Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I was raised Christian, and when I left religion and religious beliefs, I did not change my morals or behaviors for the most part. While I take (or try to take) a more practical approach to those questions, most of the morals I developed during my earlier years have stayed with me because I have not seen reason to abandon them. They served me well as I was growing up and I didn't want to discard them along with religion, that would be like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I think that one factor is that I did not leave religion angrily or bitterly; I just drifted away and after a few years came to terms with what I did and did not believe. I didn't feel a need to rebel against a god that wasn't there or to 'sample the Devil's wares' as it were. The morals that got me safely this far remain useful and are not a reminder of any bad experience. I don't know if that answers your question. I haven't gone through my morals and determined which I retain and which I redefine, I kind of deal with those questions as they come.

---

So would you say that for the purpose of your view on morality you are still assuming God exists because that allows you to adopt a view of morality that transcends mankind? Did I understand that correctly?

Of course not, no one ever claimed that it did, but if we're comparing the two and using our (shared, btw) concept of justice - then the godly offering you felt compelled to put on the table falls far far short of the bar.

No it doesn’t, I have never claimed that either of us have a perfect understanding of justice, so whether or not our understanding of justice matches with God’s is irrelevant.

No, we do not. You mentioned two separate crimes with 4 possible victims and failed to realize that in every case the system doling out punitive measures remained the same while your hypothetical sentences were variable. In each example offered - the crime itself, and particularly the victims involved - is being used as the measure of what measure of punitive action is deemed appropriate. So, thank you for demonstrating my point so wonderfully. This is the point where I get to remind you that the best you could hope for with this particular line of bullshit was tq. So congratulations, you managed to fail at making so much as a vacuous argument............

That paragraph doesn’t make any sense. Are you really suggesting that if you punched a civilian you’d get the exact same sentence as if you punched the President of the United States? Are you really suggesting that if you were disrespectful to a coworker you’d get the same punishment as you’d get if you were disrespectful to your boss? Are you really suggesting that if a Private verbally assaults another Private he’d get the same military punishment as if he’d verbally assaulted a Brigadier General? We punish according to authority in this country, that’s a fact. God holds infinite authority over us; therefore sins against God require infinite punishment; it’s a logical system.

There is no governing body that allows and approved a societies morals. The morals are a function of the society. It is not a "right" per se, it is a natural function or effect of organized society.

So then why did you put morals at the society level? Why not at the species level, family level, or individual level? What happens when the morals of a family contradict the morals of a society? Whose morals are correct?

Indeed we are. And from their perspective, they are morally right. They are not morally right by OUR societal standards, but right by theirs.

So then does one society have the moral right to intervene in the affairs of another society that it believes is doing moral wrong?

Being a moral outsider does not necessarily mean they are ACTING immorally. For instance, the denizens Iran, by and large, are not out killing people in terrorist attacks. However, their societal norms allow that kind of behavior. My guess is that they DON'T do it because they find it morally wrong.

If their social norms dictate that it is not morally wrong then how could anyone living in that society believe it was morally wrong since according to you morals are determined by the society a person lives in and not by the individual?

My point is that societal norms and morals do not necessarily dictate action or necessarily define morals for the individual.

Now I am confused, I thought it was your position that morals are determined by societies but now you are asserting that social norms do not necessarily determine morals, which is it?

That all depends on who you ask...

How do you know that really depends on who I ask?

Since that's what homosexuality means. Two heterosexual men can have sexual relations with each other - that doesn't make them homosexuals. (But proving homosexuality to any degree of certainty is almost impossible.)

Two men engaging in sex is a homosexual relationship.

There is no such "right" - they just do it.

So can members from one society murder and rape the women of another society as long as the first society believes it is morally right to do so?

Only if you attempt to dictate some absolute morality. What a society considers moral is moral - within that society. That's what morality is - what's acceptable to some group. To Catholicism, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is moral.

How do you know any of this? What’s your authority? So was it morally wrong for abolitionists in the 19th century to believe slavery was morally wrong since it was viewed as morally right by America at the time?

Nothing - to that society, he's morally wrong. His being morally wrong would require an absolute morality - and there is no such thing.

Are you absolutely sure there’s no such thing? According to Baalzebutt there is a difference between a moral outsider and someone who is doing moral wrong, so who is right and why?

[Tonus]

So would you say that for the purpose of your view on morality you are still assuming God exists because that allows you to adopt a view of morality that transcends mankind? Did I understand that correctly?

No, simply that my morals changed very little when I became an atheist. I don't believe that they came from god, since I don't believe god exists. But leaving religion didn't change my general outlook towards life and how I treat others, and so I haven't found any reason to change my view on right and wrong on most issues.

[ideologue08]

However, their societal norms allow that kind of behavior.

Not true; your arse isn't a reliable source of info. It is illegal to carry out attacks within Iran, you're confusing State actions with the general populace.

[Statler Waldorf]

No, simply that my morals changed very little when I became an atheist. I don't believe that they came from god, since I don't believe god exists. But leaving religion didn't change my general outlook towards life and how I treat others, and so I haven't found any reason to change my view on right and wrong on most issues.

Oh ok, well I am still interested as to how you define what is right and wrong, I understand that what you believe Is right and wrong hasn’t changed much but why do you believe what you believe? Thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course not, no one ever claimed that it did, but if we're comparing the two and using our (shared, btw) concept of justice - then the godly offering you felt compelled to put on the table falls far far short of the bar.

No it doesn’t,

It does, very simply stated. We punish according to the weight of the crime, not the relative authority of the punitive body. To do otherwise would be -unjust- in our system. If you have a problem with the bar - which is what you seem to be trying to say - then that's another issue entirely. I think that you simply can't find any way to support the example of injustice you offered up - but would not accept from any earthly authority. You've set a lower bar for your god - by invoking it's "infinite" or "ultimate" authority...which is one of the most amusingly ironic things I've seen in awhile.

I have never claimed that either of us have a perfect understanding of justice, so whether or not our understanding of justice matches with God’s is irrelevant.

A perfect understanding is not required to compare the two offerings on the table. We only have to understand the two claims in opposition. One is that appropriate punitive measures are those in which the punishment is commensurate to -the crime-.....the other is that appropriate punitive measures are those in which punishment is commensurate to -the level of authority of the adjudicating body-.

[Tonus]

Oh ok, well I am still interested as to how you define what is right and wrong, I understand that what you believe Is right and wrong hasn’t changed much but why do you believe what you believe? Thanks.

Well, I haven't really thought about every moral issue, but most of them either come down to practicality and/or empathy. I think that most of the morals that modern societies retain come down to the concept of protecting each of us from harm to the degree that it's possible, and improving the lot of the society or community as a whole. Humans are social creatures and I think that on some level or other, the approval of our fellow humans makes us feel good. Behavior that increases the general good feeling among the group (without causing harm in other ways) will be promoted, and behavior that decreases that good feeling will be discouraged (unless it's necessary for protecting their well-being).

[smax]

The Bible is the infallable word of god......







if you don't question it.

[Statler Waldorf]

It does, very simply stated. We punish according to the weight of the crime, not the relative authority of the punitive body.

Nope, as I already proved by numerous examples crimes against positions of higher authority are weighted more. Crimes against a god of infinite authority deserve an infinite weight.

A perfect understanding is not required to compare the two offerings on the table. We only have to understand the two claims in opposition. One is that appropriate punitive measures are those in which the punishment is commensurate to -the crime-.....the other is that appropriate punitive measures are those in which punishment is commensurate to -the level of authority of the adjudicating body-.

That’s a false dichotomy, in the US often the severity of the crime is determined by the authority of the victim. Back to my original point though, neither of us have a perfect standard of justice, so if you disagree with the way God does things all that proves is that your standard of justice is wrong- not that He is unjust.

Well, I haven't really thought about every moral issue, but most of them either come down to practicality and/or empathy. I think that most of the morals that modern societies retain come down to the concept of protecting each of us from harm to the degree that it's possible, and improving the lot of the society or community as a whole. Humans are social creatures and I think that on some level or other, the approval of our fellow humans makes us feel good. Behavior that increases the general good feeling among the group (without causing harm in other ways) will be promoted, and behavior that decreases that good feeling will be discouraged (unless it's necessary for protecting their well-being).

Ok, but I am still curious as to how you reason from all of these descriptive statements about how Humans think and behave to a moral set of normative rules telling us how we ought to live. I think you’ll find you cannot construct a valid proof to support this line of reasoning.

The Bible is the infallable [sic] word of god......

Amen. [sic added by SW]

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, as I already proved by numerous examples crimes against positions of higher authority are weighted more. Crimes against a god of infinite authority deserve an infinite weight.

It never dawned on you that presenting an example of something that we would -very accurately- call a miscarriage of justice might run counter to your point?

That’s a false dichotomy, in the US often the severity of the crime is determined by the authority of the victim. Back to my original point though, neither of us have a perfect standard of justice, so if you disagree with the way God does things all that proves is that your standard of justice is wrong- not that He is unjust.

A false dichotomy..oh boy you're out of practice. Nowhere did I imply that either of the two options were the only options- simply that these were the two being compared- and as such we needn't be aware of or understand every possible option to compare the two. We still don't, my point stands. I'm willing to accept that there may be other systems of justice out there that have nothing to do with either option presented...and I'd further suggest that they could be better, or worse, or equivalent to either in this regard.

If you have some 3rd or 300th system to offer, do so, and we'll compare that one as well.

No one's claimed that our justice system is infallible or that it always lives up to it's own principles Stat.....simply that what you've offered as divine justice doesn't live up to the principles of our system of earthly justice. Again, it falls short .

Lets just clear this up. Put your convictions into your response.
You steal 100$ from, say, a circuit court judge.
I steal 100$ from some unemployed, unimportant minority citizen in the ghetto.

Which of us deserves the longer or shorter sentence Stat?

[Statler Waldorf]

It never dawned on you that presenting an example of something that we would -very accurately- call a miscarriage of justice might run counter to your point?

A person doing more time for shooting the President than for shooting another civilian is in no way a miscarriage of justice.

A false dichotomy..oh boy you're out of practice. Nowhere did I imply that either of the two options were the only options- simply that these were the two being compared- and as such we needn't be aware of or understand every possible option to compare the two. We still don't, my point stands. I'm willing to accept that there may be other systems of justice out there that have nothing to do with either option presented...and I'd further suggest that they could be better, or worse, or equivalent to either in this regard.

You were treating two options as mutually exclusive when they are not, that’s constructing a false dichotomy.

If you have some 3rd or 300th system to offer, do so, and we'll compare that one as well.

I do not have to, we already use a very similar system to the one God uses.

No one's claimed that our justice system is infallible or that it always lives up to it's own principles Stat.....simply that what you've offered as divine justice doesn't live up to the principles of our system of earthly justice. Again, it falls short .

Nope, I already gave numerous examples where we use the very same reasoning that we find in scripture. Secondly, by definition God’s concept of justice could never fall short of ours, so if the two differ at all it means that ours is the one that falls short.

Lets just clear this up. Put your convictions into your response.
You steal 100$ from, say, a circuit court judge.
I steal 100$ from some unemployed, unimportant minority citizen in the ghetto.

Which of us deserves the longer or shorter sentence Stat?

It’s a faulty analogy because you’ve created a financial disparity between the victims, we have to remove that variable. A better example would be, you steal 100 dollars from a circuit judge who is worth 500,000 dollars and I steal 100 dollars from my neighbor (an engineer) who is also worth 500,000 dollars you’d be sentenced to more time because of the authority of your victim and rightly so. Send a threatening letter to your neighbor and then send a threatening letter to President Obama and see which one you do more time for.