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

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Prove it...
    Can you prove him wrong? Oh, I forgot... In order to prove god-driven moral standards you need to be able to prove that God exists. Which you admitted that you cannot.
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      Wow. I found that hard to believe, so looked it up. Sure enough...

      Martin Luther, Living As Husband And Wife (aka The Estate of Marriage), 1522AD:

      Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7 [:4‑5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another.
      "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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Tell me which of the following topics substantially become no longer morally relevant with the passing of centuries, I'll wait:

        Torture; conduct in war; abortions; treatment of women (aka women's rights); treatment of animals (aka animal rights); the use of methods to attempt to prevent pregnancy (aka contraceptives); the destruction of entire people groups (aka genocide); setting minimum standards for the treatment of all people in our society to attempt to ensure everyone is treated well (aka human rights).
        Yes, abortion was evil then and it is evil now. If you love your fellow man and and follow the golden rule you will treat women with respect and kindness, as you would with other people in society. Contraception is not necessarily a moral issue (well maybe for the Catholic Church). And again - ANIMALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS. Stop making stuff up.

        I contend that these topics were all relevant 2000 years ago when the bible was written, that they were relevant 200 years ago, that they are relevant now, and that they will be relevant 200 years in the future. They are not obscure, or ethically relative topics, they are major topics in morality and have always been. The NT's failure to speak clearly on these important moral topics is a serious failing on its part if anyone claims it to be the authoritative moral guidebook. And you are unconvincingly dodging the issue by trying to pretend these aren't important and major moral topics, and haven't always been so, and are just something that current Western society has invented. On the contrary, these topics have always been important ones to people and people groups, and many of them feature in the OT (albeit in ways that aren't complimentary to the bible - e.g. the Israelites committing genocide at God's command and with his blessings; David torturing his captured enemies when those same enemies had conducted themselves in exemplary fashion in war etc).
        Nonsense, apply the love of ones neighbor or the Golden rule to genocide, torture, treatment of women, and treatment of your fellow man in general, treatment of the unborn human, the treatment of the poor - and what is the conclusion Star? How would that work out? And again, you have no idea what will be ethically relevant a hundred or two hundred years from now. The fact is the NT principles can be applied across cultures.
        Last edited by seer; 06-27-2017, 07:54 AM.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Nonsense, why would the Bible deal with animal rights for instance when animal rights are a legal fiction? Animal rights do not exist. But the New Testament teaches us to be loving and gracious, and those character traits will reveal themselves on the way we treat animals - particularly pets. And these characteristics can be applied to a number of your other questions.



          The NT moral teachings, though specific in some areas, are often general and can be applied across cultures. The love of your fellow man, the idea that you go the extra mile to make peace with your neighbor. Forgiving wrongs done to you, the Golden rule, helping the poor, personal self-control, don't be greedy, be honest, don't steal, be truthful, etc... If a culture truly followed these simple mandates they would have heaven on earth. And again, the ethical questions you find important are relatively driven, what relatively ethical questions will be important one hundred years from now? Two hundred years from now? And what you find important is not what every culture on earth today finds important. God would have to had written a million laws,or more, to satisfy any possible eventuality. Your whole premise is silly Star.
          The argument that "an omniscient God should have have inserted such and such specific topics that would have only been relevant thousands of years later" has always struck me as peculiar. For 1700 years, scripture has largely been the foundation for the Western ethic, an ethic that has spread across, and influenced every culture in the entire world. The people complaining today about how unfair an omniscient God was for not going into proper detail about specific issues are complaining from a worldview that was only made possible by the very scripture they're damning. Perhaps an omniscient God was wise enough to realize that humans in their selfishness, and wickedness need goading in the right direction rather than exacting instructions that go completely against the circumstances of their time and place. Perhaps an omniscient God was wise enough to establish principles that made sense in a world where the comforts of the modern world would have been absolute fantasy, and yet allow the heart of those principles to blossom throughout the centuries and remain relevant well into the current era and beyond. Every time I read a rant like the OPs I can't help but think how narrow minded and petty it is. "If I were God, I'd do things differently" Well thank God you're not God, because you don't know your bottom from a hole in the ground.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            The argument that "an omniscient God should have have inserted such and such specific topics that would have only been relevant thousands of years later" has always struck me as peculiar. For 1700 years, scripture has largely been the foundation for the Western ethic, an ethic that has spread across, and influenced every culture in the entire world. The people complaining today about how unfair an omniscient God was for not going into proper detail about specific issues are complaining from a worldview that was only made possible by the very scripture they're damning. Perhaps an omniscient God was wise enough to realize that humans in their selfishness, and wickedness need goading in the right direction rather than exacting instructions that go completely against the circumstances of their time and place. Perhaps an omniscient God was wise enough to establish principles that made sense in a world where the comforts of the modern world would have been absolute fantasy, and yet allow the heart of those principles to blossom throughout the centuries and remain relevant well into the current era and beyond. Every time I read a rant like the OPs I can't help but think how narrow minded and petty it is. "If I were God, I'd do things differently" Well thank God you're not God, because you don't know your bottom from a hole in the ground.
            Exactly!
            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


            • #21
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Wow. I found that hard to believe, so looked it up. Sure enough...
              Wonder why you found that hard to believe. He was extremely good at being wrong and immoral. His views on the Jews were even worse.
              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Charles View Post
                Can you prove him wrong? Oh, I forgot... In order to prove god-driven moral standards you need to be able to prove that God exists. Which you admitted that you cannot.
                He is the one who made the claim - it is on him to defend it. And you are being dishonest Charles, that was in the context of the fact that we all believe things to be true that can not be "proven" - Like that what goes on in your head correspond to reality, other minds, etc...
                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


                • #23
                  The NT also didn't address watching porn on the internet, drunk driving, smoking weed, or antifa violence. What were they thinking?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And again - ANIMALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS. Stop making stuff up.
                    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.

                    Nonsense, apply the love of ones neighbor or the Golden rule to genocide, torture, treatment of women, and treatment of your fellow man in general, treatment of the unborn human, the treatment of the poor - and what is the conclusion Star? How would that work out?
                    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.

                    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.

                    And again, you have no idea what will be ethically relevant a hundred or two hundred years from now. The fact is the NT principles can be applied across cultures.
                    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?
                    "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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      He is the one who made the claim - it is on him to defend it. And you are being dishonest Charles, that was in the context of the fact that we all believe things to be true that can not be "proven" - Like that what goes on in your head correspond to reality, other minds, etc...
                      So you cannot prove it. But you claim it is equal to believing the table in front of me exists or what was the point?
                      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        The NT also didn't address watching porn on the internet, drunk driving, smoking weed, or antifa violence. What were they thinking?
                        I think the NT comments about lust address the question of internet porn (albeit, I think they get it wrong), and the comments about drunkenness address drunk driving (they get it right).

                        Smoking weed falls into a general category of drugs / mind altering substances, which is an example of an omission by the NT when it comes to morality: Various drugs / mind altering substances were known in NT times, and the NT could have addressed this topic but fails to.

                        Antifa violence falls somewhere into the continuum of the NT's immoral teachings of not opposing authoritarian governments and the NT's somewhat confused and vague teachings on non-violence.
                        Last edited by Starlight; 06-27-2017, 08:16 AM.
                        "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


                        • #27
                          William Wilberforce.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            One of the claims made about Christian/NT morality is that it provides the moral answers. Given these are all topics in discussions about morality in today's world, any good Christian would naturally like to look to the bible to get clear guidance on them. The fact that the bible is not providing any answers on such topics,
                            Asserted but not shown. The Bible certainly provides moral principles that can be applied to moral situations.

                            Originally posted by Starlight
                            means that the claims being made about it as the great provider of moral answers are wrong.
                            Uh, no. Who is claiming that the Bible provides explicit moral guidance for every situation?



                            Originally posted by Starlight
                            Furthermore, an omniscience God could have known that such topics would be relevant to today and made sure to include them (and since there are more people alive today than from the 2000 years when the bible was written until now, God seems to be missing out on his chance to educate the majority of people about moral truths).
                            Only if you assume that (a) an omniscient God would act in the way you think He should (seems doubtful); and (b) the Bible doesn't provide any relevant guidance at all for moral behaviour.


                            Originally posted by Starlight
                            It's not like that would have been hard for the NT writers to comment on these issues clearly because obviously in the ancient world they had torture, genocide, atrocities in wars, abortions, attempts at contraceptives, methods of treatment of animals, ways of treating women etc (as compared to if God had wanted them to include in the NT a ban on computer hacking, which would have been difficult given the language and concepts available at the time).

                            Where do the New Testament writers say that they are writing to provide guidance for every relevant moral situation, both in their time and times to come?
                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Many on this site strongly oppose and extensively argue against laws designed to help women or the poor.
                              Arguing against laws designed to help women or the poor does not mean that the person is against helping the poor or women. It's a disagreement over method, not necessarily a disagreement over goals. You're (again) assuming that your way of doing things is 'the' way, and someone who disagrees with your way is therefore immoral and evil.
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                I think the NT comments about lust address the question of internet porn (albeit, I think they get it wrong), and the comments about drunkenness address drunk driving (they get it right).

                                Smoking weed falls into a general category of drugs / mind altering substances, which is an example of an omission by the NT when it comes to morality: Various drugs / mind altering substances were known in NT times, and the NT could have addressed this topic but fails to.

                                Antifa violence falls somewhere into the continuum of the NT's immoral teachings of not opposing authoritarian governments and the NT's somewhat confused and vague teachings on non-violence.

                                exactly. You need to interpolate the teachings in the bible to cover modern problems. Like torture. 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 list is about specifics but they are covered by the bibles general guidelines. Abortion is covered by "do not murder" for instance. human rights etc is covered by the golden rule too as well as various other commands. 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. drugs are covered by versus about not getting drunk, and prohibitions against sorcery.

                                sex outside of marriage is covered by prohibitions against fornication and commands about sexual impurity. racial discrimination isn't covered because it wasn't a thing back then. Most people were either brown or black in the bible. They talked about nations and tribes, not skin color. The NT does talk about how all men and women are the same in God's eyes. How we should treat everyone as we would like to be treated.

                                You are complaining about specifics when with a little thought you can see that while the specifics change, the general principals do not and they are covered. As a former Christian you already know all this, right?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X