Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

So as I understand you correctly the "That doesn't mean that there isn't a rationally based moral code which would have been true in the past, regardless of what people believed" refers to your perception of a moral code that you think should apply at all times and in all places. But, dear friend, that is your subjective opinion. It is an OUGHT, a prescription, not a FACT. As such it has no more value than any other opinion on the matter. Also I think it is silly to, as you propose, judge historical events on this basis. You can say that according to your moral standards now you dissaprove of certain historic facts in the past, but as a prescription for the past it has no meaning and it will not change a thing about those historic facts.

Of course my believing that something in the past was wrong won't change it. Why is it therefore silly to make moral judgements about them, given that my intention is not to alter history like some crazed mad scientist (though I might if that were possible)?

Your assertion that my moral views are no more than opinion entail that you subscribe to a form of moral subjectivism, which would mean that you couldn't consistently condemn any action. Besides, moral subjectivism is very controversial within the philosophy of ethics, and most contemporary philosophers reject it. Even if it is just an opinion, that doesn't mean that my moral system is no more defensible than any other, assuming that we have already accepted the validity of some kind of moral judgement.

I can agree with that and, based on what I have seen you writing here, we actually might share pretty much of the moral values. But the formulation of opinion won't make it fact. The only thing that might help is sharing it in the broadest possible way, the result will be something like the Declaration On Human Rights and that is available online.

Again, if you think morality is mere opinion, then the Declaration on Human Rights is no different from a lengthy and articulate text on the merits of strawberry ice-cream.

---

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.

My point is, if God disapproves of slavery, as he clearly does of divorce, why did he not voice his disapproval, as he did of divorce? Or did he not consider it worthy of mention? This suggests that either he approves of slavery, or doesn't care. That he explicitly says it's okay to beat a slave confirms the fact that he doesn't consider slavery, or slave-beating, wrong, even if he doesn't think it's good. This explicit mention of slave-beating being okay would seem to overrule any extrapolations from the Golden Rule which you might attempt. After all, consistent application of the Golden Rule might... Heaven forbid... allow homosexuals to get married! And we wouldn't want that, because it explicitly says elsewhere than doing what their natural impulses tell them to is wrong!

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.

I'm glad that you don't approve of slave-beating, though I'm not entirely clear why.

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

This shows that conscious intent is necessary to give something purpose.

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.

One definition given is: 'Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle'. God's nature is clearly not governed according to necessity, reason, or principle,as that would imply design. Therefore, his nature is arbitrary.

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.)

Nope, 'fraid not. I agree with neither the premise nor the conclusion derived from the premise. I fail to see any logically compelling reason why one's creator has any necessary moral authority over one. After all, if a scientist created a robot, would the robot be compelled to rob banks for the scientist? Please give me a reason to suppose otherwise.

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.

Anything that allows slavery is bad. Care to disagree?

Lol. Point well taken.

It's nice that you're intellectually honest enough to concede a point. Have a rep point on me.

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?

No, but only out of pragmatic, self-interested considerations, not out of any sense of moral obligation.