To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[The Pixie]

Some Christians are absolutely sure scripture teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and others that it is okay. A couple of centuries ago plenty of Christians were absolutely sure scripture teaches that slavery is acceptable, and nowadays Christians are equally sure it does not.

You are wrong about the slavery thing, and I would be happy to debate any Christian on the issue, and have in the past. They will end up denying Scripture. I have seen it time and time again.

A couple more links on this issue.

This first was written by a modern Christian in defence of slavery:
http://www.christianityandrace.org/p...ry-sinful.html

The second was written by Prof. Robert Dabney, shortly after the US civil war, and again is defending slavery:
https://xet.es/Dabney/A%20Defense%20...a%20Dabney.pdf

Both extensively use the Bible.

The point here is not that the Bible supports slavery (that is a discussion for another time) but that Christians have used scripture to convince themselves both that slavery is right and that slavery is wrong. Clearly these are two opposed positions, and one of them must be wrong - despite their dogmatic belief.

[tabibito]

Two of them got blasted by God for withholding their property.

Nope. The text is clear: Peter affirmed their right to withhold their property and the proceeds of its sale (whether in whole or in part). They got the chop for lying about what they were doing.

But I was really thinking about the disciples who travelled with Jesus. They all followed Jesus' instruction and his example in giving away everything, and just keeping a small pot of communal money for day-to-day living.

Jesus' mission was funded (at least in part) by well-to-do female disciples.

And if you had lived in Europe a few centuries ago you probably would not have had a problem with burning witches.

Even at that, there were plenty of Christian sympathisers of witches who met with the same fate. A witch was defended in trial at the defender's peril, quite often.

Thankfully mankind's morality has improved over the years.

Not noticably so.

[The Pixie]

Nope. The text is clear: Peter affirmed their right to withhold their property and the proceeds of its sale (whether in whole or in part). They got the chop for lying about what they were doing.

Okay... so why did they lie? Presumably they were under a lot of pressure to conform, to give away everything.

Jesus' mission was funded (at least in part) by well-to-do female disciples.

What funding? Running for president might require millions of dollars, but not Jesus' preaching!

The impression I get is that Jesus and his disciples lived day-to-day from the hand-outs of the crowds, relying on the goodwill of others. I would be intrigued to hear of verses that say otherwise.

Mat 5:31 Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But [bj]seek first [bk]His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [bl]added to you.
34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will [bm]care for itself. [bn]Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Even at that, there were plenty of Christian sympathisers of witches who met with the same fate. A witch was defended in trial at the defender's peril, quite often.

Sure, and I am sure dissidents in Mao's China had sympathisers too - other dissidents for one.

Not noticably so.

We have already mentioned slavery. I think the abolition of slavery is an improvement. Similarly that we no longer burn witches. While we still have racism, it is now perceived as very wrong. I think attitudes to women have changed a lot in the last few decades, as illustrated by recent news headlines - these things are no longer considered acceptable. The concept of an age of consent only appeared a century or so ago.

Seems to me moral attitudes have changed a lot, and I see that as an improvement.

[tabibito]

Mark 15:40 Now there were women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of young James and Joseph, and Salome. 41 They used to accompany him and care for him while he was in Galilee. Many other women who had come up to Jerusalem with him were there, too.

Luke 8:3 Joanna, the wife of Herod’s household manager Chuza; Susanna; and many others. These women continued to support them out of their personal resources.

[tabibito]

We have already mentioned slavery. I think the abolition of slavery is an improvement. Similarly that we no longer burn witches. While we still have racism, it is now perceived as very wrong. I think attitudes to women have changed a lot in the last few decades, as illustrated by recent news headlines - these things are no longer considered acceptable. The concept of an age of consent only appeared a century or so ago.

Seems to me moral attitudes have changed a lot, and I see that as an improvement.

The mind-sets haven't changed. Just diminished opportunity, and a change of arena.

[seer]

The point here is not that the Bible supports slavery (that is a discussion for another time) but that Christians have used scripture to convince themselves both that slavery is right and that slavery is wrong. Clearly these are two opposed positions, and one of them must be wrong - despite their dogmatic belief.

Yes and remember Pixie, the Abolition movement, in England and the US, was largely populated by Christians. Ask yourself how does slavery comport to the basic teachings of Christ, to love your fellow man or to do unto others? And again, on all these issues there is one right answer - which is not the case with atheism.

Ah, okay, so we are different. I think that murder is intrinsically bad, you think it is bad because God has decided it is.

You think? So you are merely offering an opinion? Or do you have an actual argument for why murder is intrinsically bad. And if you really believe that murder is intrinsically bad is that not a dogmatic belief?

[shunyadragon]

I have a sticky 'F' key on my keyboard and it effected the following post. Note following correction.

The reality of human society does not function on 'why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly.' Society functions on the collective cooperation and reciprocity of the group, and not whether one individual or group follows selfish motives. It is simply a matter of brute fact that not everyone, individuals or groups, will follow the morals and ethics of society, but human society survives when the majority do most o the time. This is also true by the way o some primate societies.

By the way theists ace the problem also 'why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly,' because it is obvious that all humanity do not follow the morals and ethics some or all o the time and follow selfish motives instead.

corrected:

The reality of human society does not function on 'why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly.' Society functions on the collective cooperation and reciprocity of the group, and not whether one individual or group follows selfish motives. It is simply a matter of brute fact that not everyone, individuals or groups, will follow the morals and ethics of society, but human society survives when the majority do most of the time. This is also true by the way of some primate societies.

By the way theists ace the problem also 'why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly,' because it is obvious that all humanity does not follow the morals and ethics some or all of the time and follow selfish motives instead.

[JonathanL]

Okay... so why did they lie?

To get a higher standing in the community/church, without having to actually sacrifice anything substantial, presumably.

[tabibito]

To get a higher standing in the community/church, without having to actually sacrifice anything substantial, presumably.

The possibility can't be denied, but in the absence of more concrete information, I'm not willing to make comment beyond "possibility."

[The Pixie]

Mark 15:40 Now there were women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of young James and Joseph, and Salome. 41 They used to accompany him and care for him while he was in Galilee. Many other women who had come up to Jerusalem with him were there, too.

Luke 8:3 Joanna, the wife of Herod’s household manager Chuza; Susanna; and many others. These women continued to support them out of their personal resources.

But is that not indicative of the lesser role of women at that time? They could not give up their goods, as the women "belonged" to their husbands, and so they followed Jesus in their own way, by providing support.

And the fact that they did give support shows that Jesus and his male disciples had no money for food or shelter.

The mind-sets haven't changed. Just diminished opportunity, and a change of arena.

I appreciate the mind-set of the perpetrator has not changed, but society has, and what was once accepted is now frowned upon. I think that that is an improvement.

[tabibito]

But is that not indicative of the lesser role of women at that time? They could not give up their goods, as the women "belonged" to their husbands, and so they followed Jesus in their own way, by providing support.

And the fact that they did give support shows that Jesus and his male disciples had no money for food or shelter.

Which part of "personal resources" did you fail to notice? And which part of Herod's household manager would indicate pauper-ship? Is it possible perhaps that women in Israel weren't quite as downtrodden as popular belief would have it? (I don't know.)

I appreciate the mind-set of the perpetrator has not changed, but society has, and what was once accepted is now frowned upon. I think that that is an improvement.

It has moved from physical abuse to emotional and verbal abuse, that's all. People are still perfectly at liberty to ostracise, vilify, and disenfranchise others - and it is socially acceptable. These days the words aren't "witch" and "heretic" (not in so many words, anyway) but "white," "male," and "~ist/~phobic." Charges proven by the fact that they have been made, and legitimate excuse to destroy or compromise careers. These days it isn't witch hunters, but the PC brigade, and in the 1950s, Commie hunters.
Some white woman is selling tacos from a food-stand - close her down on a charge of "cultural appropriation."
Some high-school student in a classroom points out the (peer reviewed and documented) stats of female domestic violence against men and children. Shut her down.
Stereotyping and profiling is acceptable, provided that the right people are being stereotyped and profiled.

[The Pixie]

Yes and remember Pixie, the Abolition movement, in England and the US, was largely populated by Christians. Ask yourself how does slavery comport to the basic teachings of Christ, to love your fellow man or to do unto others? And again, on all these issues there is one right answer - which is not the case with atheism.

My point is that some Christians are (were) pro-slavery, whilst other are against it. I have no idea how you think your response addresses that. In fact, it looks to me like you are trying to argue that Christianity is against slavery, which is an entirely different argument.

You think? So you are merely offering an opinion? Or do you have an actual argument for why murder is intrinsically bad. And if you really believe that murder is intrinsically bad is that not a dogmatic belief?

It seems to me that depriving the life of another person - against their will - is wrong, and this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group), so I think this is something I can be reasonably sure of. Even then, there are grey areas (abortion, euthanasia, self defence).

Do you think slavery is intrinsically bad? Or do you only think it is bad because your interpretation of scripture indicates that?

How about abortion? Many Christians are very anti-abortion, and yet the Biblical support for that position is entirely lacking; according to the Bible life begins when you take a breath.

[The Pixie]

Which part of "personal resources" did you fail to notice? And which part of Herod's household manager would indicate pauper-ship? Is it possible perhaps that women in Israel weren't quite as downtrodden as popular belief would have it? (I don't know.)

So you think these women were in a position to just leave their husbands and join Jesus? I find that unlikely; can you find any evidence to support the position?

It has moved from physical abuse to emotional and verbal abuse, that's all. People are still perfectly at liberty to ostracise, vilify, and disenfranchise others - and it is socially acceptable. These days the words aren't "witch" and "heretic" (not in so many words, anyway) but "white," "male," and "~ist/~phobic." Charges proven by the fact that they have been made, and legitimate excuse to destroy or compromise careers. These days it isn't witch hunters, but the PC brigade, and in the 1950s, Commie hunters.
Some white woman is selling tacos from a food-stand - close her down on a charge of "cultural appropriation."
Some high-school student in a classroom points out the (peer reviewed and documented) stats of female domestic violence against men and children. Shut her down.
Stereotyping and profiling is acceptable, provided that the right people are being stereotyped and profiled.

I appreciate that does happen, but I still see an improvement - and some of what you describe is a fall-out from those changes. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[seer]

My point is that some Christians are (were) pro-slavery, whilst other are against it. I have no idea how you think your response addresses that. In fact, it looks to me like you are trying to argue that Christianity is against slavery, which is an entirely different argument.

No, I'm not arguing against slavery per se, but the cruelty we saw/see in some forms of slavery. Like in the Antebellum South. That is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ - wouldn't you agree?

It seems to me that depriving the life of another person - against their will - is wrong, and this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group), so I think this is something I can be reasonably sure of. Even then, there are grey areas (abortion, euthanasia, self defence).

Appealing to the majority does not make something "intrinsically" bad. I mean slavery was pretty much universal and accepted - does that make it intrinsically good? And isn't your belief that murder is intrinsically bad dogmatic?

Do you think slavery is intrinsically bad? Or do you only think it is bad because your interpretation of scripture indicates that?

No, I do not think all forms of slavery are necessarily bad. Biblically speaking what we saw in the South was. That was grounded in widespread kidnapping - man stealing from the African nations, and man stealing is a sin.

How about abortion? Many Christians are very anti-abortion, and yet the Biblical support for that position is entirely lacking; according to the Bible life begins when you take a breath.

Where does the Bible say that?

[tabibito]

Argument from incredulity?

These aren't records of miracles: how likely is it that Luke would have included in his record of the mundane, something that any reader of the time would know to be impossible? There are enough hints in the Old Testament to call into question the theory that women were disenfranchised, though some writers comment that their rights became reduced during the Hellenistic/Roman period. Nor is this the only record of women of means - Lydia of Thyatira, a trader in purple - by no stretch a low social status.
Women were certainly permitted to own property in their own right (note that comment by Luke - They supported him from their own funds ... not from their husbands' funds.) Just a few titles (loosely related) -

Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo's 'Therapeutae ...
By Joan E. Taylor
http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10...199340378-e-45
http://honr201spring2013.blogspot.co...nt-hebrew.html

There is a story doing the rounds about how women of the time were not entitled to divorce their husbands. Just more proof of the patriarchal establishment disenfranchising women. Except that such is not the case: the woman could not divorce her husband, but she could appeal to the elders to have her husband grant her a certificate of divorce. If she had legitimate grievances, the elders would politely request the husband to grant her the certificate of divorce ... if he refused (the elders could not compel him) he was given incentives (if necessary, of the unpleasant variety) to persuade him to comply with the request.

A divorced woman was entitled to the return of her dowry (and often an additional sum in damages) along with the requisite certificate.
https://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/...orce_first.pdf
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/divorce-2
http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstud...ewishWomen.htm