The Existence Of Morality

[vbnautilus 48]

Also, you guys are totally not listening to BG, which should be expected, since the topic is something so obviously "wrong". The Bible doesn't take a position on slavery at all

Strongly disagree with this. It specifically says "You may buy slaves". Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."You don't get any closer to condoning an action than specifically saying "You may do this". I don't see how any reasonable person could read this passage and think it is not condoning slavery. Furthermore, even if you were right, and the bible "took no position" the point would remain. Any moral authority worth its parchment should take a position on slavery. It should say "slavery is wrong".

[brvheart 1,752]

Strongly disagree with this. It specifically says "You may buy slaves". Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."You don't get any closer to condoning an action than specifically saying "You may do this". I don't see how any reasonable person could read this passage and think it is not condoning slavery. Furthermore, even if you were right, and the bible "took no position" the point would remain. Any moral authority worth its parchment should take a position on slavery. It should say "slavery is wrong".

I made a specific mistake, that wasn't noticed by me, until your post. My entire post was about the heart issues that are applied to the world via Jesus in the New Testament. The heart issues and the instructions on behavior are all listed in the New Testament specifically and that is that I was referring to as 'The Bible'. I apologize for not being more specific. I'm off to read the context of the section of Leviticus that you posted.

[vbnautilus 48]

Yeah we've been talking about the OT specifically. There are several passages like the Leviticus one I quoted.

[brvheart 1,752]

Yeah we've been talking about the OT specifically. There are several passages like the Leviticus one I quoted.

I apologize then.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

This is even more nitpicky than usual. Obviously I was just using that form of slavery to make my point.

My point was that using the worst-case scenario to make your point actually weakens your point. For what it's worth, I don't think slavery has any redeeming qualities.

[brvheart 1,752]

For what it's worth, I don't think slavery has any redeeming qualities.

You can get a TON of work done for free! (allegedly)

[Spademan 94]

because you are so certain that the Bible... hates women and coloreds.

Well, to be fair it got these two right.

You can get a TON of work done for free! (allegedly)

I "heh'd" because of the parenthetical.

[Balloon guy 158]

This thread truly bottles the mind.

I love this line, It is my all time favorite thing to say now

Strongly disagree with this. It specifically says "You may buy slaves". Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."You don't get any closer to condoning an action than specifically saying "You may do this". I don't see how any reasonable person could read this passage and think it is not condoning slavery.

I don't see how any reasonable person could judge the Bible by only the OT.

Furthermore, even if you were right, and the bible "took no position" the point would remain. Any moral authority worth its parchment should take a position on slavery. It should say "slavery is wrong".

You have just created a requirement for moral authority that is completely contingent on the notion that there is a morality separate from all human involvement.Throughout this thread you have made the claim that morality evolves with people, meaning that at one time slavery was cool, and in fact that in some cultures today slavery is cool. Only in recent years has slavery lost it's coolness and is now bad, as we evolved to believe that as a society.Now you want to be able to discount my belief in the Bible being the ultimate authority on morality by using the idea that your current evolved state of morality says that what we now believe to be immoral is at odds with what the Bible says about slavery.Now either you must admit that there is a morality that is completely separate from human involvement and therefore acknowledge that it's origin must come from a 'Higher Power', or retract your above statement as being true because it is only accurate in the current system of morality which may change in a year for no reason other than things change.

[Randy Reed 0]

Seriously? We are not in agreement that enslaving people is wrong? Seriously?It's not that "being a slave" is bad, its "enslaving people" that is morally wrong.

Well, unless you are God and created the world knowing this was going to happen. I'm sure he probably seen some benefit to further his plan of strengthing the genetic code of humans.

I love this line, It is my all time favorite thing to say nowI don't see how any reasonable person could judge the Bible by only the OT.You have just created a requirement for moral authority that is completely contingent on the notion that there is a morality separate from all human involvement.Throughout this thread you have made the claim that morality evolves with people, meaning that at one time slavery was cool, and in fact that in some cultures today slavery is cool. Only in recent years has slavery lost it's coolness and is now bad, as we evolved to believe that as a society.Now you want to be able to discount my belief in the Bible being the ultimate authority on morality by using the idea that your current evolved state of morality says that what we now believe to be immoral is at odds with what the Bible says about slavery.Now either you must admit that there is a morality that is completely separate from human involvement and therefore acknowledge that it's origin must come from a 'Higher Power', or retract your above statement as being true because it is only accurate in the current system of morality which may change in a year for no reason other than things change.

See vb? Morality is completely seperate from human involvement. God created one commonality among all living things, the desire to procreate. All morality from God's sense is strictly to ensure the procreation of the species. That is God's constant. Your morality might change with the times but his doesn't, it is separate from human involvement. War, death, slavery and destruction are just tools he created to further his plan and design for us. BG has made a good point and you have to admit to this higher power.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG has made a good point and you have to admit to this higher power.

Thank you Randy

[brvheart 1,752]

Well, unless you are God and created the world knowing this was going to happen. I'm sure he probably seen some benefit to further his plan of strengthing the genetic code of humans.See vb? Morality is completely seperate from human involvement. God created one commonality among all living things, the desire to procreate. All morality from God's sense is strictly to ensure the procreation of the species. That is God's constant. Your morality might change with the times but his doesn't, it is separate from human involvement. War, death, slavery and destruction are just tools he created to further his plan and design for us. BG has made a good point and you have to admit to this higher power.

Christian Randy, you aren't doing a very good job of spreading the 'truth'. This isn't correct.

[Randy Reed 0]

Thank you Randy

Your welcome. I finally see the light. My life is now worthless but I can't kill myself since I might not get to the next nicer ant farm. I am trapped and have to put up with his torment.

Christian Randy, you aren't doing a very good job of spreading the 'truth'. This isn't correct.

Sure it is. Prove me wrong. I can even use the bible to back me up.I just think the difference is most Christians like the idea of having some creator that did this to us. I don't.

[Randy Reed 0]

Strongly disagree with this. It specifically says "You may buy slaves". Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."You don't get any closer to condoning an action than specifically saying "You may do this". I don't see how any reasonable person could read this passage and think it is not condoning slavery. Furthermore, even if you were right, and the bible "took no position" the point would remain. Any moral authority worth its parchment should take a position on slavery. It should say "slavery is wrong".

Bg's point is that you are creating an absolute morality which doesn't work (in the human perspective). How do you know that slavery might have had a social benefit. Obviously God wanted to further the Christians in their geneitc heritge and by allowing slavery to assist them might have led a population growth that has enabled the vast Christian majority that God intended?For that matter, wars and genocide could have as well.

[Randy Reed 0]

This thread is indicative of every single other thread where a cultist (usually BG is the only one with the fervor to participate) makes idiotic statements in defense of their cults more absurd particulars. It simply stands out in this thread because of the blatantly indefensible position of the Christian cult's text in relation to slavery, and BG's penchant to speak with the authoritative certainty of people who are actually making reasonable, logically sound points. It is delusion in technicolor.

What's delusional about life? Something gave the molecules a spark and created action. As much as there is a reason to believe it just happened, it's just as logical to imagine some alternate creator putting the spark there. If he could put the spark of life into us, he could have sent us a guide in the form of Jesus to guide us on his path.

[Balloon guy 158]

The funny thing is the obvious one.You can't show one example of a Christian group who claims slavery is acceptable and or practices it today, but we can all pick out groups who will dance with rattle snakes, reject all modern conveniences, etc.If the Bible really taught that slavery was cool, you would think at least one nut job today would try to get the practice reinstated...Only examples I can think of would be the God-less communist who make their entire country slaves.But those are atheist, not Christians.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't see how any reasonable person could judge the Bible by only the OT.

I was judging the OT by the OT. Since the topic was whether or not the OT could be used an a moral authority.

You have just created a requirement for moral authority that is completely contingent on the notion that there is a morality separate from all human involvement.Throughout this thread you have made the claim that morality evolves with people, meaning that at one time slavery was cool, and in fact that in some cultures today slavery is cool. Only in recent years has slavery lost it's coolness and is now bad, as we evolved to believe that as a society.

I have made no such argument. My argument has been that there are ways of living that objectively maximize human well-being. Slavery is not one of them. Therefore, it was always wrong.

Now you want to be able to discount my belief in the Bible being the ultimate authority on morality by using the idea that your current evolved state of morality says that what we now believe to be immoral is at odds with what the Bible says about slavery.

I am using a moral fact that you and I both agree on to judge the quality of the Old Testament's moral recommendations. Or at least, I thought we agreed on. Now it seems that you think it was just fine for people to own slaves, as long as they did it before Jesus came along.

Now either you must admit that there is a morality that is completely separate from human involvement and therefore acknowledge that it's origin must come from a 'Higher Power', or retract your above statement as being true because it is only accurate in the current system of morality which may change in a year for no reason other than things change.

I think you have simply forgotten what my position is in regards to morality. I'm not a relativist like Crow is.

Bg's point is that you are creating an absolute morality which doesn't work (in the human perspective). How do you know that slavery might have had a social benefit.

That's an empirical question. Does slavery lead to greater collective well-being than outlawing slavery? There is a knowable answer to this question. There is a truth of the matter.

[Randy Reed 0]

The funny thing is the obvious one.You can't show one example of a Christian group who claims slavery is acceptable and or practices it today, but we can all pick out groups who will dance with rattle snakes, reject all modern conveniences, etc.If the Bible really taught that slavery was cool, you would think at least one nut job today would try to get the practice reinstated...Only examples I can think of would be the God-less communist who make their entire country slaves.But those are atheist, not Christians.

But you agree that God created athiests as well and they mass murdered people by his will, right? He created everyone and gave everyone a soul and guiding force so he ultimately controls the athiests as well as the christians. I'm sure he has a plan for who attempts genocide. You know, he is all powerful.

[Randy Reed 0]

That's an empirical question. Does slavery lead to greater collective well-being than outlawing slavery? There is a knowable answer to this question. There is a truth of the matter.

Who are you to question God? Okay, haha, kidding. A single example could be empirical as with examples of murder or adultry etc. You could find a knowable anwer to that specific instance, assumably. I would tend to think that generalizing any morality as a whole isn't.

[BaseJester 1]

I'm off to read the context of the section of Leviticus that you posted.

The context is the definition of the Hebrew law. Is there a context (short of "This next bit is rubbish") that would somehow make this passage moral?

[Balloon guy 158]

I was judging the OT by the OT. Since the topic was whether or not the OT could be used an a moral authority.

you were judging the OT by the standards you have set up for yourself. This is a straw man based judgment.

I have made no such argument. My argument has been that there are ways of living that objectively maximize human well-being. Slavery is not one of them. Therefore, it was always wrong.

It very much maximizes the well-being of one human, while screwing the well being of another. Doesn't that cancel out it's effect?

I am using a moral fact that you and I both agree on to judge the quality of the Old Testament's moral recommendations. Or at least, I thought we agreed on. Now it seems that you think it was just fine for people to own slaves, as long as they did it before Jesus came along.

Actually I am surprised that you can't see the point I have made regarding the higher purpose that transcends the earthly plane. But I think you are stuck on a point about slavery that I of course agree with you about, that it is wrong. The context of the verse you used still clearly gave instruction to a certain group of people in a certain circumstance, not the overall plan for all mankind. The whole year of Jubilee part should have shown that because it clearly talks about when a brother sells himself into slavery ( sorry speedz, but not all slavery is equal ) the Jews response is to free him at the year of Jubilee. They also must forgive all debts on this every 7 year festival. Don't see the Jews holding onto that little commandment either do ya?

I think you have simply forgotten what my position is in regards to morality. I'm not a relativist like Crow is.

You know he is, I know he is, but I bet he doesn't know he is. ( Or how dumb a position that is )

That's an empirical question. Does slavery lead to greater collective well-being than outlawing slavery? There is a knowable answer to this question. There is a truth of the matter.

There is also a truth to whether genocide to cleanse the gene-pool is a reasonable argument to explore every now and then...Once you make the rule that the greater well-being is the only thing that matters, you can make some pretty scummy laws for a lot of the undesirables.Kind of what has been done more than once by many on your side....

[Randy Reed 0]

Once you make the rule that the greater well-being is the only thing that matters, you can make some pretty scummy laws for a lot of the undesirables.Kind of what has been done more than once by many on your side....

And many on our side as well! The beautiful thing about Christianity is that it divides people and allows for hatred instead of the pesky absolute morals athiests want. When you give up thinking of having a moral purpose in life and give in to the creator those things don't matter. That's why we give our lives to Jesus. You've heard the song, Jesus at the Wheel.

[vbnautilus 48]

It very much maximizes the well-being of one human, while screwing the well being of another. Doesn't that cancel out it's effect?

Does it really?

The context of the verse you used still clearly gave instruction to a certain group of people in a certain circumstance, not the overall plan for all mankind.

I fail to see how the particular circumstances of that instruction make it ok.

They also must forgive all debts on this every 7 year festival. Don't see the Jews holding onto that little commandment either do ya?

Right. Those who don't are either not literalists (they reasonably discard those passages which are no longer relevant) or they are hypocrites. If you want to say we should just read the text as general advice some of which is right and some of which is irrelevant or wrong, then we are on the same page.

There is also a truth to whether genocide to cleanse the gene-pool is a reasonable argument to explore every now and then...

Are you suggesting that it is greater for our collective well-being to do this?

Once you make the rule that the greater well-being is the only thing that matters, you can make some pretty scummy laws for a lot of the undesirables.Kind of what has been done more than once by many on your side....

On the contrary we would have a reasonable, objective basis for rejecting such ridiculous proposals, other than "hey this old book says not to".

[Randy Reed 0]

Does it really?I fail to see how the particular circumstances of that instruction make it ok. Right. Those who don't are either not literalists (they reasonably discard those passages which are no longer relevant) or they are hypocrites. If you want to say we should just read the text as general advice some of which is right and some of which is irrelevant or wrong, then we are on the same page. Are you suggesting that it is greater for our collective well-being to do this? On the contrary we would have a reasonable, objective basis for rejecting such ridiculous proposals, other than "hey this old book says not to".

Well, I tend to think along the Hutaree Christian message. They aren't waiting for for disastor and genocide, they're bringing it!http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1361And really vb, you act surprised that the Christians would defend genocide. When something like Christianity makes you feel so good it's no wonder we'll defend it to the death, or well death of an entire race if need be. It's only natural.

[speedz99 145]

My point was that using the worst-case scenario to make your point actually weakens your point.

I don't agree with your point when the worst-case scenario is also the most common scenario. I'm sure there are many ways in which a person could become a slave, and I'm sure some slaves were/are treated relatively fairly (aside from the whole ownership awkwardness), but I don't think my scenario was so out of the ordinary that it can't be used in an argument.

You can get a TON of work done for free! (allegedly)

Heh.

[BaseJester 1]

I'm off to read the context of the section of Leviticus that you posted.

What did you find out?