Why does God need to/want to be worshipped?

[Thersites]

Are you suggesting that slavery has always been immoral, but god failed to convey this message through poor use of legalistic language?

I'm saying that viewing another person as a mere asset is immoral. It is possible to own a slave but not treat them as just another piece of property or another variety of livestock, and the legal institutions regarding certain historical forms of slavery might indicate that slaves are seen as more than mere property.

[Sparko]

If my moral code were purely my own selfishness manifesting itself, you shouldn't care; obviously you don't, as you feel entitled to use such crude language to a stranger.

Unfortunately, none of us base our morals completely on self-interest, except perhaps the sociopath and the psychopath. We, as a society, have come to certain basic agreements about how we should treat others, and how we should expect to be treated.

so what? what makes a "society" any more trustworthy a source of morals than an individual? Nazi Germany had some morals that our society thinks were horrendous. As did the societies of Roman and Greece. But if morals are nothing but what a society agrees on and have no objective truth to them, then Nazi German, Rome and Greece were just as morally correct as our society is. There was nothing wrong with killing millions of Jews, or Romans burning dissenters or killing them in sport games, or in Greeks leaving unwanted babies out to die of exposure. All that is perfectly moral. Who are you or I or even our society to say that those societies were wrong?

I do, however, think that this question is integral to the matter at hand. If you believe that absolute morality exists, and is dictated by a god, then everything he commands is moral, including slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, and many other practices which were once common but which are frowned upon in Western society today.

Why do you think those things are wrong? Those societies thought they were just fine. Why do you think your idea of morality is "right" and "good" and that those societies should be judged by what you think is correct?

You seem to be arguing that morals are subjective and at the same time arguing that they are objective. Please make up your mind.

[ChuckInSuburbia]

I'm saying that viewing another person as a mere asset is immoral. It is possible to own a slave but not treat them as just another piece of property or another variety of livestock, and the legal institutions regarding certain historical forms of slavery might indicate that slaves are seen as more than mere property.

Honestly, I can't believe that I'm engaged in a discussion in which someone is trying to justify the practice of slavery. Even if your assertions are correct, the practice of "limited slavery" is still a deplorable social condition. Ask yourself if you would sell your daughter to another man for his wife, even if it were legal. I doubt any of us would entertain such an idea.

It was not my intent to get wrapped up in a debate about slavery; it was only one of many examples, and happened to be the first one that came to mind.

[Thersites]

Honestly, I can't believe that I'm engaged in a discussion in which someone is trying to justify the practice of slavery. Even if your assertions are correct, the practice of "limited slavery" is still a deplorable social condition. Ask yourself if you would sell your daughter to another man for his wife, even if it were legal. I doubt any of us would entertain such an idea.

It was not my intent to get wrapped up in a debate about slavery; it was only one of many examples, and happened to be the first one that came to mind.

Slavery is just a word. It is the meaning behind it that we find immoral, so the question is really about the definition of the word in a given context rather than its mere presence in legal language.

[Sparko]

Slavery is just a word. It is the meaning behind it that we find immoral, so the question is really about the definition of the word in a given context rather than its mere presence in legal language.

Exactly. Today when someone breaks the law, we put them in a prison and make them work for pennies a day. We call that "Prisoners" instead of "Slavery" but in the ancient world, it was much the same thing. If someone could not pay a debt, or was taken as a prisoner of war, many times they were made slaves (or even volunteered to become slaves), to work off the debt. Very little slavery back then was the same as it was in the western world of the 17th and 18th centuries.

[ChuckInSuburbia]

so what? what makes a "society" any more trustworthy a source of morals than an individual? Nazi Germany had some morals that our society thinks were horrendous. As did the societies of Roman and Greece. But if morals are nothing but what a society agrees on and have no objective truth to them, then Nazi German, Rome and Greece were just as morally correct as our society is. There was nothing wrong with killing millions of Jews, or Romans burning dissenters or killing them in sport games, or in Greeks leaving unwanted babies out to die of exposure. All that is perfectly moral. Who are you or I or even our society to say that those societies were wrong?


Why do you think those things are wrong? Those societies thought they were just fine. Why do you think your idea of morality is "right" and "good" and that those societies should be judged by what you think is correct?

You seem to be arguing that morals are subjective and at the same time arguing that they are objective. Please make up your mind.

Actually, what I'm arguing is that morality is either objective or subjective; it cannot be both.

Personally, I believe that there is no objective morality. We assign moral values to certain beliefs and actions, based on our cultural and personal values. Some people believe that "meat is murder", but I love bacon. The senior leaders of the Nazi party believed it was necessary to exterminate millions of Jews, but history has proved this practice to be self-destructive. I assign a negative moral value to the practice of slavery, where the authors of Leviticus obviously saw it as a harmless institution. No one person is more or less qualified to distinguish moral value than any other.

I have no problems making sense of this situation. Obviously, our moral guidelines change as our culture changes. Beliefs and actions fall in and out of favor over time.

It is only when we suppose an objective morality that we run into problems. Is morality true as defined by bronze-age shepherds, or as defined by 21st-century politicians, or some other definition? How do we differentiate between "true" morality, and man's interpretation of morality? If true morality is dictated by a supernatural being, how do we reconcile differences with our social morality? And how do we behave when the commandments are contradictory?

To reverse your question, what makes the human authors and editors of holy books qualified to dictate morality?

[Sparko]

Actually, what I'm arguing is that morality is either objective or subjective; it cannot be both.

Personally, I believe that there is no objective morality. We assign moral values to certain beliefs and actions, based on our cultural and personal values. Some people believe that "meat is murder", but I love bacon. The senior leaders of the Nazi party believed it was necessary to exterminate millions of Jews, but history has proved this practice to be self-destructive. I assign a negative moral value to the practice of slavery, where the authors of Leviticus obviously saw it as a harmless institution. No one person is more or less qualified to distinguish moral value than any other.

I have no problems making sense of this situation. Obviously, our moral guidelines change as our culture changes. Beliefs and actions fall in and out of favor over time.

It is only when we suppose an objective morality that we run into problems. Is morality true as defined by bronze-age shepherds, or as defined by 21st-century politicians, or some other definition? How do we differentiate between "true" morality, and man's interpretation of morality? If true morality is dictated by a supernatural being, how do we reconcile differences with our social morality? And how do we behave when the commandments are contradictory?

To reverse your question, what makes the human authors and editors of holy books qualified to dictate morality?

obviously you don't seem to understand what morality is in the first place. You are outraged at slavery, yet want to argue that morality is subjective. And you seem to be confusing specific expressions of laws with morality itself. Slavery isn't "moral" or "immoral" by itself. It is just a term. As I stated previously, basically what we do to criminals is the same thing as slavery, yet I doubt you think that is immoral, do you?

When you can figure out what makes "slavery" immoral and "imprisonment" moral, let me know and we can continue the discussion. Until then, it's not worth my time.

[ChuckInSuburbia]

obviously you don't seem to understand what morality is in the first place. You are outraged at slavery, yet want to argue that morality is subjective. And you seem to be confusing specific expressions of laws with morality itself. Slavery isn't "moral" or "immoral" by itself. It is just a term. As I stated previously, basically what we do to criminals is the same thing as slavery, yet I doubt you think that is immoral, do you?

When you can figure out what makes "slavery" immoral and "imprisonment" moral, let me know and we can continue the discussion. Until then, it's not worth my time.

As I said earlier, the particular issue of slavery is relatively inconsequential in the broader scope of the conversation. I believe a large part of the dilemma, for me at least, is how to reconcile the contradictions between god's supposedly absolute morality and man's subjective morality. Slavery was only one example, and perhaps not the best one, due to the apparently slippery language. There are countless moral teachings in holy books in general, including the christian bible, which our society casts aside as remnants of a primitive culture. Are we wrong in doing so?

Since I'm obviously incapable of moral judgement, I'd love to hear why christians and jews no longer advocate the death penalty for working on the sabbath, or for homosexual acts, or forcing rape victims to marry their rapist, or any number of backward practices which were supposedly commanded by the almighty ruler of the universe. Are these things still moral, because god commanded them, or did god change his mind?

[ChuckInSuburbia]

On second thought, this thread has morphed into a whole new topic. I think I'll start a new thread.

[Sparko]

As I said earlier, the particular issue of slavery is relatively inconsequential in the broader scope of the conversation. I believe a large part of the dilemma, for me at least, is how to reconcile the contradictions between god's supposedly absolute morality and man's subjective morality. Slavery was only one example, and perhaps not the best one, due to the apparently slippery language. There are countless moral teachings in holy books in general, including the christian bible, which our society casts aside as remnants of a primitive culture. Are we wrong in doing so?

Since I'm obviously incapable of moral judgement, I'd love to hear why christians and jews no longer advocate the death penalty for working on the sabbath, or for homosexual acts, or forcing rape victims to marry their rapist, or any number of backward practices which were supposedly commanded by the almighty ruler of the universe. Are these things still moral, because god commanded them, or did god change his mind?

God being perfectly moral does not equate into mankind following that perfect absolute morality or even believing in it. It simply means that there IS an objective standard out there, and sometimes we can see that and agree with it. But humanity is not perfect. Many times we don't see or agree with that standard, and that is how we end up with societies like Nazi Germany who believe it is just fine to commit genocide on Jews, while the rest of the world can look on with horror and see how evil it really is.

And again, you are confusing expressions of morality in laws with morality itself. And from your obvious strawman arguments against God and the bible, it is clear you haven't actually even studied the OT laws or the bible, but seem to be getting your information from militant atheist websites which like to quote mine.

The laws against working on the Sabbath, for instance. That was not even a moral law, but a civil law, and only given to the Hebrews under the old covenant. It had nothing to do with absolute morality and nothing to do with Gentiles or anyone not under the old covenant. (you do understand what a covenant is, right?)

[Nemo]

Demolition Man,

Why does God need/Want to be worshipped?,

If belief in God is established, that would denote the Need....So you are left with the "want"....Why would God Want?.....
Worship implies belief in the subject?....So would not , sorry could not the point be....That for man there are 2 options beleif in God or belief in somthing else. If God is confident that "somthing else" is harmfull to man and therfore beleif in him is benefical, i would imagine he would go to great lengths to promote his point?