Open Discussion With Lnc

[Ouroboros]

LNC, I have to make something a little more clear about the stance of my view on morality, and I decided to quote Wiki on Ethical Subjectivism. I mentioned it before in an earlier post that this is where I'm leaning towards, and I want you to notice that it is compatible with even Divine Command Theory, which is more in your direction:

 

Ethical subjectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

 

Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

 

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.

2. Some such propositions are true.

3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.[1]

 

This makes ethical subjectivism a non-nihilist form of cognitivism. Ethical subjectivism stands in opposition to moral realism, which claims that moral propositions refer to objective facts, independent of human opinion; to error theory, which denies that any moral propositions are true in any sense; and to non-cognitivism, which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all.

 

The most common forms of ethical subjectivism are also forms of moral relativism; however there are also universalist forms of subjectivism such as ideal observer theory and divine command theory. Ethical subjectivism also includes, and sometimes refers specifically to, individualist ethical subjectivism.[2]

 

Ethical subjectivism is compatible with moral absolutism, in that an individual can hold certain of his moral precepts to apply regardless of circumstances.[3] Ethical subjectivism is also compatible with moral relativism when that is taken to mean the opposite of absolutism, that is, as the claim that moral precepts should be adjusted to circumstances.[4]

 

So understand this correctly, Moral Subjectivism is not what I call Vulgar Relativism, but it is not a system of Moral Absolutism either. It declare some or few moral precepts to be basic, and exactly which ones and why, how and from where is still something up for debate. My view, as you saw before, is that the primitive morals come from nature and the necessity of survival, fulfill needs, and fulfill pleasures, basically our ethics go from necessary or objective at the lower leves of Maslow's Pyramid of needs, and move upward in the pyramid toward pure subjective and even arbitrary rules. So the answer is: both.

 

The reason why I'm trying to clarify this now and not before is, I thought you understood what I said when I used the term "Subjectivism," but I see a lot of confusion going on here what "subjective" means in the ethical system. Therefore I thought it important to point this out.

 

And one more thing, I noticed the word "objective" has been used very loosely throughout the discussion, which also creates a lot of confusion. When I think of objective, I usually think of something that holds true for everything, everywhere, and always, which means, an absolute code of conduct, to me, applies to every species, being, creature, God, and not just one but not the other. But after our discussion about God's moral, and Adam's mDCT, and also your charge with "should morals apply to animals," shows that you really don't believe the "absolute" morals apply to every living being, but only to humans. This to me isn't really how I think of absolute, but I decided to adopt your definition (kind'a) above for your benefit.

[shantonu]

God created man in his own image, so whatever attributes Adam has, I guess God has too and infinitely. God has an infinite desire for a helpmate and an infinite susceptibility to arguments by snakes.

 

I don't think that you quite get the concept of what attributes are as you are confusing it with how an attribute may work itself out. I don't find the desire to find a helpmate an attribute; however, it is a subset of a larger attribute of being relational. Arguing is an outworking of two attributes, that of communication and of reason. Yes, God has the attributes of being relational, of being able to reason, and of being able to communicate; however, I am not sure what you mean when you say that God has these infinitely, that is imprecise language.

 

Blah, blah, blah. You're full of shit and you know it. You've refused to answer any question in a straightforward manner. Instead you've just talked in circles, answered questions with questions, demanded absolute precision of every term, nitpicked definitions, and used every delaying tactic to avoid the truth: you're scared to admit that God ordered genocide and genocide is immoral.

 

I can't force you to answer. All I can do is point out that you haven't debated honestly. You're going to win this debate, because I'm not going to waste my time with you. I just point out that you've won a hollow victory. Enjoy it if you can.

[shantonu]

The good thing about LNC is that he's embarrassed by his beliefs, which is why he won't tell us what they are. He'll do anything, try any delaying tactic, say literally anything under the sun to avoid having to confront the issue. That's a lot better than someone who proudly says that God can kill at will and make up any crazy ass rules he wants because he is God and human beings are worthless.

 

LNC, as frustrating as he is, actually is closer to the truth than most evangelicals.

 

Not at all. I openly proclaim that I believe in God. I also believe in objective morality as it finds its basis in God. What I don't find are many people here willing to openly come out and tell me whether your morality is objective or subjective in nature, or who can tell me on what basis they bring these charges against God. I am getting pretty frustrated by this as well. Why can't you just come out and plainly tell me? Once you have established that you have standing to make these charges I will be more than happy to discuss them with you, I have said that all along. I just need to know clearly and plainly that you have standing. I am not here to discuss your opinions.

 

But I am here to discuss your opinions, but you won't express them. Would you have followed the order in 1 Samuel 5:3 or not? It's a simple question. My opinion and "standing" has naught to do with the question. Just give me a simple yes or no. If you can't do that, then I won't waste my time talking to you because you will have proved yourself to be a coward.

[shantonu]

What do my beliefs have to do with the question. I'm asking about your beliefs. Would you have followed the order or not? That's really the issue. Of course you're allowed to give an answer you don't believe--as long as the answer makes sense, I don't care what you really believe.

 

And, no, I would not agree with your edit. Murder requires an intentional or depraved heart mens rea. Manslaughter isn't really murder. Second, innocence of the victim has nothing to do with murder. You can be found guilty of murdering Charles Manson. I hope you are not suggesting that "Thou Shalt Not Murder" only applies to innocent people. That's an execption that would swallow the rule.

 

Anyway, I now think I know where this is going. You will argue that, according to Scripture, no human being is innocent and God can kill each and every human being without moral taint--in fact, God does good by killing each human being because they are all worthless having sinned somewhat indirectly by virtue of Adam's fall. Thus Amalekite babies, be they every so innocent looking, are really depraved monsters worthy of death--not for anything the baby particularly did but for who the baby is, namely a human baby.

 

Okay, that's fine. It's not a very attractive view of God, but at least it's an answer. You seem very reluctant to come out and give this answer. Does this line of reasoning embarrass you? You shouldn't be ashamed of Scripture, if that's what you believe, great. Be bold and speak. The fact that it's not very appetizing shouldn't deter you from speaking the truth.

 

Your beliefs are very much in play in this conversation because: 1) you are the one asking the question and you seem to believe that you have standing to ask this question; and, 2) you are bringing indictment against God and you must have standing to bring such an indictment. That is why we are spending so much time on this question before delving into it. I want to make sure that you even have standing to make the charge before I will discuss the charge. So far, I have not been convinced that you do, and have actually been more convinced that you don't based upon what you have said thus far.

 

OK, so you would disagree with the U.S. legal system and wouldn't consider 2nd degree murder to actually be murder I assume. I also want to ask what you mean by a depraved heart as it seems to point to there being objective morality by which you are making such an observation. I am confused as to where you actually stand in this regard. Yes, a person can be found guilty of murdering Charles Manson because Charles Manson would be innocent in respect to that particular person. Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald after Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. Oswald was guilty of murder, but innocent in regard to Ruby, therefore, Ruby was guilty of murder. That is how innocence is defined technically.

 

I don't agree with your description of humans as worthless in God's eyes, he does not see us that way. In fact, the Bible has many wonderful things to say about man, and in fact, God, the Father thought so much of man that he was willing to sacrifice his son to come to earth and die at our hands so that our sin might be paid for.

 

So, no I have not answered your question, and in fact, my statement above probably brings more confusion to mind than answers. But, we won't get into that discussion yet until you can give me a reason for your bringing of the charge - you need to show that you have standing to do so. I would also caution you from putting words into my mouth, I am quite capable of bringing my own case when the time is right and don't need your help in this regard.

 

As to the bolded line above, no shit dude. You specialize in confusion and delay. I wish you were in court with me. I'd have you sanctioned for this type of bullshit. But since we're not in court, I can't make you answer. I can't make you be clear. I can't make you be a man. All I can do is point out your failings and how you are an embarrassment to thinking Christians everywhere. I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and I've been repaid with much of my valuable time wasted.

[Ouroboros]

Hans,

 

What you've described regarding ethical subjectivism is similar to ideas I've very recently discovered myself, and am exploring on my own, finding initial consonance with them. This kind of answer has only been offered by one other person in my life. It seems that most people's thinking on morality is all-or-nothing.

 

I feel isolated, but I want to learn. I appreciate what you've written here.

 

Cheers,

Phanta

You're welcome.

 

The problem I have seen is that philosophers only look at a very limited understanding of what science actually have discovered, so they commonly theorize in very categorical ways, which is not true to my personal understanding or opinion of how to use philosophy. I like the way Socrates was thinking, be critical of everything, and analyze, and improve, add on, don't stop, and don't become a black-and-white thinker. Truth isn't the "either-or", but a lot of times somewhere fluid in the gray.

 

On the other hand psychology, biology, and physics tend to have their limitations too, because it can't really tell where their discoveries can be used in practical terms. They declare some absolutes based on models and experiments, and yes, they can be used to build a better space rocket, better TV, heal a couple more sick, correct asocial behavior, and so on, but sometimes the knowledge of science and the knowledge of philosophy can and should meet.

 

And this has led me to view morality as a scale. It's not one side or the other, but has to be understood as a complex set of interacting parts. Reality and nature plays its part, while moral as a philosophical concept also play its part. But of some reason people only accept one or the other.

[Abiyoyo]

Well, if God is the protector of our country, then why do Christians like LNC make statements about how corrupt and ruined it is, and how much sin and evilness? If he's right, then America already lost its righteousness before God. On the other hand, USA is only a few hundred years old, compare that to the dynasties of Egypt and China which lasted much, much longer. I'm not sure Egypt had their long series of pharaohs as a result of Ra protecting them.

 

I think if LNC thinks our country is 'ruined' then he should try a missionary trip to Iraq. See how much better it is. Yes, the USA is only couple hundred years old, I was referring to it as a Democracy, under God, keeping civil rights, and established freedom of all people as a government.

 

I doubt they would be able to deploy troops fast enough. It would be easier for them to bomb us into oblivion, and then invade the desolate land, but then they would risk crashing the whole world economy and even alienate other countries. I doubt they would do it with traditional warfare.

 

I thought the same thing.

 

 

I'm more afraid of the presidential power in US being strengthened even more, and we suddenly get a crazy president who declare martial law and practically establish a dictatorship.

 

Thats basically what Hitler did? Right?

[Abiyoyo]

Btw, you still didn't answer the question. I said i cannot disprove god. Can you admit to not being able to prove god?

 

If I could gather everyone together for a minute.....I would like evreyone to see the Great, Magnificent, One, and Only, True, Everlasting, All Knowing, Omni-Everything, .........God of Israel, and Jesus Christ .............poof!!!!...........(Nothing)

 

 

He's not the bearded lady. I don't believe prove and God should be used in the same sentence.

[Ouroboros]

Thats basically what Hitler did? Right?

Yeah, I think so, and it scares me much more than a foreign power invading us. Hitler used God as an argument for his actions. "Got mit uns" doesn't mean, "let us all take care of each other," but it means "God is with us." Does it sound familiar?

 

And this is part of why I to some degree is outspoken about my view on religion, because lets say you have a president who gets elected because he is Christian, but then you start seeing these strict moral laws, and all Christians are happy, then you see how he takes over control and power, and declare it a Christian state, and then even more laws. Then you start seeing these strange laws you feel you can't agree with, like putting non-Christians, Muslims, Buddhists in prisons because they don't believe in Jesus. Then you start seeing your Church or denomination and other similar ones also get persecuted, because they are not the "True" Christian version in accordance with the president. Then you see even more Churches shut down because they're too liberal, or they allow gays, or they don't approve of baptism as part of the conversion. Would you want that kind of country? I definitely wouldn't, and I'm sure you wouldn't either if it happens to be that your particular church or belief wasn't matching the "approved" version.

[mwc]

You sound a bit post-modern in your thinking, do you consider yourself post-modern?

I wouldn't know where to begin to even have an opinion on this. I'll have to say "not applicable."

 

First, you parse my definition and in doing so build a straw man for yourself.

So the terms you chose weren't largely neutral? I chose to disagree. But if you like we can remove them from the neutral column and make them an issue. I don't feel this will actually make your case stronger but I don't wish to build a straw man.

 

Second, can you name anyone, besides yourself, who would consider evil to be an attribute that they would ascribe to the greatest possible being who is perfect in nature? No, people would say that evil is a sign of imperfection rather than an attribute of perfection.

You throw a lot of words together and assume you're defining something of value. At least that I should value. But you're not saying as much as you think you are.

 

So let us look at the word "perfect" and try to find where we're going wrong (I'll expedite just by stealing the summary from wikipedia on "perfect"):

One term, many concepts

 

The foregoing discussion shows that the term "perfection" has been used to designate a variety of concepts:

 

* The word "perfection" has a special meaning in mathematics, where it gives a proper name to certain numbers that demonstrate uncommon properties.

 

* In physics and chemistry, "perfection" designates a model — a conceptual construct for bodies that in reality do not precisely correspond to the model.

 

* Elsewhere the term "perfection" is used consistently with the word's etymology ("perfect" = "finished"). That is perfect which lacks nothing. This is how the term has been used in ontology (a perfect being), ethics (a perfect life) and medicine (perfect health). In these fields, the concept is understood variously as ideal model or as actual approximation to the model.

 

* Also called "perfect" is that which completely achieves its purpose. Christian Wolff gave examples from biology (perfect vision) and technology (a clock that runs neither slow nor fast). Here "perfection" is less fictitious model than actual approximation to the model.

 

* That is "perfect," which completely fulfills its functions. In social discourse, one speaks of a perfect artist, engineer or carpenter. The term is used similarly in art criticism, when speaking of perfect technique or of the perfect likeness of a portrait. Here again, "perfection" is either ideal model or approximate realization of the model.

 

* In aesthetics and art theory, perfection is ascribed to what is fully harmonious — to what is constructed in accordance with a single principle (e.g., the Parthenon, the Odyssey).[115]

 

Except for the first, mathematical sense, all these concepts of "perfection" show a kinship and oscillate between ideal and approximation.[116]

 

However, the expression "perfect" is also used colloquially as a superlative ("perfect idiot," "perfect scoundrel," "perfect storm"). Here perfectum is confused with excellens of an approving, admiring or condemnatory kind.[117]

 

Perfection has also been construed as that which is the best. In theology, when Descartes and Leibniz termed God "perfect," they had in mind something other than model; than that which lacks nothing; than that achieves its purpose; than that fulfills its functions; or than that is harmonious.[118]

And there we go. You seem to be only capable of speaking theology...and very old theology at that. As I pointed out. Perfection is related to an ideal (I use "ideal" but perhaps I should say "finish?"). You can have "perfection" in many ways and "evil" could very well be one of those ways. Open your eyes, and your mind, and you'll understand that you're the one limiting the scope of things here. Not me.

 

As far as I can tell when you use the word "perfect" you actually mean "omnibenevolent" which would indicate that your version of god is perfectly good and/or perfectly moral. The terms you used prior to this indicated no such thing.

 

Third, how is the concept of a greatest possible being in anyway relative? Are you implying that there can be a greater being than the greatest possible being?

How is the term "greatest" relative? Is this a serious question? It is, by its very nature, relative. Maybe this will help:

"In grammar the superlative of an adjective or adverb is the greatest form of adjective or adverb which indicates that something has some feature to a greater degree than anything it is being compared to in a given context."

You see? The suffix "est" is a superlative making the word "great" into a comparative. The "greatest" being now becomes relative by way of comparison. You did this. Now to what shall we compare this being with? There must be something so that we can know, for certain, that this being is the greatest of all beings. Until such a comparison can be made we cannot know. This statement is merely a baseless assertion. Perhaps, as you state, there is an even greater being. A more benevolent being waiting to be discovered or to reveal itself. If you wish to take comfort by stating that your book tells of a very powerful being. Perhaps the most powerful being TO DATE. Then that may be but we're discussing its morals and it seems to be lacking greatly in that area.

 

BTW, I am not the one who came up with the definition of God, that definition has been used for millennia by philosophers (both theists and non-theists) and theologians alike. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone attempt to make these arguments, that should tell you something.

Oh, I've read many definitions of god(s) by many people. There isn't just one. There never has been. It would be nice if there was because then we wouldn't have to hash one out here.

 

Let's just add a little bit. A very little bit to this. It goes way back to Epicurus:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.

2. There is evil in the world.

3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

This is such a problem that theologians have redefined all those nifty parameters that you supplied for your god to mean, not what they really mean, but to mean "what is possible." So, for example, omnipotence? Well, yeah, but within the realm of possibility. A god is omnipotent but it cannot do the illogical or the contradictory. And who defines "illogical?" Well, humans do of course. We must have a handle on logic then because we can understand why a god can't do the logically impossible. The lay-person still misuses the words but theologians sure don't. They stick to it. You can't have the type of god you wish to define. All gods must be limited.

 

The only way to "explain" this with the type of god you describe is simply "it is part of a mysterious and unexplainable plan" as per Calvin. A total cop-out and is utterly pathetic.

 

mwc

[mwc]

the USA ... a Democracy

You realize the USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, right?

 

Although we seem to be moving towards a democracy (which if you know what's good for you, you'll fight).

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

the USA ... a Democracy

You realize the USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, right?

 

Although we seem to be moving towards a democracy (which if you know what's good for you, you'll fight).

 

mwc

 

[centauri]

'centauri' prior:

It doesn't matter if I think they are objective or subjective.

What matters is your assertion that the Bible God doesn't condone immoral acts.

I'm just trying to establish your value system and the credibility of such an assertion on your part.

All the examples I listed above are directly related to your claim that immoral acts are not condoned in the Bible.

You can answer them by writing "moral" or "immoral" after each one.

Or you can choose to ignore them and proceed to make further assertions, but at that point I'll know you're more preacher than philosophical pundit.

 

It matters to me. You see, I don't want to get into a dispute over opinions.

 

I asked you some questions in order to establish what your moral system actually is.

These were the questions:

Do you regard abortion as a moral or immoral act if a wife is impregnated by someone other than her husband?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to kill someone if they work on the wrong day of the week?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to eat pork?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to place a lower monetary value on the lives of children, women, and the aged?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to make slaves out of war captives (of all ages) and subject them to forced labor?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to kill people if they fail to hold the "proper" beliefs?

 

Does objective morality regard these actions as moral or immoral?

If you deem your system to be merely opinion, then stop trying to drag "God" into it.

 

So, if morality is not grounded in objective reality, then that is all we would be doing is discussing our opinions.

 

You make various assertions about what you call "God".

From what I can gather, in your mind, your God is the source of objective morality.

All I asked you to do was define if some specific actions were moral or immoral according to this system.

Regarding the phrase objective reality , how does objective reality establish your version of God as existing and being accurate?

 

That doesn't accomplish anything meaningful as I already know your opinion and my opinion is worth no more than yours. I need to know the grounding for your morality to know whether your charges are even valid

 

I haven't made any charges yet.

All I asked you to do was to define whether or not some actions, which I listed above and earlier, are moral or immoral according to your system.

 

for if there is no objective morality, then you have no real charge, just a complaint with no basis in reality.

 

Straw man.

I haven't made any charges.

The reality is that you claimed the Bible does not condone immoral acts.

You made that assertion, along with many others, not me.

Before I can assess your claim, I need you to define what is moral or immoral in greater depth.

That's the purpose of the questions.

 

I did not call these things immoral.

 

I never said you did.

 

I said that there are immoral acts recorded in the Bible, like the selling of Joseph into slavery by his brothers, or David sleeping with another man's wife and then having that man killed. Those are examples of immoral acts recorded in the Bible.

 

You claimed that the Bible does not condone immoral acts.

I've asked you a few questions, requesting that you classify specific actions as moral or immoral according to the system you are endorsing.

 

But then again, I believe in objective morality as I believe that it is grounded in God. How about you, what is your basis? Or would you not claim that morality is objective?

 

Currently, I'm neutral on the basis.

I can't prove it one way or the other.

However, your basis could become my basis, if you can establish it as being actually grounded in objective reality.

But so far, you won't even provide a definition of what is moral or immoral with regard to the system you endorse.

 

Now, as for who is preaching, I believe you are the one accusing God of immorality and that sounds like preaching to me.

 

I haven't accused "God" of anything.

I've asked you to define some of the moral parameters that your system produces.

You made the assertion that the Bible does not condone immoral acts.

From what I can tell, you believe someone must be worthy before they can question your system or ask you to define its parameters.

If you consider your system and assertion to be beyond questioning, then this thread is reduced to being your soap box, where any assertion can be put forth as representing "objective reality".

[chefranden]

...Then you start seeing your Church or denomination and other similar ones also get persecuted, because they are not the "True" Christian version in accordance with the president...

 

God invented atheists to keep Christians from cutting one another's throats. If there is one thing a Christian hates after an atheist, it's another Christian with the wrong doctrine. By not letting this be a "Christian Nation" we protect them from themselves.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

I thought you guys assumed that God existed and wanted to prove that he was evil because of the accounts in the Bible......Really, what have been talking about is whether objective moral values exist, and whether they can exist if God doesn't. If humans are the only basis for morality, then your argument seems to be that objective moral values don't exist. Is that what you are arguing? I am just trying to be certain of what you are actually saying.

 

Now that you have stated this, I see what you were meaning specifically. I wasn't ever referring to objective moral values as the basis for morality, but objective beings as the SOURCE of morality, making life the basis of morality. Morality itself is subjective.

 

You believe that even without humans, morality exists because god exists. I disagree because god cannot be proven or disproven to exist. I don't see how you have proven his existence.

 

LNC,

You either ignored or missed this post, judging from your response in post #169, or misunderstood what I said. Again, the SOURCE of morality (humans and animals) can be objectively proven. These moral beings exist. Morality itself is subjective,i.e. they utilize a subjective morality.

[agnosticator]

Actually, I was arguing that the objective SOURCE of morality is humans (and animals), and as morality being innate. In order to prove morality originates from your version of god, you'd have to prove he exists. See a further explaination in my post below.

 

Man cannot be the source of objective morality as the morality would be sourced by the subject and therefore be subjective. Who is to say whose innate sense of morality is the right one as we all have differing understandings of what is moral. I don't have to prove that God exists for this argument. I am trying to establish whether objective morality does exist and saying that the only way it could is if God exists. You attempted to find an alternate explanation which didn't hold up to scrutiny, so we are back to square one and you are stuck with subjective morality in your current belief.

I agree that man is not the source of objective morality-see previous post. You misunderstood my posts.

[shantonu]

Actually, I was arguing that the objective SOURCE of morality is humans (and animals), and as morality being innate. In order to prove morality originates from your version of god, you'd have to prove he exists. See a further explaination in my post below.

 

Man cannot be the source of objective morality as the morality would be sourced by the subject and therefore be subjective. Who is to say whose innate sense of morality is the right one as we all have differing understandings of what is moral. I don't have to prove that God exists for this argument. I am trying to establish whether objective morality does exist and saying that the only way it could is if God exists. You attempted to find an alternate explanation which didn't hold up to scrutiny, so we are back to square one and you are stuck with subjective morality in your current belief.

I agree that man is not the source of objective morality-see previous post. You misunderstood my posts.

 

But here is where the two senses of the word 'objective' make for confusion. Mankind is responsibe for the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Laws. Both are objective laws. They weren't arbitary, they weren't subjective. So they are both objective in that sense.

 

Most people think the Nuremberg Laws were evil, while the other hand most people think the Geneva Convention to be good. But are they? Is this judgment correct? Perhaps the Nuremberg laws really were not bad. Perhaps the Geneva Convention is really unjust. We, today, think the opposite. But we might be wrong, or we might change our minds. Without objective standards, how do we really know? We might as well not have a conversation unless we first establish truly objective and timeless standards by which we will measure the question.

 

Right?

 

 

Ummmmm. . . no. This entire line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. There are two reasons why:

 

First: Of course we might change our minds. But that's always a problem with every endeavor into human thinking. If we were looking for something permanent in these affairs, we should just quit before we get started. But then we would be no closer to any understanding whatsoever.

 

Let's take a practical example to make this point clear: Shakespeare was not always considered a great writer. His contemporaries did not think him very special. Shortly after his death, most people did not recognize his genius. in the 19th Century, critics, esp. Coleridge, basically established Shakespeare's now towering reputation.

 

Well, just because there is no "objective" standard in the big sense, does that make it all subjective--and therefore not worth talking about it? Of course not. It's by talking about it that people develop a common understanding and begin to make educated judgments about things. That's the whole function of literary criticism. Those people in the Ivory Tower do quite a lot of bullshitting, but that does not make the entire process bullshit.

 

Second: what does LNC propose we do other than talk to each other? Let's say we want to find out whether the Geneva Convention is good or not. According to him, the only way to do that is to . . . . I don't know. Ask God? The quesiton will always come down to non-objective (in the big sense) arguments. So what? That's how everything works.

 

So for these two reasons--that ( a ) we can make progress towards understanding without "Objective" standards and ( b ) there is no other way to make progress--LNC's entire line of argument is exposed for the illusion and lame excuse it always was.

[Legion]

Please don’t mind me. I had a few more thoughts about morality and I thought I would give their expression a whirl. I still think that morality involves both subjective and objective components. I believe morality has a firm grounding in how things should be. But I also sense that it involves anticipation of how things will be, predictions, and perhaps of how things could be, an awareness of the potential that exists.

 

And I think that if our predictions are accurate then they involve some interplay between the inferences we draw (the activity of our subjective minds) and causality (the web of relations that characterizes the objective world).

 

But then again, maybe I’m way off base. If so, then carry on.

[agnosticator]

Yes, Shantonu, we don't need an objective morality to discuss and work out a usable morality. We are humans who experince different perspectives and experiences in our lives. I think we could attempt to form and utilize very basic set of "universal" morals. Appealing to god is just appealing to opinion, since it's impossible to know a god.

[Abiyoyo]

But I am here to discuss your opinions, but you won't express them. Would you have followed the order in 1 Samuel 5:3 or not? It's a simple question. My opinion and "standing" has naught to do with the question. Just give me a simple yes or no. If you can't do that, then I won't waste my time talking to you because you will have proved yourself to be a coward.

 

I Samuel 5:3? What order?

[Legion]

Uh, this is what I am reading for 1 Samuel 5:3…

 

“When the people of Ashdod rose early the next morning, Dagon was lying prone on the ground before the ark of the LORD. So they picked Dagon up and replaced him.”

 

Am I reading the wrong text? It doesn’t sound like an order to me.

[Justin]

You clearly just stay on apologetic sites don't you. Lets see, we have the stories of the flood and creation, that were copied from Babylonian myths. The mistranslation of the word "virgin" (it really says young woman) in the OT. The copyist errors describing how many chariots David had and soldiers and so on. The slaughter of the innocents in the gospels that nothing or anyone can validate. The references to a flat earth and the solid sky dome firmament covering it, and how the stars are merely placed up in it as tiny specks. Which is just what you would expect from the ancients all over the world who believed in such, which i had also already pointed out to you in the other thread. The entire thing reads as if it was created by people, the Israelites, for themselves. When you look at religion, most of them are this way. There never is a truelly worldwide god. It's always the god of a certain people, a certain region, a certain nation and so on. Which explains perfectly why the god in question only address's the people in question. Helping them out in battle and through tough times. When bad things happen, like a bad defeat in a war, they say it was because they disobeyed their god. It flat out screams being made up.

 

Well, that is clearly a false claim since I am on this site interacting with you isn't it. Now, can you tell me exactly which Babylonian myths those are and when the last extant manuscript is dated? Did you know that the word translated virgin can actually be translated virgin? In fact, did you know that the Jews who translated the OT into Greek for the LXX actually translated that word as virgin? These were Jews, not Christians and it was translated before Jesus' birth (between the 3rd and 1st century B.C.). How do copyist errors indicate that the Bible was made up? To say that we cannot validate something is an argument from silence, how does that make your case when so much in the NT has been validated? Where is the reference to the flat earth in the Bible and a solid dome covering it, or stars being actual tiny specks? How about the fact that these ancients knew that the universe was came from nothing, no other religious writing said that? You should actually read (or reread) the Bible to find out that you are wrong on these charges. You seem to be spending too much time on atheist apologetic websites.

 

Most christians have long since regarded the biblical account of the flood and creation as not being the first, even some biblical scholors i saw on a History Channel show some nights ago said that it wasn't the first. Some have proposed wild, fanciful theories as to why this is. Some say it was satan telling these Sumerians and Baylonians so as to mislead god's people. While some say it is just that regions account of the same event, only written earlier than the biblical account.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/floodorigins.html

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Flood

 

Creation: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/babylonian.html

 

Flat Earth, geocentric earth, and all that goes with it: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html

 

Pertaining to Stars, from biblicalnonsense.com

 

"God allegedly created the stars on the fourth day (16), but what were they, and what was their purpose? Biblical authors believed that stars were small sources of light contained within the imaginary firmament covering the earth. In other words, they exhibited no divine inspiration, whatsoever, telling them that stars were actually unfathomably enormous gaseous spheres seemingly countless miles away. In short, the authors’ celestial hypothesis was incorrect on location, number, and size. Verification for the location part of this position is quite easy to demonstrate. After God made the sun, moon, and stars, he “set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth” (17). So along with the sun and moon, the stars are apparently housed in this imaginary physical boundary separating the sky ocean from the open air above earth’s inhabitants.

 

The Bible also remarkably claims the outdated belief that stars were extremely small in size. After the disclosure of their location in the firmament, and after God tells Abraham several times that his people would be as numerous as the stars (which is also impossible, yet it’s claimed to have been fulfilled in Hebrews 11:12), the next clear reference to size and position of these celestial bodies is found in the book of Isaiah. Here, the prophet speaks of exalting a throne “above the stars of God” (14:13). Likewise, Job says, “behold the height of the stars, how high they are” (22:12). Stars are not high; they are distant. One would expect these two divinely inspired individuals to make this distinction in their records; instead, they boldly demonstrate that they shared the popular yet erroneous belief that God fixed the stars at the sky’s apex.

 

The book of Psalms states that God tells the number of stars and calls them all by their names (147:4). That’s quite an impressive accomplishment considering scientists estimate that there could be as many as 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the known universe. If God truly told anyone how many stars surrounded our planet, the ridiculous firmament belief should have ceased without delay.

 

Daniel speaks of a vision that he had concerning a giant goat’s horn knocking the stars down to the ground where the goat “stamped upon them” (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth. Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them? More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous? In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark both record Jesus foretelling of an era when the stars shall “fall from heaven” (24:29 and 13:25, respectively). Jesus, a supposedly perfect human being who was supposedly the only son of a supposedly perfect god, wasn’t immune to scientific ignorance either.

 

Revelation was the grandiose vision of John, yet another man who God allegedly inspired, but John also thought that stars were bright objects of insignificant size directly above the earth. In this record of his dream-like hallucination, he claims to see Jesus holding seven stars in his right hand (1:16). While John may have seen what looked like seven stars in Jesus’ hand, this is not what the text clearly states. The passage unambiguously says Jesus was holding seven stars in his hand. Thus, John’s statement is certainly in error. In addition, John mentions a dream in which “the stars of heaven fell unto the earth” and compares this event to a fig tree shaking off its leaves (6:13). Furthermore, he describes a great star falling into “the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters” (8:10). If a star were to “fall” to our planet as John indicates, it would annihilate the earth upon impact because these bodies are generally hundreds of times larger than our world. Finally, John sees a dragon swing its tail around, consequently knocking a third of the stars in the sky down to the ground (12:4). There’s no need to discuss how enormous such a hypothetical tail would have to be in order to accomplish this impossibility. After all, Revelation was only a vision. On the other hand, we must expect Christians to accept that this man had a unique foreknowledge of humankind’s imminent future. In other words, these ridiculously fantastical events must remain futuristic certainties to biblical apologists. At this point, we can safely say that anyone attempting to harmonize the scientifically determined position, size, and number of our celestial neighbors with a literal interpretation of the Bible is veraciously wasting his time."

 

 

Virgin prophecy: "Isaiah 7:14: 700 years before Christ’s birth, God announced that the virgin would bear a child and His name would be Immanuel, “God with us”. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son, and will call Him Immanuel.” These words are specifically referred to in Matthew 1:21-23 where we see its fulfillment! (quote end)

 

There are many problems with this prophecy. Jewish scholars have noted that in Hebrew the verse reads as “Behold the young woman is with child and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.” Instead of “virgin” it should read “young woman.” Segal has this to say in his The Jew and the Christian Missionary:

 

The Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah …. The word betulah is used in an explicit legal sense leaving no question as to its meaning. While almah does not define the state of virginity of a woman, betulah by contrast does. One would, therefore, reasonably expect that if Isa. 7:14 refers specifically to a virgin, the prophet would have the technical term betulah so as to leave no doubt as to the significance of his words.

 

Moreover, when you read Isaiah 7:14, nowhere it says that the child is to be a messiah. Oddly enough Jesus was never called Immanuel. Even today nobody calls Jesus as Immanuel. Not only that, Jesus being a Greek name is improper. He should be called Joshua which is a proper Hebrew name. " http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052006/gbs.htm

 

LNC, if the god of the Bible was a worldwide god, then he wouldn't have hand picked ONE nation to lead. I don't care about a few references to other nations or the world when the vast majority of the Bible deals with one tiny little nation, both the OT and the NT. It has only reached across the world due to its spread over time by people. Wouldn't he just sned down his voice or appear to all the people of the earth at once? Wouldn't that be much better than favoritism? he is god afterall, he should have no problem in doing this.

 

As for the NT being validated, lol, funny you dared not to say the OT was. Besides, none of the miraculous claims have, so basically all you're left with is it mentioning places and things that are real and conclude that it is the truth, all of it.

 

LNC, what you need to do is step outside your little circle of funide friends. Before you say i need to do the same in regards to atheists, keep in mind that i was a christian almost my entire life.

[Justin]

Yes, I have read it many times, have you? I mean, have you read it cover to cover, not have you read bits and pieces. Not only have I read it, I have studied it to understand it in context. I suspect that many of you have not taken time to do this based upon the misunderstandings that many of you put forth.

 

You are breath takingly ignorant of many people on these boards. There are former pastors and people who have spent years and years in the faith here. Many have read the Bible, and that is one of the MAIN reasons why they don't continue to take any stock in the religion.

 

I may be, and I don't know why that should take your breath away as I have only been interacting on this board a short time, but I can only go by what I experience and I have not experienced people who have accurately understood and expounded the Scripture that they have put forth here. So, if I am ignorant of what is really the case, it is because no one has convinced me otherwise. I didn't just ask if he had read it, but whether he had read it cover to cover. Now, I am pleasantly surprised to hear that he has, but I don't assume that with atheists, nor do I assume it with Christians as there are many who have not read the Bible cover to cover. How about you, have you?

 

 

This site is called Ex'Christian". That should be a pretty good heads up that most of us know a thing or two about the Bible.

 

Why don't you ask Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds foremost biblical scholars, what happened to him when he read the Bible.

[shantonu]

But I am here to discuss your opinions, but you won't express them. Would you have followed the order in 1 Samuel 5:3 or not? It's a simple question. My opinion and "standing" has naught to do with the question. Just give me a simple yes or no. If you can't do that, then I won't waste my time talking to you because you will have proved yourself to be a coward.

 

I Samuel 5:3? What order?

 

Sorry, 1 Samuel 15:3. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

 

Would you have followed God's order?

[Justin]

Why shouldn't it matter that it is a product of a certain time period. Do we read all books of antiquity through the lenses of our times or do we try to understand them in the context of their time. I think it is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret works of antiquity from our perspective. It is called having a chronological bias. I don't know what you mean when you claim that I am asserting that "the Bible is what it is and nothing more." I don't claim such since I don't know what that means. I claim that it is inerrant in its original autographs and that it is inspired. Now, I will ask you on what basis you bring these charges? Are these charges brought from your subjective moral system or do you base them on an objective moral system, and if so, on what do you base your system? I ask this as many on this site bring these charges, yet I want to know that they are real charges and not just your own opinions or preferences. So, please inform me.

 

It is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret ancient writings from our modern perspective. But we are not talking about just any ancient writing, we are talking about the Holy Bible, breathed to man by god almighty himself. That makes all the difference in the world. Ask yourself this, if every word was truelly from god and not man, would we have the barbarisim and slavery, sexisim and all that rubbish? If you are saying it still would, and you continue to worship this type of god, then i doubt very seriously that i want to continue debating with you.

 

Furthermore, why do you believe we should interpret the Bible as a product of its time when it comes to things like barbarisim and slavery but take the opposite approach when it comes to the Bible writers cosmology, their limited knowledge when it came to the earth, the stars, sun and the moon?

 

As i have told you before, i ground my moral system in what i think is right and wrong, the general standard that all humanity has/developed.

[shantonu]

Why shouldn't it matter that it is a product of a certain time period. Do we read all books of antiquity through the lenses of our times or do we try to understand them in the context of their time. I think it is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret works of antiquity from our perspective. It is called having a chronological bias. I don't know what you mean when you claim that I am asserting that "the Bible is what it is and nothing more." I don't claim such since I don't know what that means. I claim that it is inerrant in its original autographs and that it is inspired. Now, I will ask you on what basis you bring these charges? Are these charges brought from your subjective moral system or do you base them on an objective moral system, and if so, on what do you base your system? I ask this as many on this site bring these charges, yet I want to know that they are real charges and not just your own opinions or preferences. So, please inform me.

 

It is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret ancient writings from our modern perspective. But we are not talking about just any ancient writing, we are talking about the Holy Bible, breathed to man by god almighty himself. That makes all the difference in the world. Ask yourself this, if every word was truelly from god and not man, would we have the barbarisim and slavery, sexisim and all that rubbish? If you are saying it still would, and you continue to worship this type of god, then i doubt very seriously that i want to continue debating with you.

 

As i have told you before, i ground my moral system in what i think is right and wrong, the general standard that all humanity has/developed.

 

And there is nothing irredemably "subjective" about that.

 

The two senses of the word 'objective' make for confusion. Mankind is responsibe for the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Laws. Both are objective laws. They weren't arbitary, they weren't subjective. So they are both objective in that sense.

 

Most people think the Nuremberg Laws were evil, while the other hand most people think the Geneva Convention to be good. But are they? Is this judgment correct? Perhaps the Nuremberg laws really were not bad. Perhaps the Geneva Convention is really unjust. We, today, think the opposite. But we might be wrong, or we might change our minds. Without objective standards, how do we really know? We might as well not have a conversation unless we first establish truly objective and timeless standards by which we will measure the question.

 

Right?

 

Wrong! This entire line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. There are two reasons why:

 

First: Of course we might change our minds. But that's always a problem with every endeavor into human thinking. If we were looking for something permanent in these affairs, we should just quit before we get started. But then we would be no closer to any understanding whatsoever.

 

Let's take a practical example to make this point clear: Shakespeare was not always considered a great writer. His contemporaries did not think him very special. Shortly after his death, most people did not recognize his genius. in the 19th Century, critics, esp. Coleridge, basically established Shakespeare's now towering reputation.

 

Well, just because there is no "objective" standard in the big sense, does that make it all subjective--and therefore not worth talking about it? Of course not. It's by talking about it that people develop a common understanding and begin to make educated judgments about things. That's the whole function of literary criticism. Those people in the Ivory Tower do quite a lot of bullshitting, but that does not make the entire process bullshit.

 

Second: what does LNC propose we do other than talk to each other? Let's say we want to find out whether the Geneva Convention is good or not. According to him, the only way to do that is to . . . . I don't know. Ask God? The quesiton will always come down to non-objective (in the big sense) arguments. So what? That's how everything works.

 

So for these two reasons--that ( a ) we can make progress towards understanding without "Objective" standards and ( b ) there is no other way to make progress--LNC's entire line of argument is exposed for the illusion and lame excuse it always was.