Total posts: 7,093
-->
@Tradesecret
The entire book of genesis has a confusing time line. Like the fact that the order in which every thing was created is listed differently in different passages.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is no reason to think they understood the consequences adequately to make any informed decision.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well the overall picture painted of the Yahweh's character in the old testament so far as I can tell from the english translation is of a vain, self absorbed, jealous, misogynistic, vengeful, genocidal thug. Must be translation errors.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
For our purposes - I am happy to use English.
Then why even bring up hebrew?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Is the book improperly translated? Can the text as is not be trusted to convey the Yahweh's character in the english translations in popular usage?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't speak Hebrew. Sorry to disappoint
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I have never met a Christian who thought Adam did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit. I do not know any Christian who would take that view.
So just to clear this up too before we continue should I refer to some Christian(s) or to the book itself when discussing the book?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well you see I disagree with that view.
Perhaps we had better resolve this now. When in doubt should I refer to the actual book or you when discussing the book?
Created:
Adam and Eve thought they could do a better job.
This doesn't actually follow from the story. According to the story they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree. They could not therefore have thought god was doing a bad job (being unaware of good and so unable to contrast the job god was doing against some hypothetical better) and indeed could not have understood their transgression. They were tricked by the serpent (not necessarily the Christian devil by the way which makes no real appearance in the old testament) and the serpent presumably was just another creation of their god.
I don't find it a reasonable comparison for Adam and children with guns. Adam was a fully cognizant human. He is as it were the champion of the human race. he was the best of the best. And the smartest of the smartest.
I'm sorry but according to the source material this is blatantly untrue. He was unable to tell right from wrong because he had not eaten of the tree of knowledge yet. Only after eating the fruit could get be expected to understand that eating the fruit was wrong.
Freedom without boundaries is not freedom. Freedom without boundaries is just another form of slavery.
Firstly I m not sure that holds true. Freedom and boundaries are two different issues. When we set boundaries for our children it is not to contrast with their freedom or to provide them with choice but instead more generally it is to protect them from dangerous situations. Also the old testament god didn't seem to have a problem with slavery so I don't see why he would have a problem with Adam being his slave. In fact the relationship is not entirely different. Adam, according to genesis, was a being belonging to god for whom tasks were laid out.
I don't have an issue with hypotheticals. And even thought experiments. Yet to be honest - a hypothetical situation is unhelpful as a tool to change someone's mind when as part of the hypothetical situation I have to actually stop believing things that I hold to be relevant. It then only becomes a thought bubble for someone else. It provides me with no particular assistance in any instance. Yet, the OP made an assertion and asked for comment. I do not think that I have been discourteous. I have explained my position and as to how far I can extend the discussion within the parametres of my own understanding.
Well stated. I accept your position on this.
I think there is a subconscious manner to distinguish the two. We can like Jesus - but Jehovah, no he is quite distinct.Yet - I think this is two faced.Yet that is my opinion.
Seems a bit dissonant. Can we distinguish the two or not? Either we can and discussion of only the ot god is possible or we cannot. I accepted your stance above but this is a bit of a departure from that stance.
Wow! that is a steep call. Parents who love their parents unconditionally do not exist. I have never met one. Have you? I love my children even when they stuff up badly. But this is far different to saying I love them unconditionally. I have never seen a parent stand by their child when their child is beating up someone and say - great they deserved it. And continued to do so even at a court hearing. Generally by that time - the parent has come to realise that their child has done something wrong. And they dont agree with it. Do they love their child then? Of course - well perhaps. But it is not unconditional.
You seem to be flip flopping a lot on issues. Doesn't unconditional mean no matter what? Does love require supporting the action of the loved one? Indeed if the parent still loves the child even when they disapprove of the action the child has taken I would call that indicative of unconditional love. It may be hard to determine as outside observers but that doesn't alter definitions.
Parents who never discipline their children - which is what you seem to be advocating - are teaching their children to do whatever they want - i think that is reckless and negligent.
I am not advocating for anything and I agree with this assessment. It would also seem reckless and negligent to leave children in dangerous situations or to leave dangerous objects where children could stumble upon them.
Respectfully can you put your last sentence in another form. It does not make sense to me. thanks.
Certainly. I am addressing the problem of suffering. I seem to notice that on earth the guilty often escape justice while the innocent often suffer sometimes horribly. Indeed going back to the source material Job is supposedly a righteous man on whom all manner of misfortunes were visited for the purposes of a wager. As an unbeliever this would appear to me to be an attempt by the authors of the story to explain away the problem of suffering but in the end just colors the proposed god in rather an unflattering light. These are not the actions of a loving parent but rather a capricious and neglectful abuser.
Created:
Parents who love their children unconditionally do not exist. And if they did - their children would be monsters - probably living in prison or juvie.
This is an extremely poor argument as some humans are monsters and though mentions of hell are somewhat lacking in the ot you would be hard put without changing your stance on god's need to punish sinners to claim that none do end up in juvie (or rather eternal torment and damnation).
To be clear the old testament says the wages of sin are death not eternal damnation but that is a separate discussion.
In any case the discipline of which you speak is difficult to distinguish from no action being taken for or against transgressors from the perspective of a human on earth who can observe good things happening to the guilty and bad things happening to the innocent at a rate that seems indistinguishable from random happenstance.
Created:
After Adam sinned, God provided clothing and atonement for his sin,
I suppose but why make a system of sin and punishment in the first place? Couldn't have this hypothetical god have created any world governed by any rules including scenarios beyond our ability to imagine? Why not just make a garden with no tree of knowledge? Isn't it better (read more effective) to keep guns out of reach of children than it is to admonish them not to touch? You will forgive me if the love you are attributing to this god seems indistinguishable from neglect and abuse to me. I do invite you to show some practical difference but if it is merely beyond our ability to fairly assess then it is by default impossible to make the determination whether said god feels any love or not.
I am not going to commence with a notion I don't agree with in order to make my point.
So are you unwilling or unable to entertain hypotheticals and thought experiments? If I were unable to entertain hypothetical scenarios I don't actually believe in I wouldn't even have the ability to have this discussion with you. Is there some rational reason not to extend the author of the op the same courtesy?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
We know that God loves the world.
Assuming some god(s) exist I don't actually know this about him.
clearly this love is pictured as God sending his son to this world for the welfare of the world.
Actually the old testament (the only te t presumed by the op) makes no mention of this event so it is largely besides the point.
The dilemma arises however because of fact that God also judges and sentences people to die and even according to some to eternal damnation in Hellfire. How is that consistent with love?
"Why do you make me hit you" and "this hurts me more than it hurts you"
These are stances are more often indicative of an abuser than a loving parent. Can you show the difference between the behavior of the god depicted in the old testament and the behavior of a neglectful and capriciously violent parent?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So your argument if I understand it correctly is that we cannot presume to understand what would constitute an indication of love in the context of the god proposed in the old testament. In that case how can we in fact determine whether or not such love is in evidence?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Ethical standards are by their very nature subjective. Let us assume that rather than appealing to their authority we are simply agreeing to their efficacy in improving the human condition (or whatever our stated goal is). If you are proposing an ought then that ought ought to accomplish whatever it is you are proposing is good.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
If I may suggest a non nebulous standard would you both accept that a good indicator of love between thinking agents is apparently genuine concern for the wellbeing of the loved one?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
A commonly accepted standard is not what I mean when I say an authority. We could agree on wellbeing for example as the accepted standard but then any ethical statements must be measured against this standard without any appeals to any government, philosopher or god.
Created:
Posted in:
Rather than recreating this thread I thought I'd just try to resurrect it. By the way hi everyone I'm back at least for the time being.
Created:
I believe the answer is yes. If you believe that the world will be measurably better in some manner by adhering to some ethical tenets you should be able to explain how without pointing to any government, philosopher or god. Ethics like arguments should really stand on their own.
I invite further discussion especially if you disagree.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
I agree love is a loaded word and should be better defined. It is easy for example to claim that an abusive parent "loves" their child "deep down" no matter how badly said parent behaves toward the child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
You are confusing the theory of evolution with the origin of life. The theory of evolution dies not claim to tell us where the first life came from it is only our best understanding of the process that began the moment there was any life and that led eventually to the diversity of species we see today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
<br>hardly anyone on this site could have.
Well at least we agree on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Why say masters be nice to your slaves rather than don't own slaves? Unless of course the ownership of slaves is permitted. And without a citation to change my mind I have the understanding that only Jewish slaves were released after seven years and only i . Their family held hostage, they do not agree to have a rather interesting ear piercing and just go ahead and be your slave forever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You actually are missing the point. Of course I can't use my personal moral standard where it differs from societies standard but societies standard is just the amalgamation of our individual moral standards into a group standard that (mostly) everyone can live with.
I don't disagree with our constitution in principle and I think the rights it sets put are beneficial to our society and freedom but we only have those rights because we all agree that we should and that could change at any time (let's hope it doesn't).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Slaves for life not for seven years. Own them as property. Bequeath them to your children. Perhaps they believed God really owned them but that is immaterial if they were treated like property. Only other Israelites were to be freed after seven years and only if you don't convince them to just go ahead and ot be freed after all if they used a certain loophole.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If he did say that it was impolite but a case could be made for having your prayer quietly in the parking lot so as not to encroach on government buisness.
Created:
Posted in:
You have to at least admit that you could build a case for slavery based on the words of the bible. I agree with you that it would be misguided and wrong to do so but not impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
The meaning is determined by the text
Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘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.
44 “‘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.
I mean I'm trying to understand ethang5 I really am but this is pretty clear in its language and slavery of exactly that kind was extremely prevalent. I understand that you don't like it and would rather believe that it has some deeper meaning that I'm just too dense to understand and I can't rule out the possibility but you've never actually shown me any evidence to consider you have only claimed to be right. That is to say the least unconvincing especially when the text says what the text says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Why should anyone care if you don't like being owned? Why should they care if you liked being owned?
They don't necessarily but I hope they do care about my freedom and I care about their freedom.
Your moral system works only with others who share your subjective opinions.
Well stated. Out of curiosity how exactly is your moral not just a subjective opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Rights by definition encompass an ought to. Ought tools by definition are subjective. You can make objective statements about the rights a society affords (or purports to afford) its citizens but the rights themselves are qualia not quanta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
what is with all these debate language?
This is a debate website. What better place for debate language?
religious morlas are needed in a society
Humane morals are needed in a society. Religion does not always provide humane morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You have moved on from confirming the consequent to bald assertions. Congratulations. Could you do an argument from popularity next?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
America is a land of freedom of religion including the freedom not to have one. Church and state are separate, in theory. This in no way frees you from comparing the United states with Spain in the 1600s unless you would like to go ahead and admit that comparing countries in the way you have suggested is confirming the consequent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
What do you mean by "creative force" in this context?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I think what you meant was "what evidence is there for any god(s)" and the answer is only anecdotal evidence so far as I can determine.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Has someone told you you are not free to pray in public? This is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Also
"America is by no means a christian nation."
-Thomas Jefferson
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well since you seem so eager to confirm the consequent why don't we add Spain in the 1600s to our list of countries to compare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This logical fallacy is known as confirming the consequent. It involves pointing out something "bad" and attempts to connect it to your interlocutor or their argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Atheism is not an organization. It is only a state of belief. I think perhaps what you meant to say is what have atheists done for society and the answer is the same as if you ask what christians (as opposed to christianity) have done for society. It depends on the individual.
As for your claims you will need to rigorously define thrive and good in the context you are using them or this conversation may not be particularly fruitful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Regardless of the word you use the meaning is owning a person as property. You may use whatever word you like but that is the meaning.The text is thousands of years old, words change their meaning over time. Words can also have more than one meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No number of people sharing a subjective opinion will transform such an opinion into an objective fact. Rights are qualia. They are meaningful and important but not objective measurable facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Are you sure? It is based on a very simple idea. I would not like to be owned and so I don't think it would be right for me to own another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ok leys talk about that. The wording of the passage is that you may buy your servants (for your benefit although the word slave is definitely used in many translations) from the heathen around you and goes on to say that you own them as property and can pass them down as inheritance. If that is not what the passage means then it cannot be tr aken at face value but unless you have some structured and objective metric by which you make said interpretations I have no choice but to believe that it means exactly what it says.Because you aren't taking what it says. You are taking your bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
<br>You must purge the evil of slavery from among you
I am unaware of this biblical passage although there is a passage in Corinthians that reads purge the wicked man from among you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Incorrect. I think that people are better off if we agree to afford each other rights and also if we have a reasonable and fair moral structure that promotes personal and societal wellbeing I just don't imagine these feelings come anywhere but from myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Rights are abstract concepts. Without humans to grant them they would not exist. As such they are neither self evident nor inalienable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
--> @ethang5
The definition of terms establishes parameters and limits scope of a question. Without the agreement as to what words mean and refer to, there can be no conclusion drawn.Once words are agreed upon, a good way to advance understanding is to test claims by extending and expanding them and asking about the intended consequences. By whittling away wrong ideas, we move towards agreed upon right ideas. Questions are like whittling away wood. Each moves closer to a point, but more immediately, forces one to turn the wood, and ask from another angle.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You know I'm looking at all the messages this is generating and I can't help but think that this whole gish gallop thing that you do tends to lead to inefficiency in our discussions. Why don't you decide what you would actually like to focus on first and we will discuss that to the end before getting into all these tangents
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am not attempting to interpret the passages at all. I am taking them completely at face value. You claim that this is incorrect.What you mean of course is that the passages seem to need a lot of interpretation away from your spin before they can be said to agree
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
For the same reason you would be held legally accountable for abusing a dog even though you own the animal as property.If the bible means owning people, why is a master punished for maiming or killing his slave?
Created: