posted
Why not? They were becoming more clear as to how to have a relationship with the Divine. (Though it seems they didn't quite get the monotheism part...)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's when people theorize without any basis that this came before Israelite monotheism that I have a problem.
Yes, well - your reason for believing that monotheism came first is the oral tradition plus the Torah; since the trustworthiness of that tradition is precisely what is being doubted, oops, suddenly you don't have any evidence either.
There's a reasonableness test. The Bible absolutely does mention people worshipping goddesses along with God. It's not like the issue is ignored.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Incidentally, did you intend to respond to my last post touching the evil of genocide?
Can you give me a link? The pages in this thread are pretty long, and I must have missed what you said. Unless I read it and it was just you repeating what you'd already said before and what I'd already disagreed with, in which case, don't bother.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Well, if you're going to argue that divine intervention caused the Jews and Egyptians to cease human sacrifice 'relatively early', as you did in the post that started this, then you'll also have to accept that divine intervention caused the Aztecs to cease human sacrifice only when they were overrun by more technologically advanced peoples. As an explanation, it explains nothing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And more to the point, as apologia for your god's goodness, it fails totally; it would be a much better argument for its evil. I think that's what we were discussing originally.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a reasonableness test. The Bible absolutely does mention people worshipping goddesses along with God. It's not like the issue is ignored.
Context. The Bible mentions it as a new-fangled abomination, in the time of the temple reforms. If that were true, you would not expect to find mentions of such a practice in much older inscriptions, would you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but just as often it makes for perfectly decent and upright people. Not trying to pride myself, but I consider myself neither a zombie or a suicide bomber, but I suppose my nature is up for anybody to judge. I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city? Fortunately for humanity the power of God cannot simply be reigned in when men see fit.
quote: Yes. I've been going on about the effects of the belief structures of religions for a while, both in this thread and in others. They're far from universally beneficial.
Sorta like how the benefits of all that has been called science is has not been universal? Could you pass me a leech please?
quote: Isaac wasn't his first born. Are you talking about God's slaughter of the innocent Egyptians? I'm not sure how that would be relevant.
I'm not talking about Abraham's sacrifice per se, I am discussing the possibility of God commanding his followers to take such a drastic course of action. [/quote]
quote: How completely creative. If only some perpetrators of genocide had ever accused their victims of spreading disease and immorality, their crimes would be completely excused. What a novel idea!
I have no idea why this statement applies to anything that has been discussed.
quote: Pardon me, but you have just proved that, in fact, you do not. You are quite willing to dismiss the deaths of thousands as 'negative reinforcement' if that is necessary to excuse your god of an evil act.
Consider yourself pardoned. You have not proven that the act of killing the Midianites was evil, Ill thank you for not speaking as if it is assumed that it was. I find it puzzling that you who speak so lightly of a happy world where all religion is somehow suppressed and eradicated now suddenly champion the rights of a group of people steeped in conflict, licentiousness, and violence all under the guise of an idol based religion.
Just so we are clear, are you saying that you can see no reason why an entire group of people could ever be so dangerous or destructive as to warrant removal? And quit acting like I just DISMISSED the deaths of the Midianites, just because I believe God is justified in managing his creatures does not mean I myself feel more able to do His work for him. And I don't just say, "Well, He's God, let Him do what he wants." The fact remains neither you or I have very detailed historical accounts of what happened, all we know is the Midianites attacked Israel, and in response they were commanded to eradicate them. I've already told you many times I expect God to be able to explain completely adequately why He did what he did.
quote: Since the morality of your god is the topic of discussion, its propaganda should not be taken at face value. Consider what you would think if the word 'Canaanites' in that sentence is replaced by 'Jews'.
Well since the only record we have of this incident is the Bible, I'm going to have to discard your suggestion. And if you are going to deign to call God's justification "propaganda" I have nothing more to discuss with you on this topic as you have made discussion futile.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city?
This sort of parallel always baffles me. Are people destroying cities in the name of science nowadays?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. Well, if you're going to argue that divine intervention caused the Jews and Egyptians to cease human sacrifice 'relatively early', as you did in the post that started this, then you'll also have to accept that divine intervention caused the Aztecs to cease human sacrifice only when they were overrun by more technologically advanced peoples. As an explanation, it explains nothing.
Perhaps I have not been clear about how I believe God works. Referring to it as "divine intervention" would, I think, mischaracterize it. As I said, I don't know enough about Egyptian mythology to speculate, I know less about Aztec mythology. The Jews recorded their evolving relationship with God so that helps.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city?
This sort of parallel always baffles me. Are people destroying cities in the name of science nowadays?
quote:Just so we are clear, are you saying that you can see no reason why an entire group of people could ever be so dangerous or destructive as to warrant removal?
No; religious people, for example, are highly liable to start killing off the unbelievers, and should be pre-emptively destroyed.
quote:And quit acting like I just DISMISSED the deaths of the Midianites
You did. Flippantly, even.
quote:all we know is the Midianites attacked Israel, and in response they were commanded to eradicate them.
We know nothing of the kind. Read the thread again; the worst accusation that has been leveled against the Midianites is that some of their horrible slutty shiksas seduced good upstanding Jewish boys. Gosh, how awful.
quote:I've already told you many times I expect God to be able to explain completely adequately why He did what he did.
Yes, yes, "you expect". And you expect this because you have decided that your god is good, without looking at the evidence.
quote:You have not proven that the act of killing the Midianites was evil, I'll thank you for not speaking as if it is assumed that it was.
WHAT? Many thousands of people die, and somehow the burden of proof is on me to show that this is a bad thing? Are you listening to yourself? How about you try to show it was a good thing?
quote:a group of people steeped in conflict, licentiousness, and violence
According to the annals of the Jews, who violently wiped them out after a conflict caused by Jewish boys sleeping with their women. Are you sure you're being completely unbiased in your judgements, here?
BlackBlade, please take a step back from the discussion. Can't you see how you are bending over backwards to defend genocidal murderers? Can't you see how you are closing your eyes to even the possibility that these killings may not have been justified? If these events had occurred in any other book, would you not condemn them as evil?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. Well, if you're going to argue that divine intervention caused the Jews and Egyptians to cease human sacrifice 'relatively early', as you did in the post that started this, then you'll also have to accept that divine intervention caused the Aztecs to cease human sacrifice only when they were overrun by more technologically advanced peoples. As an explanation, it explains nothing.
Perhaps I have not been clear about how I believe God works. Referring to it as "divine intervention" would, I think, mischaracterize it. As I said, I don't know enough about Egyptian mythology to speculate, I know less about Aztec mythology. The Jews recorded their evolving relationship with God so that helps.
I don't care how it's done. Your exact words were "because of God". The phrase goes just as neatly into explaining why the Aztecs were still doing human sacrifice when the Spanish invaded.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explain how? Bear in mind that, from a Christian point of view, when we come closer to understanding what God wants of us, we behave better. When we chop people up, we are getting it wrong. It is to be hoped that we keep getting better at getting it right.
edit to add: at least from my Christian point of view.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Because of God, the Jews stopped human sacrifice relatively early."
"Because of God, the Aztecs stopped human sacrifice relatively late."
What is the difference? You have no evidence for the first, you have no evidence for the second. Since the subject of discussion is whether the god in question is good or not, you can't use its goodness as a premise, as you are doing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but just as often it makes for perfectly decent and upright people.
Not relevant. You find decent people everywhere; you find suicide bombers only among the religious. The conclusion must be that religion (edit) is not the only thing causing people to become decent, but is the only thing that can cause them to become suicide bombers. This is elementary logic.
[ March 22, 2007, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, honey, when we go into that territory it becomes a matter of faith. Which is not terribly productive for us to discuss.
To get back on track:
MY point in bringing up all the various cultures that performed human sacrifice was to establish that lots of cultures, at one time or another performed ritual human sacrifice. The reason I did that was to point our that our (quite understandable) shock that the OT would record God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son (which, remember God didn't even end up doing in the story) is somewhat misplaced. It would not have been viewed by the writers or its intended audience the same way we view it today. Nor is it any indication that the view those people had of God was any worse than that of lots of other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there's no need for faith in the goodness of your god, only the existence. You can look at the actual evidence of what it has done, and decide whether it's a leader you want to follow. In fact, you have a moral responsibility to do so, or you are no better - worse, in fact - than the German voters of 1933. To leave questions of goodness to faith is to abdicate all moral responsibility.
Touching your lots of cultures, I don't see what that has to do with what we were discussing. The question was: "Is Yahweh as described in the OT good, or evil?" What the actual writers at the time thought of the matter is not very relevant; we hardly consider them good judges of morality, do we now? The relevant point is what we think is moral or otherwise; after all, we're the ones doing the judging. The point is, you are probably quite right that Yahweh doesn't stand out from all the other little one-tribe godlets of the period for nastiness, but it's much like saying that smallpox doesn't really stand out as a killer when you consider cholera, tuberculosis and malaria. You might be right, but that doesn't keep us from eradicating it as a great scourge of humanity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Various people have called God lots of different names. Sometimes people have, in their mythology, called God many names.
Lots of people had (some still do) an understanding of God that reflected the harsh conditions underwhich they lived, the comparably primative cultures in which they lived, the cultures of the people who lived near them, and so forth.
Given that, the OT has a lot of worthwhile stuff to say about God. Inspired stuff. Stuff we should pay attention to while still understanding the culture of the people who wrote it.
Our understanding of God changes. With God's helps, it evolves and gets better.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would you tell the difference between a culture that was deliberately making stuff up, and one that just had a poor understanding of your god? How would you tell the difference between one with a poor understanding of your god, and one that was being misled by alien pranksters?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point: We weren't actually discussing "God", including your concept of a god that we can come into better contact with. We were discussing, specifically, Yahweh as described in the OT. At least I was. So to say that the people who wrote the OT had a bad understanding of the real god is not really that relevant; the point is, good understanding or bad, they described a god which we think evil.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Why are you taking Scripture out of context and judging it as if it was written by people in this culture?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I was having a discussion with BlackBlade and Lisa, who both believe, if I understand them correctly, that
a) The slaughter of the Midianites occurred as described b) It was a good thing, or at least not too bad.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: Suppose for a moment that those Bronze Age shepherders actually had the correct understanding of their god, that the universe really was that way. Would you then agree that that god was evil?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah...if you want to just have that conversation with Blackblade and Lisa, knock yourself out. I'll stop interrupting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: "Because of God, the Jews stopped human sacrifice relatively early."
"Because of God, the Aztecs stopped human sacrifice relatively late."
What is the difference? You have no evidence for the first, you have no evidence for the second. Since the subject of discussion is whether the god in question is good or not, you can't use its goodness as a premise, as you are doing.
The first isn't true. The Jews never practiced human sacrifice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Because I was having a discussion with BlackBlade and Lisa, who both believe, if I understand them correctly, that
a) The slaughter of the Midianites occurred as described b) It was a good thing, or at least not too bad.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: Suppose for a moment that those Bronze Age shepherders actually had the correct understanding of their god, that the universe really was that way. Would you then agree that that god was evil?
It occurred that way, and it was a good thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies again for the very long post. Time zone discrepancies tend to leave me with a great backlog of new posts to read.
Rose the ____,
quote:Well, today, of course, we'd have them quarantined, and we'd look into a way to cure them of their icky VDs. germ theory didn't exist thousands of years ago, and we weren't enough of a force that people would look at us and say - uhm, let every last one of us leave our village afore we are royally spanked - so war was the only option left.
And by war you mean genocide. So women from a neighbouring tribe seduce some men in your own tribe. They get STDs, and while germ theory was unheard of, the Jews like any ancient people would have been able to put two and two together and see that diseases are contagious in some way, and that intimate contact tends to result in contracting diseases. So killing them all off is the only option? Excuse me?
quote:And then the lesson we decided to take from this, instead of - letting your children play around in orgies is a very bad idea, as you don't know what diseases they'll take from the experience - was, if G-d tells you to kill an entire people, you kill them, no questions, no griping.
If the Israelites believed the events occurred as they're described in the book of Numbers, then yes, this is probably the message they would take away from the genocide. It's mighty unfortunate.
quote:To equate this with the Shoah is so obviously disgusting.
No, it's not. It certainly isn't obvious either.
I think justifying genocide, especially on such incredibly sparse evidence as can be presented in support of the Israelites, is obviously disgusting.
quote:Nazi Germany wanted the Jews out because of propaganda that any rational thinker at the time could find his way out of.
The entire country? What about the people who made that propaganda? They had other reasons.
Ever read an account of life in Germany under the Nazis, by the way? About SA torture chambers and later the Gestapo? Knowing that anti-Semitism was wrong doesn't mean you could have voiced or acted on that opinion without putting your life and that of your family's at great risk.
quote:They lost patience with deportation and moved on to killing.
Who did? The decision to establish concentration camps was not one which was made by all the German people, while I'm convinced that a great many people knew about it to some degree; such as the Germans living in the vicinity of concentration camps actually located in Germany, like Dachau.
You'll find that the decision to start systematically slaughtering Jews (and other minorities) originated from Hitler or Himmler and that its execution was mostly undertaken by Himmler and his men. This does not excuse the abhorrent moral crime on the part of other Nazis or non-Nazi Germans in the know, who tacitly or actively condoned the Holocaust.
I assume you were talking about the concentration camps. Nazi Germany of course has many other crimes to answer for, including the less systematic but still rather methodical persecution of the Jews preceding the establishment of concentration camps - e.g. see the Einsatzgruppen.
quote:The Jewish people didn't have the power, the knowledge, the option to simply make the Midianites stop their dangerous religious practices, or make them leave.
They could have left themselves, or stayed away from the Midianites.
quote:the only answer for the time was war, and when you made war in those times and left survivors, you were asking for another war.
On the contrary the Israelites themselves intended to sell the survivors off as slaves. It was common practice to take prisoners, and considered heavy handed in the ancient world to annihilate cities.
Otherwise you're asking for another war? That is the most simplistic justification for total annihilation I've ever heard. Even Hitler had a better one.
quote:The Shoah was an answer to a problem that did not exist.
Whole heartedly agreed. In fact, I'd rather not even word it as "an answer to a problem," though I realise you were just echoing the 'Final Solution' wording.
Unfortunately this was not the case from the perspective of many Nazis. Depending on how much Hitler believed his own propaganda (he probably did believe much of it; but I'm not a history professor), the Jews were responsible for Germany's loss in WWI, and by extension the terrible economic conditions of the postwar and Weimar eras. A specious claim, but one which took advantage of existing undercurrents of anti-Semitism already in place in Europe. In fact, the fact that the Jews were overrepresented in the more lucrative professions, which was used against the Jews and used as 'evidence' of their parasitic nature, was ironically the result of Mediaeval laws preventing Jews from taking on the socially acceptable occupations of the day; leaving them to take jobs like tax collecting. Add to the mix the Nazi theories on eugenics and racial purity, and you can see how from a NSDAP perspective, the Jews represented a very real physical and spiritual threat.
Doesn't mean they were right at all.
quote:If you're an athiest who likes to point at this story to proclaim the evils of G-d, try to imagine how you might survive a week in the time before the creation of Israel, or any time in antiquity, with the morals and ethics you clothe yourself in now.
This is your argument against our modern moral sensibilities?
BlackBlade,
quote:And are you railing on God for managing his creations period or for using human beings as an instrument?
We're railing on god for behaving immorally, yet claiming to be the embodiment of good.
quote:
quote:Well, considering that rape is the generally accepted translation of that verse and it's directly preceded by other laws referring to rape (which you've already conceded), I think the onus is on you to show how it isn't rape.
generally accepted sez you, <looks around for Lisa>.
I've checked over a dozen translations. They all refer to raping, laying hold, seizing, or taking hold. Only one refers to 'speaking her into' sex. So you tell me. What's the standard interpretation?
The onus is on you to show how it doesn't refer to rape.
quote:
quote:And again, there are precedents for such cruelty, so there's little reason to be surprised. For example, if a newly wed couple make love and the husband claims that his wife is not a virgin, she could be executed unless proof of her virginity is produced. Presumably in the form of bloodied bedsheets.
You presume too much, do you know what the "tokens of viginity" are? I get the impression you are simply guessing.
You ignored completely the substance of the question, but I'll humour you. Deuteronomy 22:17 refers to the father 'spreading the cloth' as evidence of her daughter's virginity. It would appear it's you who hasn't read the passages preceding the one I cited.
quote:OK so the Nazis are hypocrites and inconsistent in what they SAID they were trying to do. And seeing how the genetic pool has never asked anybody to clean it, its amazing how many people are willing to try anyway.
What are you trying to say?
quote:
quote:The difference is that I consider genocide inherently to be a moral abomination. Whereas you've said that genocide would not be evil, or would be morally justifiable in the name of some cause, if it were directed by god:
Inherently a moral abomination huh? Well we will have to disagree then, I think there ARE instances where genocide is preferable to extinction, like say if a disease germinated in a certain country of such devastation the country had to be completely obliterated to prevent it from spreading.
It's your god who we're talking about here, and whether it was moral or not to set up a scenario in which the Israelites are obliged to commit genocide.
Pause and reflect on what genocide means. It's the mass murder of a people, regardless of personal convictions and the qualities and vices of the individual.
Self-defence and the defence of other innocents can be a justification for murder, but there are hardly any circumstances possible where genocide is the only course of action left for continued existence (Ender's Game may or may not be an example; that uncertainty is one of the story's qualities IMO). Even in the highly unlikely example of a country which must be totally obliterated to stem a fatal contagious disease, the act of genocide would still be morally abhorrent. The people killed are innocents.
Please do get back to the point, which is that you would consider anything directed by god to be moral or morally defensible. That's the dangerous belief I'm referring to.
quote:OK look, what is inherently wrong with a human being taking the life of another human being?
What a question to ask.
I'll give you my answer, though other atheists will have other responses. First it's important to understand that I'm not using the word 'inherantly' as a moral philosopher would, but I was using it the way one does in normal conversation.
To say that something is moral or immoral is to make an assessment of value. Something is good or bad according to a set of criteria, and in the case of morality, the criterion is life. Not just surviving, but living life as a human being and achieving happiness; the hard-earned, long-lasting kind as well. Life, continued existence, and happiness are self-evidently the most important criteria for an evaluation of anything; in the absence of irrational beliefs such as an afterlife. What could be more important?
That isn't the sum total of my moral philosophy. If you're curious I'll be happy to elaborate, but this post is getting exceedingly long.
quote:What is inherently wrong with God bring to a close the mortality of his creation? Especially in view of the idea that this life is not the only time men and women have to live?
Obviously I don't believe there is such a life. And even if I did I would consider it highly immoral to force such a decision on them.
If you're tempted to say that everyone dies eventually, consider what you'd be saying. Murder is somewhat excusable because there is an afterlife and people will eventually have to go there anyway?
quote:I see murder and killing as wrong as I am using my agency to terminate the agency of another human being. I am wiping out all the possibilities of tomorrow in this world for him, whether he is prepared or unprepared to meet God, I have sent him to the next life anyway. I have in effect played God with another man's life when I am not God.
Is your only reason for seeing murder as immoral the fact that 'it's not your place,' because you didn't create the victim?
quote:I think you are overplaying the danger of my beliefs. If we take the Bible at its word then God has only asked good people to wage war on the people who are wicked beyond correction.
Yeah, like people who wear wool and linen jumpers.
If one makes small adjustments to your view of god, your stated beliefs could lead to obliging you to commit highly immoral acts. The fact that you would condone the Holocaust if you believed it was 'directed by god' is telling of this.
quote:But even you have to concede that fines and jail time are preferable to no jails, no fines, or only jail/only fines.
My point is that we have jails and fines. Those are what I think of when someone says 'negative reinforcement'. Not genocide.
quote:God is also extremely patient, he didn't punish the Israelites for every offense, he let them descend into serious iniquity before correcting them.
Your criteria for patience are different from mine. For an omnipotent being who created the universe, herding the Israelites and (repeatedly and on many occasions) killing lots of them when they start complaining or breaking a few of that being's rules is not a sign of patience. Especially when the human impulses (which are supposedly base) were created by that being.
quote:
quote:I forgot that you don't necessarily believe god is omniscient
Actually I do, but omniscient does not mean "Aware of all that is, and makes all that is so." Unless again you believe that if God knowingly does not stop me from say falling over, that its God's fault I fell.
It is god's responsibility that we live in a world where we can fall.
If you want to extend the analogy to the verses we're talking about, god was carrying the Israelites and let go in punishment for some infringement. Remember that human agency and its nature (including the human impulses, which are supposedly naturally base) are also god's creation.
When god is not intervening by sending plagues and killing Israelites, he is either being immoral or utterly apathetic (perhaps the latter is also immoral).
quote:OH IC, I responded in the way I did because I was fairly certain that Euripides was not suggesting that God would knowingly make an evil decision.
Well, would he? Or is something moral simply by virtue of the fact that it is god doing it?
The crux of the argument we're having here is; what is good and evil - is it purely defined by god?
And the corollary question: Is god and your religion the only reason you behave morally?
quote:I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city? Fortunately for humanity the power of God cannot simply be reigned in when men see fit.
Asking science to provide us with moral precepts is like trying to hammer a nail using a saw. The tool you want is called moral philosophy.
kmbboots,
quote:I apologize that my example wasn't exciting enough for you. It was supposed to be an example of how what we see as actions are often symbols.
As I explicitly said, I understood that.
Until now you've evaded specific examples like the one I gave though, and you seem to not want to make any definite statements about what your religion condones or condemns; or you make them grudgingly and with conditionals. FWIW I think this is a wise course of action if your goal is to preserve your religious beliefs while maintaining modern moral sensibilities.
I appreciate that the bible is a complex book which takes a lot of effort and background information to distil, just like many other ancient texts. You can't whitewash all the evil that is in the bible though, using that argument. There is so much of it to justify, and in so many cases the justification is so specious.
You keep coming back to the fact that the bible is a reflection of an ancient understanding of god, which I'll accept. But once again there are limits to interpretation; not all the ugly parts of Christian ideology disappear like that.
And on what grounds do you base your belief that your understanding of god is better than the ancients'? Study of ancient texts is at best a flawed response, since you've already impressed on us how context-specific and culturally biased scripture is.
quote:I don't think adulterers were ever going to "hell". Unless they choose to be.
Could you explain why you believe this?
quote:I think the lesson in the Abraham/Isaac story is that God's wants obedience instead of human sacrifice.
You've worded it more congenially, but it's still god demanding blind obedience over Abraham's own moral reasoning.
quote:This conversation is (subject matter aside) incredibly similar to the conversations I have with people who think that a week of bitter cold in Chicago disproves global climate change. Or who think that global warming will just mean nicer weather in Canada.
I interpreted that as a roundabout way of calling me an idiot.
quote:They think that my explanations are convoluted, too. Intuitively it seems like it makes sense, but the more you learn, the more you realize that it isn't a simple as it appears.
Actually, I don't see your arguments as convoluted. I said you tend to give more weight to convoluted interpretations of the bible that lend the desired result; a benevolent image of god. When we discuss examples of evil in the bible, you're prepared to distance god from scripture and consider him a more nebulous influence, but at the same time you're prepared to draw some fairly specific conclusions about god based on other parts of scripture.
Do you believe that Yahweh killed many thousands of Israelites? If so, you believe that was moral?
quote:What you seem to be missing is that the relationship that the Jewish people had with God made things better than they had been before. More humane. The Law seems cruel because we don't see it in comparison to what things were like before the Law. Concepts such as care for the poor for example.
On what grounds do you judge the good bits to be absolute and the bad bits to be the unfortunate consequences of cultural incompatibility?
Why would god have to 'phase in' his system of morality if he were all powerful? And if he were all good and no evil, why would he be okay with condoning evil even in small degrees? Couldn't he have laid down the absolute law and enforced that instead?
KoM,
quote:No; religious people, for example, are highly liable to start killing off the unbelievers, and should be pre-emptively destroyed.
That would be genocide as well.
Please don't give atheists a bad name.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man.
The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.
Euripides is correct. Rape is not a capital crime, biblically. The only time it is is when the woman was married. And in that case, it doesn't matter if she was raped or seduced or just into it when it comes to the man. It's adultery that makes it a capital crime. The circumstances only matter for the woman.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides: I think the discussion is becoming convoluted and while I certainly have the time and stamina at work to continue perhaps we should, "simplify simplify."
Ok firstly, I'd appreciate it if you would go into the conversation with some respect for me as an individual. Perhaps I did not extend the same courtesy to you and you are reacting, but I honestly try to take your arguments at face value and that you have good intentions.
When I ask questions like, "What is inherently wrong with murder?" I am not trying to say, "Murder isn't so bad." or "Genocide is not so bad." I am inviting you to discuss the concept with me, saying things to the effect of, "Wow I can't believe you would ask that." Just shows disdain that makes discussion not very fun or interesting. Anyway I'd like to simplify our conversation to the following points.
1: Genocide is universally evil. You are suggesting that it is impossible for genocide to be necessary, and therefore good. I have tried to argue that it CAN be necessary in certain circumstances but we keep getting tied up with, "But the Midianites didn't have diseases! They were not really that evil!" Disregarding that can we focus on whether or not genocide CAN be justified.
2: (Probably contingent on how we conclude our first point.) If Genocide is justifiable, could it be in the instance of the Midianites.
This business of the overall personality of the OT God can be dealt with later, I'd like to at least accomplish SOMETHING.
Lastly, I can concede that I think you are correct that, "to lay hold upon" in most instances means by force and the connotation is rape. And that "tokens of virginity" is bloody sheets. I guess I got the impression that you felt the law of Moses completely ignores the rights of women, which, 1: I don't think is true
2: The Law of Moses was not designed to be the perfect moral code for people of all ages.
But lets at least try and focus on the 1st point, is genocide ever justifiable.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people have suggested that if God’s actions lead to a net gain of “good,” then the ends justify the means, and the action was not evil. This is a form of utilitarianism.
One of the problems with utilitarianism is that the definition for “good” changes from person to person and from culture to culture. I think this is a small part of what Kim had been pointing out.
Not everyone believes in utilitarianism. In fact, I think it opens the door for radical beliefs and atrocities, such as genocide.
The “atheist” side has asked a few times for a concrete definition of good, and no one, from either side, has provided one. Which is fine, it’s very hard for utilitarianism to come up with a concrete definition of good that applies to everyone, everywhere.
Here is the Noble Eightfold Path; I see it as moral code that can apply to everyone, everywhere: 1. Right Speech - One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way. 2. Right Actions - Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm. 3. Right Livelihood - One's way of livelihood does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly. 4. Right Effort/Exercise - One makes an effort to improve. 5. Right Mindfulness/Awareness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness. 6. Right Concentration - Being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion. 7. Right Thoughts - Change in the pattern of thinking. 8. Right Understanding - Understanding reality as it is, not just as it appears to be.
If we ask the question “Does the God of the Old Testament follow the Noble Eightfold Path?” I feel the answer is clearly no.
I feel that the Noble Eightfold path is more moral than the Ten Commandments (which is why I did not use the Ten Commandments). Note how the second and third items on the list are very different than the Commandment “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Someone looking at “Thou Shalt not commit murder” can easily say, “If God kills someone, it is not murder, because murder is defined as a human taking the life of a human,” thus conveniently placing God above the law. I do not think God is above the ideal of not doing harm, even if he is the creator. Perhaps this is what separates our beliefs?
I feel that the more power a being wields, the more accountable they must be for their actions. Since men like Hitler and George Bush wield so much power, they should follow the Eightfold Path more closely, because the potential harm they can cause is much greater than the potential harm a common citizen can cause. The non-utilitarian Eightfold Path prevents people from doing harm in the name of an imaginary greater good (which is precisely what Hitler did; he believed he was working for the greater good of the Arian race, a utilitarian approach to ethics). Heck, that’s exactly what God did when he ordered the Jews to kill the Midianites, he was working for the greater good of the Jewish race.
Since God has so much more power than anyone, that power should not be used as an excuse for him to break moral rules. Instead, he should be held to a much higher standard than anyone else.
I am not impressed with the God of the Old Testament, because if anyone has the power to not do harm, it is clearly him, and yet he chooses to harm people.
I will not call him evil, but I feel that he abuses his power and behaves immorally.
Edit: I know I am not Euripides, but I hope you will consider why I do not feel genocide is ever "justifiable," even if it can be proven that it is for a "greater good."
posted
Historically, don't groups of people generally consider their god to be on their side, and everyone else is neutral at best, or evil at worst?
Within the context that the Jews are God's Chosen People, anything that God does FOR the Jews and Against non-Jews is good. Kill unbelievers, good. Make the enemies of the Jews suffer, good. Kill anyone who isn't a REAL Jew (i.e. who has fallen away from God's teaching), good.
Good, in terms of the God of the OT just means taking His Chosen People down the path He has made for them. It doesn't have to make sense to us, we're not God. If He wants to kill babies, inflict plagues, torture his followers to test them, commit genocide, wipe out most of the world's population, and so on, that's His prerogative.
Obviously it's good, God did it. How could anyone question that? When it comes to God, you just say whatever you like, it doesn't even have to be real words or commonly understood definitions, and you sum up with, "And so, it's just like my faith tells me to believe."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
My tongue was poking ever so slightly into my cheek, there.
I did get that feeling. I didn't think that was a great place for such a remark though.
Many posters like to lay the anti-religious 'fundamentalist' label on you, and I'd rather they didn't get more ammunition.
BlackBlade,
quote:Ok firstly, I'd appreciate it if you would go into the conversation with some respect for me as an individual. Perhaps I did not extend the same courtesy to you and you are reacting, but I honestly try to take your arguments at face value and that you have good intentions.
Okay, I'll do the same. (assuming that by 'take at face value' you mean 'thoughtfully consider beyond face value' )
quote:1: Genocide is universally evil. You are suggesting that it is impossible for genocide to be necessary, and therefore good. I have tried to argue that it CAN be necessary in certain circumstances but we keep getting tied up with, "But the Midianites didn't have diseases! They were not really that evil!" Disregarding that can we focus on whether or not genocide CAN be justified.
For purely theoretical purposes, I've said that genocide could potentially be justified, but that the circumstances in which it could be are incredibly improbable.
If the existence of a single say, Japanese person on earth would somehow predicate the extinction of the rest of humanity, genocide would be justifiable but never good. I object to killing on principle, so I don't equate 'justifiable' with 'good.' A necessary evil.
Even killing in self-defence isn't good. The act of killing was evil, but the fact that you saved a life (yours in this case) from someone trying to do you harm just outweighs the evil. And we're assuming that there are no alternatives.
quote:2: (Probably contingent on how we conclude our first point.) If Genocide is justifiable, could it be in the instance of the Midianites.
A resounding no.
The topic of discussion though, more so than the Israelites' morality, was the righteousness or otherwise of god's actions in that incident; not so much his "overall personality." We're still talking about the genocide. Is it right that god set up a scenario where this would happen?
quote:Lastly, I can concede that I think you are correct that, "to lay hold upon" in most instances means by force and the connotation is rape. And that "tokens of virginity" is bloody sheets. I guess I got the impression that you felt the law of Moses completely ignores the rights of women, which, 1: I don't think is true
I think the only possible defence you could make for mosaic law respecting the rights of women is "it could have been worse."
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides: I visited the site you linked, but I am not interested in dealing with folks who care nothing for context and quote the single verse with objectionable material, without attempting to link the previous or succeeding verses that may be relevant. I'd rather focus on our discussion.
quote: For purely theoretical purposes, I've said that genocide could potentially be justified, but that the circumstances in which it could be are incredibly improbable.
If the existence of a single say, Japanese person on earth would somehow predicate the extinction of the rest of humanity, genocide would be justifiable but never good. I object to killing on principle, so I don't equate 'justifiable' with 'good.' A necessary evil.
Even killing in self-defence isn't good. The act of killing was evil, but the fact that you saved a life (yours in this case) from someone trying to do you harm just outweighs the evil. And we're assuming that there are no alternatives.
OK so we are using the words differently then. In this case would you say that if God using his infinite knowledge knew that say genocide was necessary to preserve a much larger group of people both present and future, that genocide would be "justified" but not "good?"
Far from me to suggest that righteousness must be built on wickedness, but lets go back to murder since we did not really flesh it out.
I have given you my own opinion on why murder is wrong, you were dissatisfied with it, could you perhaps articulate what you have to add to it?
I understand how you are using "necessary evil" and I too believe that sometimes difficult actions that are normally uncalled for become necessary in certain circumstances. But for me, a necessary evil would be for example, allowing evil to exist as it is necessary for righteousness. Or allowing somebody to believe something evil, as they too have their freedom to believe as they choose.
Scriptures state that without the ability to make evil choices human beings could not really make righteous choices.
But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
I could. All you need to do is read "The Objectivist Ethics", and it'll be fairly clear. There is a set of things which are inherently immoral. Murder, theft, etc. These are things that don't require religion in order to be wrong.
I can't see recapitulating that entire essay when it was so well done the first time around. Suffice it to say that that essay is the entirety of my argument in this case, and I stand by it as if I'd written it myself. Unfortunately, copyright restrictions prevent me from posting it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
I could. All you need to do is read "The Objectivist Ethics", and it'll be fairly clear. There is a set of things which are inherently immoral. Murder, theft, etc. These are things that don't require religion in order to be wrong.
I can't see recapitulating that entire essay when it was so well done the first time around. Suffice it to say that that essay is the entirety of my argument in this case, and I stand by it as if I'd written it myself. Unfortunately, copyright restrictions prevent me from posting it.
Not to be snarky (or genocidal), but I do not accept "The Preservation of Humans as a species." as the end all of morality.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not to be snarky (or genocidal), but I do not accept "The Preservation of Humans as a species." as the end all of morality.
I'm not sure that's a fair summation of the argument. In fact, I'm sure that it isn't, because the issue isn't humanity as a species, but each and every one of us as an individual.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not to be snarky (or genocidal), but I do not accept "The Preservation of Humans as a species." as the end all of morality.
I'm not sure that's a fair summation of the argument. In fact, I'm sure that it isn't, because the issue isn't humanity as a species, but each and every one of us as an individual.
Responded to your email, perhaps my next post will be me extolling the essay's masterful arguments. Or perhaps I will eat it for breakfast, who can know these things? Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies for the long delay. I was just thinking about how unlike you it was to ignore a post!
The thread must have been buried somewhere on the second page while I was asleep one night.
quote:OK so we are using the words differently then. In this case would you say that if God using his infinite knowledge knew that say genocide was necessary to preserve a much larger group of people both present and future, that genocide would be "justified" but not "good?"
Not if god was omnipotent. If he wasn't, only to the extent that Hitler might have been justified because he had a higher purpose in mind which the rest of the world couldn't comprehend.
In order for you to justify god's moral crimes, you would have to state precisely what consequences he was avoiding, and how the genocide helped to avoid them. Otherwise an appeal to god's infinite wisdom holds about as much water as Goebbels talking about the way his fuhrer is some kind of Übermensch creating a better world by cleansing it of inferiors.
quote:I have given you my own opinion on why murder is wrong, you were dissatisfied with it, could you perhaps articulate what you have to add to it?
I'm 'dissatisfied' because: (I hope you don't find this format patronising; I've only done this in the interest of clearer discussion)
A) 'God commands x. Therefore x is moral.' or 'God did x. Therefore x is moral.' are forms of sucking up to authority rather than acting morally. If that is the basis of morality, a man who refrains from sin is no more moral than a child who refrains from stealing only because he fears punishment or the disapproval of his father.
B) If another entity were to take the place of god in your system of morality, or your understanding of god's will were to change, you could justify all kinds of evil.
quote:But for me, a necessary evil would be for example, allowing evil to exist as it is necessary for righteousness.
Why is that the case?
quote:Scriptures state that without the ability to make evil choices human beings could not really make righteous choices.
Do you have any evidence for this, other than scripture?
quote:But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
I'm not sure how I can be clearer, but I'll give it a go.
When you evaluate something as either good or bad, you're judging it according to criteria. A good meal is one which tastes delicious, a good machine is one which is efficient and functional, etc.
I don't stand by Rand all the way, but she got this part right; when judging whether a thing is morally good or bad, the criterion is its necessity for man to live as man "qua man" (Rand is talking about women too, obviously). That means a lot of things, but essentially; man as a rational and volitional being. I say rational, because that is the instrument of our survival, the means to enjoying and fulfilling one's own life. Quoting the book, "Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."
And from another book, "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
That last sentence is what I find most crucial and true in Objectivist ethics. There should be no higher purpose than life on earth, and a religious code of morality places the will of an imaginary entity above it.
For man to exist 'qua man', a code of ethics is required. Life otherwise is nasty, brutish, and short.
I'm not as convinced that Rand could show how her premises lead to honesty and justice being virtues (though I still haven't read the whole Objectivist canon), but the way I see it is that a world in which each individual lives as a happy volitional being is a world which follows the golden rule. It is one where life is the highest virtue, and where it is recognised that 'life' means more than food, shelter, and water, but includes the capacity to think and choose; where individuals have certain rights, including a right to property extending over the products of their own labour and whatever they trade it for; where no individual must use force except in self defence.
Acting in one's own rational self-interest doesn't mean stealing whenever it's convenient. It means acting in a way which helps to bring about such a world.
I've written an essay laying down my argument against systems of morality which place other things before life. I can email it to you if you're interested.
I don't pretend to have the ultimate moral philosophy, and it's likely to change a bit over time; I'm just a college student and I don't major in moral philosophy. I no doubt make many decisions based on moral sensibilities I've absorbed from my culture and sub-culture, without thinking through the dilemma rationally and from the ground up. However, I'll never change my mind about the fact that the purpose of morality is life and happiness. I don't live to please god or anyone else, and neither should you.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did indeed miss it, Ill try to get to your excellent remarks sometime today. But no promises I need to secure employment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've had my fill of religious discussion today anyway. . I attended a talk by a certain Dr. Frank Mobbs, who offered a decidedly flawed and at times evasive refutation of Dawkins' book.
Until attending this event hosted by the campus Catholic organisation, I had no idea that 'Hail Maria' was still in use as a greeting.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
