Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The flaws of NT-based morality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Indeed, and NorrinRadd seems unaware of the historical impact of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and other similar passages on Christian societies.

    1 Cor 7:3-5
    The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    It was only relatively recently (~1970-1990s) that the UK and US legally recognized marital rape as a crime. Even today there are Christians who are convinced the idea of 'marital rape' is nonsensical.
    Yes I'm well aware of that, I can send you the entire PP presentation I prepared on the subject from which that screenshot comes. :)

    Domestic violence for me proves with absolute certainty that Jesus was not divine. He wasn't a perpetrator because as far as we know he never married (it's possible of course, but I would agree with Ehrman who said he finds it unlikely the gospel writers bothered to mention other women but left out his wife). But, he had the opportunity to say that it is wrong - he gives a detailed teaching about how divorce is never justified, except for infidelity. I would argue that domestic violence is a more legitimate reason for divorce than that.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Wow dude, seriously? Firstly you're just plain wrong on the animal rights thing. Secondly, I rephrased it for you as "treatment of animals" and you still threw this tantrum. Surely you can agree and accept that any complete theory of morality should say at least something about how we are to treat animals? The OT laws say some stuff about being nice to animals (e.g. "don't muzzle the oxen as they are treading out the grain", prescribing some relatively painless methods of slaughter, etc), so it's not like it's expecting too much for the NT to give some comments on the matter. And thirdly, don't accuse me of making stuff up when I'm not.
      That because we should treat animals well does not mean that they HAVE RIGHTS! And a good, loving man will treat his animals well. But where are the cow's rights when you kill and eat him?

      Good question since your own interpretation of the Golden rule to those situations and those of other Christian conservatives on this site seem very very different to my own and those of Christians in my country.
      There may be different ideas about how to meet certain ends, but not what those ends are. As a Conservative (generally) I think the best way to help people is with free market principles, better jobs and higher pay - so there is less need for social programs. Though as I said, I now lean towards a Single Payer medical system.

      For example we have debated torture on this site, with many so-called Christians on this forum defending the torture practices done by the US in Guantanamo as justified. Many on this site strongly oppose and extensively argue against laws designed to help women or the poor. You yourself have insisted that the slaughter of captive Japanese soldiers by American troops who had captured them was justified. Clearly there are many disagreements as to the correct application of biblical morality and the golden rule, and thus it would be great if the NT actually clearly addressed such issues.
      Charles, I did not say that executing Japanese soldiers was justified, only understandable after what they did to captured Marines. And I do wonder if I would have acted differently. And I still don't have a problem with waterboarding if it could be shown to save lives. But if you are pointing to moral ambiguity then that certainly applies across the board even with secular ethical theories.

      These statements appear contradictory. If we have no idea what will be relevant 200 years from now, why is there any reason to think NT principles will be applicable?
      So the love of neighbor and the golden rule may not be relevant years from now?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Aractus View Post
        Domestic violence for me proves with absolute certainty that Jesus was not divine. He wasn't a perpetrator because as far as we know he never married (it's possible of course, but I would agree with Ehrman who said he finds it unlikely the gospel writers bothered to mention other women but left out his wife). But, he had the opportunity to say that it is wrong - he gives a detailed teaching about how divorce is never justified, except for infidelity. I would argue that domestic violence is a more legitimate reason for divorce than that.
        Derp. Someone who teaches that one should love one's enemies hardly needs to specify love for family. Were you dropped on your head when you deconverted? I've seriously never seen someone as adept at misreading scripture as you.
        Source: Eph. 5

        25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Source: Col. 3:19

        Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Source: 1 Pet. 3:7

        Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Tell me, where is license for domestic violence in that?
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          exactly. You need to interpolate the teachings in the bible to cover modern problems. Like torture.
          Wow. Torture is a modern invention?!

          It says to love your enemies, to do unto others as you would have them do to you. I think that covers torture and a whole slew of other problems with violence and hatred.
          Your statement would be more convincing if US Christians had stood up clearly against their own Christian president explicitly commanding torture be carried out.

          Abortion is covered by "do not murder" for instance.
          Abortion has never been covered by "do not murder" in any society's legal system that I am aware of. Roman law in biblical times had a law against murder, but abortion and infanticide were fully legal and regularly done. Modern societies likewise have laws against murder, but their laws that govern or control or allow abortion are separate laws and abortion doesn't simply fall under the laws of murder. There is basically zero reason to think any statements in the NT against "murder" refer to abortion, as in the Graeco-Roman world these were entirely different things one of which was illegal and the other legal. Not a single one of Paul's gentile readers when he heard the words "do not murder" from Paul would have thought "that means I can't perform abortions".

          Animal rights are covered by various versus to treat animals well, stories about how shepherds care for their flock, about rescuing lost or hurt animals, about how to humanely kill them for food and sacrifices, that God put Adam and Eve on earth to care for it and the animals, that Noah rescued the animals.
          Very little of this is in the NT. The NT is relatively silent with regard to any sort of instructions to care for animals.

          Obviously it's possible to start drawing on OT teachings, but that's a huge can of worms as there are a lot of very, very morally questionable things in the OT (including, but certain not limited to, God literally commanding genocides, God setting out laws for slavery, laws forcing women to marry their rapists etc).

          drugs are covered by versus about not getting drunk, and prohibitions against sorcery.
          Drugs are sorcery? Awesome, I should try them. I've never tried any drugs, but scientific articles I've been reading recently about Psilocybin (Magic Mushrooms) in low doses makes me want to try it, and if the government here ever makes up its mind whether it is going to legalize marijuana I'd like to try that just to see what all the fuss is about.

          racial discrimination isn't covered because it wasn't a thing back then.
          Um... is that like how torture wasn't a thing back then either?
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Charles View Post
            Martin Luther held that a woman who refused to have sex with her husband should either be forced or killed.
            Martin Luther was not an author of Scripture. This, however, comes pretty close.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Wow dude, seriously? Firstly you're just plain wrong on the animal rights thing. Secondly, I rephrased it for you as "treatment of animals" and you still threw this tantrum. Surely you can agree and accept that any complete theory of morality should say at least something about how we are to treat animals? The OT laws say some stuff about being nice to animals (e.g. "don't muzzle the oxen as they are treading out the grain", prescribing some relatively painless methods of slaughter, etc), so it's not like it's expecting too much for the NT to give some comments on the matter.
              Is Luke 14:5 good enough?
              Last edited by NorrinRadd; 06-27-2017, 11:40 PM.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                That because we should treat animals well does not mean that they HAVE RIGHTS!
                To me they are two ways of saying the same thing. When I talk about human rights or animal rights I mean by those words "the right way to treat humans" and "the right way to treat animals". I am not claiming that rights exist as some sort of platonic metaphysical entity in the ether.

                Your complaint reminds me of an Indian guy I used to work with: Whenever anyone would wish him "good luck" he'd reply "I don't believe in luck", and I had to explain to him that in the Western world saying good luck is just equivalent to saying "I have good will toward you and hope your endeavor is successful" and does not mean "I superstitiously believe a celestial entity called Luck actually exists, and I am essentially praying to it to invoke its blessings toward you".

                Same thing with rights. Animal rights mean to me nothing more or less than the standards by which it is morally right to treat animals. So I read a sentence of yours like "That because we should treat animals well does not mean that they HAVE RIGHTS!" as nonsensical because "we should treat animals well" and "they have rights" are identical statements to me. They would only be different statements if I believed in the existence of a metaphysical entity of Rights, which I don't.

                But where are the cow's rights when you kill and eat him?
                Exactly. I believe it is immoral to kill and eat a cow, just as I believe it is immoral to kill an eat a human. In both cases you are taking the life of an intelligent and conscious being. Because cows have much less of a mind than humans do, I regard it as much less of an offence however. And by the time you get down the chain of intelligence as far as biting insects, I think killing them is fine because their intelligence/mind is so minuscule.

                Though as I said, I now lean towards a Single Payer medical system.
                My work here is done! Do I get the never-before-achieved "Actually Convinced Seer of Something!" award? I guess you'll claim it wasn't me.

                And I still don't have a problem with waterboarding if it could be shown to save lives.
                So your stance on torture is basically utilitarian. Does that have a NT justification in your view? If another Christian told you that the Christian thing to do was to be totally against torture (which I'm sure Christian pacifist AmazingRando would do if he were still around), how would you justify your position to them?

                So the love of neighbor and the golden rule may not be relevant years from now?
                Given they are concepts found all across the globe and throughout history and are in no way unique to the NT, it is hard to see the NT as the source of any great moral insight if those ideas are what you are getting out of it.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  To me they are two ways of saying the same thing. When I talk about human rights or animal rights I mean by those words "the right way to treat humans" and "the right way to treat animals". I am not claiming that rights exist as some sort of platonic metaphysical entity in the ether. ...
                  Your terminology is quite unconventional, at least here in the U.S.
                  Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                  Beige Federalist.

                  Nationalist Christian.

                  "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                  Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                  Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                  Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                  Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                  Justice for Matthew Perna!

                  Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Indeed, and NorrinRadd seems unaware of the historical impact of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and other similar passages on Christian societies.

                    1 Cor 7:3-5
                    The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

                    It was only relatively recently (~1970-1990s) that the UK and US legally recognized marital rape as a crime. Even today there are Christians who are convinced the idea of 'marital rape' is nonsensical.
                    True, while I am well aware of the passage itself, I don't know much about the idiotic ways some fools may have interpreted and applied it over the centuries.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      If you were born somewhere on the Asian rim 200 years ago these moral ideals probably would have never entered your head.
                      ...because there are no god-driven objective moral standards from which to acquire them.
                      Prove it...
                      It's a consequence of your own claim.

                      If there were god-driven objective moral standards, then certain moral ideas would probably have entered the head of people born on the Asian rim 200 years ago.
                      According to you, they probably would not.
                      Therefore there are no god-driven objective moral standards.

                      Edited to add:
                      Animal rights do not exist.
                      Prove it...

                      I don't expect you to, because you're a dishonest hypocrite who demands from others what they don't provide themselves.
                      Last edited by Roy; 06-28-2017, 06:30 AM.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        He is the one who made the claim - it is on him to defend it.
                        I don't see you defending your claims. Where is your defence of your claims that animals don't have rights, or that abortion is evil?
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Derp. Someone who teaches that one should love one's enemies hardly needs to specify love for family. Were you dropped on your head when you deconverted? I've seriously never seen someone as adept at misreading scripture as you.
                          Source: Eph. 5

                          25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Source: Col. 3:19

                          Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Source: 1 Pet. 3:7

                          Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Tell me, where is license for domestic violence in that?
                          Do you have any idea whatsoever how arrogant you sound?

                          When did I say Christian scripture gives a license for Domestic Violence? What I gave to you was how scripture was interpreted into law - scripture that trumps those three verses as it comes from Adam and Eve, and from the lips of Jesus who said "what God has joined together let no man separate" (Mk 10:9).

                          What you cited has nothing to do with domestic violence. All it deals with is instructions on how to treat your wives. No punishment is given for those who abuse their wives - none whatsoever.

                          And worse still, Jewish women could not even get divorces for ANY REASON! I think this gets overlooked because the modern english word "divorce" is gender neutral. But the Jews/ancient Hebrews did not allow women to get divorces at all - only men could get divorces. And I can go further - men cannot commit a sexual sin unless they sleep with another Hebrew person's wife, or with a man. It is not sinful for men to sleep with unmarried women, their wives, their sex slaves ("concubines"), their slaves wives, the wives of other "races", and prostitutes. But of course you would know that if you'd read your bible. The way that ancient Jews treated slaves was particularly immoral, especially when directly compared to Rome and Egypt. The way that women were treated compared to Rome and Egypt is equally as abhorrent.

                          So to sum it up, you cite scripture that instructs husbands to treat their wives well. Meanwhile the wives had no rights to do anything about it, and no punishment was bestowed upon those that chose to abuse their wives.
                          Last edited by Aractus; 06-28-2017, 07:03 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            racial discrimination isn't covered because it wasn't a thing back then.
                            It certainly was - the OT instructs the Jews to treat members of other tribes differently than they treat members of their own. The difference between slavery and servitude, for instance.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              I don't see you defending your claims. Where is your defence of your claims that animals don't have rights, or that abortion is evil?
                              Roy, if you think that animals have rights it is on you to demonstrate that. Where are the rights of a cow when we kill and eat it? I see nothing in nature that tells me that animals have rights - do you?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                It certainly was - the OT instructs the Jews to treat members of other tribes differently than they treat members of their own. The difference between slavery and servitude, for instance.
                                Um, yeah I'm shocked by his ignorance on this. The concept of "race" exists purely because of this primitive belief that other people are fundamentally different to you so-called "race". The two clearest examples I can think of are 1. that non-Hebrew male slaves are never to be freed, and you can make them do forced labour. And 2. Ezra 9:2 "They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

                                They were not sophisticated enough to know that we are all of the same human race - homo sapiens.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X