Speaking for myself, and in reference to the original post, I don't believe that god commands me or anyone to do or not do anything. These assumptions are based on the christian idea of god, or the idea of scriptures saying what god wants people to do or not do. That sort of thing doesn't apply to all theists, far from it.

(July 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 14, 2010 at 11:34 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Exodus 21:20-21: 'If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female (well, at least there's sexual equality... how enlightened!), and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished (alright so far). But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property (note the masculine possessive pronoun) is punishment enough.' So it doesn't say they should be beaten, but its tone isn't exactly condemnatory of slave-beating, let alone slave-owning. This is taken from the Good News Bible, by the way. Other versions are slightly different, but the gist of the passage is the same.

It is instructions for the severity of beatings that can be dished out to slaves...

Oh, brother! Why not follow through on your thinking and conclude that the Bible says it is ok/better to beat a slave with a rock because even if he/she dies on the spot you won't be punished because the Bible says that you will only be punished if you beat the slave with a stick and he/she dies on the spot? That must mean that it is ok/better to use a rock instead of a stick, right?

Still, even if one looks at it from that point of view, I don't know how you conclude that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten and that was the issue I raised with respect to Chasm's comment.

(July 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: ... this means that a certain level of slave beating is acceptable.

Well at least we agree on something. I agree that the quote supports the idea that a certain level of slave beating was acceptable in the Mosaic law. What I find ironic is that we also live in a society that accepts a certain amount of unacceptable behavior. Some men beat their wives and get away with it without being punished. Do you then conclude that the laws of our society condones wife beating? Is reasonable for one to conclude that it is ok to beat your wife as long as you don't leave evidence that it was you? Do you conclude that our laws against certain things coupled with the requirement in the law for evidence should be taken as instructions on how to do something and get away with it? (The questions are not rhetorical. I really would like to know how you would answer them DBP.)

---

(July 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: DBP kind of messed the quote up, but his response is correct. The passage I quoted says that a "servant" (by which it means 'slave') will be severely punished. How do you think slaves were "severely punished"? Do you think they got grounded from their video games? Of course not... they were beaten.

"Will be" is not the same as "Should be". You are right about that. It is worse. Not only should slaves be beaten, but you are commanded to beat them... i.e. they will be beaten.

I take it you did not go back and read the passage in context as I suggested. That passage, in context, is not directing all slave owners to severely punish their slaves. Furthermore, the punishment talked about in this passage certainly appears to be for doing something worthy of punishment. The KJV of Luke 12:48 says "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes". So it sounds to me like the punishment being talked about here is deserved, not punishment at the whim of the lord.

Not only is religion unnecessary for morality, as sociological studies of secular societies prove, it's not even helpful as a framework for discussions on morality. Religion, rather than provide a constructive guide, by its very nature confuses our moral judgment. Let me emphasize that this isn't just a problem with certain questionable verses in the Bible or Quran regarding the rape of sex slaves, the genocide of enemy tribes or the beating of slaves. Even ignoring all these specific verses, there is a fundamental problem with the way religion-based morality that can't help but be damaging to our moral compass.

By its nature, religion wants two things: more converts and greater control over said converts.

Any religion that doesn't make these two objectives a priority will quickly be eclipsed by those that do. Evolution will take its course with memes as surely as it does with life. If you need any examples, compare the religions of Islamo-Christianity, the denominations of which collectively dominate our discussion of religion, with the less-successful religions of the Jians or the Zoroastrians.

Reading the Bible or the Quran cover-to-cover makes it clear that Islamo-Christianity is primarily concerned with the "virtues" of proper beliefs and adherence to proper rituals as well as the "evils" of such victimless crimes as blasphemy, idolatry or conversion to other religions. While it's true that there are occasional admonishments of charity, peace or honesty that are ripe for cherry-picking, it's clear that most of the attention throughout these books is given to having "proper" metaphysical beliefs. Indeed, many Islamo-Christians will tell you that God will be primarily concerned with faith, not works, on judgment day (and even those who do consider "works" to be important will often define prayer, rituals and church attendance as part of that mix).

If you don't have the time to read the Bible cover-to-cover, consider the ten commandments, held by Christians as the basis for moral law. The first four, presumably the most important if order means anything, deal exclusively with the victimless crimes of apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy and failure to observe a holy day. Ironically, Christianity is in violation of #4 since it moved the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. So much for unchanging laws set in stone.

Secular morality, by contrast, understands that where our actions impact other sentient beings, questions of morality apply. This is a complicated topic and there are different approaches to try to unravel our evaluations of right and wrong. What we can all agree on is that morality is a function of our relation to other conscious beings. As Sam Harris has noted, we have no moral obligations toward rocks. Neither do we have any toward trees, which are technically alive but not sentient. When we say something is "wrong", we usually mean acts of dishonesty, violation of the rights of others or wanton disregard for taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

By introducing other considerations to the mix, never mind bumping them up on the priority list as religion is inclined to do, we confuse our ability to understand right and wrong. We begin to obsess over victimless crimes like blasphemy or partake in useless, unhelpful pseudo-virtues like prayer.

Examples of "moral issues" that religion pushes today:

1. Discouraging condom use in AIDS stricken areas of the world
2. Abstinence only sex education, which is proven to increase unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
3. Violence against gays or treating them like second class citizens.
4. Preventing stem-cell research, possibly the most promising field of medical research.
5. Using resources to send audio-Bibles to Haiti instead of food or medical aid.

All this to say nothing of more dramatic examples of sectarian war, torture and execution.

Religion confuses our moral impulses. It's not only unnecessary, it's unhelpful.

(July 15, 2010 at 9:43 am)rjh4 Wrote: Oh, brother! Why not follow through on your thinking and conclude that the Bible says it is ok/better to beat a slave with a rock because even if he/she dies on the spot you won't be punished because the Bible says that you will only be punished if you beat the slave with a stick and he/she dies on the spot? That must mean that it is ok/better to use a rock instead of a stick, right?

Because it makes no mention of rocks in the Bible. Besides, one can reasonably assume that the same punishment would apply with a rock as with a stick.

Quote:Still, even if one looks at it from that point of view, I don't know how you conclude that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten and that was the issue I raised with respect to Chasm's comment.

Is acceptance of slave-beating not morally abhorrent enough for you? Is this not enough to make you doubt that the Bible is the inerrant word of an all-loving, perfectly good deity?

Quote:What I find ironic is that we also live in a society that accepts a certain amount of unacceptable behavior. Some men beat their wives and get away with it without being punished. Do you then conclude that the laws of our society condones wife beating? Is reasonable for one to conclude that it is ok to beat your wife as long as you don't leave evidence that it was you? Do you conclude that our laws against certain things coupled with the requirement in the law for evidence should be taken as instructions on how to do something and get away with it?

Society does not accept wife-beating. Just because some wife-beaters get away with it, how does that imply societal approval? How does the requirement of evidence count as telling people how to get away with it? Maybe I'm just stupid, but what you said seems to make little sense.

Quote:I take it you did not go back and read the passage in context as I suggested. That passage, in context, is not directing all slave owners to severely punish their slaves. Furthermore, the punishment talked about in this passage certainly appears to be for doing something worthy of punishment. The KJV of Luke 12:48 says "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes". So it sounds to me like the punishment being talked about here is deserved, not punishment at the whim of the lord.

It's fascinating to see you try and justify this Stone Age barbarism. Besides the fact that this passage tacitly accepts slavery as perfectly okay, it seems to advocate a punishment which only the most brutal Muslim countries engage in today. What, I wonder, could cause someone to 'deserve' such treatment?

(July 15, 2010 at 11:32 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

---

(July 15, 2010 at 9:43 am)rjh4 Wrote: Oh, brother! Why not follow through on your thinking and conclude that the Bible says it is ok/better to beat a slave with a rock because even if he/she dies on the spot you won't be punished because the Bible says that you will only be punished if you beat the slave with a stick and he/she dies on the spot? That must mean that it is ok/better to use a rock instead of a stick, right?

Because it makes no mention of rocks in the Bible. Besides, one can reasonably assume that the same punishment would apply with a rock as with a stick.

Quote:Still, even if one looks at it from that point of view, I don't know how you conclude that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten and that was the issue I raised with respect to Chasm's comment.

Is acceptance of slave-beating not morally abhorrent enough for you? Is this not enough to make you doubt that the Bible is the inerrant word of an all-loving, perfectly good deity?

Quote:What I find ironic is that we also live in a society that accepts a certain amount of unacceptable behavior. Some men beat their wives and get away with it without being punished. Do you then conclude that the laws of our society condones wife beating? Is reasonable for one to conclude that it is ok to beat your wife as long as you don't leave evidence that it was you? Do you conclude that our laws against certain things coupled with the requirement in the law for evidence should be taken as instructions on how to do something and get away with it?

Society does not accept wife-beating. Just because some wife-beaters get away with it, how does that imply societal approval? How does the requirement of evidence count as telling people how to get away with it? Maybe I'm just stupid, but what you said seems to make little sense.

Quote:I take it you did not go back and read the passage in context as I suggested. That passage, in context, is not directing all slave owners to severely punish their slaves. Furthermore, the punishment talked about in this passage certainly appears to be for doing something worthy of punishment. The KJV of Luke 12:48 says "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes". So it sounds to me like the punishment being talked about here is deserved, not punishment at the whim of the lord.

It's fascinating to see you try and justify this Stone Age barbarism. Besides the fact that this passage tacitly accepts slavery as perfectly okay, it seems to advocate a punishment which only the most brutal Muslim countries engage in today. What, I wonder, could cause someone to 'deserve' such treatment?

---

If you have been following the whole conversation, I think you missed my point.

Chasm said that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten. I did not think the Bible said such a thing so I asked for support. You and Paul proffered some verses that supposedly supported Chasm's position. I am merely arguing that the verses do not support that position. The Bible, or at least those passages proffered, does not say that a slave "should" be beaten.

If you want to discuss some of the other issues that have arisen, I am happy to do so but it would be nice to take one issue at a time.

Do you agree with me that these passages do not support Chasm's comment?

Do you agree with me that the Bible doesn't say that slaves "should" be beaten? If not, then what is your support?

(July 15, 2010 at 11:58 am)rjh4 Wrote: If you have been following the whole conversation, I think you missed my point.

Chasm said that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten. I did not think the Bible said such a thing so I asked for support. You and Paul proffered some verses that supposedly supported Chasm's position. I am merely arguing that the verses do not support that position. The Bible, or at least those passages proffered, does not say that a slave "should" be beaten.

If you want to discuss some of the other issues that have arisen, I am happy to do so but it would be nice to take one issue at a time.

Do you agree with me that these passages do not support Chasm's comment?

Do you agree with me that the Bible doesn't say that slaves "should" be beaten? If not, then what is your support?

Yes, I agree that it never explicitly states that one should beat one's slaves. If you want to claim that the Bible's ethically defensible, you're going to have to do better than that, though.

(July 15, 2010 at 12:06 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Yes, I agree that it never explicitly states that one should beat one's slaves.

Thank you for the straight answer.

If you are interested in discussing some of the other issues raised, which would you like me to address? (If you are not interested...no need to respond.)

(July 15, 2010 at 12:11 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(July 15, 2010 at 12:06 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Yes, I agree that it never explicitly states that one should beat one's slaves.

Thank you for the straight answer.

If you are interested in discussing some of the other issues raised, which would you like me to address? (If you are not interested...no need to respond.)

Okay, then. If the Bible does say that slavery is acceptable, how is that good? How can you defend that? Also, could you respond to the question which this thread first asked: namely, whether God commands things because they are good according to some independent moral standard, or whether things are good because God commands them, in which case goodness is arbitrary. To put it another way: if God commanded you to beat up old grannies, would you consider that 'good', and would you do it?

(July 15, 2010 at 12:34 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: If the Bible does say that slavery is acceptable, how is that good? How can you defend that?

Don't we need to first establish whether or not the Bible says that slavery is acceptable and in what sense is it acceptable?

Then don't we need to discuss whether or not the Bible says that slavery is good? (Of course, we have not even begun to establish what is meant by "good" as our definitions of that word may differ significantly.)

My position is that just because certain things are tolerated (accepted) doesn't necessarily mean they are good nor does it mean that the ones tolerating the behavior are not good. In our society, I could walk up to someone and berate them publicly for no good reason and be free to do so under the law if I stay within certain limits (i.e., such behavior is allowed or tolerated or accepted by society) but that doesn't necessarily mean that doing so would be "good" or that the society is "not good" because such behavior is tolerated.

Assuming you accept such behavior is not good, do you think that makes our laws "not good" because it allows/tolerates/accepts such behavior?

I don't think so and likewise I do not conclude that the Bible and God are "not good" just because certain behaviors are tolerated by them.

(July 15, 2010 at 12:34 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Also, could you respond to the question which this thread first asked: namely, whether God commands things because they are good according to some independent moral standard, or whether things are good because God commands them, in which case goodness is arbitrary. To put it another way: if God commanded you to beat up old grannies, would you consider that 'good', and would you do it?

Seems like loaded questions to me. But in an attempt at productively furthering the conversation, I will try to respond.

I do not think that God commands things because they are good according to some independent moral standard. I come to this conclusion because my presuppositions are that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God and there is nothing in the Bible indicating that God is subject to some independent moral standard.

I think God and how He has told us through the Bible to behave is the standard by which human behavior is to be determined as "good" or not. You seem to conclude that given such a position that this makes goodness arbitrary. I don't agree. God's nature is what it is (I of course am speaking from my point of view) and His commands will be in accordance with His nature. Your conclusion would be like saying that God's nature is arbitrary but I see no basis for necessitating such a conclusion.

As for God commanding me to beat up grannies...I would have to know more to answer the question. How did God command me? What form was the command such that I know it was from God? I would not trust in a dream or even someone like the pope (I'm not Catholic) telling me that God commanded such a thing, nor would I trust someone coming to me and claiming to be God since to me such a commandment would not comport with how the Bible tells me to treat others. So to me the question is kind of silly because I cannot even fathom a situation where I would receive such a command and consider it from God.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

---

Theists often assert that God's existence is the only way for there to be objective morality. But there's a problem with this, summed up by the so-called Euthyphro Dilemma: is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good? If the former is true, then morality is just the arbitrary whim of God, and God could command for children to be tortured, or that James Blunt be a compulsory part of people's CD collections, and that would have to be considered good. If the latter is true, then morality is independent of God, so we don't need him to order us around.

It's then said, 'Well, goodness is a part of God.' But what does this mean? Goodness according to whose standards? His own? If so, then that's like saying, 'A part of God is a part of God, and God says that part of him is good.' So, here's the nub of the question for theists: if God commanded people to kill their grannies, should they do it? Would it be good?

---

I can't keep up with all the posts, but I'll chime in with my thoughts on the OP.
If I had only "is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good", I would choose the former. Here's my reasoning as a Christian. I know what's best for my children because I have a better perspective on life. The same applies to the author or the universe. His perspective and power should be respected enough to assume his intentions have, at the least, a beneficial outcome to his creations in the long term. I personally in ther here and now find no problems with any of God's guidance, and see nothing harmful or "evil" to me that would lead me to believe his intentions are anything other than long term and good and healthy for us.

To answer your other question "if God commanded people to kill their grannies, should they do it? Would it be good?" Well that would depend on whether it's verified as God's commandment. I'll assume it has been verified and say yes people should. Do I think I could, no it disagrees too much with my own personal morality. If it's a verified commandment (no kidding burning bush backed up by the holy spirit and scripture and the sacrement of confirmation) from God, then we should do it, but I'm sur ethere would be a lot of discussion about it first. Would it be morally right to me, with null circumstances I'd say no.