robot. Remember three robot laws?
I believe it was used to show how rules ultimately conflict with each other.
That's certainly one way to get minds in a twist. With The Law. Any sets of Laws, in relation to the real world, would show Law is not the full answer.
Nothing you guys have come up with explains why a moral God killed someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week or punished a rapist by having him marry his victim. The logical contortions you have to come up with to excuse Yahweh's immorality make my point better than I have.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Bolshevik
Ok, Raf,
So here morality is subjective. I suppose it is.
Is Yahweh's morality subjective?
Are we setting ourselves equal to a god and then making comparisons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ok. Here Raf says morality is objective and absolute.
Edited by Bolshevikimmoral spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Okay . . . suppose people lived in a culture with various practices. Like slavery.
Maybe in moves Yahweh and adds Law to guide things in a better direction. Starting with practices already present. Did Yahweh initiate owning slaves??
Kind of like U.S. culture changed over time. Not that long ago. In fact, I believe (some) white folks used God as their argument to own slaves. Was that Yahweh's fault or the people's attitudes? Didn't other religious folks make aggressive campaigns to change things?
You've got God being used on both side of an argument. It's clearly the people, not Yahweh.
(Just a reminder I don't view God from a Fundamentalist view)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Raf you appear to hold an objective, absolute view of morality.
People's morality is subjective. IMO. We have evolved behaviors, emotions, capacities, instincts, potentials and gut feelings of many sorts that not only conflict within ourselves, but conflict with other people. And we all meet in unique circumstances throughout history.
We all come together with our own subjective moralities, talk, argue, fight a war, make peace, overthrow another government and whatnot . . . but hopefully mostly dialogue by taking full responsibility for our Free Speech . . . and try to reason out what the objective morality is. Ideals and abstract concepts that merge and evolve from all this conflict over time could be called God. Or Yahweh on some threads. Yes God in a sense, compared to the rest of us, is all-knowing, all-powerful etc. Each generation we are socialized by the practiced understanding of the culture's cumulative understanding of God, and other gods. That knowledge is greater than any single person.
To say any one person is more moral than any god from any time in history . . . it's just wrong. IMO.
Edited by Bolshevikmoral reasons
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
God as an abstract concept is also a transcendent one. It is above the system. (take out a dollar bill and look at the pyramid, why is the cap lifting?)
He's outside the group and within it. NO human can do that. Unless you are VPW. And we know how that works.
The statement "you are more moral than Yahweh" is to lift a person above the system of people. Aren't we to argue together and not lift ourselves over each other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
While going over the thread I noted another poster stating this is a strawman. So I'm not the first to think that.
Your statement "We are more moral than Yahweh" implies a lot.
Yahweh, God, other gods, are not objects. Are not people.
"We are more moral than Liberty"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We are more moral than justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Okay so you're asking . . . .WOW . . . just because someone wouldn't do these things and even would be adverse to them . . . that makes them MORAL?
Not sure you have good data here . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We are more moral than muse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Let's through in some Dawkins to help this along:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
These guys at least are articulating a position better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
These are all very intelligent folks with some great questions and I enjoy listening and learning from them about many things.
But they all have a collective strawman argument. Harris has the false trichotomy going. Pretty cool.
So Raf, your question is a Strawman. Maybe false analogy, false equivalency. And you're in good company.
It does not properly relate morality, people, God, The Bible, evolution, reality, and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This again, is another strawman.
You put God in a conscience creation. What science is there to back that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Actually, the primary purpose (or intent) of the law was not to establish or improve morality. Remove that from the equation, and perhaps what you think of (or how you view) God (and the law) changes. Little did they know or realize it at the time, but the law was set forth to convict (all) mankind. Why? Well, because the acceptance of being worthy of death points a man towards the need (and acceptance) of the savior from death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That seems very sensible to me, TLC. The Law had a practical purpose. With a direction.
I think the initial posts argues . . . God is omnipotent . . . it should have been a better law. Then begin to poke random holes at random in God's work. This is the same argument you see in all creation. Our eyeballs have a faulty design . . . therefore God doesn't exist. The initial post's argument is unoriginal.
In this case though imperfect morality is used.
edit to add (I know the argument is not a disproof of God, OT version, just an attack on his credibility.)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Also not sure why the focus is on The Law. Why not complain about the Garden of Eden and how the design had a flaw? That's a typical complaint, and rather straight to the point. Same as looking for flaws in creation (i.e. nerves in the eye)
Or why we're terming God as Yahweh. Is there some meaning in doing that or is it just for show?
That and the question of the Law's purpose, which was not necessarily about morality.
I feel this is is a very forced question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I think much is missed if what is said about Eden doesn't consider and view it as being flawless. But, such thoughts undoubtedly veer sharply off course from anything being discussed on this thread...
In short, anything less than "very good" just isn't the same condition that's intended and communicated in the word "Eden."
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The argument usually goes, God put a self-destruct button in Eden (the tree), an All knowing all loving God wouldn't have done that. Therefore, the story is all B.S.
I just see the parallel with that argument with the thread topic. We think we can imagine better, therefore Yahweh messed up.
You know, my cat can't do as much harm as I can. Does that make it more moral than me? . . . It can't do as much good either. Does it have a right to compare us?
The interpretation I'm most comfortable with concerning Eden is one that lays out our early humanities' awareness of our own capacity for good or evil. We are capable of either at any time. And we are aware of what we can do to others and what they can do to us. That's somewhat frightening if you think on it. Consequences of sin is because we are aware of the control we have to change things, and don't do it. (that's a short version)
Get to Noah's time and only he is doing things the best way. Everyone else is goofing off to the extreme. The flood represents catastrophe built by their own hands. There's a lot of detail in maintaining a stable society. Noah was just wiser than the rest, was able to see down the road, and his wisdom spared himself and his family. That's not a crazy story.
The Law comes in some time after that . . . TLC you're basically saying the Law was to prepare for the need of JC. Convicting people would make sense. You're not supposed to help people who won't help themselves. At least that's bad practice. It sounds like The Law was just a way to get people to that point where they would act themselves?
If that's so, Yahweh doesn't look bad in that light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Do you know if The Law is meant for the Group (Israel), or at the individual level, or both?
Laws are usually meant to help a group function . . . just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This totally reminds me of I, Robot. Remember three robot laws?
I believe it was used to show how rules ultimately conflict with each other.
That's certainly one way to get minds in a twist. With The Law. Any sets of Laws, in relation to the real world, would show Law is not the full answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nothing you guys have come up with explains why a moral God killed someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week or punished a rapist by having him marry his victim. The logical contortions you have to come up with to excuse Yahweh's immorality make my point better than I have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Right, Yahweh needs our saving. Send in the robots!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.