What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[rexbeccarox]

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

Seems to me your boy has some moral relativity happening inside his own heart there. Would you treat others in the manner of chattel? Does loving your neighbor entail forcing them to work from sunup to sundown without compensation outside of food and shelter, lacking the freedom to come and go as they please, even lacking the freedom to refuse your offer?  Well, Jesus apparently thought that was a good deal, because as we've seen already, he counseled slaves to "chillax, brotha, love your master and obey him as you would me".

You're looking at the paragraph in the bible where Jesus addresses slaves and forming the conclusion that, because He didn't tell them to try to run away or to fight, He must have condoned it.

Yo're goddamned straight I am saying exactly that.  Silence in the face of evil is inexcusable on the part of a moral being.  Either Jesus knew slavery was evil, and kept his trap shut, or Jesus thought slavery was A-okay.  Which is it?

Objectively speaking, don't you think that you can form a much more accurate conclusion about what He meant and where He stands on the issue by looking at the entirety of what He taught, and His character?

I judge a man by his actions, or inactions. Words are cheap ... anyone can talk.

Also, I just wanted to point something out: there's no way in the world such a vigorous debate as this one would be supported on a religious website.

Kudos to AF.

I don't know what site you are referring to, but the site I was a member of had debates just as heated (if not more so) than this one.

I'm not referring to one website.  I've been a member on a few religious wewbsites of varying bents and have invariably been silenced in one form or another once my atheism was made plain. I certainly wasn't permitted to argue 60-page threads of my opinions versus the membership there.

Perhaps you could drop a link to this allegedly permissive site you belonged to, and we can see in a real-world experiment exactly how tolerant they are of non-approved beliefs?

Only difference it people didn't use foul language and resort to personal attacks. But it got just as passionate.

Randy can attest to this.

I look forward to evidence of Christians willing and able to tolerate a continued atheist presence on their forums. I'll believe it when I see it.

Actually, I'll allow this. Even if we discourage links to outside forums and blogs for new members, in this case, it only makes sense for the discussion.

[Nope]

I'm still waiting for a list, or at least a reason why a list would be impossible to make.  If morals are objective, it should be quite easy.

I'm sorry Becca, I don't want you to think I've been ignoring you.

Like I said before, making a list of every single inherently wrong act would take forever and I don't think I'd do it justice because of course there would be things I'd forget. Randy posted earlier about how the Church determines the morality of an act (which is also how I would determine it). It may be easier if you look at that rather than rely on any list I give you.

Nonethelees here are a few things, but would never consider it to be any sort of complete list of all the immoral acts.  

Murder
Rape
Theft
Adultery
Slavery
Calumny

It is understandable why rape and slavery are part of your list but why theft? I could imagine situations in which stealing would be more moral than letting your children starve.

[Catholic_Lady]

Only difference it people didn't use foul language and resort to personal attacks. But it got just as passionate.

It has been said that there's no such thing as foul language, only foul people; and they can be foul in any language.

I was referring to profanity and name calling.

[Bob Kelso]

I'm a bit late to the game here, but I've been prowling the first and last twenty pages or so for a bit and had a few questions. 

Randy: 

I'm not defending anything. I'm explaining it...and why it is not as black and white as you anti-christers seem to believe. The Israelites were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. Here are a few assessments from various points in Israel's history:

• Exodus 32:9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.
  
• Nehemiah 9:16 “But they, our ancestors, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and they did not obey your commands.
  
• Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
  

From Moses to Nehemiah to Stephen...you can see what God was dealing with. Consequently, God had to bring the Israelites along slowly...forming His people little by little...weaning them away from false gods and other beliefs and customs.

Here's a classic from Jesus:

Matthew 19
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “[b]Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Catch that?

Moses permitted the people to divorce but Jesus commanded us to step up our game. 

Same with slavery. It was permitted, but now it's not. We've been molded by God.[/b]

But this does not undermine my premise that God was training a people over the course of a long period of time.

If you want a curved piece of furniture, you have to work with the wood very slowly. Are people much different? See the Father's handiwork?

I'm saying that God worked with the Hebrews based on what they could handle at the time...not based on what you think of it several thousand years later.

Things that WERE permitted at various times in the past are no longer permitted. God was more lenient with the Israelites early on than he was later.

What exactly are you saying here? Do Christians not claim their deity to be omnipotent, and omniscient? Could he have not made their "stiff necks" a bit more flaccid? That doesn't sound like an omnipotent, omniscient god to me; and at the very least, if he did have the power to pull a reverse-Pharaoh on them and didn't, he certainly doesn't seem like a deity worth worshiping. 


Oh, and this line is especially hilarious:

From Moses to Nehemiah to Stephen...you can see what God was dealing with.

It brings a whole new meaning to "sympathy for the devil". 

"Don't you see what the arbiter of all things was dealing with? Stubborn people! Oh the humanity!"



CL:

There is no greater love than to die for somebody. 

Seriously? You're under the impression that the greatest demonstration of love is to die?

Honestly now. 

I really don't understand why Christians are so willing to accept this line. I'd like to submit a hypothetical:

If you had perpetrated a number of crimes, would you accept someone's willing sacrifice for your life when you are to blame and they are guiltless? No, not just someone, let's say it's someone you have a relationship with; a person you love, more than anything. Would you allow them to be ridiculed, beaten, tortured, and ultimately killed for your sake? The whole while knowing that all you had to do was take accountability. Would you do that?

I know that may seem like a loaded question but it isn't, if anything it's a step down from what you believe.

I think this old Darkmatter video is worth posting:

[rexbeccarox]

I'm sorry Becca, I don't want you to think I've been ignoring you.

Like I said before, making a list of every single inherently wrong act would take forever and I don't think I'd do it justice because of course there would be things I'd forget. Randy posted earlier about how the Church determines the morality of an act (which is also how I would determine it). It may be easier if you look at that rather than rely on any list I give you.

Nonethelees here are a few things, but would never consider it to be any sort of complete list of all the immoral acts.  

Murder
Rape
Theft
Adultery
Slavery
Calumny

It is understandable why rape and slavery are part of your list but why theft? I could imagine situations in which stealing would be more moral than letting your children starve.

Oh, gosh, C-L; I'm really sorry I missed your reply.

Murder: so, when God does it, it's not immoral?
Rape: when God condones it it's not bad?
Theft: do you really think that theft is an objectively immoral thing to do?  You can't think of any reasons why you might condone theft?
Adultery: My grandmother was dying with Alzheimer's for a LONG time- she wasn't herself for the last six years of her life.  Do you think it was objectively immoral for my 80-year-old grandfather to seek out companionship elsewhere while still devoting most of his time and energy to my grandmother?
Slavery: when God condones it, it's not immoral?
Calumny: what if your god slandered Satan to make sure he didn't have more people to rule over in hell?  Would that be immoral?

[Catholic_Lady]

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

Seems to me your boy has some moral relativity happening inside his own heart there. Would you treat others in the manner of chattel? Does loving your neighbor entail forcing them to work from sunup to sundown without compensation outside of food and shelter, lacking the freedom to come and go as they please, even lacking the freedom to refuse your offer?  Well, Jesus apparently thought that was a good deal, because as we've seen already, he counseled slaves to "chillax, brotha, love your master and obey him as you would me".

The answer to all those questions, of course, is no. Which is precisely why honestly believing that Jesus condoned slavery seems very strange to me.

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek if we get slapped, do you think He meant it's moral to slap someone? When He told us to give someone our shirt if they steal our coat, do you think He meant it's moral to steal?

Perhaps I'm wrong here and forgive me if I am. But I feel as though you are being dishonest in this. I feel as though you are *wanting* to be able to say "Jesus condoned slavery." And so you are ignoring everything else He taught and just relying on one paragraph addressed where He doesn't order them to run away or fight back. I think that if you were being completely objective and completely honest, you would not be doing this. I don't understand why you would have a desire to do this. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong about you here, but please clarify.

---

I'm sorry Becca, I don't want you to think I've been ignoring you.

Like I said before, making a list of every single inherently wrong act would take forever and I don't think I'd do it justice because of course there would be things I'd forget. Randy posted earlier about how the Church determines the morality of an act (which is also how I would determine it). It may be easier if you look at that rather than rely on any list I give you.

Nonethelees here are a few things, but would never consider it to be any sort of complete list of all the immoral acts.  

Murder
Rape
Theft
Adultery
Slavery
Calumny

It is understandable why rape and slavery are part of your list but why theft? I could imagine situations in which stealing would be more moral than letting your children starve.

The act of stealing, in and of itself, is an inherently immoral action.

But if you steal because it is the only way you'll be able to save a person, your culpability will be greatly lessened, if not completely eliminated.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, I'll allow this.  Even if we discourage links to outside forums and blogs for new members, in this case, it only makes sense for the discussion.

My apologies for inviting a violation ... I was typing before thinking. Sorry if I've increased y'all's workload on the Staff.

[Catholic_Lady]

Seems to me your boy has some moral relativity happening inside his own heart there. Would you treat others in the manner of chattel? Does loving your neighbor entail forcing them to work from sunup to sundown without compensation outside of food and shelter, lacking the freedom to come and go as they please, even lacking the freedom to refuse your offer?  Well, Jesus apparently thought that was a good deal, because as we've seen already, he counseled slaves to "chillax, brotha, love your master and obey him as you would me".


Yo're goddamned straight I am saying exactly that.  Silence in the face of evil is inexcusable on the part of a moral being.  Either Jesus knew slavery was evil, and kept his trap shut, or Jesus thought slavery was A-okay.  Which is it?


I judge a man by his actions, or inactions. Words are cheap ... anyone can talk.


I don't know what site you are referring to, but the site I was a member of had debates just as heated (if not more so) than this one.

I'm not referring to one website.  I've been a member on a few religious wewbsites of varying bents and have invariably been silenced in one form or another once my atheism was made plain. I certainly wasn't permitted to argue 60-page threads of my opinions versus the membership there.

Perhaps you could drop a link to this allegedly permissive site you belonged to, and we can see in a real-world experiment exactly how tolerant they are of non-approved beliefs?

I look forward to evidence of Christians willing and able to tolerate a continued atheist presence on their forums. I'll believe it when I see it.

Actually, I'll allow this.  Even if we discourage links to outside forums and blogs for new members, in this case, it only makes sense for the discussion.

I appreciate the exception but I am going to choose not to do this.

I feel like at this point, if I post it here, a ton of the members from this forum may join with the sole intention of antagonizing the Catholic members to see what happens. It wouldn't be fair to those people if I did that. Especially since Randy and I are on there.

I know neither of you would be so disrespectful as to do that, but I don't know who else is reading these posts.

With that being said, since I will not provide you with evidence, you are, of course, free to not take my word for it. I apologize.

[Ravenshire]

But if you steal because it is the only way you'll be able to save a person, your culpability will be greatly lessened, if not completely eliminated.

And that is subjective morality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It has been said that there's no such thing as foul language, only foul people; and they can be foul in any language.

I was referring to profanity and name calling.

I'm a profane person, and I call a spade a spade.