(April 2, 2013 at 3:53 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Let's say that I am in a situation where someone is about to die. I have the opportunity to save their life if I lie though, so I do. According to the Bible, lying is a sin and therefore I am "morally bad" if we say the Bible is 100% correct morally.
For those Christians who say that lying in this case would have been justified, then it logically follows that Divine Command Theory falls apart:
p: there exists an objective moral code
q: lying is always wrong
First, we assume two things: p and "if p, then q". From this it logically follows that q, because if p, then q. For those of you who say lying was morally right in this case, it means you're assuming ~q (i.e not q). Here we have a contradiction where you're wanting to say q & ~q, which means that our conclusion must be one of our premises (p, if p then q) in the negated form; either ~p or ~(if p then q) because that way we avoid the conditions needed for this contradiction to arise.
Surely the believer will want to salvage p meaning that we must negate "if p then q". So our conclusion is therefore "it is not the case that if there exists an objective moral code then lying is always wrong". The problem is that the Bible asserts that "if p then q" but we have concluded that ~"if p then q". A contradiction arises which means we are left with questioning the validity of p as being a true statement, unless you wish to avoid this conclusion by simply saying you wouldn't have saved the person's life by lying.
The bible is NOT morally correct - 100% of the time. Anyone who claims that
1 - Has never actually read the whole bible from the first page - and
2 - Fails to consider reality when reading the bible - ie THINK
Example - the Passover MYTH is an example of MURDER by the god - on a great scale. So is the great flood - and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as well.
In every population there exists innocents - ie - children too young to be responsible for the own actions. EVEN religions recognize that babies cannot "sin" and that there is an age they must attain before they are responsible. The catholic church recognizes that age to be age 7. So -= to drown - blow up - burn - or kill these children would be murder - pure and simple - and immoral act.
IF you claim that we have "free will" - you cannot claim that these children WOULD have done something wrong - since it is the act that is the sin - not a "potential" which supposedly a person has the right to change their mind freely.
However - in the case of the Passover - nearly ALL of the those killed would be murders - since NONE of the general population did anything wrong to deserve to die - they had no direct control over their Pharaoh. (Only the Pharaoh himself - who would have been the first born - would have been responsible.
However - the bible also accepts other things we consider to be immoral - slavery for instance - which appears in both the old and the new testament.
Consider it you will - the Myth of Abraham and Isaac.
1 - It is claimed that the god does not tempt people to sin
Killing Isaac would be murder - Isaac had done no wrong to deserve it- so Abraham should have refused to attempt to murder his son - and would have been MORALLY correct to do so. In fact - tempting abraham to kill his son was morally wrong.
2 - Abraham called Isaac his ONLY son - which was a LIE. Not only did he have a first son - Ishmael - but the tryst that lead to that son was arranged by the god according to the story. Wow - god helped a human have a son out of wedlock - morally incorrect. The god should have known that Abraham would have a son with his wife if the god is all knowing- so Ishmael was not a necessity to begin with.
IT is the SPIN that religion puts on this story that makes it interesting - they put a spin that somehow tries to explain the story as a proof of the morality of Abraham.
Of course - since we know that ABraham was a myth - just as the rest of the claim of religions are - it never actually happened.
