The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

On the topic of morals, what I was trying to get at before the establishment of the various religions is that even if the Muslim Hindu and Christian religion was created or not there would have been a collective agreement on the customs and ways on how everyone should live there life. There is no bible Koran or gita accessible to some remote tribes that have not made contact with the external world. Yet these folks do not gravitate to leader worship.

Beliefs or lack of belief is not more important than human rights and preservation of the environment. This is an area where religion has failed. Empathy and reason can bring forth these ideals. Human rights have been trampled upon in the name of religion.

I get what you are saying, but just for argument's sake, humans had a collective agreement to have religion, just saying.

[Habit7]

It's funny that on this thread ppl come out slinging accusations, falsehood and blatant ignorance about things they talk about. But when their arguments are refuted, they either quietly slink into silence or just move on to another ruse. I will address some the above stuff later in the morning.

[Xeno Greycross]

It's funny that on this thread ppl come out slinging accusations, falsehood and blatant ignorance about things they talk about. But when their arguments are refuted, they either quietly slink into silence or just move on to another ruse. I will address some the above stuff later in the morning.

I hope u do, hope there's 'no I already did that already' and crying and moan inglike Duane 3NE 2NR

We're talking about how excellent Christian morality is here and and we're not even bringing up up the plethora of moral guidelines that u guys don't adhere to.

So far habit 7 argument has been some dictators were atheist and repeating
That ridiculous thou shalt not kill that's absolute apparently
But the 4th one u know the one above that isn't absolute.

Habit 7 already addressed why the bible treats rape as 'boys will be boys' and how using the bible we went from punishing the rape victim to punishing the rapist *yeh right*

Every time I put forward an argument your like we did that already I highly doubt that especially with the slavery one

I hope someone has the balls to tear down my arguments

[Xeno Greycross]

So go on your Christian apologetics sites and come back with refutations of my four 'simple ' conundrums

[meccalli]

There's worst instances in the bible than what you're throwing out that's been addressed before, your posting style reminds me of someone else btw lol.

I posted about slavery just a couple pages back....
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&hilit=jesus&start=17820

[Xeno Greycross]

Beliefs or lack of belief is not more important than human rights and preservation of the environment. This is an area where religion has failed. Empathy and reason can bring forth these ideals. Human rights have been trampled upon in the name of religion.

I have to agree with this statement most religions aren't concerned with human rights or equality at all saying religion has failed in this area is an understatement as most religions aren't concerned with this in the first place, most are concerned with pleasing X divinity figure/s.
Morality as far as most religions are concerned is following the edicts of X divinity they don't take into consideration the situation, how to approach x they claim they get their morality from X source bit they do the exact same thing most humans do

We think carefully about how our choices affect the happiness or suffering of others around us - 'empathy and reason' most of us use this method as the primary source of how to live our lives.

But when debating with a religious person they say their moral are more valid/valid because it comes from some god or the other that why I've been asking why they don't follow their edicts which evidently come from their god

[Slartibartfast]

It's funny that on this thread ppl come out slinging accusations, falsehood and blatant ignorance about things they talk about. But when their arguments are refuted, they either quietly slink into silence or just move on to another ruse. I will address some the above stuff later in the morning.

I wonder who those people are. I know you not talking about me. In case you missed everything I said. Allow me to rehash.

Xeno you just arrive, you can't expect us to rehash topics we have droned over before. I put a link of one instance I addressed in my initial response.

I believe you did the same for me when I jumped in this thread and in case I didn't tell you before, thanks, it was appreciated [serious]

Slartibartfast you need to know what is in the Bible before you can comment on anything about. (You still don't even know what is even Klauss' book)

Notice when you correct me on what the bible says, if I don't go and read it for myself I automatically assume that you are correct and move on from there. You are clearly more versed in the bible than I am. I stopped reading the bible almost a decade ago. I'm not going to respond to that Klauss comment right now because that is just a distraction from everything else. However, if you will like me to respond to it, please repost this in the Evolution thread.

You keep using terms like empathy, reason and equal rights and acting like they point to some standard or code. I keep asking where is that standard or code and you still not answering.

Just to clear up the confusion, let me make my position clear. I am arguing that it is possible to base all moral standards and codes on empathy and reason. These moral standards can then be written into law. That way, these moral standards can be enforced. Also, because they are not absolute, they can be changed in the future, which is extremely important for the purpose of progress. Look at LGBT rights as a progression of equal rights that would not be possible under Christian rule.

I understand your confusion though. I am talking about progress and creating something new that everyone can agree upon. I know the concept of progress may hard, for someone who argues in absolutes, to wrap their head around.

You said there is no atheist worldview yet you could define atheism. Aren't ppl who live lives consistent with your atheism definition, following an atheist worldview?

I am not defending theism, I am defending Christianity and it's morality. Christianity is falling prey to the theistic morality of ISIS while also bearing up the atheistic morality of China. Somehow in a country where state espouses "no belief in God" the existence of religions such as Christianity is seen as threat against the govt.

...but the following must also be considered. Atheism is just non-belief in God. Nothing there to follow really... Acting as though all non-beliefs are the same is just like acting as though all beliefs are the same and I could start arguing about the crap that Islam is doing in the middle east right now along those lines. But that would be a strawman argument... much like this one

And also if belief in Christianity does not guarantee an adherence to it, then what is it's practical use anyway?

I specifically said I know you weren't arguing in defense of all theism. I also stated I know that all theistic moralities aren't the same, just like you need to understand that all atheistic moralities aren't the same.

My argument is that
1. We do not need a belief in this "God" person
2. Belief in this "God" person doesn't make sense anyway. Because those that believe in him don't always follow him and it would be arrogant to impose these beliefs on people that don't accept it.

That is why a common ground must be found. Forget about God. Don't base anything on him (what people do personally is fine as long as they don't impose it on anyone, so they are still free to worship and believe in whoever they want) This common ground is that we are all human and we all deserve the right to live (i.e. empathy, understanding that everyone is equal). See the reasoning there?

[Slartibartfast]

Now, notice that I have answered everything that you have asked. Now take a look at the points of mine that you have ignored so far.

Fair enough. But if the bible still can't influence someone's actions, what is the point of using it.

This was in reply to you correcting me on something the bible said. I asked this multiple times but you never answered.

Also, there is no "atheist" worldview. Like I said before, calling all atheists the same is like calling all non-atheists the same. Yes some atheists create a morality that condones what I oppose, but, you also oppose some theists (see below). So please stop calling all atheists the same when I do not call all theists the same. This is a big misconception you have.

Just quoted this because you ignored this completely when making your reply... multiple times.

Exactly! But it was used as justification. And by using it as justification it was by definition not allowed to be questioned. Which is why absolutes can be dangerous. I am sure that you will agree only God is qualified to judge according to his absolute morals. Because he is absolute in his perfection. But as long as we are in the realm of man, men should not be allowed to rule with absolutes because man is not perfect and (as shown by history) can use it as justification for evil deeds.

My argument about why men in power should not use the word of God as their moral compass.

Now you may jump back "what about murder?" For which I would reply that if you follow the guidelines of empathy and reason, for some morals, you will come to the same exact answer and it will therefore be as permanent as an absolute moral. Murder is one of them. But things like heresy, LGBT rights and respecting ones elders (even if are a child molesting murderer) that were once seen as moral can be challenged. And then it can be decided that "You know what, heresy isn't that serious of a problem to execute someone over" or "Maybe what other people do in their own beds in no business of mine" or "Maybe I should tell my kids stay away from that creepy guy and not do anything he tells them to do".

This is where I showed that some morals can be so well established through reason and empathy that they can become so "set in stone" that they will for all intents and purposes considered absolute. I then show the pros of having a morality that can be challenged. I never got a reply to this either.

[Xeno Greycross]

your opening statement was complete bull i'm not addressing it thank u for forwarding your 'defense of slavery excerpt' so that i can pick it apart'

two verses under the one u quoted "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
that's what's called a contradiction.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)" here your god is specifically passing out permission slips on where u can purchase children, apparently no one ever 'captured' these foreigners or their children

[quote="meccalli wrote:That entire concept is pretty much detailed early on and you can read all the laws pertaining to this 'slave stuff. So what's the confusion about if this book is clearly against man capture and selling etc?
If you notice the aramaic translation of peter above, you see it states servant. The translators considered this synonymous with slave*. You'll also find similar context and meaning attached to the words bondsman/woman or bondservant. Paul referred himself as a bond servant of God. In essence, ebed, the hebrew word does mean slave or servant according to context, but regardless, the concept was black and white contrasted to slavery as we know it today and as highlighted in exodus.”

wow the translation switch i refer u my comment above

Abraham made his slave' swear with his hand on his inner thigh to choose a righteous wife for his most precious son. Yeah, that's the responsibility, you send your only son with some slave in a foreign land and have the power to choose a wife for him. Sounds more like he was more of a brother than a slave. But apart from that, we see that there are rules in the OT that dictate how criminals- either from local stuff like thieves or war based- could be made slaves under the regular 7 year period and jewish history tells us how economics played a role in that, people who could not support themselves would pretty much become slaves for money and sustenance. ”

Abraham used to treat his slaves well(that's what your going with, well okay then)
Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him.
i treat my car well too why cause it's my money, this story is also saying once upon a time the creator of the universe looked down on slaves and said cut off their foreskin *not cruel at all*

the seven year law referred only to male jewish slaves, there is an edict from god that has slaves(all, foreigners, female and male) that releases slaves but it's not this (hint it's in the ten commandments version2.0)

Just some final verses to bring the point home, it should be obvious after this.”

u haven't even begun yet and your closing hahahahah

If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a bond-servant: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee” ”[/quote]

male jewish slaves only

“You shall not give up to his manager a slave who has escaped from his manager to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.””

i have no rebuttal for this it basically says don't snitch on runaway slaves u should source your verses next time

“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him.””

u should've included the verse right after this one

“For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.”

worship the right god *yeh let's close with that* [insert facepalm meme of your choice]

this was quite delightful, any one else wish the forward their ''defense of slavery excerpt' i invite u to do so.

[Xeno Greycross]

meccalli please forgive my ineptitude this 'quoting' thing isn't straight forward or maybe i'm just dumb

[Habit7]

So I'm The new guy hear *and I need to learn thing or 2* apparently.
So we're supposedly on how amazing Christian morality is well it's time for me to destroy that ridiculous notion.

1st moral conundrum; disobedient children
According to the bible disobedient children are to be stoned to death as well as many other horrible things Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17, Proverbs 30:17, here's the magic carpenter's personal opinion on the subject;
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

well we don't stone our children to death for any reason so we don't 'borrow' any of those morals hmnn I wonder why

2nd moral conundrum; rape

where's the thou shalt not rape commandment, from my light browsing of the bible it would seem that the bible treats rape as 'boys will be boys '
rape victims must marry their rapist- god Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (how enlightening) well we've never implemented this I wonder why,
death to the rape victims Deuteronomy (22:23-24 NAB) (sharai law anyone )
the sex enslavement of captive (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) rape for life damn that's harsh,
well let's review we don't punish rape victims neither do we force them to marry their rapist we don't 'borrow' those bits either.

3rd moral conundrum; thou shalt not kill ( u would think they got this one ) well here's the list of exceptions
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) we don't borrow this one.
kill witches (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
just a few years back people in Africa were hacking their own children to death why? because they believed them to be witches(Africa's witch children documentary) and let's not forget the centuries of witch burnings in Europe.
fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) we don't implement this one either.
Kill the gays (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) funny how u guys don't follow this one but instead opt for persecuting gay people which is disgusting as far as I'm concerned, well we don't borrow this one either.
kill Sabbath breakers Exodus 31:12-15 NLT, I wonder why we don't 'borrow' this one this is the 4th I hope there are no godless Sabbath breakers here
I haven't seen anyone borrow any of these, thou shalt not kill, except for gays, witches yadayada (how absolute)

4th moral conundrum; slavery
I'll keep this short seeing as you've already addressed this x years back. the bible supports slavery old and new we don't.
I can quote loads of proslavery verses (not as if they're any antislavery verses) but that's boring.
let's however hear from a fellow carpenter worshipper such as yourselves.

"…the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example… Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed that the inspired Apostles … would have tolerated it for a moment in the Christian Church. In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority [Luke 12:47], its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions."
Richard Furman, Baptist State Convention, letter to South Carolina Governor, 1822

I'll conclude with this I do not 'borrow ' any of my morals from your book, habit 7 goes on an on about thou shalt not kill because u know we were hacking each other to death before then I would really appreciate it if someone would address my points as to why we don't adhere to any of these 'moral guidelines' no duck and dodge no deflect address every single point( u wanna play apologetics well we'll play:))

Next time u wanna take a hit at the new guy, gauge him first

Firstly as we continue to discuss the question of morality, I see that you have further elaborated with a surface view of the Bible. However you are making some presumptions without proving them true. Why is capital punishment of children, rape, murder and slavery wrong or even a moral conundrum? In our Western society with our laws directly influenced by Bible, we have come to see the aforementioned as immoral but does the same Bible condone them? So the two major question are:
Why are they wrong?
Does the Bible condone them?

Allow me to quote my preamble so we can get a proper context

Christians interpret the OT through the NT, so if the NT doesn't reiterate a OT principle in the NT we don't carry it over. That being generally said, it is important to note that in the Pentateuch there are moral laws (eg 10 commandments), ceremonial laws (for sacrificial system) and the federal law (to govern the Israelites). With the exception of the Sabbath, all the moral law is repeated in the NT and we follow it. The ceremonial law was done away with as Christ is the once and for all sacrifice and the federal law doesn't apply to any of us now because we don't live in pre-first century theocratic Israel. However Christians study these abrogated laws to understand the character of God but we don't practice them.

1) Capital punishment is determine by a country. In the sovereign nation of Israel (not the Israel of today) disobedient (stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous, drunkard) sons (not daughters, no "boys can be boys") could have an accusation of disobedience been made by their parents, given due course before judges along with an investigation and if found guilty, executed. We have no case of such on record in the Bible. Nevertheless this served to maintain discipline society can curb errant males in a home from rising up against the first authority structure they encounter which is their parents. This would redound maintenance of civil disobedience against national authority structure, what we execute people for today.
As said in the preamble this was federal Israeli law, not Christian moral law. While the moral principle of capital punishment for murder precedes the federal law (Genesis 9:6) Christians can support capital punishment for murder (Romans 13:1-7). Today the US and T&T have capital punishment for murder and treason. However the US also has it for spying, terrorism, aggravated rape, extortionate kidnapping, armed robbery and varying others all determined by state. Who is to determine what is morally correct execute someone for? I have a moral basis as a Christian, an atheist only has a subjective preference.

2)I think you are being honest about you light reading of the Bible because your conclusions are evident. The Bible gives only one context for sexual intimacy, that is within the context of marriage between a male and a female (Genesis 1:28, 1 Corinthians 7:2-3). It never lets 'boys be boys'. In fact Jesus magnifies the 7th commandment makes lust (thinking about committing a sexual sin) equatable to adultery (Matthew 5:27-30), not very easy for men not to do.
You said that there is no verse prohibiting rape, yet if you read the verses preceding the one you referenced, it pronounces the death penalty on the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) . Again you need to consider the historical context of federal Israel and it's law, one principle of which is restitution. When a virgin was raped she was now defiled and no one would marry her. If her rapist was executed this would not solve her situation. The requirement of her rapist to marry her was to restore her dignity and give her a husband who must be loyal and faithful to her and could not divorce her. Furthermore, the rapist was required to pay her family a considerable sum for being force to enter her daughter into this relationship and it would be a deterrent for any man to acquire a wife by this way. Conversely, if he had got a wife the customary way, he would have received a dowry, but now he is in the red
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is not punishment for a rape victim, it is punishment for two consenting adulterers. It stops a woman of having a complicit sexual encounter then when discovered claiming it was rape (á la Joseph and Potiphar's wife). If she found was complicit in the act then it wasn't rape.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not "the sex enslavement of captive" it is how to marry a woman out of the hostile nation you just defeated, the verse specific says "do not treat her as a slave." I have very good old friend who is a Vietnam veteran who met his wife in Vietnam, married her, brought her back to the US and now they are retired with 3 adult children, was that sexual enslavement?
We now have a social net to care for rape victims (thanks Christianity) and the custom or dowries is not practiced in the West. But again I ask why is rape wrong for the atheist? Doesn't the strong survive? Aren't we all just animals?

3)This just a rehash of 1) just that you mischaracterize capital punishment from a sovereign nation as murder. To reiterate different countries have different convictions requiring capital punishment. It is simplistic for you as a 21st century citizen to look back and scoff at what was real threats for their society in the same manner that we today see the need for capital punishment for the use of a weapon of mass destruction because they probably couldn't conceive of such a weapon
Furthermore with that potshot about gays, nothing in Christianity calls for the persecution of gays. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 lists homosexuality along with adultery, drunkardness and theft as all being condemnatory. People conveniently use the Bible for their actions, however their actions are inconsistent with its teachings and the Bible doesn't promote what they are doing.

4)

I see that we have some consensus here. Slavery was a major contributing factor to the workforce of ancient times (even as you quote from Exodus, laws for the slavery for people, who Jews themselves were slaves just a few years before). But I hope you don't fall into the fault of other cursory viewers of Scripture and not acknowledge the hermeneutic of progressive revelation. While slavery had it place in the Old Testament laws to those people, at that time, the New Testament affirms the inherent worth of man created in the image of God and ideas of God honouring work and free will of man. So later men like William Wilberforce, enlighten by his Christian faith, was the main proponent of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=6880796#p6880796

Christians did not bring slavery to the Western World. Slavery existed prior to Christianity and was present in almost every society during the ancient nation of Israel. Furthermore, slavery existed among the Native Americans long before the start of the West African slave trade.

When we think of slavery we think of the miniseries Roots and whips and oppression, but that was not always the case. As you reference before of a harsher society back then, with no social net and a likelihood of starvation, people willingly entered servitude for a food, shelter and safety. Also as a means to paying off a debt, people entered slavery. The Bible outlined principles for the Jews not to oppress these slaves (more like indentured workers) in releasing them after 6 years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12), opposing violence against them (Exodus 21:20), a severance when freed (Deuteronomy 15:14) to name a few. If there were Christians who not understanding the clear principle laid out in the OT of responsible slave ownership, oppressed their slaves, they were wrong, and many Christians spoke out against it. Again, it was Christian parliamentarians like William Wilberforce who made it his life's goal to eliminate slavery from the British Empire with direct reference to the Bible. Thank God he succeeded.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=7001085#p7001085

When contemporaries like us hear slavery we relate it to the West African Slave Trade. But slavery of 1 st century was more like indentured labour where poor people lived in a society without a social net. Becoming a slave was a means to get a job, home and food or to pay off a financial debt. Among the Jews, slavery was not abusive and there were avenues of freedom.

The West African Slave Trade was theft of people, abusive and there little to no avenues of freedom. The Christians rose up and decried it as wrong, there was nothing in the Bible supporting the West African Slave Trade. Darwinists supported it by claiming that Africans were lesser evolved hominids but gratefully the Christian influence won over European governments.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=7073497#p7073497

If you want a Bible verse against slavery you will not find any because your conception of slavery and the Bible reality of a willing temporary indentures hip are two different things. However you will find my prohibition verses to your conception of slavery and verses that the abolitionist movement used. For example West African slave traders took ppl under duress. This is man-stealing, a violation of the 8th commandment. Why is slavery wrong for the atheist? Doesn't the strong survive?


So to wrap up the Old Testament Law were for a ppl at that time and that place, it is no binding resolution for any of us today. God's moral law reemphasized in Christian is binding for all men whether they hear from a preacher or their own conscience proves it to be true.




You and others keep referencing equal rights, empathy and reason. Where do you get these standards for equal rights, empathy and reason? I am sure China would say they are operating with equal rights, empathy and reason, are they violating that standard? Please answer.

[Slartibartfast]

Holy crap Habit! You clearly didn't read any of my posts. I quoted you asking that exact question (word for word) two posts ago as well as my answer for it. I guess you are ignoring my questions again because you think that I am trolling for some reason, which is not the case.

I even put the main points in bold in case you just want to breeze through. You also ignored all of my other questions and statements, which is really funny and you accused others of doing the same.

[Habit7]

Hold your horses Slartibartfast, I haven't evolved to other hands yet.

Fair enough. But if the bible still can't influence someone's actions, what is the point of using it.

This was in reply to you correcting me on something the bible said. I asked this multiple times but you never answered.

I never said the Bible can't influence one's actions. In fact quite the opposite, I say the Bible has influenced the actions of those who have come to faith in Christ and use it as their moral basis. If they fail to do so the Bible allows for forgiveness and restoration. If they continue fail to live a live consistent with the Bible the Bible warns them that to be careful that they are a false convert, because true convert consistent grow in their walk according to the word of God

So please stop calling all atheists the same when I do not call all theists the same. This is a big misconception you have.

Just quoted this because you ignored this completely when making your reply... multiple times.

I ignored this because it is ridiculous. You can define what atheism is but I shouldn't refer to the people you just defined? Then what the point of this discussion?

But as long as we are in the realm of man, men should not be allowed to rule with absolutes because man is not perfect and (as shown by history) can use it as justification for evil deeds.

My argument about why men in power should not use the word of God as their moral compass.

Is what you saying absolute?

Now you may jump back "what about murder?" For which I would reply that if you follow the guidelines of empathy and reason, for some morals, you will come to the same exact answer and it will therefore be as permanent as an absolute moral. Murder is one of them. But things like heresy, LGBT rights and respecting ones elders (even if are a child molesting murderer) that were once seen as moral can be challenged. And then it can be decided that "You know what, heresy isn't that serious of a problem to execute someone over" or "Maybe what other people do in their own beds in no business of mine" or "Maybe I should tell my kids stay away from that creepy guy and not do anything he tells them to do".

This is where I showed that some morals can be so well established through reason and empathy that they can become so "set in stone" that they will for all intents and purposes considered absolute. I then show the pros of having a morality that can be challenged. I never got a reply to this either.

Where are these guildlines of empathy and reason? Nazi Germany saw it fit to practice empathy in killing the lame and reason in practicing eugenics. You keep referring to those things as the same for everyone, at all times, they are not. They are subjective.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok. So if the morals in the bible are absolute but the influence is not absolute which brings me back to the question of "why bother with the bible in particular". What is the point.

Atheist is the opposite to theist. It is not the opposite to Christianity. Simple English. You know better but you ignore this because your arguments break down otherwise.

Also note how nazi Germany corrected itself. Did it do se with the use of Christianity?

[Habit7]

On the topic of morals, what I was trying to get at before the establishment of the various religions is that even if the Muslim Hindu and Christian religion was created or not there would have been a collective agreement on the customs and ways on how everyone should live there life. There is no bible Koran or gita accessible to some remote tribes that have not made contact with the external world. Yet these folks do not gravitate to leader worship.

Romans 2:1-5
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Roman 2:12-16
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

For those religions without the true revelation of God within the Bible, God has given them a conscience no matter how skewed. God will judge them according to their conscience.

Beliefs or lack of belief is not more important than human rights and preservation of the environment. This is an area where religion has failed. Empathy and reason can bring forth these ideals. Human rights have been trampled upon in the name of religion.

If religion has failed in this area, does atheism inherently succeed in that? What defines human rights? What defines empathy? What defines reason? Why are they all applicable to all men everywhere?

[MG Man]

*waits to post on page 666*

[Slartibartfast]

On mobile right now. I will reply fully this afternoon. But Habit you have to step up your game. You replies have been worse than usual lately

[Habit7]

If the influence was absolute then we would be robots, it is your choice to acquiesce to the teaching of the Bible, no state atheism or church here.

I don't even know what you are talking about there. People who "lack belief in God" or deny the existence of God are called atheists, I will refer to them as such.

In the West, Western Europe highlighted the moral perversions of the regime in order to drum up support for a united front against them. They were defeated and sane western morality was adopted again by them. In the East the moral argument worked but as that Germany was invading the Soviet Union, the resistance on both front crushed the Germans.

[bluesclues]

Blues clues Abraham was a slave trader sheit, I thought that u were one of the heavy hitters on this site haha

aahh but he didnt enslave those who lived a life in reverance to God. and any slave who called out to God was eventually set free. same happened in our time with the abolition of slavery. when the african slaves accepted Christianity and the teachings of freedom that it taught they were set free. lower mentalities are enslaved because if they arent they will wreak havoc and do what they want. traits like envy, lust and greed for materialism at any cost are traits of lower mentalities. they are slaves to these things first before they are a slave to anyone else. cutting foreskin was because of lust in the people. it was a deterrent from masturbation. God always has and has always had a reason and a purpose for his instructions and changing them as well when the purpose is fulfilled.

[bluesclues]

next video

[Slartibartfast]

I don't even know what you are talking about there. People who "lack belief in God" or deny the existence of God are called atheists, I will refer to them as such.

I have no problem with this as long as you also argue that all people who possess a belief in God are called theists. But for some reason the concept of atheism vs theism is ridiculous to you.

What you are doing is arguing theistic following against atheistic following. But there is no argument there as I don't agree with all atheistic following just like you don't agree with all theistic following.

[Habit7]

Slartibartfast...

I am not defending theism, I am defending Christianity and it's morality.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=18150#p8177249

[Slartibartfast]

So you are defending a belief in anything else, just like I am not defending a belief in anything else.

I am arguing that Christianity is not needed. I am also arguing that it does not make sense to use it as a moral absolute.

I'm not defending Nazism or anything else. Please let me know if you understand what I am saying.

There are still a lot of points I raised that you failed to answer. To me this is just a cheap sidestep from the actual issues.

[Habit7]

So you are defending a belief in anything else, just like I am not defending a belief in anything else.

I am arguing that Christianity is not needed. I am also arguing that it does not make sense to use it as a moral absolute.

I'm not defending Nazism or anything else. Please let me know if you understand what I am saying.

There are still a lot of points I raised that you failed to answer. To me this is just a cheap sidestep from the actual issues.

K

[Slartibartfast]

Lol

So you ready to actually answer my questions now?

[Xeno Greycross]

Habit7 i knew u wouldn't disappoint, u should see the wide smile on my face you've given me so much to pick apart. from my first reading it would seem your main rebuttal is to try to separate the laws/moral laws (because u know morality is laws) given to humans and the jews from the punishments of breaking those laws. the most major flaw in your argument is that it's mainly from other apologetics and has been sitting on internet for decades.

Firstly as we continue to discuss the question of morality, I see that you have further elaborated with a surface view of the Bible. However you are making some presumptions without proving them true. Why is capital punishment of children, rape, murder and slavery wrong or even a moral conundrum? In our Western society with our laws directly influenced by Bible, we have come to see the aforementioned as immoral but does the same Bible condone them? So the two major question are:
Why are they wrong?
Does the Bible condone them?

i have already rooted out your first fallacy and it would seem that u have built on it throughout your rehashed apologetic rebuttal

Capital punishment:-Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual enforcement is an execution.
Are the punishments that are mandated in the bible made by man...no
are they made by a group of men...no
according to the bible these punishments are mandated by the divine himself (Aka Yahweh)
this is something u christians not muslims try to do all the time everytime u find something icky u try to shift the blame to man
stoning disobedient children, stoning rape victims that didn't cry out loud enough in the city, stoning gays, witches, people that disobey the preist; were these mandated by moses, joshua, king david, king solomon, the preisthood at any point in time according to the bible??? not one of these punishments were established by men all of these punishments were according to the bible established by Yahweh, these are not capital punishments these are divine punishments (i've already stripped your fallacy bare but i'll continue because u made an excellent 'funny' below that i really want to take a poke at )
these are divine punishments Established by Yahweh:
here's an excellent example

Numbers 15:32 32 (NAB) Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in [a]custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him [c]to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Did moses and arron convene with themselves about what to do with the man and then carry it out...no and if they did that would have been capital punishment-established by man
but what did they do, they asked yahweh, and he said to put the man to death this habit 7 is divine punishment and u calling it any less is Blasphemy and u should find yourself down to the nearest stoning booth and off yourself

Allow me to quote my preamble so we can get a proper context
Christians interpret the OT through the NT, so if the NT doesn't reiterate a OT principle in the NT we don't carry it over. That being generally said, it is important to note that in the Pentateuch there are moral laws (eg 10 commandments), ceremonial laws (for sacrificial system) and the federal law (to govern the Israelites). With the exception of the Sabbath, all the moral law is repeated in the NT and we follow it. The ceremonial law was done away with as Christ is the once and for all sacrifice and the federal law doesn't apply to any of us now because we don't live in pre-first century theocratic Israel. However Christians study these abrogated laws to understand the character of God but we don't practice them.

Was no such thing as federal law as i have demonstrated above, these edicts were established by Yahweh not men as i have clearly demonstrated above
/With the exception of the Sabbath, all the moral law is repeated in the NT and we follow it/
No explanation as to why u don't follow it. How bout that one's just ridiculous and we don't have time to waste on that sheit.
/the federal law doesn't apply to any of us now because we don't live in pre-first century theocratic Israel/ so apparently yahweh's edicts for the punishments of breaking his divine laws are confined to a small patch of desert, in a small time-frame, to a little amount of people

1) Capital punishment is determine by a country. In the sovereign nation of Israel (not the Israel of today) disobedient (stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous, drunkard) sons (not daughters, no "boys can be boys") could have an accusation of disobedience been made by their parents, given due course before judges along with an investigation and if found guilty, executed. We have no case of such on record in the Bible. Nevertheless this served to maintain discipline society can curb errant males in a home from rising up against the first authority structure they encounter which is their parents. This would redound maintenance of civil disobedience against national authority structure, what we execute people for today.
As said in the preamble this was federal Israeli law, not Christian moral law. While the moral principle of capital punishment for murder precedes the federal law (Genesis 9:6) Christians can support capital punishment for murder (Romans 13:1-7). Today the US and T&T have capital punishment for murder and treason. However the US also has it for spying, terrorism, aggravated rape, extortionate kidnapping, armed robbery and varying others all determined by state. Who is to determine what is morally correct execute someone for? I have a moral basis as a Christian, an atheist only has a subjective preference.

*girly white girl voice* this was capital punishment, isreali federal law hahahah.
No it ain't u copied and pasted some elses strawman argument and presented it to me with your head held high.
how did it feel beating that capital strawman argument made ya feel real bada$$ huh, bet u was like ' we got em now godless heathen, we have the monopoly on morality because we subscribe to an almighty bada$$ that can quish us at point in time, whatever the almighty bada$$ says, goes'
hhahahaha
u are a christian and u do have a moral basis, and that basis is a fictitious, sexist pro-slavery, bloody thirsty, baby-slaughtering desert monster made up by a bunch of desert slave traders that wanted justify their savagery nothing more nothing less.

i am a thinking empathetic homosapien my moral basis is simply to think carefully for myself about what might be the best way to live, my approach means i always have to be empathetic (put yourself in someone elses shoes), and think about the effects of my choices on the happiness or suffering of the people or other animals concerned.i have to respect the rights and wishes of those involved trying to find to kindest course of action or the option that will do the least harm.
I have to carefully consider the particular situation i find myself in not just take some commandment for granted.
i have to weigh up the evidence available to me about what the probable consequences of my actions will be- this is based solely on reason, experience, empathy and respect for others (i don't really practice it much though as i don't find myself in these extraneous moral situations)
it might sound hard to u(thinking),but u have been using and are currently using this method to live your life.

/I have a moral basis as a Christian, an atheist only has a subjective preference/
your argument is basically your morals are valid/more valid than mine because it comes from an all powerful sentient entity, u can't even prove this, or provide the slightest bit of evidence to support this but u will however assert it is as fact, and that's the problem right there instead of providing evidence of god, assert it as fact and and the stupid people will follow assert objective morality is better than subjective and hold head high, instead of providing an argument for it.
While i attack your basis for morality( your book of fairy tales) u simply assert that my basis is invalid because it doesn't have X god in it, well the basis for my morality is the paragraph above, why don't u have at it.

instead of providing an argument for why objective morality is better than subjective morality u simply assert that it is and expect me to take it lying down, this is not a church everything will be questioned.
we currently eat plants and animals for nutrients in the future when we are capable to synthesize our own food i hope we have the common sense to out law animal food and find simply the thought of eating another lifeform revolting. -subjective morality, i bet if u were on a bed for 5 years conscious of every painful, mind numbingly monotonous moment u wouldn't want any objectivist responsible for your care.-arguments for subjective morality, not assertions.

some of the worst evils(a descriptive word not some malignant force out to get ya) have been perpetrated by those who think they have objective morality aka divine permission slip on there side the suicide bombing community are objectivist they ' know ' their actions are just.
the genitalia mutilation community entirely objectivist they also 'know ' their actions are just
the christian slave traders that enslaved my ancestors and forced millions to convert to their religion resulting in the systematic brain washing of their children (i'm talking about u) they were objectivist
u can find many of their writings venerating an 'objective' word of god as to why the institution of slavery was 'divinely sanctioned'.
the persecutors of gays are objectivist gay people have had the worst most inhumane treatment because an 'objective' word of god calls them abominations
-arguments against objective morality, not assertions.

2)I think you are being honest about you light reading of the Bible because your conclusions are evident. The Bible gives only one context for sexual intimacy, that is within the context of marriage between a male and a female (Genesis 1:28, 1 Corinthians 7:2-3). It never lets 'boys be boys'. In fact Jesus magnifies the 7th commandment makes lust (thinking about committing a sexual sin) equatable to adultery (Matthew 5:27-30), not very easy for men not to do.
You said that there is no verse prohibiting rape, yet if you read the verses preceding the one you referenced, it pronounces the death penalty on the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) . Again you need to consider the historical context of federal Israel and it's law, one principle of which is restitution. When a virgin was raped she was now defiled and no one would marry her. If her rapist was executed this would not solve her situation. The requirement of her rapist to marry her was to restore her dignity and give her a husband who must be loyal and faithful to her and could not divorce her. Furthermore, the rapist was required to pay her family a considerable sum for being force to enter her daughter into this relationship and it would be a deterrent for any man to acquire a wife by this way. Conversely, if he had got a wife the customary way, he would have received a dowry, but now he is in the red
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is not punishment for a rape victim, it is punishment for two consenting adulterers. It stops a woman of having a complicit sexual encounter then when discovered claiming it was rape (á la Joseph and Potiphar's wife). If she found was complicit in the act then it wasn't rape.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not "the sex enslavement of captive" it is how to marry a woman out of the hostile nation you just defeated, the verse specific says "do not treat her as a slave." I have very good old friend who is a Vietnam veteran who met his wife in Vietnam, married her, brought her back to the US and now they are retired with 3 adult children, was that sexual enslavement?
We now have a social net to care for rape victims (thanks Christianity) and the custom or dowries is not practiced in the West. But again I ask why is rape wrong for the atheist? Doesn't the strong survive? Aren't we all just animals?

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) so god made a law that would have a rape victim marry their rapist and your disgusting justification for this is society,this is god here passing out laws to moses why didn't he simply change the societal laws and customs so that women could be independent and not have to marry their rapist in Persia at that time women were respected warriors, farmers, herders not second class citizens ever dependent on their male counter parts. This is the best your god can do, utter failure,... failure.
This divine edict most likely cause the rape victims unimaginable mental and physical suffering something that religious people never seem to account for or seem to be concerned with


(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) calls for the stoning of the rapist and the rape victim and it presumes that the rape victim was bloody enjoying it because she didn't cry out(the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help), because u know putting a knife to someones throat and threatening them isn't even considered

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the analogy u compared this too is utterly shameful, imagine if u will little virgin girls (because that's the only kind they took) captive, terrified, just witnessed the slaughter of their fathers mothers, and brothers even infants, now they are forced upon nightly and during the day prepare food for the murderers of their relatives. your comparison was utterly reprehensible

/We now have a social net to care for rape victims (thanks Christianity)/ and provide no explanation as to how Christianity was responsible.Apparently it had nothing to do with some of us figuring out that marriage is a bond built on love, trust and choice and not some archaic view that women belong to men(10th commandment) or that women should be subservient to men (wives are to obey their husband in everything,Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:24))

/But again I ask why is rape wrong for the atheist? Doesn't the strong survive? Aren't we all just animals?/ refer to my paragraph on my moral basis. Also we are animals,your argument is basically because we a certain specific kinds of sentient lifeforms we should not concern our selves with the well being of our fellows, well that says oodles about your morality, without the eye of a divine watch man you'd go on a spree, without the promise of reward u won't concern yourself with the well being of others, or is it without the threat of eternal torture every thing goes for u.

3)This just a rehash of 1) just that you mischaracterize capital punishment from a sovereign nation as murder. To reiterate different countries have different convictions requiring capital punishment. It is simplistic for you as a 21st century citizen to look back and scoff at what was real threats for their society in the same manner that we today see the need for capital punishment for the use of a weapon of mass destruction because they probably couldn't conceive of such a weapon
Furthermore with that potshot about gays, nothing in Christianity calls for the persecution of gays. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 lists homosexuality along with adultery, drunkardness and theft as all being condemnatory. People conveniently use the Bible for their actions, however their actions are inconsistent with its teachings and the Bible doesn't promote what they are doing.

your capital punishment strawman bull that was actually divine edicts on how to deal with say sabbath breakers

4)

I see that we have some consensus here. Slavery was a major contributing factor to the workforce of ancient times (even as you quote from Exodus, laws for the slavery for people, who Jews themselves were slaves just a few years before). But I hope you don't fall into the fault of other cursory viewers of Scripture and not acknowledge the hermeneutic of progressive revelation. While slavery had it place in the Old Testament laws to those people, at that time, the New Testament affirms the inherent worth of man created in the image of God and ideas of God honouring work and free will of man. So later men like William Wilberforce, enlighten by his Christian faith, was the main proponent of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=6880796#p6880796

Christians did not bring slavery to the Western World. Slavery existed prior to Christianity and was present in almost every society during the ancient nation of Israel. Furthermore, slavery existed among the Native Americans long before the start of the West African slave trade.

christians justified the capture and the enslavement, using their 'objective' holy book just like what the muslims do.
have u ever heard the disgusting argument for slavery of cain or maybe of ham one goes like this ham's grandchild was cush, cush is in africa therefore we can enslave black people because god put a curse on them to be servants in the house of shem and jahphet

When we think of slavery we think of the miniseries Roots and whips and oppression, but that was not always the case. As you reference before of a harsher society back then, with no social net and a likelihood of starvation, people willingly entered servitude for a food, shelter and safety. Also as a means to paying off a debt, people entered slavery. [b]The Bible outlined principles for the Jews not to oppress these slaves (more like indentured workers) in releasing them after 6 years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12), opposing violence against them (Exodus 21:20), a severance when freed (Deuteronomy 15:14) to name a few. If there were Christians who not understanding the clear principle laid out in the OT of responsible slave ownership, oppressed their slaves, they were wrong, and many Christians spoke out against it. Again, it was Christian parliamentarians like William Wilberforce who made it his life's goal to eliminate slavery from the British Empire with direct reference to the Bible. Thank God he succeeded.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=7001085#p7001085

When contemporaries like us hear slavery we relate it to the West African Slave Trade. But slavery of 1 st century was more like indentured labour where poor people lived in a society without a social net. Becoming a slave was a means to get a job, home and food or to pay off a financial debt. Among the Jews, slavery was not abusive and there were avenues of freedom.

the slave traders used to compare the abolitionist to godless atheist, southern babtist churches would excommunicate people that sided with the abolitionist
look at me i can find an abolitionist that was a christian, 100 points for me -habit 7
i can find 10 pro slavery Christians with ease but i'm not going to do that(that was so last comment ago lol)
on the abolitionist side u had christians, Unitarians (god is one an everyone goes to heaven), quakers, atheist,deist, agnostics, godless liberals, scientists (like darwin- creation myth debunker), there was a wide variety of religions and lack of religions.
on the pro-slavery side let's see we had a bunch of carpenter worshipers, just like u, no atheist, deist, agnostic, Unitarian or any thing of the sort just a bunch of bible thumping ignoramuses sound familiar habit-7

The West African Slave Trade was theft of people, abusive and there little to no avenues of freedom. The Christians rose up and decried it as wrong, there was nothing in the Bible supporting the West African Slave Trade. Darwinists supported it by claiming that Africans were lesser evolved hominids but gratefully the Christian influence won over European governments.

hahaha darwinst yeh there were Darwinist back then give me one quote from one Darwinist or someone that understood and accepted the theory of evolution within this 1858-1865 time period
origin of species published 1858
civil war about slaves 1861
abolishment of slavery 1865
i demand one quote (u wanna lie to my face) sourced it so that everyone on this forum can examine this claim

So to wrap up the Old Testament Law were for a ppl at that time and that place, it is no binding resolution for any of us today. God's moral law reemphasized in Christian is binding for all men whether they hear from a preacher or their own conscience proves it to be true.

So the wrap it up Yahweh commandments, edicts and divine punishment were confine to a small patch of desert, to a small time-frame to a minuet amount of people.
oh wow u just ended on whatever u think is right that's probably god talking to u in your head.
habit-7 does god talk to u in your head if so i advise u take medical precautions

You and others keep referencing equal rights, empathy and reason. [u]Where do you get these standards for equal rights, empathy and reason? I am sure China would say they are operating with equal rights, empathy and reason, are they violating that standard? Please answer.

reason- i am a sentient lifeform, reasoning skills is a definitive hallmark to identify whether or not a species has evolved the capacity to be place into the category of sentient

not all people experience empathy for a number of reasons, showing empathy is problematic for people with borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, or both. Those with BPD are so caught up in their own emotional tornados that your concerns get lost in the chaos. And lack of empathy is defining feature in people with NPD, similar to the way fear of abandonment is a hallmark of BPD

Empathy is the action of understanding, being sensitive to,experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another (putting oneself in another's shoes) how could empathy possibly come from somewhere other than u) its like asking where does thinking( the verb not the noun thought) come from empathy is a cascade and culmination of actions.
eg. brother just burnt his arm
me empathizing- 1.thinking about how painful experiencing that would be for myself
2.coming to the realization that it is very unpleasant
where does your god's influence enter the picture habit-7
step one or step two

standard for equal rights
equal rights same rights for myself and everyone else i really needed to tell u that one.
'all men are created equal" should've included women in that one maybe rape victims wouldn't have had to marry their rapist.
And another line of people were cursed by a 600 year old man that packed all the animals in a boat 2 by 2 by 2.
if u want to argue we wouldn't treat people equally if not for that verse, your an idiot

to close meh that'll do

[Xeno Greycross]

Blues clues Abraham was a slave trader sheit, I thought that u were one of the heavy hitters on this site haha

aahh but he didnt enslave those who lived a life in reverance to God. and any slave who called out to God was eventually set free. same happened in our time with the abolition of slavery. when the african slaves accepted Christianity and the teachings of freedom that it taught they were set free. lower mentalities are enslaved because if they arent they will wreak havoc and do what they want. traits like envy, lust and greed for materialism at any cost are traits of lower mentalities. they are slaves to these things first before they are a slave to anyone else. cutting foreskin was because of lust in the people. it was a deterrent from masturbation. God always has and has always had a reason and a purpose for his instructions and changing them as well when the purpose is fulfilled.

hahahah basic argument this guy use to treat the people he bought a little better
lol try again bluesclues(fyi i hated bluesclues almost as much as barney)

[Habit7]

I have discussed several topics here in this thread and others. There times I have strong agreement and strong discord. After I spent a considerable time of my morning writing a well coalesced response, I received nothing but an angry, abusive rant from you.

I hear your position but don't expect a response from me. We obviously have two different standards of empathy and reason.

[Xeno Greycross]

I have discussed several topics here in this thread and others. There times I have strong agreement and strong discord. After I spent a considerable time of my morning writing a well coalesced response, I received nothing but an angry, abusive rant from you.

I hear your position but don't expect a response from me. We obviously have two different standards of empathy and reason.

Yeh me ranting= me addressing every single one of your counter arguments u are a child

I address everyone of your points specifically, this is what u call a rant

[Slartibartfast]

Habit are you talking to me or Xeno, or both?