Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Had A Thought About Miracles And I Want Some Comments


Guest Valk0010

Recommended Posts

snip

 

You've mentioned that "murder" is wrong. So then, define murder. Is it killing of an innocent with intent?

 

Then answer these questions:

 

Is killing kids or babies wrong?

Can kids or babies be evil and deserve death?

Can fetuses deserve death?

Is abortion right or wrong?

 

If we look in the Bible and try to draw some conclusion, we'd end up with the idea that it's morally wrong to kill Christian babies, but it is morally right to kill non-Christian babies (enemies to God). In other words, your morality is subjective and relativistic.

 

Ps 137:9, "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

 

So how do you define "murder"?

Here is what OC said:

 

As I already pointed out all societies define some homicide as justified. The fact that humans rationalize some homicides as justifiable does not indicate that murder is not universally condemned. To demonstrate that murder was not universally condemned you would be required to find a society in which no murder was condemned. Such a society does not exist. They all condemn murder in some form for some human being. Therefore murder is a universally condemned act.

 

Murder is okay as long as one act of murder is condemned. Dashing babies wasn't one of those acts of murder that is condemned. But, it you were to drown them, that would be a different story. See?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • OrdinaryClay

    32

  • Shyone

    24

  • Snakefoot

    19

  • Ouroboros

    18

snip

 

From my perspective Hitler's killing of the Jews and other groups was evil. However from Hitler and company's point of view it was good. These peoples that they were killing were in their minds the evil doers. These peoples occupied places that Germans should occupy. These peoples were the Amalekites of his day. As a believer you quite likely view the killing of the Amalekites down to the last cow OK. If so this means you don't find Hitlers actions objectionable. You only find that his choice of people to exterminate was objectionable.

Chef, the whole post was great, but this paragraph really drills it home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is right to the point. All societies define some form of homicide as murder. Can you name any society that would not consider the random killing of a parent to be justified. Of course not. Even if you claim that geronticide is condoned in some society this does not mean that the prohibition of killing a parent for no reason is justified. It isn't. That specific behavior is universally condemned as immoral.

 

Again you haven't identified any objective quality to morality. That is you haven't identified anything that exists as a moral outside of human sensibilities. The killing of female parents for reasons of honor in some societies would not be murder, and would not be murder even in some biblical/christian societies.

 

In fact most killed adults are quite likely parents. The United States killed many parents in the war on Iraq, but few if any of those killings were considered murder by the United States, though I daresay many Iraqis considered these killings murder. I still think that you can't find any killing of any persons to be murder in all societies, or even in all Christian societies.

 

This does not mean that all societies don't have some definition of murder. However that does not make murder objective i.e. existing outside of the sensibilities of humans.

 

I will say that you have identified the best candidate for a possible objective moral, but you have not demonstrated it to be objective. You are going to have even more difficulty as you attempt to add other morals to your list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the OP...

 

:sing:

I agree that the dead

tend to stay dead

it's a shame

it's a shame

it has to be that way

there are many loves

I'd want to see some day

but the dead

still tend to stay dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is not whether Hitler thought it was good. Obviously he did. The question is whether you honestly believe that if Hitler had won the war and brainwashed everyone that what he did was moral if it was indeed moral. To believe it would be moral is a hideous thought in my mind. I believe rape is immoral no matter how many people were to tell me it was okay. It is a hideous violation of a human being.

You didn't address Chef's post at all. You just repeated what you've said before.

 

Here is the part of Chef's post I would like to see you address:

 

...These peoples were the Amalekites of his day. As a believer you quite likely view the killing of the Amalekites down to the last cow OK. If so this means you don't find Hitlers actions objectionable. You only find that his choice of people to exterminate was objectionable.

Was the killing of the Amalekites immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it does attack the source of morality. The dilemma claims morality is either independent of God(God is not needed) or an arbitrary whim of God's. These two choices are called the horns of the dilemma. The dilemma is broken by offering a third choice, which is that morality is part of God's nature. Gos is good. God is love. If God is good then it is not arbitrary or independent. Hence the dilemma is broken.

 

If you think that response even comes close to dealing with the issue you are not as smart as I thought you were.

 

Just assessing god as good by fiat does not deal with the basic problem of who is defining good. On this issue is where the dilemma gets is strength.

 

If god defines good, then calling god good is circular, if someone else defines good then right and wrong are outside his purview, saying "God IS good" is just rhetoric and is of no consequence to this argument at all.

 

You cannot prove god is good by saying "god is good" you might as well join the tautology club while you are at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valkyrie0010

What is the moral argument? I don't believe I've heard a well defined argument for why God is necessarily moral. If anyone has a link or would like to explain that would be great :).

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God. It can take the form of a Syllogism.

 

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

2) Objective moral values do exist

3) Therefore, God exists

 

Google "moral argument".

 

I think this would be a good example of how your second premise does not need the first

 

 

But also in general if there was truely objective values as I think you see them as, then why is it that there are different cultural views on things like killing, and thievery

All cultures believe murder is wrong. The only cultural difference is in the rational used to define who is "them". The fact that different cultures define some "other groups" as being justifiable to murder does not invalidate the universal agreement that murder is wrong.

I think we are in agreement that all culture have some concept where taking of anothers life is not allowed. But I think I needed to refine my point some for effectiveness.

Lets take a moral construct as a example

Say the judeochristian idea of morality.

Why is it that if there are objective moral values in the sense that I think your trying for that is more then the basics like don't like or murder (which videos like the one I recommended prove to be in us already), then cultures vary on what is moral. If what was objective in that sense then wouldnt we all model judeochristian morality

We can talk about specific moral values, but first I want to understand if you think objective moral values exist. IOW, do you believe that there are some moral truths which are objectively true?

yeah I do believe that morals are objective. I believe that these objections are not monotheistically specific. If I could sumerize it in a sentence or to. Do the least amount of harm, and allviete as much suffering as you can. And this is something that we are born with. it objective in the sense that it is something that culturally mandible, but you can't eliminate. Like I said, for example, murder is a crime in every culture in some form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All cultures believe murder is wrong.

 

No they don't. Get educated.

Your suggestion I get educated seems to imply you know of one that doesn't. Can you give an example?

 

Anthropology - look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All cultures believe murder is wrong.

 

No they don't. Get educated.

Your suggestion I get educated seems to imply you know of one that doesn't. Can you give an example?

 

Anthropology - look into it.

As noted above, OrdinaryClay would say that murder is immoral (or illegal?) killing, but the simple fact that killing given the same circumstances is moral for one group and immoral for another group makes the moral question realitive.

 

A good example is the pacifist (e.g. Quaker). For them, killing in war is immoral. For the Baptist, it is the highest moral value during time of war.

 

Ritual sacrifice would be another example. Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians and many cultures throughout history (some of which are mentioned in the Bible) allowed killing for ritual purposes which, of course, is immoral to another culture.

 

The controversy over the Death Penalty has already been mentioned, and this affects us all.

 

Honor killings have been mentioned.

 

So many examples of culturally approved killing that would be both immoral and illegal in another culture.

 

Each culture has some forms of killing that are moral, and others that are immoral. It is a real stretch to find the lowest common denominator across cultural lines and call that "objective morality."

 

I heard of an Episcopal priest that said it is acceptable unto the Lord to steal from large stores. You hear the same from a lot of shoplifters. Maybe there is some form of stealing that everyone could agree was immoral and/or illegal, but even that's a stretch. Consider taxes! (That's a libertarian thing...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah I do believe that morals are objective. I believe that these objections are not monotheistically specific. If I could sumerize it in a sentence or to. Do the least amount of harm, and allviete as much suffering as you can. And this is something that we are born with. it objective in the sense that it is something that culturally mandible, but you can't eliminate. Like I said, for example, murder is a crime in every culture in some form.

Thank you. I agree I think anyone who really searches their heart will realize that there are acts which are never morally acceptable no matter how many people say it is okay. Rape is always immoral even if every person in the wold said it was not.

 

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values? I believe these moral values are imputed to us as part of God's image. You have to be careful not to confuse how we got our moral apprehension with where the legitimacy of these morals comes from. IOW, I believe we acquired these values through evolution, but that what makes them truly valid is there objective existence.

 

If God does not truly exist then I can not see where these objective moral values could reside. If they just exist in our minds then they are subjective as many on here claim. I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ritual sacrifice would be another example. Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians and many cultures throughout history (some of which are mentioned in the Bible) allowed killing for ritual purposes which, of course, is immoral to another culture.

 

 

In fact I was able to tour some of the Mayan ruins in Honduras and heard from our guide how the Mayan men played this game which involved tallying points with a ball at the opponents' end of the field, and the high scorer would be the sacrifice - the men played their hardest to be that sacrifice because it was an honor. We were shown the pedestal that the man's heart would be cut out on, with troughs for the blood to run down. Not seen as murder, not seen as immoral. Morality is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

Don't you wish.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animals don't rape, murder or steal.

 

Don't they?

Well, Jesus H. Christ, of course they do. Animals are very clever and will steal from humans and each other even though they "know" it's wrong. Chimps kill each other at times, other animals fight to the death, and they aure do kill other species. But, I suppose that's different...?

 

Animals sexual behavior, including rape, is very interesting.

 

Here's one example: A notable example is bottlenose dolphins, where at times, a pod of bachelor males will 'corner' a female.[51] Furthermore, in a zoo where it is common practice to put newly captured dolphins in with dolphins who are established in their enclosures, other species of dolphin are never put in together with bottlenoses because the bottlenose dolphins frequently torment and rape them.

 

Studies by these sociobiologists indicate that it is an evolutionary strategy for certain males who lack the ability to persuade the female by non-violent means to pass on their genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ritual sacrifice would be another example. Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians and many cultures throughout history (some of which are mentioned in the Bible) allowed killing for ritual purposes which, of course, is immoral to another culture.

 

 

In fact I was able to tour some of the Mayan ruins in Honduras and heard from our guide how the Mayan men played this game which involved tallying points with a ball at the opponents' end of the field, and the high scorer would be the sacrifice - the men played their hardest to be that sacrifice because it was an honor. We were shown the pedestal that the man's heart would be cut out on, with troughs for the blood to run down. Not seen as murder, not seen as immoral. Morality is subjective.

I've been there too! Well, El Salvador and the Yucatan peninsula, but still - same game, same "consequences".

 

My understanding was that the losers all got killed, but maybe that's a cultural difference between the eastern Mayans and the western Mayans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values? I believe these moral values are imputed to us as part of God's image. You have to be careful not to confuse how we got our moral apprehension with where the legitimacy of these morals comes from. IOW, I believe we acquired these values through evolution, but that what makes them truly valid is there objective existence.

Consider the following scenarios. A teenage female elephant nursing an injured leg is knocked over by a rambunctious hormone-laden teenage male. An older female sees this happen, chases the male away, and goes back to the younger female and touches her sore leg with her trunk.

 

Eleven elephants rescue a group of captive antelope in KwaZula-Natal; the matriarch elephant undoes all of the latches on the gates of the enclosure with her trunk and lets the gate swing open so the antelope can escape.

 

A rat in a cage refuses to push a lever for food when it sees that another rat receives an electric shock as a result. A male Diana monkey who learned to insert a token into a slot to obtain food helps a female who can't get the hang of the trick, inserting the token for her and allowing her to eat the food reward.

 

Animals are incredibly adept social actors: they form intricate networks of relationships and live by rules of conduct that maintain social balance, or what we call social homeostasis. Humans should be proud of their citizenship in the animal kingdom. We're not the sole occupants of the moral arena.

 

Do animals have a sense of morality? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been there too! Well, El Salvador and the Yucatan peninsula, but still - same game, same "consequences".

 

My understanding was that the losers all got killed, but maybe that's a cultural difference between the eastern Mayans and the western Mayans.

Depends when you went. They don't truly understand the game. They thought that the losers had been offered as sacrifice but the current thinking is the winners were offered up. When I was down there in 2005 this was the thinking and I had the understanding that it was the losers that were killed prior to this. I'm not entirely sure this issue has been settled yet (though I think they still lean to the winners getting offed).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the whole point of morality vs immorality is that we are both social animals and a species able to use our skills of reason and logic. "Not killing" is good when applied to members of our community, and "killing" is good when it protects our community - pure logic. I think morality should be viewed as a social skill and not a religious duty. All the confusion sets in when we view morality as something that should be handed to us by a higher authority (like God). Confusion disappears when we see morality as "never causing harm to my community or environment" and doing all we can for the protection and development of each other. It's also my view that teaching morality to children under the Christian banner has produced generations of morally cripple adults. I say we should keep "morality" and "religion" separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I agree I think anyone who really searches their heart will realize that there are acts which are never morally acceptable no matter how many people say it is okay. Rape is always immoral even if every person in the wold said it was not.

 

Bifurcation fallacy....again. I do not need an objective source for morality to claim that certain acts are never morally acceptable to me.

 

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values?

 

Except animals DO exhibit moral behavior, particularly animals which are highly social like us.

 

I believe these moral values are imputed to us as part of God's image. You have to be careful not to confuse how we got our moral apprehension with where the legitimacy of these morals comes from. IOW, I believe we acquired these values through evolution, but that what makes them truly valid is there objective existence.

 

I disagree.

 

If God does not truly exist then I can not see where these objective moral values could reside.

 

Now see here sir, I have already ripped this argument to shreds and back again. IF objective morals exist they most emphatically CANNOT exist within ANY mind, including the mind of god.

 

If they just exist in our minds then they are subjective as many on here claim.

 

How can you realize the subjective nature of ideas which exist in our minds and not realize the subjective nature of ideas which reside in gods mind?

 

I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

 

So would I, and yet I still believe ethics are subjective.

 

The question asked by others and still unanswered by you is Do you think gods command to commit genocide against those living in the promised land was immoral? If so then clearly god is not quite as "good" as you claim, if not....well then you are a hypocrite.

 

 

Here is a little thought exercise for you. Imagine the universe exists exactly as it does now, except without life of any kind in it. Everything that still exists in THAT universe is objective, everything that does not exist in THAT universe (minus the lifeforms) is subjective. Now show me where morality resides in THAT universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, Jesus H. Christ, of course they do. Animals are very clever and will steal from humans and each other even though they "know" it's wrong. Chimps kill each other at times, other animals fight to the death, and they aure do kill other species.

 

I vividly remember watching the series Trials of Life where a band of chimpanzees stalked another breed of monkey, caught it, and literally tore it limb from limb. Chimps were/are thought to be vegetarian, certainly don't need to kill other monkeys for food - this was a 'thrill kill,' pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animals don't rape, murder or steal.

 

You don't know dick about the natural world if you think this.

 

Ever watched cats sex it up? How about ferrets? Crickets? I haven't done a complete survey, but it seems fair to say that rape is the standard for sex throughout the natural world, at least among terrestrial animals (lots of fish and amphibians go about sexual reproduction a different way). Humans (and a few others) are the deviants, here.

 

Males of many, many species will murder the children of a female they're interested in so that she will come into heat sooner. Chimps go to war. Note that in neither case here are the murder victims killed for food - they're killed because they're a nuisance (from the perspective of the murderer).

 

As for stealing, there isn't an animal species alive that won't

from a rival given the chance.

 

Humans are different in many regards, here, because evolution has equipped us with brains powerful enough to realize that life sucks ass for the majority of us if we don't at least try to play nice.

 

They just act out of behavior.

 

wut? As it stands, that sentence doesn't make any sense.

 

Did you mean instinct? If so, guess what, you're still wrong. Some animals might act only out of instinct, but they'd be the fairly "primitive" ones. Most animals also benefit from this wonderful thing called learning which allows them to move past pure instinct (fixed, inherited behavior patterns) and actually think though problems.

 

For example, octupuses are surprisingly smart - smart enough to figure out how to

on a peanut butter jar to get at something tasty inside. This isn't instinctual; an octopus isn't born knowing how to open jars. Opening jars is something the octopus figured out through trial and error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a little thought exercise for you. Imagine the universe exists exactly as it does now, except without life of any kind in it. Everything that still exists in THAT universe is objective, everything that does not exist in THAT universe (minus the lifeforms) is subjective. Now show me where morality resides in THAT universe.

 

Brilliant - nicely put. Morality is only relevant when our actions or words affect those around us. Shouting a swear-word in the desert where no-one can hear you will have no affect, but you wouldn't use the same word in a conversation with your grandmother because she would be offended. Morality is always subjective, and as a highly developed social species we have the ability to make the correct moral choices without the interference of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dilemma is broken by offering a third choice, which is that morality is part of God's nature. Gos is good. God is love. If God is good then it is not arbitrary or independent. Hence the dilemma is broken.

 

When a concept like "love" or "goodness" is said to BE God or be his nature (which is immaterial), it becomes incoherent. "Love" and "goodness" become mere abstractions, with no connection to beings who would give them meaning. These beings (humans and certain other animals) are material beings which ARE the connection to the concepts that make them coherent. To equate "good" or "love" with any one being eliminates what the concept describes and is about. Goodness and love have to do with relationships between sentient beings. They describe how animals act towards one another. How can you describe God's nature, when God is immaterial and alone?

 

 

What Kuroikaze said is also vital:

 

Just assessing god as good by fiat does not deal with the basic problem of who is defining good. On this issue is where the dilemma gets is strength.

 

If god defines good, then calling god good is circular, if someone else defines good then right and wrong are outside his purview, saying "God IS good" is just rhetoric and is of no consequence to this argument at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On animals and morality, chimps, et al:

 

Animals have "biological morals" which are simply the instincts and biological barriers that prevent breeding outside its species, and other species survival behaviors.

 

Bonobo chimps and dolphin are the only animals other than man known to have sex for pleasure and not strictly procreation.

 

Chimps engage in organized hunts for colobus and other monkeys, which they eat. Chimps are true omnivore hunters, not just thrill killers. They have killed and eaten human infants, too.

 

ETA: Animals are not "intelligent" (oh, shit, here we go again), but their amazingly efficient instincts can appear as intelligence to anthropomorphic human observers. (Please do not respond with all the amazingly intelligent things you have seen your dog or cat do; it was not intelligence, reasoning, or "thinking" beyond the instinctive response or adaptation to stimuli. Read "the whale hunting tread" for answers.)

 

None of this is to imply that human intelligence is anything more than a unique form of evolution in our species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: Animals are not "intelligent" (oh, shit, here we go again), but their amazingly efficient instincts can appear as intelligence to anthropomorphic human observers. (Please do not respond with all the amazingly intelligent things you have seen your dog or cat do; it was not intelligence, reasoning, or "thinking" beyond the instinctive response or adaptation to stimuli. Read "the whale hunting tread" for answers.)

:HaHa: Sorry, but I have to disagree, and I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.