Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[SteveII]

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. 

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario.

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

First, welcome to the forum and thank you for the thoughtful comment. Why do you use "xtians"?

I found this link this morning after searching for Jewish thought on the subject. I found it interesting. It's long but if you really are interested in the subject...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...e-Jews.htm

[SteveII]

I want to know why god doesn't speak these days. He used to have no problem just turning up and saying stuff. What happened?

Because the NT was the culmination of his revelation in that salvation now provides access to God on a daily basis. So, before he was distant and visited every so often and sent prophets every so often but now he is within reach of everyone.

[Mr.wizard]

Love your neighbor as yourself was in the OT as well, yet no one interpreted it as implying that slavery is wrong back then.

But you see how you have to go by your own subjective interpretation of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself in order to come to your personal conclusion that slavery is wrong. Some people may think that loving your neighbor as yourself does not apply to slaves in the same way that others thought this did not apply to non-Israelites. Many Americans in the days prior to, and during the Civil War, certainly did not interpret that command to mean stop owning slaves. So if subjective interpretations (of the scriptures, mind you) is what you have to go by, you're not in any better position than us.

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

[ukatheist]

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

First, welcome to the forum and thank you for the thoughtful comment. Why do you use "xtians"?

I found this link this morning after searching for Jewish thought on the subject. I found it interesting. It's long but if you really are interested in the subject...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...e-Jews.htm

Thanks for the link. It seems to me that what it boils down to if that

1. If your god just told people straight up that certain actions were wrong, people wouldn't be truly 'good' because people would only be doing 'good' because they were told to do, not because they were truly 'good'.
2. By not explicitly saying that slavery is wrong, your god has given people the chance to 'learn' for themselves that slavery is wrong.

So essentially people are 'good' despite the babble, and not because of it?

I use xtians for two reasons, one because it saves key depressions, and two because I think the term 'cross'tians is apt, giving that my view is that the majority of xtians are cross/irritated/angry that the whole world does not share their beliefs and we object to having their particular brand of religion shoved in our faces. And I use 'babble' because IMO that is all the bible contains - meaningless nonsense.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

[GrandizerII]

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

The Bible just simply isn't explicitly clear on slavery being wrong. But putting that aside, it's not like we even have clear unambiguous access to all of God's moral rules, assuming God exists. So even if divine morality exists, there is no evidence that it is fully and readily available and that Christians or others are going by the rules of such morality rather than by the same or similar standards everyone else is going by.

[Veritas_Vincit]

But why base morality on the "well-being of conscious creatures"? First what is good/goodness; bad/evil? Harris is redefining the moral words good and evil in nonmoral terms as the well-being of conscious creatures. So when we ask "why is maximizing well-being good?" it is the same as asking "why is maximizing well-being maximizing well-being?". This is question begging and circular.

First of all, I include all of the things you list in your Third point 

Happiness, love, fulfillment, security, companionship, loyalty, creativity, etc.

as subcategories of wellbeing. These are exactly the kinds of things I am talking about. What is good about these things? They are things that enhance our wellbeing. 

Conversely, if morality is just a question of doing whatever your God wants because he will either punish or reward you, then it is a-moral. It's worthless to anyone who doesn't believe in your God, and nothing more than a law system from a fascist dictator for those who do. So I don't agree that Harris is redefining Good and Evil in non-moral terms - quite the contrary, he is elucidating the true value of morality - IE why it is good to be moral and bad/evil to be immoral. Why is something good or bad? Because it has a good or bad impact on oneself and/or others. 

Second, can rapist, liars and thieves be just as happy as 'good' people? Since their greatest state of 'well-being' conflicts with someone else's all you have is a continuum of well-being and not true 'morals'. What about psychopathic people or even worse, a group of psychopaths? How do you define well-being within that group? Linking well-being with brain states does not get you to anything resembling objective morality.

Hopefully the expanded definition of 'wellbeing' will help to clarify this. You have to evaluate the impact of any given behaviour on everyone affected. It's that simple - yes, the psychopath and the liar and the rapist want to do things that hurt other people - and we know this, so as a society we can take steps to prevent them from doing this. We can evaluate their action and see that if they do what they want, it will have a negative impact on others, therefore it is immoral. Morality isn't simple to work out in every application - but by recognising that what we value is human wellbeing, at least we know what we are trying to figure out. 

Regarding your statement about evaluating morality: "Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using" is wrong on many levels. First, science can only tell us what is and not what ought to be. It can describe how we are but not offer an opinion as to what is wrong with how we are. It certainly cannot tell what we ought to do (moral obligations) and therefore obligatory actions for things like the well-being of conscious creatures.

This is why we start from agreeing that we are conscious creatures who prefer health to illness, life to death, and pleasure and enjoyment and love over suffering and misery and despair, etc, and recognise that we all share this planet and have to find a way to live alongside one another. When I say we can use science to approach this I'm not just saying we get a group of bespectacled lab-coat wearing chemists to stir up some wellbeing potion. We use the scientific method. We use reason, we use argument, we use logic and empiricism to evaluation the moral implications of any given situation, and to identify what types of behaviour and what societal rules will best promote the value of 'wellbeing.' 

Second, ought implies can. Do you believe as Harris does that free will is illusory? He rejects both the libertarian and compatibilistic view so we are left with hard-core determinism. If we don't really have choices, what does that say about a system of morality?

Free will is ultimately an illusion, but within that illusion we all live our lives as if we do have a degree of free will. On an everyday, practical level we have to hold each other accountable for our actions.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk

[Mr.wizard]

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

The Bible just simply isn't explicitly clear on slavery being wrong. But putting that aside, it's not like we even have clear unambiguous access to all of God's moral rules, assuming God exists. So even if divine morality exists, there is no evidence that it is fully and readily available and that Christians or others are going by the rules of such morality rather than by the same or similar standards everyone else is going by.

I agree and that's why I have a problem with the explanation of jesus not telling people slavery was wrong so they could figure it out for themselves. If that was the case why have a bible, a messiah, followers, or churches? Why give commands on certain actions and not others, why give commands to certain people in certain time periods and not others? Also if the idea was for us to draw our own moral conclusions, how would we know if we made the right choice and would it be moral to punish us for our conclusions?

[Angrboda]

 
Morality seeks to define what is 'good' and 'bad'. You make moral judgments almost constantly. Kind of important for daily life. From Wikipedia: 


I was pointing out that while you think your morality is objective, it is not."Maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures" is simply not sufficient to form a theory of ethical behavior. So if it is not sufficient to form a system of morality, what is it that you are basing your system on? Not science. What then?

Think about it. What is 'good' about good and 'bad' about bad?

In a universe devoid of life, populated only by rocks, would good and bad mean anything?

If morality is about behaviour, why does behaviour matter? Other than how it positively or negatively impacts on conscious creatures?

Sam Harris explains it very well, I'm paraphrasing: imagine a world in which every conscious creature, every human and animal, suffered as much as it can for as long as it can. This is by definition 'bad' - in fact, this is as bad as things can be. If you think there's a reality that is worse than this, then you haven't understood the definition.

So, if we start there, any universe, any choice, any reality with less suffering is by definition better. Once you take this basic premise, and assume that non-suffering is generally preferable to suffering, health is generally preferable to disease, life is generally preferable to death, you have the basis for a system of moral behaviour.

Evaluating the morality of any given action is now simply a question of evaluating its impact on ones self and others in terms of whether it creates suffering or promotes wellbeing. From there it's just a question of how to we make life better. Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using - it is the most realible method we have to make models of reality and figure out what is real and how the universe works.

If I inherit a million dollars, it will be good for my well being. However, it isn't morally relevant that I inherited a million dollars. In some way, well being may be a result of moral behavior, but it doesn't seem like the two are synonymous. You're missing something in your equation.

[Minimalist]

Because the NT was the culmination of his revelation in that salvation now provides access to God on a daily basis.

Horseshit.  The church did not finalize the NT until the 5th century and even that was only the catholic church.  What you have in your hands that so impresses you is a pile of dung voted on by crooked bishops each with an axe to grind.  It is no more holy than a House-Senate Conference Committee Report!

Grow up, son.  There is no "revelation."

[Veritas_Vincit]

What do you think morality is?

---

It's because morality pertains to behaviour and actions, not just events