Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe you can correctly interpret what I have said?
I can decipher the words and their logical conclusions, but NOT your intention.
My intention is to question whether you can make sense of morality, especially if you are an atheist. The intent is to see which makes more sense and is more reasonable. We have many tangents going on here that are not related to the subject. 

Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).
You just said that you can't decipher my intentions. Which is it? 

I am answering your questions, regardless of whether they relate to the subject at hand. 

And when you don't quite understand my meaning you ask me to explain it further.
Either directly or indirectly by paraphrasing.
Granted.

Thus, you must understand that there is an objective meaning in communications,
Nope.  Please explain.
Words carry specific meaning when in context. From a context you can determine what is spoken of. If not, the author needs to make his meaning more clear. If you have not grasped the author's meaning, you have not understood what the author said or communicated. 

If I said, "The grass is green," it has a different meaning than, "I am green with envy." One usually describes the actual colour of literal grass. The other describes feelings I have about something you have or perhaps you exhibit in your mannerisms that I lack. Thus, context is important in determining what is spoken of. Also words can have more than one meaning. You have to glean the correct meaning by the context to understand the communication. Also, culture can carry meanings that are archaic or have fallen out of use, so when you speak of ancient cultures you have to understand what something would have meant in relation to that culture. That can be conveyed by repeated usage of a word or phrase. 

I.e., "This generation" applies to the generation Jesus came to as carried by the constant use of the phrase. What is describe in the constant use of the phrase applies to a specific generation, not any generation or a far distant generation. 

...but you do not give the biblical author(s) (said to be God speaking in over a thousand verses) that courtesy.
I also don't (CAN'T) give the author(s) of the Tao Te Ching and or the Bardo Thodol that "courtesy".
Then you don't understand what they said. I understand exactly what Jesus said when He used the term 'this generation." The meaning is given in the text, and when one text is not clear, there are many more that use the same term in relation to the same people. In fact, the very word, "this" is specific word usage. To read in a distant generation is to not get the author's meaning or what the text conveys.  To read into a context your own interpretation instead of lifting out the author's intention is called eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. 

That is inconsistent and hypocritical if you do that. 
Look, you're the "expert" on this subject, so that's why I'm asking you.
I would argue I am better informed than you on the subject but I'm not sure I am an expert. I use my reason as well as researching the facts where I can access them. And I have been a Christian for forty years, thus, I have come across many of the arguments here before. I have been debating on many forums but this has become home, for now. 

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Consider other verses which show the God of the Bible does not consider other peoples equal to Israel.  (The notion of "God's chosen people" speaks to this)The verses I provided make that distinction clear (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46).
You ignore other verses that clarify what God expected in the treatment of others. And in no way was the treatment the same as in Egypt or other ANE cultures. It was better. As already pointed out, and you cannot deny it for it is Scripture, a 'slave' must be bought, not kidnapped from other lands. Kidnapping was punishable by death. That meant that a slave would have to agree to serve a Hebrew master. 

Egyptian slavery was a bondage and oppression that God never wanted Israel to duplicate. It was a type of servitude that God forbade. Time and time again, God wants  us to treat others as we want others to be treated. If you are blessed by wealth and can afford to hire others God still wants you to treat them with respect and dignity. 

It seems your primary argument against Biblically condoned slavery is that 'it couldn't be slavery because slaves must be bought/ kidnapping is disallowed', suggesting Biblical slavery was always voluntary and some form of indentured servitude. You also point to verses referring to  'foreigners which live among you' being treated with respect as though foreigners were to always to be treated as equal to Israelites.   This is simplistic cherry picking oblivious to what the Bible actually allows. 

Non-Israelite slaves were permanent property and could be acquired by purchase (Lev 25:44-46) or captured during war (Deut 20:14).  Yes, kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is punishable by death (Deut 24:7), but there is no such restriction regarding foreigners - war captives is a case in point of foreigners literally being kidnapped as slaves (Deut 21:10-15). The OT is very much against slavery of "God's people", but this did not extend to non-Hebrews. Indentured servitude was available to Hebrew men, but everyone else was subject to some form of slavery as we commonly understand the term.







SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet? 
No, how could anyone be so stupid?A person cannot be convicted of a crime that has not been committed? 
Haha, so it does matter who makes the prophecy and who interprets it as fulfilled? Again, you implicitly acknowledge your standard of evidence isn't near as strong as your pretend. IF spectral evidence were all that, how could you deny it...even if use against you?

Truth is the gauge by which falsehood is measured. For there to be a counterfeit there must be a real to compare the counterfeit against. Once I have the real I have the standard. 
If you determine what's real by anecdote, hearsay, and spectral evidence (which you wouldn't accept to convict you of murder), then you can't really say you know what is real and counterfeit.

It is impossible that two contrary things can be true at the same time regarding the same thing. 
It is possible for 2 contrary things to both be false.

Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!
That is not my argument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang.
The explanation has fewer words, but it is not simpler because it is contingent on an eternal omnipotent being. 

Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.
I am speaking of interpretation of the Bible and in understanding others. In the case of morality I question what the objective standard you profess that excludes God. You have still to reveal that objective standard you speak of.
You weigh your actions against what you believe the Biblical god wants to objectively determine right and wrong.  This is subjective.  You pretend to have an objective source for morality, but you (like everyone else) have a subjective morality.

I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality.  We only need to agree on something by which to measure our actions. Your preference is god.  Mine is well-being. 

No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.
Supernatural would exclude nature as an explanation. If it is not natural it must be a being - yes or no?

What? I don't see how that follows.

Or are you speaking of a force such as in Starwars? If a force lacks personhood what can it do and would that force not be considered natural too, since it owes no explanation to personhood?

I'm simply pointing out that the supernatural lays claim to an increasingly smaller slice of the cosmos as our knowledge of nature increases.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I am comparing apples to oranges. Applies is Christianity; oranges is atheism.  

Lol, I don't disagree. I refer you back to my previous comment:

Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I have already explained my reasoning with this verse. Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence. 
So, OT is "off limits"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).
You just said that you can't decipher my intentions. Which is it? 
Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.

Your pre-judice: Only "YHWH" can provide a logically coherent origin of moral intuition.

How do you validate the moral codec of "YHWH"?

You validate the moral codec of "YHWH" by using YOUR moral intuition.

And then you credit "YHWH" for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".

King Hammurabi didn't know the law of "YHWH", and yet codified a set of rules more comprehensive than "the ten commandments".

Many cultures that predate Abraham have inscribed practical codes of conduct.

Your explanation seems to be "YHWH" wrote a moral code on their hearts.

THEREFORE, "the ten commandments" is superfluous and redundant and NOT prerequisite to moral intuition.

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.

This claim is unfalsifiable.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I am comparing apples to oranges. Applies is Christianity; oranges is atheism.  

Lol, I don't disagree. I refer you back to my previous comment:

Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.
Okay, I got your meaning. Then we are comparing the applies of Christianity to the applies of atheism. Both you and I believe in morality. The question is how you validate morality as an atheist. Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.
Okay, I got your meaning. Then we are comparing the applies of Christianity to the applies of atheism. Both you and I believe in morality. The question is how you validate morality as an atheist. Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.

Actually, I don't think you get my meaning. Atheism isn't a moral philosophy, so your question isnt coherent - it is not a reasonable ask. 

If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:
1) most people aren't Christian.
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,
3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.

So, ANY moral view which puts people above human interpretations of the 'will of a god' will be more reasonable in my view.


Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
As a member of FIVE and a half religious groups , spanning across the main three holy books,   I highly doubt you'd find a more moral being then I. 
So , yeah.   Ask away.
Morals,   Shmorals. 

Actually,  if being in a religious  group gave one some kind of plus. You'd join a dozen of em.
Oh ,Unless there is a clause like. THALL SHALL NOT PUT ANOTHER GOD ABOVE ME. 

Yeah.      Real nice move. Very well played. 

Good game. 
Good game. 

 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no difference.

Or it would be perfect if there were no difference....But we are all different and separate from each other and act individually.

Lumping individuals together under one of two labels, doesn't imply "behavioural" certainty..... Far from it.

Acceptance of deistic hypotheses, is no guarantee of an individuals state of mind.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0



I mean, how the hell was he ever getting on without us before all this creating of Hell,Satan, deceiving serpents, angels, disobedient women, floods, destruction, war, murder, kings, queens, sacrifice, priests, other idols to worry about and be jealous of and not to mention the "other gods" also to be jealousy of that appear to have been "loved" instead of him.   However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?

He did manage. God is content in Himself, in the tri-unity of Beings - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


 Oh stop it. You now simply have to attempt to invent further something you that do not, and cannot,  possibly have a clue about and all   to be enable you  to embellish even further  and expand  your initial simply response reply of  " we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him".

You have been caught cold with just one question and two replies from me.. 


Genesis 1
4 God saw that the light was good

God  may well have called it "all good", but WE now know it wasn't and isn't,  don't we? 

The earth for instance, has and always will be an unstable planet and becomes more unstable as it moves through the solar system and  when it comes into close proximity with other planets. We know that the movements of the other planets have an adverse  effect on our own planet causing the deaths of millions.   AND SO DID those controlling  priests of old, didn't they? 
Indeed it was much more simpler then in past times of ignorance and fear, when priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control a persons daily life not to mention to enable them to extort ones hard earned earthly goods. 

Because he was bored stupid '   would have been a better reply. And just as easily been blown out of the water. 

Pure speculation without biblical evidence.

Says the man that always attempts to pass off speculation and belief as fact. Example>> 


Stephen wrote: However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?

PGA2.0, Speculated  "without evidence" ... "God is eternally present. Time needs a start, yet God is eternal. He transcends time. Time was created with the universe and humanity. Humans comprehend time because they think as well as have a beginning". 






 


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Consider other verses which show the God of the Bible does not consider other peoples equal to Israel.  (The notion of "God's chosen people" speaks to this)The verses I provided make that distinction clear (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46).
You ignore other verses that clarify what God expected in the treatment of others. And in no way was the treatment the same as in Egypt or other ANE cultures. It was better. As already pointed out, and you cannot deny it for it is Scripture, a 'slave' must be bought, not kidnapped from other lands. Kidnapping was punishable by death. That meant that a slave would have to agree to serve a Hebrew master. 

Egyptian slavery was a bondage and oppression that God never wanted Israel to duplicate. It was a type of servitude that God forbade. Time and time again, God wants  us to treat others as we want others to be treated. If you are blessed by wealth and can afford to hire others God still wants you to treat them with respect and dignity. 

It seems your primary argument against Biblically condoned slavery is that 'it couldn't be slavery because slaves must be bought/ kidnapping is disallowed', suggesting Biblical slavery was always voluntary and some form of indentured servitude.
No, my argument is that OT slavery is not the same as chattle slavery in which the slave was treated hostile and as property to do with whatever. God forbade that type of slavery as I showed you in the many verses I quoted. He wanted Israel to remember the type of slavery they had experienced, the type of slavery that was expressed as bondage and oppression and wanted Israel never to practice this type of treatment of others. The foreign slave PURCHASED was a servant, yet had freedoms not allowed a chattel slave or the freedom of other ANE cultures. 

When you take into account what God explicitly warned of there is no way that Israel's' slavery' was the same thing as Egyptian slavery. And if you want to find out what kind of treatment the Israelites experienced there are various accounts, some of which was what Moses witnessed. He actually heard the cries of the Israelites. 

Now it came about in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his brethren and looked on their hard labors; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren...23 Now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died. And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God. 

Exodus 3:7, 9, 17
7 The Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings...9 Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them...17 So I said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt...

And what did Pharoh do when confronted with Moses telling him to let his people go? He doubles down on his harsh treatment of Israel. 

Exodus 5:4-14
4 But the king of Egypt said to them, “Moses and Aaron, why do you [a]draw the people away from their [b]work? Get back to your [c]labors!” 5 Again Pharaoh said, “Look, the people of the land are now many, and you would have them cease from their labors!” 6 So the same day Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters over the people and their foremen, saying, 7 “You are no longer to give the people straw to make brick as previously; let them go and gather straw for themselves. 8 But the quota of bricks which they were making previously, you shall impose on them; you are not to reduce any of it. Because they are lazy, therefore they cry out, ‘[d]Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ 9 Let the labor be heavier on the men, and let them work at it so that they will pay no attention to false words.”
10 So the taskmasters of the people and their foremen went out and spoke to the people, saying, “Thus says Pharaoh, ‘I am not going to give you any straw. 11 You go and get straw for yourselves wherever you can find it, but none of your labor will be reduced.’” 12 So the people scattered through all the land of Egypt to gather stubble for straw. 13 The taskmasters pressed them, saying, “Complete your [e]work quota, [f]your daily amount, just as when [g]you had straw.” 14 Moreover, the foremen of the sons of Israel, whom Pharaoh’s taskmasters had set over them, were beaten [h]and were asked, “Why have you not completed your required amount either yesterday or today in making brick as previously?”

Exodus 6:5, 7
5 Furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. 6 Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage... 7 Then I will take you [f]for My people, and I will be [g]your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

The list goes on of their harsh treatment in Egypt. And God warned Israel to remember not to ever do what was done to them. So, how could God allow Israel to abuse foreign 'slaves?' It is illogical when you read the passages to then come up with Israel abusing foreign 'slaves.' You have to understand the OT slave as opposed to chattel slave or Egyptian slave. Israel slavery is not the same kind.  

There is a good article I read contrasting biblical slavery and what it meant to chattel slavery. It is titled, Biblical Slavery vs. Chattel slavery. The article goes on to say, 

"[T]he Bible does speak of slavery, and that there are righteous forms of slavery, what are they? There are three of them, and they all have to do with ethical/judicial problems."

These three forms the author identifies and lists as,
1. 'Charitable slavery,' also known as indentured servitude. This is where a Hebrew could sell himself to pay off his debt, usually because of poverty and inability to support themselves. After six years, the debt was considered paid and the person became free once again, unless they chose otherwise. 
2. 'Restitutional slavery,' again for a Hebrew, was a form a crime in which the criminal would pay of his debt. In this case the penalty could last longer than seven years to pay the debt. If the guilty party refused to work the master could beat him as a punishment, but if the slave was injured in any way he would earn his freedom.
3. 'Evangelistic slavery,' is the type described in Leviticus 25:44-46. 
"...[It] does allow Hebrews to buy slaves from foreign slave owners, and it does allow them to permanently enslave strangers who live in the land; not by kidnapping them but for the same reasons as enslaving Hebrews – debt or poverty."
The purpose of such slavery was to evangelize and convert a person to faith in God. 

"[E]vangelistic slavery, designed to rescue the weakest members of pagan societies, those who have become victims of pagan slavery, and give them the chance to become children of God, free and independent. All these three forms are temporary, and have a redemptive purpose. Pagan slavery is chattel slavery; its purpose is only to keep a certain class of people in subjugation while maintaining another class in a position of power." 

Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.



Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It's almost like the bible was written without the knowledge of the year 3744. 


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
As a member of FIVE and a half religious groups , spanning across the main three holy books,   I highly doubt you'd find a more moral being then I. 
So , yeah.   Ask away.
Morals,   Shmorals. 

Actually,  if being in a religious  group gave one some kind of plus. You'd join a dozen of em.
Oh ,Unless there is a clause like. THALL SHALL NOT PUT ANOTHER GOD ABOVE ME. 

Yeah.      Real nice move. Very well played. 

Good game. 
Good game. 
I'm lost, this just came out of the blue yonder. Per chance, is this addressed to me? If so, what does it mean?
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Yeah, I was just stating that a person in five religious groups must be extra morally. Extra moral.  

Do you agree?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.
33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
...that we may choose to love Him.
When the inventor was asked "why'd you make all these sentient robots?" they confidently replied, "that they may choose to love me".

"The inventor's lost his marbles", the townspeople quietly whispered to each other.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Acceptance of deistic hypotheses, is no guarantee of an individuals state of mind.
Neither "better" nor "worse".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
3) what good may be recognized [CHERRY PICKED] in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Both you and I believe in morality.
Ethics, code of conduct, social contract, or the like.

The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.
The same way you do.  Moral instinct.  Moral intuition.

Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.
How do you know "the decalogue" is valid?  Because it matches your moral intuition.

Try this on for size,

The ten yamas are:

1) ahiṁsā, “noninjury,” not harming others by thought, word or deed;
2) satya, “truthfulness,” refraining from lying and betraying promises;
3) asteya, “nonstealing,” neither stealing nor coveting nor entering into debt;
4) brahmacharya, “divine conduct,” controlling lust by remaining celibate when single, leading to faithfulness in marriage;
5) kshamā, “patience,” restraining intolerance with people and impatience with circumstances;
6) dhṛiti, “steadfastness,” overcoming nonperseverance, fear, indecision, inconstancy and changeableness;
7) dayā, “compassion,” conquering callous, cruel and insensitive feelings toward all beings;
8) ārjava, “honesty, straightforwardness,” renouncing deception and wrongdoing;
9) mitāhāra, “moderate appetite,” neither eating too much nor consuming meat, fish, fowl or eggs;
10) śaucha, “purity,” avoiding impurity in body, mind and speech.

The ten niyamas are:

1) hrī, “remorse,” being modest and showing shame for misdeeds;
2) santosha, “contentment,” seeking joy and serenity in life;
3) dāna, “giving,” tithing and giving generously without thought of reward;
4) āstikya, “faith,” believing firmly in God, Gods, guru and the path to enlightenment;
5) Īśvarapūjana, “worship of the Lord,” the cultivation of devotion through daily worship and meditation;
6) siddhānta śravaṇa, “scriptural listening,” studying the teachings and listening to the wise of one’s lineage;
7) mati, “cognition,” developing a spiritual will and intellect with the guru’s guidance;
8) vrata, “sacred vows,” fulfilling religious vows, rules and observances faithfully;
9) japa, “recitation,” chanting mantras daily;
10) tapas, “austerity,” performing sādhana, penance, tapas and sacrifice. [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I would argue I am better informed than you on the subject but I'm not sure I am an expert.
If you're claiming that you know the true will of "YHWH" based purely on the "words on the page" and furthermore that thousands of years of careful consideration by the people who actually wrote the thing down in the first place "is wrong", then you MUST BE AN EXPERT.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence. 
Then why do you keep talking about "the ten commandments"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
God permits exceptions for civil societies to function.
Where in the holy scripture does it explain under what specific circumstances "YHWH" permits exceptions?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Too many bald assertions to address individual. Even if I accept that some version of the Yahweh must necessarily exist you have not actually demonstrated or even suggested some methodology that takes the guess work out of understanding the primary moral axioms of the Yahweh. 
Then take a few. I was just answering your statements, charges, and questions. Break them down into segments. 

Your statements do the same thing - assert. Then you guys pick and choose what you will and will not address. You only select what you believe will further your talking points.  I took the time to deal with all your assertions. 
No. First take the guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that the things we do effect their welfare. 

You have claimed to share the Yahwehs standard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements about specific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moral and if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actually have a standard to present at all.

As an example you have said that killing humans is immoral (the opinions in the ot to the contrary) but you have not said why. Why should we care about killing people? Why would the Yahweh (assuming he even exists).


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you really think that your will is free, or is it influenced by many things?
I do not believe in freewill at all. That is part of why any given christian claiming that I choose not to believe or that I send myself to hell are in my opinion no sequiturs.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The unborn is a human being. 
It doesn't matter. 

(EITHER) a person's kidney (and their uterus) are their possessions protected by their right to personal bodily autonomy (in which case NO ONE can use them without consent) (OR) a person's body (such that its use is only a danger to the individual but they could live through the process) is commonwealth and anyone in possession of two kidneys is just as guilty of murder by proxy as a woman who gets an abortion. 

You do not get to tell me what I can and cannot do with my kidneys whether you have been born or not.
Do you believe that justice should be equal? Do you think all innocent human beings should be treated equally, with respect and dignity?
I'm not sure agree on what exactly justice is but let's pretend for a moment that that isn't an issue and that this sounds nice in theory. How do we as flawed subjective human beings create a system in which justice is equally distributed favoring none? And if there is sone all powerful all knowing being that cares about justice why doesn't he just make everything just? 

I would even go so far as to say that the existence of a world where justice is not shown equally to all human beings indicates that no such being in fact exists. 
If my body could save a man and I refuse is that immoral?
It shows compassion and mercy. Would you like to be shown those two qualities?
This does not answer my question. Whether or not it would be admirable is separate to the question of if it would be immoral. Also I do not want to display those qualities if I must surrender my personal bodily autonomy in order to do so.
At risk to yourself comes under the topic of the same compassion and mercy. It is excusable by law if you choose not to risk your own life, but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime. 
Great. Glad we agree. Now I will just point put that pregnancy ALWAYS involves risks to a woman's life so by your reasoning it is excusable by law for a woman not to take this risk.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Yeah, I was just stating that a person in five religious groups must be extra morally. Extra moral.  

Do you agree?
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
...protected by their right to personal bodily autonomy...
Also, PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

In the same way a SOVEREIGN country can deport unwelcomed (non citizen) residents, a SOVEREIGN person can deport unwelcomed residents.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime. 
People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems your primary argument against Biblically condoned slavery is that 'it couldn't be slavery because slaves must be bought/ kidnapping is disallowed', suggesting Biblical slavery was always voluntary and some form of indentured servitude. You also point to verses referring to  'foreigners which live among you' being treated with respect as though foreigners were to always to be treated as equal to Israelites.   This is simplistic cherry picking oblivious to what the Bible actually allows. 
And continuing from earlier this morning, the principle of evangelistic slavery as a spiritual typology of physical bondage is very reasonable. The physical bondage in Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea or escape from bondage is symbolic of our escape from the bondage of sin and our spiritual Egypt. We see this principle laid out in the NT in various places, this freedom from sin and bondage. Here is an important point, made by the article, Biblical Slavery vs. Chattel Slavery:

"But if they converted, the law for slavery of a Hebrew brother now applied. They were to be given 7 years in slavery with the purpose of repaying their masters as much as they could for saving them from their previous, pagan masters. After 7 years, the convert was supposed to go out free and take his rightful place as a member of the nation of Israel."

Conversion equalled freedom! That is how it is in the NT. We become free in Christ and are grafted into spiritual Israel. Remember, salvation was of the Jew first, then because of their hard heart towards God it became a possibility for the foreigner or Gentile to. Both Testamamnts teach of freedom from slavery. Isn't that a great principle, if you became a convert in the OT you would become a free man/woman in seven years!

Conversion is an escape from slavery and bondage just as it was in OT times.

Walk by the Spirit ] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

We see the principle of the Red Sea mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10. We cross the barrier between bondage and freedom, between slavery in our Egypt and freedom in Christ.

We see the forty-year transition from Egypt to the Promised Land again in the NT in a spiritual light

Hebrews 3:7-11, 16-19 
7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as [b]when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tried Me by testing Me,
And saw My works for forty years.
10 “Therefore I was angry with this generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they did not know My ways’;
11 As I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest.’”

16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

The transition between Christ's death and judgment in AD 70 is also forty years in which the author of Hebrews once again warns the people not to be like those who fled Egypt and died in the desert, but today (1st-century), if you hear His voice listen to God and enter the Promised Land instead of perishing. Slavery in the NT is a bondage to sin. That is the reality of the shadow we see in the OT. It is a freedom from oppression and affliction just like Israel's slavery in Egypt was. So we see a spiritual Israel, a spiritual freedom, a spiritual crossing of the Red Sea and leaving the old life behind, and an entry into a better land, a heavenly country as opposed to the physical OT one. We see that, like Israel during the forty year exodus, a new exodus and transition, as spoken of in Hebrews 8:13:

"13 [a]When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [b]ready to disappear."

What was old and obsolete was about to disappear, withing that generation, and Hebrews 3:9-10 identifies a generation as forty-years. 

So, the principle of evangelism slavery is reasonable to believe. But even if you did find this evangelistic slavery principle hard to stomach, the principle of slavery and freedom is well demonstrated in a physical sense in the OT and in a spiritual way in the NT. 

that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

Non-Israelite slaves were permanent property and could be acquired by purchase (Lev 25:44-46) or captured during war (Deut 20:14).  Yes, kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is punishable by death (Deut 24:7), but there is no such restriction regarding foreigners - war captives is a case in point of foreigners literally being kidnapped as slaves (Deut 21:10-15). The OT is very much against slavery of "God's people", but this did not extend to non-Hebrews. Indentured servitude was available to Hebrew men, but everyone else was subject to some form of slavery as we commonly understand the term.
Now you mention two types of foreign slaves, one a war captive and therefore a reparation for the damages suffered, and the other bought to serve the Hebrew family from a foreign country, again usually becoming a slave in a foreign land because of poverty or debt. Even so, the type of slavery or servitude was different between the treatment in Israel to that experienced in other ANE nations. But to your point, the foreigner, during a war, would be responsible for the damages inflicted on the victor. Thus, reparations or restitution were perfectly in line with making the foreigner answerable. Remember what happened when Israel left Egypt? There was a negotiation for what reparations Egypt was to pay Israel for the ill-treatment Israel suffered under the hands of the Egyptian taskmasters. Slavery was also a lesson to foreign nations to not engage in warfare with Israel because they had the allegiance of God on their side and the enemy would be required to pay a big price, lifetime service in Israel for the captives. 

Physical punishment was a reality in the ANE, yet if a 'master' ill-treated a 'slave' and the slave suffered permanent injury, the master was required to release the slave and make them a free person. If I remember correctly, the master was also required to pay reparation for such damages. I do not see prisons mentioned in the OT, thus punishment required a different method, a more severe one, corporal punishment - eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. A thief was required to repay the debt through sheep or work it off. A slave was not to be unreasonably treated as how Israel treated others was answerable to God. Then there was the escape clause, which you cannot show as not applicable to the foreign slave of the Hebrew.

As for the kidnapping of a fellow countryman in Deuteronomy 24:7, what about the penalty to any man in Exodus 21:16?

“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

War reparations or restitution was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. In our penal system the damages would have to be repaid or else the person would face prison time.