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

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 47
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted

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.
I am not lying. You have not produced one bible verse yet. You continue to assert - never argue and never prove. 

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.
I have not said anything. since you never produced a verse or evidence - save you asserted something which you never proved - I made a comment about your speculation. go back and read it if you think I am lying. I said God never commanded his people to do the things you asserted. I also said even if he did - the people could have disobeyed (because they have free will - although they would need to consider the consequences) you have used the word threat - I use consequences which may or may not be the same thing. My argument has not been shot down. If you disagree how you walk us through the argument using direct quotes from our discussion. 


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.
dont be deceptive - manipulation - magic - see you are the master of smoke and mirrors. I clearly have said that God makes the morals. but since you dont actually read my words - you obviously think that I believe that obedience or disobedience is what gets people saved. you are so blind. Go and read Romans 10. Righteousness is not found by obedience - it is given by faith. And it is given as a matter of grace which means it is not deserved. This is why your lie of blackmail or manipulation falls on deaf ears because it is not what we teach. 
God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death
So the word of your god lies again?
go and get the verses from the bible and show it to all of us. Or are you having trouble finding them? 
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.

Prove it - you cant because it is not there. 

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.
That is all you do - make assertions - I am still waiting for one argument - for one shred of evidence that you even know what the bible says. 
I think you got it exactly wrong. I asked you to explain - which you could not even do. 

WHEN WILL YOU PRODUCE one verse from the BIBLE to support what you say it says? At the moment you are sitting on exactly ZERO. 
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
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. 

Let me see if I can help. It sounds like above, you ARE a divine command theory person: whatever god does, it has to be right, it literally CANNOT be wrong. Wipe out the whole earth with a flood because your plan went exactly as you foresaw it? Moral, because that's what god did. It's an extreme example, but in essence, divine command theory removes the 'why' anything is moral, and boils it down to 'that' it is moral because god said so. In other words, actions are not in and of themselves moral or immoral, except by divine decree. That's where the dog comes in: if you woke up tomorrow and were sincerely convinced that god commanded you to strangle every dog you saw, then suddenly NOT STRANGLING THE DOG is the immoral act. Your answer seems to be, at least here, that you'd enthusiastically strangle the dogs. A true believer, but I'm glad I'm not your neighbor :). I kid! But then things get confusing for me. You say:

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. 

If it is absurd to place our morals onto the morals of iron age shepherd culture (I'm not sure I agree, but more on that in a moment), then why is it not absurd to do the inverse? To expect their morals to comport with our society? Several have pointed out other examples, but let's take the easiest one. Was it ever MORAL to own another person like you'd own a mule? Not was it ALLOWED. Was it MORAL. Or, the central one: is it ever MORAL to send someone to their execution for a crime that you know YOU committed? 

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.
As to the story of Jephtha, I'm afraid this seems inconsistent: by divine command, she was NOT an innocent victim at all, she was simply collateral damage. God knew when Jephtha made the vow what he'd send out of the house first, right? It wasn't the goat or the pig. God was certain as author of all things that it was the daughter who'd get burned alive. But it's OKAY. In fact, burning her alive is moral! Because that's what god said would happen. There can be no innocent victims under divine command. 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't need too. kidnapping, putting children through fire, sacrificing and eating children were all common. 
Provide evidence.

ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2

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. 
Your opinion is kind of a problem, in that you're literally adding something to the biblical text that isn't there. It's not unusual, often Christians do this because they're actually better people than the god of the bible. You yourself admit that it's not there, that it's based entirely on your own particular view. This places your view above the word of god in the bible; you are, congratulations, morally superior to this character who is not only so powerful he could literally accomplish this promised land business ANY OTHER WAY he wanted to, but instead, he chooses to send in an army of Hebrews to not only put these people to the sword, but OTHER people too down the road, some of whom will suffer incredible atrocities like being raped and kidnapped and enslaved as the spoils of war. Couldn't he have made more land? Deleted them himself, even? really 'merciful,' to 'allow' them to remain just long enough to get slaughtered by their neighbors. Praise his loving name!

Can I ask where you got your 'understanding' of the Canaanites being "evil and repugnant" people if it isn't the bible? Almost no one has ever discussed Canaan, as far as I can tell, outside the bible, most people get their info about this nation from that book. Given that this book is written by Hebrews for Hebrews, it's certainly sensible that such propaganda would be present in the text, I mean have you ever seen some of the stuff about America in North Korean museums? In their history books? Given the age they lived in, wanting some sort of holy justification for what they were about to do, maybe to move some of the wishy washier ones off the fence of "let's not go kill them" to "we must kill them." 

God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death
So the word of your god lies again?
go and get the verses from the bible and show it to all of us. Or are you having trouble finding them? 
Deuteronomy 22:20-21:

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

Pretty clear. The good news is that if the dude accuses her of being a slut and the parents have her bloody sheet to show the town, HE gets stoned to death, so...fair's fair? Also, I bet women LOVED this whole process. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
If you had an ant farm you could do whatever you wanted to it. 

If you wanted to kill 3/4 of the ants just to see what happens, are you morally obliged not to?  Your desire to kill 3/4 of the ants is all the justification needed to do it.

ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
If you had an ant farm you could do whatever you wanted to it.  

If you wanted to kill 3/4 of the ants just to see what happens, are you morally obliged not to?  Your desire to kill 3/4 of the ants is all the justification needed to do it.

I am not the moral arbiter for the ants, though. Nor am I all powerful and able to achieve whatever it is I'd want to achieve by killing them, without killing them, whether it's scientific research or sadistic pleasure. I didn't lovingly craft each of the ants and see their fates from start to finish, nor do I forgive ants sins, grant ants an afterlife where they're either not in the ant farm or forever being burned by magnifying glasses. I would therefore say there are some problems in direct analogy here. 

I think there's a better analogy in robotics, AI and eventual robot sentience. Of course I did just read an article about the moral implications of sex robots, and I watched some Black Mirror two months ago, so I've kind of got that stuff on the brain! 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
I used ants because the difference between you and an ant is probably less than the difference between an infinite god and a person.  An intelligent robot may be too close to our own level.

I don't think one can prove command theory 'wrong'.  If it is true then some of our intutions about what is and what is not moral are incorrect.  My view is that there is no such thing as morality, which is what moral nihilism really means - morality does not exist.

That is to say it is not a matter of whether morality is subjective or objective, absolute or relative.  Morality can't be any of those because morality does not exist at all

Consider a rape.  The violence objectively exists, the suffering objectively exists, it's forced nature objectively exists.  But that it is immoral is a subjective judgement.  That is to say it is a matter of objective fact that violence is involved - it is a matter of subjective judgement that it is immoral.  

Put clearly, morality does not exist - only moral judgements exist.  So what makes my judgement that rape is bad correct and a rapists opinion wrong?  Aren't I commited to moral indifference?

I don't think so.   I think rape is bad and I want it to be my view that prevails.   I am (and those like me are)in a battle of wills with those who see rape differently and I will do whatever I can to see they lose.    But it's not because my opinion is 'has morality' and the rapist opinion 'has immorality' - it is because I want my will to triumph.
 '



Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
I used ants because the difference between you and an ant is probably less than the difference between an infinite god and a person.  An intelligent robot may be too close to our own level.

I don't think one can prove command theory 'wrong'.  If it is true then some of our intutions about what is and what is not moral are incorrect.  My view is that there is no such thing as morality, which is what moral nihilism really means - morality does not exist.

That is to say it is not a matter of whether morality is subjective or objective, absolute or relative.  Morality can't be any of those because morality does not exist at all

Consider a rape.  The violence objectively exists, the suffering objectively exists, it's forced nature objectively exists.  But that it is immoral is a subjective judgement.  That is to say it is a matter of objective fact that violence is involved - it is a matter of subjective judgement that it is immoral.  

Put clearly, morality does not exist - only moral judgements exist.  So what makes my judgement that rape is bad correct and a rapists opinion wrong?  Aren't I commited to moral indifference?

I don't think so.   I think rape is bad and I want it to be my view that prevails.   I am (and those like me are)in a battle of wills with those who see rape differently and I will do whatever I can to see they lose.    But it's not because my opinion is 'has morality' and the rapist opinion 'has immorality' - it is because I want my will to triumph.
Although I am not sure that I agree with thinking it is intriguing. subjective morality - but no objective morality - yet you think rape is bad and you really want your view to prevail. sounds to me like intuitively you know it is objective but can't figure out how to get there. 

I would take the view that without God there is only subjective morality. And I would suggest that his subjective morality by virtue of his position makes its objective morality for the rest of us.  God tells us rape is wrong.  Hence it is part of image, nature, written indeed on our hearts. Some might call it intuition - others subjective morality - but whatever we label it - it is there. 


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Let me see if I can help. It sounds like above, you ARE a divine command theory person: whatever god does, it has to be right, it literally CANNOT be wrong. Wipe out the whole earth with a flood because your plan went exactly as you foresaw it? Moral, because that's what god did. It's an extreme example, but in essence, divine command theory removes the 'why' anything is moral, and boils it down to 'that' it is moral because god said so. In other words, actions are not in and of themselves moral or immoral, except by divine decree. That's where the dog comes in: if you woke up tomorrow and were sincerely convinced that god commanded you to strangle every dog you saw, then suddenly NOT STRANGLING THE DOG is the immoral act. Your answer seems to be, at least here, that you'd enthusiastically strangle the dogs. A true believer, but I'm glad I'm not your neighbor :). I kid! But then things get confusing for me. You say:
If divine command theory leaves the why out then I am not sure that I am in agreement with it totally. I do take the view that God determines morality - it flows out of his character. Again you seem to be mixing hidden will with revealed will.  judgment on the earth came because God kept his word to destroy it if people continued to sin against him. Again you seem to not understand the difference between first and second causes.  thank you for attempting to explain the dog. I still don't get it though. Are you saying that on day one you thought strangling dogs was wrong and then overnight you had a dream - where God convinced you that strangling dogs was right? That is contrary to how I understand the morality of God and how I understand his revealing his will to me. In other words, it is nonsense. If someone in my church came  up to me and said God told me to start strangling dogs, I would report him to the police or have him committed. I would also want to know how he came to this change in his position. God's view on morality does not change - hence why this story makes no sense. 

If it is absurd to place our morals onto the morals of iron age shepherd culture (I'm not sure I agree, but more on that in a moment), then why is it not absurd to do the inverse? To expect their morals to comport with our society? Several have pointed out other examples, but let's take the easiest one. Was it ever MORAL to own another person like you'd own a mule? Not was it ALLOWED. Was it MORAL. Or, the central one: is it ever MORAL to send someone to their execution for a crime that you know YOU committed? 
I don't think we should take the morality of the 21st century and apply it to other times and cultures as a means of judging them good or bad. It is ridiculous for instance to call Paul an anti-feminist because he thought men only should preach in church. Where actually in his time he was probably more feminist than most of his contemporaries. I think it is incorrect to apply their culture's morality to our own time.  You talk about slavery. the bible never talks about owning people like mules. Its slavery was very different in nature to the many other forms of slavery throughout history. For example, a slave could work his way out of slavery - it was debentured slavery. I am not saying it is right or wrong - but it certainly was not the same as owning a mule. I am not sure what you are referring to in relation to sending someone to death for a crime you committed. 
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.
As to the story of Jephtha, I'm afraid this seems inconsistent: by divine command, she was NOT an innocent victim at all, she was simply collateral damage. God knew when Jephtha made the vow what he'd send out of the house first, right? It wasn't the goat or the pig. God was certain as author of all things that it was the daughter who'd get burned alive. But it's OKAY. In fact, burning her alive is moral! Because that's what god said would happen. There can be no innocent victims under divine command. 
Of course God knew what was going to come out of the house. God did not make Jephtha make this oath. She is innocent and she is collateral damage. But don't confuse first causes /  hidden will with second causes / revealed will. Yes, God is the author of all things - but God also gave humanity free will. You keep mixing these things up and conflating what is going on. By doing so - you continue to draw conclusions which are inaccurate and misleading yourself. You either need to take what the Bible says about God seriously and in total or not at all. The bible does put god in control of all things. Yet it also calls God holy and good. To take one thing on hand and then to use it against the others - is inconsistent. It might be a useful tool to attempt to prove the bible is full of contradictions - but only if you are being subjective in the first place. Objective reasoning would attempt to see how they harmonise in the first place before jumping to speculations and then rash thinking.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Hence it is part of image, nature, written indeed on our hearts. Some might call it intuition - others subjective morality - but whatever we label it - it is there. 
It's been there longer than you might imagine.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,357
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Thanks for that Keith - I enjoyed watching. 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Although I am not sure that I agree with thinking it is intriguing. subjective morality - but no objective morality - yet you think rape is bad and you really want your view to prevail. sounds to me like intuitively you know it is objective but can't figure out how to get there. 
Of course if rape was objectively wrong then it wouldn't exist because everyone would know that it was wrong.

I would take the view that without God there is only subjective morality.
And that is why only subjective morality exists. Your morality is totally subject to your choice of the morals created by the IPSS.

God tells us rape is wrong. 
He most certainly does not, he encourages it and even encourages rape of the prepubescent. Read your bible,HONESTLY. "take them for your own"



ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
f divine command theory leaves the why out then I am not sure that I am in agreement with it totally. I do take the view that God determines morality - it flows out of his character.

It doesn't leave out the why inasmuch as divine command IS WHY. If, in fact, morality flows from his character (and again many biblical instances where he does things that are at best morally dubious), then anything he does has to be moral because that's that. You can't ask why it's moral, it's moral because god did it. The alternative is that an action is moral independent of if god does it or doesn't, which presents a problem for god, as suddenly he's subject to morality, not the dictator thereof. You do seem concerned as to why he does some things, but then you write it off as "hidden will." That seems like hand waving in the face of a difficult question. THe ol' mysterious ways, I guess. 

I don't think we should take the morality of the 21st century and apply it to other times and cultures as a means of judging them good or bad... I think it is incorrect to apply their culture's morality to our own time. 
Yet you do think we are compelled to follow the bible, a collection of books of questionable authorship from over 1700 years ago, and apply their morals to today? I agree, we shouldn't apply our morality to other times, but then you're not arguing for subjective (as in SUBJECT TO the times you live in) morality, you're arguing for an objective and unchangeable moral source point (god of the bible). 

You talk about slavery. the bible never talks about owning people like mules. Its slavery was very different in nature to the many other forms of slavery throughout history. For example, a slave could work his way out of slavery - it was debentured slavery. I am not saying it is right or wrong - but it certainly was not the same as owning a mule. I am not sure what you are referring to in relation to sending someone to death for a crime you committed. 
It amazes me how often theists ignore this or change it into something it didn't mean. Here's the verse from KJV, Leviticus 25:44-46: 4“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." That's instructions on where to buy slaves, THEY BECOME YOUR PROPERTY. You can will them to descendents like a piece of jewelry. You're not saying it was right or wrong? So are you saying that this part of the bible, god didn't inspire? Wouldn't that make us question why it's in there? Maybe you can point me to the bible quote where Jesus says "Also, we got that slavery thing TOTALLY wrong. From now on, under no circumstance are you to own another human being as property."

Let's not forget the sexual slavery that fathers sold their daughters into either. From Exodus: "And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." Again, let me see the verse wherein Jesus says "also don't sell your daughters into sexual slavery." I'll wait. 

God did not make Jephtha make this oath / The bible does put god in control of all things. 

God is the author of all things - but God also gave humanity free will
These are mutually exclusive positions. Please rationalize how god didn't set into motion a set of circumstances that led to Jephtha having to burn his daughter alive. This is a morally repugnant character who had the power to send out Jephtha's favorite dog, right? 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
Of course if rape was objectively wrong then it wouldn't exist because everyone would know that it was wrong.
I think most rapists know it is wrong but do it anyway.   Theologically God never condones or commands evil; people do evil of their own free will. 

God has voluntarily given up full control over humans' minds in order they should be free to choose good or evil.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a morally repugnant character who had the power to send out Jephtha's favorite dog, right? 
It was only a woman, for Pete's sake.  It's not like God chose anything valuable. 
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
2
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Jewish Muslim Christian !    and what does your JEW GOD say of this paradox ?   

Oh, right.......hey Deb.....Do you still have those 10 commandments handy ?   Ok go to the nearest Mosque and
smash them on the floor...and shout only the JEW GOD is GOD....then condemn all the fake ALLAH God followers 
to burn in JESUS HELL !   

What a perfect example of a totally BRAINWASHED and HYPNOTIZED slave drone playing tug of WAR with the GODS !

Surely ALLAH will be thrilled by your choice of all 3 GODS to worship......and so will all those followers in the MOSQUE
as your head rolls on the sidewalk outside.......

What say YOU JESUS ? about this triple HERETIC LIAR SCUM using all 3 GODS as scapegoats ?   

No doubt Jesus speaks...this pathetic former human is now a dumbed down slave of SATAN !  and must perish !

BE GONE twisted mind molested imbecile..you are a DISGRACE to health and wellness...just another selfish 
EGOMANIAC liar using the Middle East  GODS as petty scapegoats...


12 days later

ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I wanted to bump this thread, you wanted to talk morality and this is a topic about it, I was hoping you'd take a look.