The Bible: A Moral book?!

[The Grand Nudger]

Ants have a leg up on us in that regard. I wouldn't go so far as to call them altruistic though. As far as we know they don't have a concept of "self" nor do they produce any chemicals or reactions or exhibit any behavior we associate with "fear". They seem to be incapable of fear, and don't seem to have any notion of self, that would make them something more like sophisticated automatons than altruists (but I suppose that's more a matter of opinion than fact-and clearly colored by my bias as a human being).

Discussing the "morality" of ants is gonna be a tough one.
(shameless aside, I just love ants)

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't want an abortion thread either but I was hard pressed to come up with a better example of how the golden rule depends on recognizing the humanity of others. For example a group of lettered ethicists have already gone so far as to deny our moral obligations to very young children and claim that infanticide is acceptable because they are not fully human.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...s-say.html

There seems to be no limits on how much depravity can be rationalized away.

[genkaus]

I don't want an abortion thread either but I was hard pressed to come up with a better example of how the golden rule depends on recognizing the humanity of others. For example a group of lettered ethicists have already gone so far as to deny our moral obligations to very young children and claim that infanticide is acceptable because they are not fully human.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...s-say.html

There seems to be no limits on how much depravity can be rationalized away.

I don't know - their argument is pretty logically sound.

Are they really rationalizing? Do they actually want to kill babies and are simply looking for an excuse to do so? Or are they simply recognizing the fact that the criteria by which we bestow person-hood and rights do not apply to babies - no matter how much we'd want them to?

Firstly, this one has nothing to do with the golden rule. The golden rule has no preconditions for humanity.

Secondly, this is an application of established ethical principle - an application that goes against our instinctive moral sense, but is sound nonetheless. Really, other that slippery-slope, I don't see any argument against it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Law is not morality. "Legal" does not mean morally good. "Illegal" does not mean morally bad. We try to make it so (insomuch as these things apply), but compromises are made (both good and bad) because law must be pragmatic (and in this country, secular). "Personhood" is a legal status, not a moral standpoint or religious belief.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know - their argument is pretty logically sound. .. this is an application of established ethical principle - an application that goes against our instinctive moral sense, but is sound nonetheless…I don't see any argument against it.

I give them credit for exploring their ethical principles to their logical extremes. In this case logic collides with most people’s innate moral sense. It should give pause to anyone that thinks our instinctive moral sense has a logical basis. In this case do we trust logic or our innate moral sense? Perhaps they can be reconciled. But I don’t see how.

[NoMoreFaith]

Logic collided heavily with empathy. We don't really empathise with embryos, but we can with babies and infants.

I think the logic is solid enough to equate infants and cats at best, but you wouldn't argue that you should be allowed to drown kittens because you want to.

Tough area of thought thou, like the logical conclusions to determinism.. very uncomfortable areas.

[genkaus]

I give them credit for exploring their ethical principles to their logical extremes. In this case logic collides with most people’s innate moral sense. It should give pause to anyone that thinks our instinctive moral sense has a logical basis. In this case do we trust logic or our innate moral sense? Perhaps they can be reconciled. But I don’t see how.

In this case, I'd trust logic over innate moral sense. In other cases, I'd do the same as long as the principle being applied is sound.

[Mystical]

This very reason, is why I've thrown out my beliefs in the god of the bible. Born into Christianity, raised in it, breathed it, and lived it. An all-knowing, all-loving god contradicts the fact that hell exists, period. It simply is not moral to create beings with the stipulations of eternal damnation for a sin they did not themselves do, in exchange for total servitude. What's more is if he were truly omnipotent, he'd have answers to these questions knowing well the questions would be asked: I've looked high and low, and still continue to do so--I even asked the Catholics No one has answers as to how morality is upheld in the bible.

[Drich]

This very reason, is why I've thrown out my beliefs in the god of the bible. Born into Christianity, raised in it, breathed it, and lived it. An all-knowing, all-loving god contradicts the fact that hell exists, period. It simply is not moral to create beings with the stipulations of eternal damnation for a sin they did not themselves do, in exchange for total servitude. What's more is if he were truly omnipotent, he'd have answers to these questions knowing well the questions would be asked: I've looked high and low, and still continue to do so--I even asked the Catholics No one has answers as to how morality is upheld in the bible.

Where does the bible say God is all loving? As you point out the presents of Hell speaks to the contary. Matter of fact if you take the time to read the bible you will find there are those who God Hates.

[Ryantology]

The "all-loving" God is a slapdash invention of modern mainstream Christianity, which understands that the only way to keep people believing is to rebrand God as caring, compassionate and loving, because it's harder to sell people on worshiping the capricious, evil psychopath he really is.

That this fraud is so successful is a testament to the ignorance and wishful thinking of criminally gullible people.