Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

[quote='rjh4' pid='80369' dateline='1279220646']
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. [/quote]

It seems fairly obvious that saying beating slaves is acceptable is a tacit acceptance of slavery. How could it not be? As for its being good, you would've thought that the Bible, being a moral guide, would have something to say on the issue. Yes, tolerance doesn't imply approval, but in a moral guide it probably would.

[quote]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.[/quote]

So, you are effectively saying that God's nature is not arbitrary, but you provide no argument for this position. If God is not created (as he's surely not), then his attributes serve no purpose; they just are. Therefore, how could they not be arbitrary? Basing morals on such an assumption seems dangerous to me.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Assuming that we could verify it to be God's command to a degree of probability as near to certain as possible -say, if a huge crowd witnessed God poking his head down and making the command, and if the incident were caught on camera- then would you do it? Of course, your reasons for trusting the Bible as God's commands seem less than watertight, and we've already seen that God tolerates slavery in the OT, so I'm surprised that you'd be so sceptical if he did. Nevertheless, it's a hypothetical situation, so whether you can fathom it or not, what would you do?

---

[quote='tackattack' pid='80334' dateline='1279256122']

[quote]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.[/quote]

Ah, but how do you define 'harmful' and 'evil', given that these are moral concepts, which according to you are defined by God's nature? Your reasoning is circular: you trust God's commands because he's all-good, and you think he's all-good because his commands seem good.

[quote]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.[/quote]

There we have it, then. Your morality is not based on God's commands, when the push comes to shove.

[rjh4 is back]

It seems fairly obvious that saying beating slaves is acceptable is a tacit acceptance of slavery. How could it not be?

Sure...but in what sense. Certainly in the sense that it was tolerated. Not necessarily in the sense that it is accepted as a good thing.

As for its being good, you would've thought that the Bible, being a moral guide, would have something to say on the issue. Yes, tolerance doesn't imply approval, but in a moral guide it probably would.

Well there is Biblical evidence that what you say is not the case. The evidence is what it says about divorce. Clearly the OT and the Mosaic law allows divorce. You say this would imply approval or that it is good because the Bible is a moral guide. However, the NT indicates otherwise. See Matthew 19:3-9.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated, both of which when applied to others in the context of personal relationships would indicate that slavery is not good.

So, you are effectively saying that God's nature is not arbitrary, but you provide no argument for this position.

I did say that I didn't see anything necessitating the conclusion that God's nature is arbitrary.

If God is not created (as he's surely not), then his attributes serve no purpose; they just are. Therefore, how could they not be arbitrary?

How does it follow that if God is not created then His attributes serve no purpose? On the other hand, it seem to me that it would follow that if God is not created and God created the universe, He would have done so in such a manner that His attributes do serve a purpose.

Arbitrary as you seem to be applying it to God's nature or attributes seems to imply that God can and will act in an arbitrary way. If I have characterized your position correctly, what is your basis for this? If I have not, please try to clarify your application of the word "arbitrary" as it relates to God.

Basing morals on such an assumption seems dangerous to me.

I bet this statement could be applied to just about everyone since everyone has some presuppositions (primary assumptions) that they use for their worldview which they use for their morals.

I base my morals on the principles taught in the Bible and particularly the teachings that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Do I always succeed? Sadly, no. But that is what I strive for.

Assuming that we could verify it to be God's command to a degree of probability as near to certain as possible -say, if a huge crowd witnessed God poking his head down and making the command, and if the incident were caught on camera- then would you do it? Of course, your reasons for trusting the Bible as God's commands seem less than watertight, and we've already seen that God tolerates slavery in the OT, so I'm surprised that you'd be so sceptical if he did. Nevertheless, it's a hypothetical situation, so whether you can fathom it or not, what would you do

I don't know about your verification example ...but assuming that the command is of God and I knew this to be true...I still don't know for sure what I would do. I can only guess.

You see...I do know that God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Yet I do not always follow those commands as I know I should.

So...in terms of the hypothetical...I would certainly want to follow the command as it is from God but I cannot be sure that I would. Given all of that, I will guess that I would follow it but will reiterate that I think the hypothetical is silly and really serves no relevant purpose, at least as far as I can see.

What would you do Omni? You get this verification the God exists and He commands you to kill grannies. Would you then become a follower of God? Would you do it? Why or why not?

[Eilonnwy]

Well the verse is certainly condemnatory of beating a slave to such a degree that he/she dies on the spot...and you seem to agree with this based on your commentary on the verse.

What I find morally reprehensible about this verse is that it's okay to beat slaves as long as they don't die right away. But if they suffer and die after an acceptable period of time, that's totally okay.

Which is worse, dying on the spot, or dying after suffering for a few days?

And notice it does not condemn the beating, simply gives instructions for when the slave can die from the severity of the beating. It's appalling.

So morality is what's socially acceptable, and nothing more? That surely confounds the idea of moral progress. Maybe you don't believe in moral progress, but denying any objectivity seems to leave us in a difficult position. In a society where half of people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, who is right? How do we decide what to do? You may be right that morality is nothing more than what society disapproves of, or approves of, but moral decision-making seems necessary to some extent.

Progression is a part of morality, and that includes what is socially acceptable. As morality evolves we learn why previously held moral ideals are wrong. It used to be morally appropriate to have slaves, beat your wives, etc... Now we know better. There are things we do now that may seem moral correct, but maybe a hundred years from now people will say, "What were they thinking?" I think euthanasia is moving into the direction of becoming socially acceptable and therefore morally acceptable. It may be a slow progression, but I think as we as a society refine our thinking on human suffering when no other viable option is available for saving them, the stigma on euthanasia will change.

Ultimately, morality is an agreement between people. A social agreement was constructed to not kill people because people understood the desire not to die, and therefore agreeing within a society that killing people is wrong and to punish those who do, you start the basis for morality.

Slavery used to be beneficial to those who owned slaves, but when people realized it was not so good for the slaves and they wouldn't want to be slaves, opinion changed and now it's considered abhorrent.

Those who believe in the objective and absolute morality of God confound me. You need only look at history to see that morality is subjective and has changed through time. If you believe God is where this objective morality comes from, why did he not instruct his people that beating woman, treating them as property is wrong? Why did he not object to slavery, and racism, and homo bigotry? People object saying it was appropriate for the time, which absurd and contradictory. If it's morally true now, and morality is objective, then it was morally true then and if God is all powerful and benevolent, could he and should he not have instructed his people better.

Obviously I believe no such God exists and that the morality displayed in the bible is the one that was socially acceptable at the time by the men that wrote them.

[rjh4 is back]

As morality evolves we learn why previously held moral ideals are wrong. It used to be morally appropriate to have slaves, beat your wives, etc... Now we know better.

I'm curious, Ely. What exactly did we learn that indicated that such previously held views on slavery and wife beating are "wrong"? What did we learn that makes them "wrong" even when such things were acceptable or tolerated previously? How do you define "wrong" here? The way you are using the word seems to presuppose some objective standard for determining what is "wrong".

What exactly do you mean by "Now we know better"? In the context of the rest of what you said, it appears to me to be just a pompous way of saying "Society merely does not accept such behavior any more". I use the word pompous here as the phrase you use seems to imply that somehow our current knowledge on these issues is somehow better or more appropriate that the knowledge of those who previously accepted such behavior but I do not see any support for such a position.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Sure...but in what sense. Certainly in the sense that it was tolerated. Not necessarily in the sense that it is accepted as a good thing.

Well there is Biblical evidence that what you say is not the case. The evidence is what it says about divorce. Clearly the OT and the Mosaic law allows divorce. You say this would imply approval or that it is good because the Bible is a moral guide. However, the NT indicates otherwise. See Matthew 19:3-9.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated, both of which when applied to others in the context of personal relationships would indicate that slavery is not good.

So could God not have had the foresight to say that he doesn't approve of slavery, just as he did of the (comparatively minor) crime of divorce? Besides, we all have certain things of which we disapprove, but tolerate, and some which we won't tolerate. For most, slavery (especially the beating of slaves) falls into the latter category. For God, this is only the case when, as Eilonnwy says, the slave dies straight away, as opposed to suffering for days on end. How merciful!

How does it follow that if God is not created then His attributes serve no purpose? On the other hand, it seem to me that it would follow that if God is not created and God created the universe, He would have done so in such a manner that His attributes do serve a purpose.

Arbitrary as you seem to be applying it to God's nature or attributes seems to imply that God can and will act in an arbitrary way. If I have characterized your position correctly, what is your basis for this? If I have not, please try to clarify your application of the word "arbitrary" as it relates to God.

Purpose is a characteristic which derives from design. A spear has purpose for humans, as it was made by them for spear-like functions. A rock, on the other hand, has attributes which serve no function, as it is the product of random natural forces. God, as a being that just exists, would seem to be more like a rock than a spear.

I bet this statement could be applied to just about everyone since everyone has some presuppositions (primary assumptions) that they use for their worldview which they use for their morals.

I base my morals on the principles taught in the Bible and particularly the teachings that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Do I always succeed? Sadly, no. But that is what I strive for.

As the passage about slavery which I quoted shows, basing your morals on the Bible is distinctly dodgy. The Golden Rule is no doubt a good basis for morality, but the fact that you emphasise that, rather than any of the morally dubious parts of the OT, suggests that perhaps you don't get your morality from Biblical principles after all.

I don't know about your verification example ...but assuming that the command is of God and I knew this to be true...I still don't know for sure what I would do. I can only guess.

You see...I do know that God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Yet I do not always follow those commands as I know I should.

So...in terms of the hypothetical...I would certainly want to follow the command as it is from God but I cannot be sure that I would. Given all of that, I will guess that I would follow it but will reiterate that I think the hypothetical is silly and really serves no relevant purpose, at least as far as I can see.

In my view, the verification example would seem to be far better proof that God has actually commanded something than believing that the words of an ancient book to be an accurate record of his commands. You say the hypothetical is silly, but that's only because you think God would never command such an awful thing. You've yet to show me, though, why he wouldn't.

What would you do Omni? You get this verification the God exists and He commands you to kill grannies. Would you then become a follower of God? Would you do it? Why or why not?

Maybe I would follow him out of pure self-interest, but I, unlike you, wouldn't have to believe that killing grannies was right, as the basis of my morality is not God's commands, and wouldn't be even if God were real.

[Eilonnwy]

I'm curious, Ely. What exactly did we learn that indicated that such previously held views on slavery and wife beating are "wrong"? What did we learn that makes them "wrong" even when such things were acceptable or tolerated previously? How do you define "wrong" here? The way you are using the word seems to presuppose some objective standard for determining what is "wrong".

Nope. It's subjective. Social morality is based upon the agreement of what is wrong, which is why people can still have personal morality that differs with what is generally agreed upon by the society. I find it morally wrong to eat animals for many reasons. I'm not going to detail my reasons here, because that is not the point. The point is I don't eat meat based on certain ethical and health convictions, and there is no doubt many people here would vehemently disagree with me on this issue, and that's fine. We can still as a group of people agree that it's morally wrong to kill people.

You're clinging onto the usage of my word know to say, "Ahah! You have to be objective!" Nope. Our society has evolved our morality to declare that treating women like property and keeping slaves is wrong, based on our propensity to learn and recognize what benefits the society as a whole (The basis for morality). We as a society know slavery is wrong because we have deemed it to be such based on the consequences of slavery and recognition that all people are equal. Therefore, we know people in the past are wrong. I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, but as I said before, if morality was objective, then it had to always be wrong, and we know from that people in the past did not consider it wrong. Therefore, subjective.

I do admit that my explanation is slightly messy, it's a complicated discussion and difficult to express.

What exactly do you mean by "Now we know better"? In the context of the rest of what you said, it appears to me to be just a pompous way of saying "Society merely does not accept such behavior any more". I use the word pompous here as the phrase you use seems to imply that somehow our current knowledge on these issues is somehow better or more appropriate that the knowledge of those who previously accepted such behavior but I do not see any support for such a position.

Would you not admit that we knew better when it comes bloodletting? It was used as a means of curing diseases, but know we know better through scientific inquiry that it was 100% wrong and didn't do a damn thing. It's not pompous to say that we have built our knowledge to the point where we "know better" than people 1000 years ago. I know better than Galileo what the universe is like because I was lucky enough to exist in time were from his knowledge we have built a more comprehensive understanding of the universe that is readily available to people like me. That doesn't mean I dismiss what Galileo did know and his achievements. I know better than Kelvin who postulated the wrong age of the earth, because he knew nothing of nuclear energy.

I do not fault people of the past from making decisions based on their limited understanding of science, medicine, philosophy, etc... Yet, the fact remains we have built our knowledge from them and what some of what they said was good but what some of what they said was wrong and just simply doesn't apply anymore.

Of course our knowledge is better because it's more complete. We have vastly more information to work with. And in 1000 years, those people will have better knowledge and know better than us in matters of science, medicine, and philosophy.

We've made wondrous achievements on the backs of those who came before, and people will continue to do so long into the future.

Edit: I just realized the futility of using examples from science, especially related to age of earth and astronomy with a creationist, but, I'm to lazy to think of others and it's lunchtime.

[The Omnissiunt One]

What I find morally reprehensible about this verse is that it's okay to beat slaves as long as they don't die right away. But if they suffer and die after an acceptable period of time, that's totally okay.

Which is worse, dying on the spot, or dying after suffering for a few days?

And notice it does not condemn the beating, simply gives instructions for when the slave can die from the severity of the beating. It's appalling.

Progression is a part of morality, and that includes what is socially acceptable. As morality evolves we learn why previously held moral ideals are wrong. It used to be morally appropriate to have slaves, beat your wives, etc... Now we know better. There are things we do now that may seem moral correct, but maybe a hundred years from now people will say, "What were they thinking?" I think euthanasia is moving into the direction of becoming socially acceptable and therefore morally acceptable. It may be a slow progression, but I think as we as a society refine our thinking on human suffering when no other viable option is available for saving them, the stigma on euthanasia will change.

I agree, but this means that morality cannot be only what is socially acceptable.

Ultimately, morality is an agreement between people. A social agreement was constructed to not kill people because people understood the desire not to die, and therefore agreeing within a society that killing people is wrong and to punish those who do, you start the basis for morality.

That may have been how morality originated, and I think it forms the basis for moral discussion, but to say that morality is just an agreement between people is simplistic. After all, if it were just that, it would exclude babies and the disabled from our moral sphere.

---

Nope. It's subjective. Social morality is based upon the agreement of what is wrong, which is why people can still have personal morality that differs with what is generally agreed upon by the society. I find it morally wrong to eat animals for many reasons. I'm not going to detail my reasons here, because that is not the point. The point is I don't eat meat based on certain ethical and health convictions, and there is no doubt many people here would vehemently disagree with me on this issue, and that's fine. We can still as a group of people agree that it's morally wrong to kill people.

You're clinging onto the usage of my word know to say, "Ahah! You have to be objective!" Nope. Our society has evolved our morality to declare that treating women like property and keeping slaves is wrong, based on our propensity to learn and recognize what benefits the society as a whole (The basis for morality). We as a society know slavery is wrong because we have deemed it to be such based on the consequences of slavery and recognition that all people are equal. Therefore, we know people in the past are wrong. I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, but as I said before, if morality was objective, then it had to always be wrong, and we know from that people in the past did not consider it wrong. Therefore, subjective.

Just because, as a phenomenon, morality is a subjective thing that has changed from culture to culture, that doesn't mean moral standards themselves are subjective, though. A slave-owner was morally wrong at the time, even though society tolerated slave-owning. No doubt rjh4 would now say, 'Why were they wrong? If you don't have God, there can be no objective morals'. But he has yet to show us why God's command is not arbitrary, and why the Bible doesn't permit slavery. Theism gets us nowhere on the objective morality front. Personally, I believe morality comes from the recognition that the interests of our fellow humans and those of other species are just as important to them as our own are to us. Once we suppose this to be true, we have the basis for a solid utilitarian ethical system.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Sure...but in what sense. Certainly in the sense that it was tolerated. Not necessarily in the sense that it is accepted as a good thing.

Sorry to but in,but that is a bare faced lie or willful ignorance..

Christians not only acceped and condoned slavery but argued it was the will of God for centuries.By definition,the will of God cannot be anything but good.


Most recently it was in the Southern USA. Slave owners argued slavery was the will of God right up to the civil war. One of the more common justifications was an appeal to Genesis and "the children of Ham".

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'.

Slavery was simply a fact of life in Biblical times and not considered a social evil, but social necessity.IE a a good thing. All sacred books reflect the cultures of those who write them.


It's ironic because early Christianity appealed especially to the weakest and most marginalised people: women and slaves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Googling "Biblical justification for slavery" got 216000 hits. I've only posted three examples.

The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples believed to have been descended from the biblical Ham, one of the Sons of Noah. When Ham dishonors his father, Noah pronounces a curse on him, stating that the descendents of his son Canaan will be "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites and Phut the Libyans.[1]

During the Middle Ages, this was interpreted to define Ham as the ancestor of all Africans. The curse was regularly interpreted as having created visible racial characteristics in Ham's offspring, notably black skin. According to Bernard Lewis, the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and are sinful with a degenerate progeny."[2] Both Arab and later European and American slave traders used this story to justify African slavery.[3][4]

In fact, the Bible restricts the curse to the offspring of Ham's son Canaan, who occupied the Levant, not to his other sons who are supposed to have populated Africa. According to Edith Sanders, this restriction was increasingly emphasised by 19th century theologians, who rejected the curse as a justification for slavery.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic#Curse_of_Ham




[/quote]Slavery in different forms existed within Christianity for over 18 centuries.[citation needed] In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this remained well into the Middle Ages and beyond.[1] Most Christian figures in that early period, such as Augustine of Hippo, supported continuing slavery whereas several figures such as Saint Patrick were opposed. Centuries later, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, groups who advocated slavery's abolition worked to harness Christian teachings in support of their positions, using both the 'spirit of Christianity', biblical verses against slavery, and textual argumentation.[2]

The issue of Christianity and slavery is one that has seen intense conflict.[dubious – discuss] While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in the abolition of slavery, the Bible sanctioned the use of regulated slavery in the Old Testament and whether or not the New Testament condemned or sanctioned slavery has been strongly disputed. [citation needed] Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views.

Although slavery is now universally condemned as a crime against humanity, it was customary in antiquity, and taken for granted as part of the economy and society of the time.[3] The Bible does not regard it as an abomination, and regulates its practice,[4] and occasionally compels the enslavement of others.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.



Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.



The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.



However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

[tackattack]

@The Omnissiunt One - of course my own morality doesn't come from God or the Bible, that's preposterous, I've never claimed it did.

[The Omnissiunt One]

@The Omnissiunt One - of course my own morality doesn't come from God or the Bible, that's preposterous, I've never claimed it did.

Isn't the whole point of Christianity to follow Jesus' teaching? Or have I missed something here? If you don't follow Biblical teaching in any way, how are you remotely Christian?