Theistic morality

[rjh4 is back]

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?

I’m not sure what the point of the question is. The discussion is what the Bible says about the subject not what the Bible might have said about the subject. I would say that the Bible does not explicitly say that slavery is good nor does it explicitly say that it is not good. Certainly it allows it. I can, however, point to other explicit statements of how we should behave (love your neighbor as yourself, the Golden Rule) and reasonably, I think, extrapolate this to conclude that slavery is not good based on Biblical principles even though it is not explicitly condemned by the Bible.

I do not see this as being an inconsistent position at all. However, even if you do…I hope you appreciate my conclusion even though you might not agree with how I reached it.

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.

Except humans have used these rocks, with attributes which supposedly have no function, for many things: weapons, tools, source of metals.

Nevertheless, I think I understand the point you are trying to make regarding God. But I still do not see how this makes His nature arbitrary in the way we usually think of the word. Furthermore, even if you could characterize God’s nature as arbitrary because He was not created, I fail to see where this leads you. God’s nature is still His nature and if He created the universe and makes the rules for it, isn’t it logical to conclude that we should follow His rules and not our own? (I understand you would not agree with the initial premise and argue from that that the conclusion is flawed. However, I am asking you to assume that the premise is true and see if you agree that the conclusion reasonably follows.)

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 disagree. 1) I do not think the passage you cited regarding slavery even remotely shows that basing morals on the Bible is distinctly dodgy. How do you think you have established that? At best you have shown that the Bible allows slavery. The Bible doesn’t command me to be a slave owner. The Bible doesn’t say that slavery is good but as noted above, I can apply other explicit Biblical principles to conclude that it isn’t. 2) The fact that I emphasize the Golden Rule and loving ones neighbor as yourself in no way suggests that I don’t get my morality from Biblical principles. You might want to read the NT and see what it says about the law (i.e., the Mosaic law of the OT) to see why Christians, or at least I, focus on the NT teachings. I would suggest that you begin with the book of Romans.

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.

Lol. Point well taken.

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.

Are you saying that even if you knew God existed, created the universe, and makes the rules for it, you would still rebel against God?

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.

Sounds like you would define “right” and “wrong” (at least in terms of social behavior) something like:

Wrong: against what a society agrees as being appropriate behavior
Right: what a society agrees as being appropriate behavior

Would you agree with this or would you define them differently?

Assuming you agree one could say two things:

Slavery is wrong.

And

Slavery is against what a society agrees as being appropriate behavior.

I think those two statements mean different things and I would guess that most would view them differently (I have no support for this…it is just a gut feeling. I could be worng.). Do they mean the same thing to you?

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.

In spite of the fact that I would disagree on some of the details you mentioned , I do understand what you are saying as it relates to science. However, the acceptableness of slavery and wife beating do not seem like scientific issues to me. So I will repeat my two question that I don’t think you really answered but are relevant to the discussion:

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?

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.

The issue being discussed is not what Christians have accepted regarding slavery using Bible passages to support their position. The issue being discussed is what the Bible actually says about it. Clearly you have provided plenty of support for what you said about the position of some Christians on the issue. I do not, however, think you have established that the Bible says slavery is good and I have given my reasons in previous posts.

Consequently, I do not see anything I said as a “bare faced lie or willful ignorance”. But if you disagree, so be it.