A Levite and his concubine

[Tonus]

What i'm saying is that, according to the bible, God is the creator and is allowed to do what he wants to do with his creation.

Is that what the Bible says? That god is "allowed" to do as he pleases? Who, pray tell, is it that gives god permission to toy with his creation?

I am assuming that you are saying that as the almighty creator of all that exists, god can do as he pleases and no one can hinder him in any way. Which means that morality is subjective: if god changes his mind, then one morality may replace another. In the story of Lot, the angels react to the demands of an angry crowd by blinding them, thus sparing Lot's daughters the ignominy of being gang-raped for a night. In the story referred to in the OP, the Levite's concubine is granted no such rescue, and her tormentors are not directly dealt with. You have no grounds for finding any of these actions to be good or bad, aside from "what did god say about it?"

It's just as well that god won't show up to prove to us that he's out there. Because imagine if he suddenly changed the rules again and said that it's okay to offer up your daughter to sate an unruly crowd of rapists?

[Jackalope]

That doesn't exactly square with your previous statement.

Is it, or is it not your belief that we have an objective, universal, timeless standard by which we can judge moral behavior?

If so, then your statement that we can't judge the morality of cultures from past eras is utter horseshit.

No, I'm saying that people with time have changed and conform to moral standards. Man kind hasn't improved on women issues, women around the world, even in this country are sold into many different slavery. Sexual slavery is the biggest, and porn is the largest part of that, the suicide rate of those in porn is large, they believe it's their only way out and if you do not believe me research it for yourself. Most people just turn their heads to this atrocities and pretend they do not exist, just so they can enjoy what you would call immoral in ancient times.

GC

You're so far out of context here it's not even funny. What on earth does the above have to do with the your statement that we can't judge the morality of past cultures? Because we're also flawed? Well, duh. No shit, Sherlock.

And this...

Man kind hasn't improved on women issues

...is utter bullshit. "hasn't improved" - something tells me you don't know what one of those words means. I'd agree that we haven't improved *enough* but that's a far cry from not having improved *at all*.

[Astrogod07]

You said "morality" as if it were an absolute/standard in which to judge everyone by.

..ah, no.

"Morality" as your using it is nothing more than a pop culture term that describes what a given generation in a given soceity thinks is right or wrong... Did you happen to go into why this soceity's version of right and wrong is somehow superior to all others in your YouTube video?

I appreciate the serious tone of your post as indicated by your use of the emoticon. Anyway, I did not go to an in-depth discussion of morality in my video beacuse it was already rather long. I have another video scripted out to discuss the nature of morality, and discussing whether or not it is possible for an omnipotent being to be the source of an "objective" moral standard. Considering the gravity of such a topic, it was a bit much to throw in with this one, which is already rather lengthy.

However, I do not think that it is a controversial statement to say that it is immoral to send someone out to be raped. I can give you reasons based on happiness, well-being, and freedom, as to why modern morals are generally better than they were 5000 years ago, but I'll probably post a new thread about that soon in the philosophy section. So keep an eye out for that if you would like to discuss the nature of morality in general.

[abaris]

However, I do not think that it is a controversial statement to say that it is immoral to send someone out to be raped. I can give you reasons based on happiness, well-being, and freedom, as to why modern morals are generally better than they were 5000 years ago, but I'll probably post a new thread about that soon in the philosophy section. So keep an eye out for that if you would like to discuss the nature of morality in general.

We're not even talking about a general bronze age code of morals. Egypt, the most developed culture of the time had a very different outlook than what the bible tells us about the Israelites.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ethics.htm

Especially when it comes to the treatment of women, the old Israelites project an image to puke over. Egypt on the other didn't treat women as property.

https://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/...womneg.htm

So, the moral code we find in the bible isn't only disgusting from our advanced point of view. It's also pretty radical compared to contemporary societies.

The only society remotely similar to the jewish laws and morals of the time would be the Babylonians, as the Hammurabi Code shows.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/d/267/whm.html

You also find Sumerian views in the bible. Again, much older than the bible itself, but obviously having an influence on what the Israelites believed.

http://www.templeofsumer.org/share1.html

[Godscreated]

[quote='Godschild' pid='794004' dateline='1415647911']

---

No, I'm saying that people with time have changed and conform to moral standards. Man kind hasn't improved on women issues, women around the world, even in this country are sold into many different slavery. Sexual slavery is the biggest, and porn is the largest part of that, the suicide rate of those in porn is large, they believe it's their only way out and if you do not believe me research it for yourself. Most people just turn their heads to this atrocities and pretend they do not exist, just so they can enjoy what you would call immoral in ancient times.

GC

---

You're so far out of context here it's not even funny. What on earth does the above have to do with the your statement that we can't judge the morality of past cultures? Because we're also flawed? Well, duh. No shit, Sherlock.

The guilty have no right to judge the guilty.

Man kind hasn't improved on women issues

...is utter bullshit. "hasn't improved" - something tells me you don't know what one of those words means. I'd agree that we haven't improved *enough* but that's a far cry from not having improved *at all*.

Yes, we've made some progress with women rights, however the sex slave trade today is worse and more numerous than the slave trade that existed in the U.S. from the 1700's through the 1800's. Many women are treated horrible by men in this day and time, it's shameful it took an NFL player knocking out his girl friend to bring a greater attention to this. All what I have said has little to do with Christianity, just mean people who care more about themselves and money than they do about others. Two of the greater sins according to scripture. If you think I'm wrong ask a battered woman what she thinks.

GC

[Lek]

I for one am done with him giving another bible lecture. His god doesn't interest me the slightest bit.

I want to see the man behind the curtain. From now on I only accept his views on the issues. I want to know his stance on genocide, not the bible's or anybody else's. I wanna know his view on rape, I wanna know his view on holding people as slaves.

In short, I want to know his views on morality. What he considers good or evil.

There has to be a person somewhere. I am tired of being asked to present my authority on things that come naturally to any decent human being, without getting some real answer in return.

First of all God's authority comes from the fact that he created everything and has set the standards of morality that he expects from his creation. My morality comes from the bible. That's why I'm repulsed by the actions of the individuals in the bible passages we've been discussing, as was God. Why are you saying that I support the actions of these individuals? The bible never claims that they were morally justified and God didn't condone them. I keep saying this, but it seems to go over your heads.

I'm sure I agree with you on most of what is moral and immoral. Murder, rape, stealing lying, cheating, adultery, unkindness, etc. are all immoral--all the usual stuff. I believe we should love every person and treat them accordingly. These have all been passed down through scripture and have been enforced by society as well. Western civilization's morality is based upon standards which have been set for us in the bible.

From what you and others say here I assume that you base your morality on how you perceive the results to effect others. So you look at a situation and determine what you think would be right or wrong in that situation. Or maybe you possess the morality that your parents or your teachers handed down to you, or that society instilled in you. What I've been trying to get someone to tell me is why God or me or anybody should be forced to abide by your standards of morality. If someone can help himself by killing someone else, why shouldn't he? Many say it's necessary for a well-functioning society. Well, the European settlers killed countless native Americans and ran them off their land and corralled them on reservations, and our society has functioned quite well over the years. Bad for them, but good for us. Of course I thing it was wrong, but not because society told me it was. Society tells me that abortion, fornication, divorce are okay, but I don't agree. I think they are immoral.

Sounds like you're saying your standards are correct just because....they are.

[Jackalope]

[quote='Godschild' pid='794004' dateline='1415647911']

---

No, I'm saying that people with time have changed and conform to moral standards. Man kind hasn't improved on women issues, women around the world, even in this country are sold into many different slavery. Sexual slavery is the biggest, and porn is the largest part of that, the suicide rate of those in porn is large, they believe it's their only way out and if you do not believe me research it for yourself. Most people just turn their heads to this atrocities and pretend they do not exist, just so they can enjoy what you would call immoral in ancient times.

GC

---

You're so far out of context here it's not even funny. What on earth does the above have to do with the your statement that we can't judge the morality of past cultures? Because we're also flawed? Well, duh. No shit, Sherlock.

The guilty have no right to judge the guilty.

So, continuing to move the goalposts away from your original statement and answering in platitudes. Gotcha.

Man kind hasn't improved on women issues

...is utter bullshit. "hasn't improved" - something tells me you don't know what one of those words means. I'd agree that we haven't improved *enough* but that's a far cry from not having improved *at all*.

Yes, we've made some progress with women rights, however the sex slave trade today is worse and more numerous than the slave trade that existed in the U.S. from the 1700's through the 1800's. Many women are treated horrible by men in this day and time, it's shameful it took an NFL player knocking out his girl friend to bring a greater attention to this. All what I have said has little to do with Christianity, just mean people who care more about themselves and money than they do about others. Two of the greater sins according to scripture. If you think I'm wrong ask a battered woman what she thinks.

GC

I don't deny that there remains horrible treatment of women. If you got that from anything I said, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

You said "mankind hasn't improved on women's issues". Despite it's shortcomings in this regard, in modern western culture, we no longer treat women as chattel. Hell, it's improved visibly *in my lifetime*, not to mention in the since the bronze age.

You're talking out of your ass.

[abaris]

I'm sure I agree with you on most of what is moral and immoral. Murder, rape, stealing lying, cheating, adultery, unkindness, etc. are all immoral--all the usual stuff. I believe we should love every person and treat them accordingly. These have all been passed down through scripture and have been enforced by society as well. Western civilization's morality is based upon standards which have been set for us in the bible.

Leave the scripture part out and we have an agreement. All the above mentioned existed before scripture as can be seen in my previous post, where I posted a link to Egyptian moral standards. In fact, it should come naturally to any decent human being. Also I would say, "respect" instead of "love". I don't honestly believe that anyone can love everyone.

From what you and others say here I assume that you base your morality on how you perceive the results to effect others. So you look at a situation and determine what you think would be right or wrong in that situation. Or maybe you possess the morality that your parents or your teachers handed down to you, or that society instilled in you.

Not the teachers, but surely my parents. Not with a religious connotation to be precise, although they were catholics, but religion didn't play a large role in our family. My grandfathers were both jewish, but secular and not in any way religious. And you're right, I look at a situation. The most important thing is to judge how ones actions infringe on the rights and wellbeing of others. Or how anybody's actions infringe on the rights and wellbeing of others.

What I've been trying to get someone to tell me is why God or me or anybody should be forced to abide by your standards of morality.

OK, and that's the point where we part ways. As you yourself said, there are some standards. Rape, murder, and so on ...

If someone can help himself by killing someone else, why shouldn't he? Many say it's necessary for a well-functioning society. Well, the European settlers killed countless native Americans and ran them off their land and corralled them on reservations, and our society has functioned quite well over the years. Bad for them, but good for us. Of course I thing it was wrong, but not because society told me it was.

Two issues here. First I never said it was wrong to kill in self defense. I was talking about murder and genocide. Second, the European settlers drove the native population away because they wanted their land and their ressources. That's not self defense and you youself say, it's not fine and dandy. Again, society isn't the moral authority here, it's infringing on the rights and wellbeing of others.

Society tells me that abortion, fornication, divorce are okay, but I don't agree. I think they are immoral.

The keyword here is consent. If you want to talk about what you call "fornication", it's consensual. Divorce is consensual. You didn't mention gay couples, but again, it's a consensual decision. It's nobody else's business. Abortion is the woman's choice and there are numerous threads talking about that issue in depth. I certainly won't go into detail here, but this is the part where we most certainly have a strong disagreement based on your believes and my disbelief.

[rexbeccarox]

Lek, I'm getting really sick of you evading this question. Answer it, or I'll bring it to the rest of staff's attention that you're breaking rule #1.

Lek, are you going to answer this?

(bold mine)

He paid the price? To whom? And how much was it?

[Esquilax]

First of all God's authority comes from the fact that he created everything

This does not automatically confer authority. How do you justify asserting that this is how god gained his supposed authority?

and has set the standards of morality that he expects from his creation.

Since when was an order, made potentially without authority, a means by which authority can be derived? And what thought process did god use to "set the standards" there?

My morality comes from the bible. That's why I'm repulsed by the actions of the individuals in the bible passages we've been discussing, as was God. Why are you saying that I support the actions of these individuals? The bible never claims that they were morally justified and God didn't condone them. I keep saying this, but it seems to go over your heads.

But when we get to atrocities that are condoned- or indeed, performed- by god, you just shrug them off and say it's different because god's doing them. So how can your morality be at all consistent if there are such unjustified exceptions?

Western civilization's morality is based upon standards which have been set for us in the bible.

No, they're not. We don't have slavery, for one. For another, it's illegal to kill someone of another religion, or no religion at all. To the extent that western morality has taken anything from the bible- and one could easily remind you that the bible took all of its morality from earlier, secular texts- it has improved it.

What I've been trying to get someone to tell me is why God or me or anybody should be forced to abide by your standards of morality.

Which is, as I've said, the wrong question to ask, because morality is not derived from the authority of the person speaking on it. If it was, then you believe n relativistic morality that can change on a dime; all your high minded talk about being repulsed by actions in the bible is all a matter of coincidence and has nothing to do with the act itself.

Stop asking the wrong question, and start asking the right one: nobody can be forced to abide by any standard of morality. If I so choose I can reject your god's moral commandments with ease; does that mean that god's morality is flawed too? That it carries no weight and should be discarded? That's what you're trying to intimate about our morality, right? But it equally applies to yours; your accusations cut both ways.

But then, morality isn't about authority, is it? You can't force one hundred percent of any group to obey a moral system, in fact the whole reason to have a moral system is to delineate acceptable and unacceptable actions. What you can do, is justify your moral system, and the pronouncements within, in accordance with logic and rationality, based on simple objective tenets. They'd need to be consistently applied- after all, morality isn't about you any more than it's about god- and not subject to special pleading or any other logical fallacies... someone might choose not to obey those moral tenets, but if they're truly justifiable and reasonably argued then that person would not have a rational reason for breaking away, meaning they're doing so for ultimately flawed or selfish reasons, that have nothing to do with actual morality.

Or you could just stand there and say "stop it! God says stop it!" whenever someone breaks away from society's morals, see how convincing that will be.

If someone can help himself by killing someone else, why shouldn't he?

Because he wouldn't be able to rationally justify his killing in a way that wouldn't also apply to him. Social morality isn't concerned with the whims of the individual, it needs to be consistently applied to everyone regardless of who they are, or else it's just a preferential series of rules, not a moral system.

Many say it's necessary for a well-functioning society. Well, the European settlers killed countless native Americans and ran them off their land and corralled them on reservations, and our society has functioned quite well over the years. Bad for them, but good for us. Of course I thing it was wrong, but not because society told me it was.

Of course, the settlers at the time believed they were perfectly morally justified in killing... and many of them were christians deriving their morality from the bible... which is entirely okay with killing those of other races or religions... so you aren't thinking it was wrong because of your religion, either.

Society tells me that abortion, fornication, divorce are okay, but I don't agree. I think they are immoral.

Can you justify those beliefs in a non-question begging or special pleading manner, without recourse to unproven assertions?