Divine Command Theory - Any Takers? (Another Abrahamic Centric Thread)

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 47
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
THis came up in a topic earlier and would derail an entire conversation. I thought why not give it its own topic to derail! 

Divine command theory, put very simply, is the idea that any act god commands is a moral act, because god is the arbiter of all morality unchanging forever. Is this the case? Or is a moral act moral of its own merits? Example:

Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x

I'm pretty sure the "God told me to do it" is not a defense that will hold up in court.



Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
More importantly the "God told me to do it' doesn't hold up with other theists. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?
Can you clarify if the dream is an actual communition from an actual god?  or was it due to eating cheese for supper?

Really you can't ask if X is a moral act without specifying what makes an act 'moral'.   Command theory defines a moral act as an act in conformance with god's will, so if the dream was a genuine divine command then killing the dog was moral act simply by definition.   It might not be moral according to some other definition of moral, but then you're not tlking about command theory any more.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Well, God waited until Abraham commited his filicide before staying his hand, right?  Morality is a human construct irrelevant to god’s will. If god is real then obedience  is due and morality is little more than useless human critique on god’s irrefutable plan. If God is not, then your vivid dream is delusion & a sustainable moral code is essential  for dodging self-delusion
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
2
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
2
G O D ?  an acronym = G genius  O of  D  deception....GOD is a human construct..a TOOL 
designed for assimilation and hypnosis psychosis into slavery and servitude of petty CULTS...

There is NO NEED for some totally OBSOLETE imbecile GOD of a long gone era...an era
of unprecedented IGNORANCE and ILLITERACY...

Only a FOOL would fall for this absurd Jesus-jew-Allah GOD Comic Book idiocy....these
GODS are the fabrication of wandering tribal imbeciles who innovated NOTHING...
who engineered NOTHING...who built NOTHING other than in SLAVE MODE...

They have no great Cities-Art-Philosophy-Science-Math-Engineering-....NOTHING
just petty thieves seeking to hypnotize weak minds into slavery of retarded CULTS....

These Jesus-Jew -Allah God inventors are clever con artists...nothing more...let them ROT
with their contaminated minds....no human ever needs to be validated and approved to 
EXIST by some dumbed down hypnotized Church-Mosque-Temple CLOWN PREACHER
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
God's word is The Truth.

What that means is that The Truth is what is good, and Christian morality is about abiding in The Truth.

The alternative is idolatry, which is put before The Truth. 

For example..



Pride
Envy
Greed
Sloth
Gluttony
Wrath
Lust




A sin is to "miss the mark", and what is it that these sins cause js to miss the mark from? Abiding in The Truth.

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,035
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Mopac and the rest are only one god moral. 
Myself, I'm a Jewish Muslim Christian and one third scientologist ( i follow allllllllll the books. ) so ummmmm, i doubt you'll find someone more moral then i. 
So like if anyone has any question on ( IS IT MORAL OR NOT) I'm your guy. 
Oh and I also collect stamps.

The Waking from a dream thing. No. strangling a dog is immoral. 

Hey lud can you atlest insult me or something, just some acknowledgement? 
I tell you whats a trip . Denounce your religion today right. Then bammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm waking up the next morning with not a single morel in ya.
WARNING : Don't do this around kids....
See it takes a while for your ' living with no rules morality system ' to like ummmmmm kick in. 
Kids, especially babies are sooooooooo edible in this period and well ,  JUST DONT DO IT...
Good day. 


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Watch out dude, it's the Sunday of The Publican and The Pharisee. Lol
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
THis came up in a topic earlier and would derail an entire conversation. I thought why not give it its own topic to derail! 

Divine command theory, put very simply, is the idea that any act god commands is a moral act, because god is the arbiter of all morality unchanging forever. Is this the case? Or is a moral act moral of its own merits? Example:

Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?

I don't understand your final paragraph. But the idea of divine command theory sounds intriguing.  I certainly take the view that God Almighty is a moral being. But not moral in that he can do right and do wrong. But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality. 

The alternates views are either 1. that morality exists independent from God - some kind of natural law or 2. that morality is simply a reflection of a culture at any time in history - in other words, it is a simply a construct of convenience for those living in a particular area at a particular time - and that which can change if the society or community in which it exists. This second form might even extend to their being no morality except in the mind of the individual wanting it. 

Modernism probably takes the first view whereas postmodernity takes the second. The former working more with absolutes - and science whereas the latter more with relatives and pseudo-science / mysticism.  the former being the product of the rational West. the latter the product of the East - and more recently the mixture of multi-cultural western /  eastern views. the first is Plato / Aristotle / Socrates. The latter - Edward De Bono and others. 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality. 
So you believe in divine command, if god does it it's moral like infanticide, genocide and human sacrifice.

with absolutes - and science
Oh lordy lordy, you do get confused. There is nothing scientific in your beliefs or your morality.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality. 
So you believe in divine command, if god does it it's moral like infanticide, genocide and human sacrifice.

with absolutes - and science
Oh lordy lordy, you do get confused. There is nothing scientific in your beliefs or your morality.

Whatever God does is good. He is always holy and just. I don't consider that he committed infanticide, genocide, or human sacrifice. In every case you can cite, it is always the human who does any of these things. If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral. On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time, it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters.  If that is the case, then you are being culturally insensitive and take the arrogant view that the 21st century is somehow more moral than these ones. This of course is a nonsense, isn't? 

It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing. 

As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot. 




disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I love it when you guys try so desperately and ineffectually to justify your totally conflicted beliefs.

Whatever God does is good. He is always holy and just. I don't consider that he committed infanticide, genocide, or human sacrifice. In every case you can cite, it is always the human who does any of these things.
Allegedly at your god's command. Ever heard of the Amalekites?

If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral.
Which is more immoral, disobeying a command from god or infanticide?

On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time,it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters. 

Even though your god had set moral standards for them for decades. Which is more immoral disobeying your god's command or genocide?
If that is the case, then you are being culturally insensitive and take the arrogant view that the 21st century is somehow more moral than these ones. This of course is a nonsense, isn't? 
Perhaps not the 21st century's morals but mine certainly are, I've never committed genocide.
It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing. 
So you still practice stoning non virgin wives to death as commanded by your god? Amazing how your contradictory beliefs always come back to destroy your contradictory beliefs.
As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot. 
And what makes you think those claims mean anything to anyone but you.
You'll be running away and claiming victory shortly. You stayed resolutely away from the human sacrifice, any particular reason.LOL


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
I love it when you guys try so desperately and ineffectually to justify your totally conflicted beliefs.
Gee I missed the part when I was trying to justify anything. I responded to your illogical and ill-informed logic.


Whatever God does is good. He is always holy and just. I don't consider that he committed infanticide, genocide, or human sacrifice. In every case you can cite, it is always the human who does any of these things.

Allegedly at your god's command. Ever heard of the Amalekites

You did read my post, didn't you? Obviously not. Idiot. Yes, I have heard of the Amalekites. I am surprised that you have. Obviously from not primary sources, though. Let me repeat it for you. 

If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral.


Which is more immoral, disobeying a command from god or infanticide?
I don't know wise guy? how about you tell us? As I said, if God does not exist, you are merely repeating human excuses and if God does exist, the human did not have to obey. Morality is what? 


On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time,it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters. 
Even though your god had set moral standards for them for decades. Which is more immoral disobeying your god's command or genocide?
Where did God ever command his people not to defend themselves when they were being attacked? When did the Hebrew people ever attack a nation without provocation? what is more immoral? Letting the Amakalites sacrificing their children or putting the parents to death? It sounds pretty evil to let them live when killing them could prevent evil against their children. 

If that is the case, then you are being culturally insensitive and take the arrogant view that the 21st century is somehow more moral than these ones. This of course is a nonsense, isn't? 
Perhaps not the 21st century's morals but mine certainly are, I've never committed genocide.

I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb. 

It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing. 
So you still practice stoning non virgin wives to death as commanded by your god? Amazing how your contradictory beliefs always come back to destroy your contradictory beliefs.

How am I contradictory any of my beliefs? You don't even know what I believe. God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death per se. And even if he did, so what? I certainly do not hold to the view that what an ancient culture thinks was moral is what I think is moral. But if God did command non-virgin wives to be stoned for adultery, I would not have a particular issue with it. Why would I? Many people in our so called modern progressive society condone the murder of babies everyday. I hardly find that very moral. whereas you probably approve of it. Re-defining a human life as an embryo or a foetus is a word game - and ultimately immoral - to justify murder. 
As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot. 
And what makes you think those claims mean anything to anyone but you.
You'll be running away and claiming victory shortly. You stayed resolutely away from the human sacrifice, any particular reason.LOL

I have not stayed away from any topic. I responded to what you talked about. Human sacrifice was not practised in accordance with the Hebrew bible. the episode of Abraham and Isaac is a very isolated incident - and one where the child was not even sacrificed. You can use it if you want but I don't find it an incident of child sacrifice. As for claiming victory, duh, what is the point of such a thing. I am not trying to score points. For me it is not a game. Even though for you it is. 

modernism is an absolutism position. I note you are not even attempting to prove it. Post modernism which I actually think is what you do agree with - does not give you any legs to fight this debate which is why you avoided referring to it. To claim that the 21century morals is higher than those in the pre BC time is what you are saying - but the brutal truth is - you don't even agree with absolutes. I don't have to claim victory - your ignorance and your silence reveals to any who reads this - where your discussion leads to logically. But - what do you say " don't confuse me with logic. facts just get in the road". Idiot. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
When did the Hebrew people ever attack a nation without provocation?
When they invaded and conquered Canaan under Joshua because it was 'the promised land'.   The Hebrews were invaders and they massacred any town or and city that dared to defended themselves.

Num 13 1-2 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the people of Israel."

joshua 12 8-24; The Israelites defeated the kings of the following towns west of the Jordan River:
Jericho, Ai near Bethel, Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Debir, Geder, Hormah, Arad, Libnah, Adullam, Makkedah, Bethel, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, Lasharon, Madon, Hazor, Shimron-Meron, Achshaph, Taanach, Megiddo, Kedesh, Jokneam on Mount Carmel, Dor in Naphath-Dor, Goiim in Galilee, and Tirzah.
There were thirty-one of these kings in all. (CEV)



keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Human sacrifice was not practised in accordance with the Hebrew bible. the episode of Abraham and Isaac is a very isolated incident - and one where the child was not even sacrificed. You can use it if you want but I don't find it an incident of child sacrifice.
you don't mention the story of Jephthah who sacrifices his daughter in exchange for victory over the Ammonites.

Judges 11

11 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior....  And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door ... I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands...

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

39 ... and he did to her as he had vowed.





Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
I am not sure it was without provocation. Certainly, it was the promised land by God to the Israelites. By all accounts the people in Canaan were fighting with each other anyway and war was inevitable with or without the Jews attempting to settle.  

Still, you might have a point. Although I am sure the people in Canaan were not going to simply let Israel settle in the land near them.  

It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people - and were essentially nations that God had allowed mercifully to remain for an extra generation, until their time was done. 

It is my opinion - that God would not have requested Israel to take over the land if the people were god fearing people who cared for the land and the other people. Still that is my view based upon a particular view I hold too. 


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
you don't mention the story of Jephthah who sacrifices his daughter in exchange for victory over the Ammonites.

Judges 11

11 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior....  And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door ... I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands...

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

39 ... and he did to her as he had vowed.
You are correct, I did not mention this story. But even though you have raised it - it would not change my mind. This is not an example of God ordering or condoning child sacrifice. It is a story of a foolish man making a vow he should have known better to make. God held him to it - but that is a separate issue to child sacrifice. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't care about Jephthah - what was his daughter being punished for?  


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
She was being punished for her father's hastiness to make a vow. And no, it wasn't right. In a way, he was being punished for doing such a thing.

And his daughter went down very bravely and with dignity. 


Christians are not really supposed to make vows, because all vows are like a vow to God. We have to keep them. In fact, we Orthodox don't even exchange vows when we get married! That said, we of course take marriage very seriously. The priest will pray a blessing, but we don't really do vows. It's not necessary to us.

That said, presbyters might make vows when they take up that cross. I am not too sure. I could be wrong.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
--> @Tradesecret
I don't care about Jephthah - what was his daughter being punished for?  
I don't think the Bible is punishing his daughter. I think Jephthah foolishly made a promise he ought never to have rashly made. I think it is him who was punished. His daughter was clearly a victim, but not of God, of Jephthah. 

After all, did God demand that he sacrifice his daughter? Did God request it at all? And if Jephthah had not fulfilled his vow - would God have required it of him? 

We do see innocents in the bible as it were being the victim. I don't think the bible condoned what Jephthah did. I have never heard any Christian person condone what he did. I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Jephthah is lifted up as some kind of model for his foolish actions here.  




Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
> @keithprosser
She was being punished for her father's hastiness to make a vow. And no, it wasn't right. In a way, he was being punished for doing such a thing.

And his daughter went down very bravely and with dignity. 


Christians are not really supposed to make vows, because all vows are like a vow to God. We have to keep them. In fact, we Orthodox don't even exchange vows when we get married! That said, we of course take marriage very seriously. The priest will pray a blessing, but we don't really do vows. It's not necessary to us.

That said, presbyters might make vows when they take up that cross. I am not too sure. I could be wrong.
Mopac, you are incorrect. She was not punished. She was the victim, the innocent victim here. He made a foolish vow - and then went through with it. 

You are correct in that Christians, indeed anyone should not make a rash vow.  I don't agree that Christians ought not make vows. There are many occasions when a vow or an oath is quite acceptable. In court, at a wedding, ordination, baptism, when civil servants are swearing allegiance to the country and the people they represent. 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people -
From whence comes this "understanding"?


It is my opinion -
Have you rewritten the bible yet to include the extra biblical beliefs you profess?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people -
From whence comes this "understanding"?

The bible. 

It is my opinion -
Have you rewritten the bible yet to include the extra biblical beliefs you profess?

I don't need too. kidnapping, putting children through fire, sacrificing and eating children were all common. 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Obviously from not primary sources,
The bible which is the only source claiming the existence of your god is not a primary source. woohoo.

I don't know wise guy? how about you tell us? As I said, if God does not exist, you are merely repeating human excuses and if God does exist, the human did not have to obey. Morality is what? 

The humans should have disobeyed your god because his command was immoral? I agree. What about the Angels, should they have disobeyed for the same reason?

I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb. 
Can you legitimately transfer bronze age morality into the 21st century? I've already told you that I don't operate under 21st century morals, whatever they are.
God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death
So the word of your god lies again?
And even if he did, so what?
Here is the morality of this christian, evil beyond compare.
I have not stayed away from any topic
The human sacrifice in question is the Jesus character who saved you from your god.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
You are right, she is the victim. The one who is being punished is Jepthah because he wasn't expecting his daughter to be the first one he saw! His oath was wicked to begin with.

The Orthodox Church does not have the same attitude towards vows as heterodox churches.

In each of these cases, lets look...


In court, at a wedding, ordination, baptism, when civil servants are swearing allegiance to the country and the people they represent. 


We do not do vows at  weddings

We do not do vows during baptisms

Presbyters and monastics do swear oaths.

But the point is that swearing an oath and breaking it is like using the lords name in vain, so it is something to be avoided or well more accurately, taken very seriously.

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Taking something seriously as opposed to avoiding something are two separate things. We don't want to become like the Pharisees who made the law so tight that people were not allowed to heal or show love on the sabbath. Avoiding things is close to that kind of attitude. Still each church ought to do that with considered views. 


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Obviously from not primary sources. The bible which is the only source claiming the existence of your god is not a primary source. woohoo.
The Bible is a primary source for me. In ancient times, God spoke through the prophets, in the last days he spoke through his son. 
I don't know wise guy? how about you tell us? As I said, if God does not exist, you are merely repeating human excuses and if God does exist, the human did not have to obey. Morality is what? 

The humans should have disobeyed your god because his command was immoral? I agree. What about the Angels, should they have disobeyed for the same reason?

that is not what I said, don't twist my words. I said that humans did not have to obey him - if they thought God was asking them to do something immoral. Of course they would have to deal with the consequences of disobedience. God's command was not immoral because God is  neither modernist nor post modern. Morality is not something that just exists out there. No angel nor anyone else should ever disobey God. But that does not mean that they cannot do so. Free choice is something that God gave humanity. Of course freedom also has consequences. 

I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb. 
Can you legitimately transfer bronze age morality into the 21st century? I've already told you that I don't operate under 21st century morals, whatever they are.
You simply make your own morals up as you go along. Hence why everything you say makes no sense. I do  not think we should transfer bronze age morality onto the 21st Century. I do think however that the substance of God's morality is eternal and timeless. 


God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death
So the word of your god lies again?

come on wise guy - show me in the Bible where God says - on an unqualified basis - "to stone non-virgin wives" simply because they are non-virgin wives. Everywhere judgement is commanded by God it is in response to sinfulness. The very fact that God does not allow sinfulness to go unpunished is the essence of morality. The fact that you don't understand this is pathetic. 


And even if he did, so what?
Here is the morality of this christian, evil beyond compare.
the point is - you keep asserting things - but you never ever provide any evidence to support your absurd statements. If you are just going to assert things - I will only just deny them. Prove me wrong. 
I have not stayed away from any topic
The human sacrifice in question is the Jesus character who saved you from your god.

Jesus - human sacrifice - dying on a cross. Is that what you are getting at? Perhaps you could be so bold as to explain what human sacrifice is? You might also while you are at it - show anywhere in time or space or story or legend or myth where the one who is allegedly is being appeased is the very one who is doing the dying as a sacrifice. That might be very interesting. God demands satisfaction of justice because humanity has sinned against God. Yet humanity does not have the capacity to actually satisfy God - so God himself organises that he GOD truly represents humanity and dies as the satisfaction. That really is a strange kind of human sacrifice. It is at odds with any kind of human sacrifice in history or legend. If this really what it is. 

There is no doubt that Jesus died. 
There is also no doubt that he died as a representation of humanity.  But what was his death about? It was as a covenantal head representing his people so that they could be reconciled back to God.  It was not a sacrifice in the ordinary sense because he rose from the dead. But was it human sacrifice or something more than that? You know I don't know - but I do find it important to realise that God never demanded human sacrifice prior to this time unless you are talking about capital punishment. 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Believe it or not, Orthodoxy is not really all that legalistic. That said, I think it is good to do the prescribed fasts and such. Interestingly enough, this is the week after the Sunday of the publican and the pharisee, so there. are no fasts this week(we usually fast every Wednesday and Friday).




This was actually the issue (over oaths) that helped me find Orthodoxy. I was being pressured into signing a contract and swearing before the altar to be a member of a church. I knew that both Jesus and James said not to swear oaths. It caused me to look more into what the different churches taught.

Then I found The Orthodox Church!

Later on I found out that vows were not done at weddings or during baptism or Chrismation. I was pleasantly surprised, because one of the arguments this church used in an attempt to get me to make an oath was comparing it to wedding vows.


disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Obviously from not primary sources. The bible which is the only source claiming the existence of your god is not a primary source. woohoo.
The Bible is a primary source for me.
A change of story again, you claimed that I didn't get the story from the original source and now you are claiming that I did get the story from the original source. Lying is just so natural for you.

The humans should have disobeyed your god because his command was immoral? I agree. What about the Angels, should they have disobeyed for the same reason?

that is not what I said, don't twist my words. I said that humans did not have to obey him - if they thought God was asking them to do something immoral. Of course they would have to deal with the consequences of disobedience.
So you admit that these humans were acting under the command of your god and didn't do of their own free will but did under threat from your god the most powerful thing in existence. That's your argument for godly innocence shot down in flames.
God's command was not immoral because God is  neither modernist nor post modern. Morality is not something that just exists out there. No angel nor anyone else should ever disobey God. But that does not mean that they cannot do so. Free choice is something that God gave humanity. Of course freedom also has consequences. 
Well I'm glad that you have finally admitted that in your morality (god's morality) infanticide and genocide are not immoral. You and your god set a very low bar for your morality. The free choice only includes disobeying your god if you are prepared to accept eternal damnation and torture, that isn't free will it is divine blackmail.

I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb. 
Can you legitimately transfer bronze age morality into the 21st century? I've already told you that I don't operate under 21st century morals, whatever they are.
You simply make your own morals up as you go along. Hence why everything you say makes no sense. I do  not think we should transfer bronze age morality onto the 21st Century. I do think however that the substance of God's morality is eternal and timeless. 
Hence his command to stone non virgin brides to death is still applicable today, it's that very, very low bar your god has set that makes his morality infinitely inferior to mine.

God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death
So the word of your god lies again?

come on wise guy - show me in the Bible where God says - on an unqualified basis - "to stone non-virgin wives" simply because they are non-virgin wives. Everywhere judgement is commanded by God it is in response to sinfulness. The very fact that God does not allow sinfulness to go unpunished is the essence of morality. The fact that you don't understand this is pathetic. 
Come on wise guy, is the bible the word of god, did the Jewish laws constitute part of the covenant your god had with the Jews? The bible commands that non virgin brides be stoned to death and the bible is the word of god therefore god commands that non virgin brides be stoned to death.

And even if he did, so what?
Here is the morality of this christian, evil beyond compare.
the point is - you keep asserting things - but you never ever provide any evidence to support your absurd statements. If you are just going to assert things - I will only just deny them. Prove me wrong. 
I assert nothing. I do however use your holy bible for all of my arguments and that's why you can't refute any of them without refuting your bible and your beliefs.

I have not stayed away from any topic
The human sacrifice in question is the Jesus character who saved you from your god.

Jesus - human sacrifice - dying on a cross. Is that what you are getting at? Perhaps you could be so bold as to explain what human sacrifice is? You might also while you are at it - show anywhere in time or space or story or legend or myth where the one who is allegedly is being appeased is the very one who is doing the dying as a sacrifice. That might be very interesting. God demands satisfaction of justice because humanity has sinned against God. Yet humanity does not have the capacity to actually satisfy God - so God himself organises that he GOD truly represents humanity and dies as the satisfaction. That really is a strange kind of human sacrifice. It is at odds with any kind of human sacrifice in history or legend. If this really what it is. 

There is no doubt that Jesus died. 
There is also no doubt that he died as a representation of humanity.  But what was his death about? It was as a covenantal head representing his people so that they could be reconciled back to God.  It was not a sacrifice in the ordinary sense because he rose from the dead. But was it human sacrifice or something more than that? You know I don't know - but I do find it important to realise that God never demanded human sacrifice prior to this time unless you are talking about capital punishment. 
Will you just look at your confusion here.
It wasn't a human sacrifice because god sacrificed himself to himself.
In your myth as elucidated in your first paragraph you tell the story you ask me to provide.
Jesus the man was sacrificed.
Jesus the god was sacrificed
God the god was sacrificed
But Jesus wasn't sacrificed because he w3asn't really dead, he was just trickin'
When god sacrificed himself to himself he was representing humanity cos humanity couldn't
When one of the Jesus' was sacrificed he was representing humanity
God didn't command human sacrifice except when he demanded human sacrifice because he wanted to change his mind.
But he had to put up with a godly sacrifice, himself, and have a human sacrifice, Jesus at the same time. woohoo.

I think I got all that right.