AP,

Feel free to give me an education. I say that human beings determine what is right or wrong based on their values. For example, most people value little cooing babies, so they agree that slaughterig them is morally wrong. In the Bible, the biblical god doesn't seem to value little cooing babies all that much since he condones, commands of commits the slaughter of little cooing babies not a few times.

And if that was really the case, then all you could say is "Well those are his value and they differ from mine but all they do is differ. They are neither good or evil."

No. Human beings generally determine that actions are good or evil based on whether the actions help or harm people's lives lives and welfare. But this thread is not about natural human morality, but about this supposed Divine morality that you think exists.

AP: You sure don't act like that however with your 50 verses you constantly cry out.

AP: This is the problem. You talk about determining what is right or wrong. I want to know if there is any truth-content to that position. Can I say "X is wrong" and be wrong in my belief? If not, then there's really no point discussing it.

I don't know what you are saying. I want to know how you, as Christian who believes that he gets an objective morality from a supernatural being, goes about actually determining what is morally right and wrong.

You also speak of our values. Well tell me, if you want to use little cooing babies, are they really valuable in themselves or do we just perceive them that way even though they're not really valuable?

We value innocent children so we call harm to them evil. Is that really so hard to understand?

Tell me how you call anything evil using your supposedly God-given objective morality. Give me a point by point description of how you use this moral system to determine that a certain action is objectively morally good or objectively morally bad or wrong. I mean if you think my morality is so awful and worthless, explain the alternative. Enlighten me and lead me down the path to moral righteousness.

Until you understand basic ontology, it is pointless to discuss application.

Educate me. Show me how you use your supposedly superior moral system to determine objective right and wrong. I am all ears.

Cheers,

Jimbo

guaca,

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response to my OP.

J: So no Christian on the TWEB apologetics board can explain how an objective, God-given morality works? If so, it isn't a surprise.

G: I think most people were trying to answer your questions. Are you looking for an explanation of those answers?

Yes.

Morality comes from God the same way scientific law originates with God, it is a created thing, subject to logic, established from the beginning.

Where did you aquire this information? Is it written in the Bible somewhere?

This is aboslute: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because what goes around comes around.

What if you are a masochist?

Everything else is commentary or application of the absolute moral law.

This law is absolute because there is no circumstance in which we can qualify this culturally.

It is based on human values--you behave in a certain way in order to receive the same treatment. This idea does not come from a god but from common sense.

It is further made absolute because if you violate this, if you create a world where acting contrary to the first principle is active, then you will be punished by the progress of the moral law.

What is the progress of the moral law, exactly? I don't understand what you are referring to.

It not seen as objective because people are either morally blind or persistent in the error of the primacy of science as the only means of human inquiry.

I think it is a good principle to treat people as you want to be treated, but this idea did not originate with Christianity. It is just based on common sense.

Applying first (Do unto others...) and second (What goes around...) principles to these examples:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

A. In a culture where there is no effective debt accountability (other than violence) or welfare, putting people out of the community rather than allowing them to be slaves would be objectively morally wrong because we would want people to provide for our needs if we were amongst the weakest of those. If this is violated, we may create a world in which we find ourselves weak and lacking care. We will degenerate into a cycle of violence and revenge as others try to hold us accountable for our callousness.

This is indentured servitude, not lifelong slavery.

B. In a culture where is effective debt collection without violence or incarceration and there is an established tradition of general welfare, making them slaves is objectively morally wrong becauase we wouldn't want people to make us slaves when there are better solutions. If this is violated, we will again create a world that cycles around violence, revenge, and pain. We will be subject to this, in some way, no matter what.

You are referring to indentured servitude, not lifelong slavery.

C. In a culture where civilians end up as prisoners of war, it is better to make them slaves than to engage in genocide.

It is better, but isn't it better still not to wage wars where civilians are taken as slaves after their families are murdered?

This is because we would want a chance at life and the ability to join a new culture rather than being exterminated. If we violate this, we create a world that tolerates genocide. That will hurt when it bites us.

Instead of either exterminating people or putting them into slavery, how about letting them go free, or how about not waging war on them in the first place? Wouldn't that be even better?

J: 2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

G: A. If I choose on my own to slaughter liitle cooing babies, I am objectively morally wrong because I have learned from scripture to follow the Golden Rule.

But the golden rule is broken continually in the Bible. I mean if you thought that the biblical god told you to slaughter little cooing babies, would you then think that it was objectively morally right to do slaughter little cooing babies?

B. If I choose on my own to slaughter babies who cannot coo because they are in the womb, I am objectively morally wrong because I would not want to be murdered in utero.

So the objective morality of abortion is based on your own subjective personal wants and desires? What if someone else whose mother died giving birth to her would have preferred to have been aborted as a blastula to have saved the life of her mother? Would that personal want and desire make abortion objectively morally right?

If I violate this, I help create a world in which human life and rights are cheap.

It is simply your opinion that abortion makes life cheap. I could say that the lives and the rights of women are cheapened if they are not able to control their own pregnancies.

C. If I am God, it is immoral for me not to kill people period. Sometimes they are cooing little babies, sometimes they are old farts, sometimes they are villains, sometimes they are saints. It is what I do. It is my divine portfolio.

This is just your personal subjective opinion.

I manage life and welfare for all.

This is just your personal subjective opinion.

Because I have advanced knowledge and more responsibility, I must make these decisions. If I tell you to be my agent, you are objectively morally wrong to violate my order to kill cooing little babies because you don't know what I know and don't have the authority to violate that command.

In other words, God's ways are mysterious and he can do whatever he wants. Isn't this just your personal subjective opinion?

There is a good presentation of this in "What Men Live By" by Leo Tolstoy. If you try to argue Ad Absurdem Nazi I will point out that none other than God has the authority to make this command.

How is this not simply your personal subjective opinion?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

A. That would be objectively morally wrong.

B. Torturing people for eternity for their sin, however, might be something else. Is that what you actually want to discuss?

What is "sin" and why does committing a sin justify an eternity of punishment? Before you answer, think about how you would convince me that your answer is anything other than your personal subjective opinion and/or the personal subjective opinion of some other Christian or Christians.

Thanks.

Jimbo

Max Vel,

J: On another thread I started here, starting on page three or four, Max Vel devoted numerous, extensive posts to interrogating me and attacking what he percieved to be or misinterpreted to be my moral views or values.

M: I haven't (AFAIC remember) attacked your moral values per se. What I have said is that your actions (posting complaints that 'God is evil'; quoting verses from the Bible that you seem to think show that God is morally objectionable) are inconsistent with your self-declared moral worldview. If all morals are subjective, then there is no such thing as an objective moral judgment that 'God is evil'. So what you are doing is no more than attempting to impose your personal moral opinions on others who have different ones, as if your ones were somehow superior. That’s both irrational (inconsistent with your worldview) and chauvinistic.

The statement"God is immoral" is based on human values, values that most people share. It is not simply based on my own personal, subjective opinion, as you are so eager to claim.

J: Yesterday several other Christians joined in the fun. I have tried to answer their questions as best I can, and have repeated myself numerous times for the benefit of Max Vel, who asks me essentially the same question over and over again. I wouldn't really call this much of a discussion because the word discussion implies that there is some sort of give and take, a fair and balanced exchange of ideas. Instead questions are piled on me, I answer them as best I can and ask one or two questions in return, and my questions are ignored or dismissed and more questions are piled on me.

M: Poor Jimbo.

I am explaining the reason for creating a separate thread, since I couldn't get you or any of your Christian homeys to explain your supposed objective morality on the previous thread.

J: I don't claim to be a moral philosopher, and my explanations of morality perhaps leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that human morality is based on values that exist in people's minds and these values are shaped by upbringing, family, culture, life experiences, logic, instincts (that are bred into us by evolution), and so on.

M: In our discussion I have granted you that thesis as true. My question is: are you acting consistently as if that were the case? I don’t think you are.

That is probably because you don't understand how human morality actually works.

J: In others words, morality has a natural basis and the goal of it, generally speaking, is happiness.

M: I take it by this you mean that the goal – for those who choose to set this as their goal – is happiness. With the corollary that other goals are just as valid for those that choose them.

I think that the ultimate goal of human behavior is to achieve some form of happiness. If you want to propose an alternative reason for why people do what they do, feel free.

J: Furthermore, there is a commonality of moral values which results from similar needs, wants, desires and instincts. Anyway, all this seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone over these ideas again and again with my interogators on that thread and I am repeatedly told that if my view of morality is correct--that is, if morality is subjective as opposed to objective (which in this case seems to mean natural and human-based as opposed to outside-of-humanity and God-based, or, as my Christian interrogators would say, personal, subjective opinion versus God-given "truth) then no moral statement I make necessarily has any force or power or meaning to anyone else.

M: Do you think it necessarily does? If so, why?

Take your questions about natural, human morality to the other thread. This thread is for you and your buds to explain your supposed god-given objective morality.

M: {for clarity, here I am using ‘necessarily’ in a logical sense: that is, if (as Jimbo thinks) morality is subjective does it then logically follow that his moral statements (‘God is evil’ etc) have power or meaning for others?}

Whatever you want to believe, Max. Give me the alternative morality I should follow.

J: If I say that the biblical god is immoral, for example, I am told that-if my worldview is true-this statement is equivalent to the statement that I like a particular flavor of ice cream and the statement is of no real consequence or importance to anyone else.

M: It’s entirely up to them whether they choose to take your statement to have consequence or not, surely. Your statements about morality are ‘true’ only if they choose to accept them as true. You aren’t making a claim to an objective fact that is true even if they don’t believe it to be true.

Whatever. Explain to me how you determine that any moral claim is objectively "true."

M: Perhaps you could show an example of another area of subjective beliefs where one person’s subjective view holds objective logical consequence for other people?

Like, say, a Spanish Inquisitor's subjective, personal belief that killing witches pleases the Christian god?

J: I have tried to explain that my moral statements are based on and are made in the context of shared cultural and societal moral values, and that there doesn't seem to be any higher or more inclusive level of morality available, at least as far as I can tell. I have repeated this information to my chat board Christian buddies numerous times in about every way I can think of, and have made a simple request to them to provide me with a factually-supported, coherent, logical explanation of their alternative to a human based morality. It seems to me that if they think my morality is so awful and meaningless, surely they would be eager to provide me with their amazingly wondrous alternative. However, instead of providing me with this alternative "objective" morality-even after several posts with repeated requests for them to do so-they ignore my requests and continue piling on the questions and attacking my moral position.

M: Because you have {still} yet to grasp what your position entails. Because you (still) act as if your moral statements are in some way, by their nature, binding on others, which, if your worldview is true, they cannot be.

I think that my moral statements regarding the Christian god appeal to most people's moral values.

M: What’s the point of trying to get you to grasp a different moral worldview when you can’t grasp and act consistently with your own view?

You keep telling me that my moral view is wrong and essentially useless, so I want you to give me the alternative. Help me out, Max. If you think I am so morally blind, bestow your moral wisdom on me. Lay your hands on me and heal me, Brother.

J: I am eager to know as much as I can about this perfectly wonderful God-given morality that my interrogators are so convinced exists, and I am sure these TWEB Christians would want as many people as possible to know about it too. Therefore I have decided to provide this thread to them so they can broadcast to the world the Good News about their God-based, perfect morality. If they are so absolutely certain that they possess a God-given objective morality, they will surely be eager to tell as many people as possible about it in as explicit detail as they can manage. Here their chance to do so!

To kick things off, I have decided to repeat three simple questions that I asked Max Vel on the other thread. Since he and the other Christians on the other thread are convinced that human morality is God-based and objective and because they make is appear that they know all about this type of morality, I would like to have them explain to me if the following actions are objectively moral wrong or objectively morally right:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

If they say that any of these actions is objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right, I would then want them to explain, in explicit detail, the process that they went through to make that determination.

Finally, if any Christian wants to continue to ask me questions about how I think morality works, they should go to the other thread I mentioned at the beginnning of the OP. I would like to keep this thread focused on the supposed God-given objective morality that Max Vel and my other Christian interrogators champion.

MAX: As AP has said, until you can grasp the basics of moral ontology, it’s pointless to discuss specific applications.

Explain this to me, Max. I am all ears.

M: Not only that, but your questions are flawed:

J: 1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

M: Please clarify precisely what you mean by the term “Slavery”. Do you mean forced transformation from the status of an independent human being into the status of an item of property wholly belonging to someone else?

Yes.

J: 2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

M: Why do you use the words ‘little’ and ‘cooing’ in this question? Is it not merely for rhetorical effect, to attempt to get the reader to make an emotional response to your question (a response that suits you) rather than a logical one?

Do you think that slaughtering crying babies is OK? Are you just not interested in what happens to them? Likewise big babies… is slaughtering them a matter of moral indifference to you, that you have specifically excluded them from your question?

Max, it obviously doesn't matter what I think, right? Tell me what you think and why.

J: 3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

M: Despite your attempts to ignore the fact that you have a strawman here, that is precisely what you have: A Christian can answer ‘Yes’ to this question and still affirm that the Christian doctrine of hell is objectively morally OK. So what’s the point of this? It can only be another attempt to elicit an emotional response against Christianity and in favour of your position.

I want any Christian who answers yes to this question to trace the chain of logic that allows him or her to say this. I want to fully understand that person's reasoning. I want to be educated and brought out of my moral darkness into the pure white light of a God-given, objective morality.

If your position were logically stronger, or you were more honest and less manipulative, you wouldn’t need to resort to the kinds of slanted questions you choose to use.

As I have explained elsewhere, these questions are relevant because you and other Christians believe that this supposed objective morality comes from the Christian god and yet the Christian god condones, commands or commits all of the actions I listed. So I want to see the reasoning that you or other Christians would use to justify these actions as objectively morally good or right. Obviously I think that the biblical god is fake and that asking questions like this help to expose the absurdity of the idea that an objective morality comes from this god.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Robert,

One point of contention. You are actually referring to the Jewish god.

Of course, but the Christians claim it is their god.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Max Vel,

J: However, as I have tried to tell you numerous times, my moral values reflect the shared moral values of our society and most human cultures, just as yours do.

M: OK. So if there are no objective morals, what is happening here is that a bunch of people's subjective opinions are coinciding. Say like if a bunch of people happen to think that forest green is the most beautiful colour. I don't see how the number of people holding a subjective opinion changes the truth value of that opinion, with colours, music, moral values or anything else.

Think of it like this: Most people value little cooing babies, so most people regard harm to little cooing babies as a bad thing. They label harm to little cooing babies as morally wrong.

Since there are numerous occasions in the Bible where the Christian god kills babies or orders babies to be killed, it seems that it would be difficult for people who believed that they recieved an objective morality from this god to think that killing babies is "objectively" morally wrong.

Wouldn't you agree?

J: Most people agree that whether a morality is better or worse depends on how well it improves or harms life, health and welfare.

M: OK. But if your view of morality is true, there is nothing inherently more correct or morally better about evaluating morality on that basis or on any other basis.

No, if you read what I wrote, you will see that the yardstick is how well an action helps or harms people, generally speaking. If the action harms people, it is generally called morally wrong, if it helps people, it is generally called morally right.

What is the yardstick that you use to determine "objective" moral rights and wrongs?

M: One could evaluate morality on the basis of how convenient it is for you, or how little it impinges on your freedom to do whatever you want, or ... etc. All of those evaluations of morality appear to be equally valid under your worldview.

Well, no, they are not equally "valid." What matters is whether an action benefits or harms people, as I wrote above.

How do you determine "objective" moral rights and wrongs?

M: That is why your constant harping on about the morality of the OT, God etc is both irrational and unfair. You are claiming that your morality is objectively better than another morality, something which is not possible in your worldview.

When I criticize the morality of the Bible and the biblical god, I appeal to basic, natural moral values that most people share. I am not aware that I have ever said that I have an "objectively" superior morality to anyone else. I share many of the same moral values that you and most other people have.

M: Think of some other matter of subjective matter - say taste in colour - and how you would react if someone said to you "Your taste in colour is awful, just horrible. Pink and black are the colours. Anything else is just wrong." I suspect you might say something like 'So what? That's just your opinion. I have my own opinion. Those colours don't suit me." If they also said "Not only that, but almost everyone else agrees with me. Pink and black, Jimbo, pink and black.", would you now be convinced that you are logically wrong, and should change your taste in colours?

This is, I think, a type of reducto ad absurdum argument. A person's favorite color is of little consequence to anyone whereas moral values and choices actually affect the health and welfare of human beings.

J: Neither one of us can appeal to a higher context of morality, as far as I can tell. You are free to convince me otherwise, but I don't think there is a higher or greater context than this.

I have put up this thread for theists who believe in a God-given "objective" morality to explain how this particular type of morality works. My view is that no one can say how it works because it is a nonsensical concept.

M: Then we're stuck with two apparently nonsensical concepts of morality - yours and mine.

A natural, human based morality is supported by facts and evidence. Your God-based morality seems to be nothing other than delusion. But this thread is here for you to show otherwise once you work up the gumption to do so.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Originally posted by robertb

Really apply in an aboslute truth sense, no.

If they do not apply, live accordingly.

Really apply as in a we are human beings and have evolutionarily (is that a word, lol) developed a sense of right and wrong, based on various naturalistic factors. Then yes.

A true sense of right or wrong or not?

Let me ask you this question.

Is it more ethical to return a wallet because you may be rewarded for your effort, or to simply return it because it is the right thing to do?

More ethical? What's that mean? How can something be more or less ethical if there are no absolutes?

Originally posted by jimbo

AP,



No. Human beings generally determine that actions are good or evil based on whether the actions help or harm people's lives lives and welfare.

Which is such a vague term that we will end up with problems. For instance, the refrigerator industry put a lot of ice suppliers out of a job. That did a lot of harm to them and their families. Was that wrong? The automobile industry wrecked the horse industry. Was that wrong?

Further, why limit it to people? Why not say animal welfare or the welfare of the planet?

Finally, how is it that you reach the conclusion that it's good to help people and wrong to harm them?

But this thread is not about natural human morality, but about this supposed Divine morality that you think exists.

Yes. This divine morality you appeal to constantly while denying its existence.

I don't know what you are saying. I want to know how you, as Christian who believes that he gets an objective morality from a supernatural being, goes about actually determining what is morally right and wrong.

Since you don't know what I am saying, here's some advice. Be quiet until you do. I would suggest learning the ontology of morality before the application of morality. That's your problem. You always skip to the applicational level before going to the foundational level.

We value innocent children so we call harm to them evil. Is that really so hard to understand?

If good and evil are simply constructs with no meaning beyond us, yes it is.

Tell me how you call anything evil using your supposedly God-given objective morality. Give me a point by point description of how you use this moral system to determine that a certain action is objectively morally good or objectively morally bad or wrong. I mean if you think my morality is so awful and worthless, explain the alternative. Enlighten me and lead me down the path to moral righteousness.

Sorry Jimbo. I play by my rules. One rule is that you never discuss step 2 until you've got all the foundations down in step 1. I do not discuss the application of morality without the ontology of morality as my metaphysics demands such.

Educate me. Show me how you use your supposedly superior moral system to determine objective right and wrong. I am all ears.

Cheers,

Jimbo

No you're not. You've been going on this same tirade for years without realizing you're a walking contradiction. The first question that has to be asked is what goodness itself is. Once we get past that, we move on.

Apologia,

J: Feel free to give me an education. I say that human beings determine what is right or wrong based on their values. For example, most people value little cooing babies, so they agree that slaughterig them is morally wrong. In the Bible, the biblical god doesn't seem to value little cooing babies all that much since he condones, commands of commits the slaughter of little cooing babies not a few times.

A: And if that was really the case, then all you could say is "Well those are his value and they differ from mine but all they do is differ. They are neither good or evil."

J: No. Human beings generally determine that actions are good or evil based on whether the actions help or harm people's lives lives and welfare.

A: Which is such a vague term that we will end up with problems. For instance, the refrigerator industry put a lot of ice suppliers out of a job. That did a lot of harm to them and their families. Was that wrong? The automobile industry wrecked the horse industry. Was that wrong?

Technological advancements can have have both beneficial and harmful effects on different groups of people so there isn't a yes/no answer to your question. But hey, since you ask the question, what is YOUR answer and how did you go about determining it?

Further, why limit it to people? Why not say animal welfare or the welfare of the planet?

Because when we refer to human morality, we are referring to a morality that involves human beings.

Finally, how is it that you reach the conclusion that it's good to help people and wrong to harm them?

I value other human beings (like most people) so I feel that harm to them is generally a bad thing and that helping and improving their lives is generally a good thing.

How do you determine whether an action is wrong or right? Do you consult the Bible? Do you pray really hard for the biblical god to tell you what is right or wrong? Do you ask the local neighborhood minister for his personal subjective opinion on the subject? Or do you do it some other way? I don't think you have an good answer to this question, but go ahead and surpise me.

J: But this thread is not about natural human morality, but about this supposed Divine morality that you think exists.

A: Yes. This divine morality you appeal to constantly while denying its existence.

But I don't. I have specifically said, repeatedly, over and over again, that my morality is based on my values and the values of the society in which I live. If I have ever said that I appeal to a divine morality, then I am sure that you would provide the quote. But you can't. So why do you say this?

J: I don't know what you are saying. I want to know how you, as Christian who believes that he gets an objective morality from a supernatural being, goes about actually determining what is morally right and wrong.

A: Since you don't know what I am saying, here's some advice. Be quiet until you do. I would suggest learning the ontology of morality before the application of morality. That's your problem. You always skip to the applicational level before going to the foundational level.

It is clear to me that, like Max Vel, you fend off questions about how your divine morality works because you really don't know how it works. About all you can say about your supposedly divine morality is "God did it" right? So you put up a wall of questions to others regarding their views about morality. You are doing it to me on this thread and you are doing the same thing to a poster named Robert in a another thread.

J: We value innocent children so we call harm to them evil. Is that really so hard to understand?

A: If good and evil are simply constructs with no meaning beyond us, yes it is.

Why does morality have to have meaning beyond us?

J: Tell me how you call anything evil using your supposedly God-given objective morality. Give me a point by point description of how you use this moral system to determine that a certain action is objectively morally good or objectively morally bad or wrong. I mean if you think my morality is so awful and worthless, explain the alternative. Enlighten me and lead me down the path to moral righteousness.

A: Sorry Jimbo. I play by my rules. One rule is that you never discuss step 2 until you've got all the foundations down in step 1. I do not discuss the application of morality without the ontology of morality as my metaphysics demands such.

Big words, but since I know that you are mistaken for believing that you get your morality from the Christian god, I say that you are simply fending off questions about this supposedly divine morality because you realize that you cannot answer them. If you want to convince me that you really get an objective morality from the biblical god, tell me how it works. For example, does the biblical god beam radio waves into your mind 24/7 telling what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong? Does the Bible contain clear and explicit moral rules that allow anyone and everyone to easily and quickly determine what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong in each and every conceivable human interaction everywhere on the planet throughout all of history? Are specific rules and guidelines supernaturally imprinted on our brains while we are tiny embryos forming in the womb? Tell me specifically how you think your divine morality works. Until you do this I have no reason to take your belief that you possess a divine morality seriously, nor much of anything you say about morality.

J: Educate me. Show me how you use your supposedly superior moral system to determine objective right and wrong. I am all ears.

A: No you're not. You've been going on this same tirade for years without realizing you're a walking contradiction. The first question that has to be asked is what goodness itself is. Once we get past that, we move on.

I have told you how I determine goodness. Now it is time for you to stop stalling and tell me how YOU determine goodness, badness, rightness and wrongness. That is what this thread is for-for Christians who believe in a divine objective morality to explain in detail how they think it works.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Originally posted by jimbo

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

Your question is vague. It's really a semantic issue, since what slavery is has changed over time, its necessity and use has changed over time, as well. So, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean.

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

There is a problem of vagueness, here. Who? Why? In what circumstance? Can you as an individual without justification slaughter a little cooing baby? No.

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

Again, who? Why? These questions are important. There are things that a policeman may do as an agent of the government that he may not do as an individual citizen. Same with soldiers. Different rules apply.

I assume that you are not a stupid person, and yet these questions reflect a simpleton mindset that hasn't bothered to think critically through these fairly basic questions.

Perhaps going back to the 9th grade would help?

Michael

Originally posted by jimbo

Apologia,



Technological advancements can have have both beneficial and harmful effects on different groups of people so there isn't a yes/no answer to your question. But hey, since you ask the question, what is YOUR answer and how did you go about determining it?

Jimbo. You're the one who made the claim. Are you telling me some harm is justifiable now? Based on what standard? How do you know?

Because when we refer to human morality, we are referring to a morality that involves human beings.

Oh? So it's perfectly moral for me to go obliterate the Amazon rainforest?

Excuse me everyone. I'm going to go have some fun!

I value other human beings (like most people) so I feel that harm to them is generally a bad thing and that helping and improving their lives is generally a good thing.

Which is simply stating that your conclusion is your conclusion. I asked how you reached that conclusion. Why should I value other human beings?

How do you determine whether an action is wrong or right? Do you consult the Bible? Do you pray really hard for the biblical god to tell you what is right or wrong? Do you ask the local neighborhood minister for his personal subjective opinion on the subject? Or do you do it some other way? I don't think you have an good answer to this question, but go ahead and surpise me.

Might be a shock to you Jimbo, but I don't think something is moral or immoral because the Bible says so. In fact, I believe it's the other way around, but then you've never cracked open a book on Natural Law theory.

But I don't. I have specifically said, repeatedly, over and over again, that my morality is based on my values and the values of the society in which I live. If I have ever said that I appeal to a divine morality, then I am sure that you would provide the quote. But you can't. So why do you say this?

Because for someone who doesn't believe morality is objective, you sure appeal to moral standards all the time!

It is clear to me that, like Max Vel, you fend off questions about how your divine morality works because you really don't know how it works. About all you can say about your supposedly divine morality is "God did it" right? So you put up a wall of questions to others regarding their views about morality. You are doing it to me on this thread and you are doing the same thing to a poster named Robert in a another thread.

Want a tissue to cry on?

No Jimbo. The problem is I don't discuss the second principles until I have the first ones agreed on and you don't even know the basics. When we get past the ontology of morality, we can discuss the application of it.

Why does morality have to have meaning beyond us?

If we can make good and evil be whatever we want, then they mean essentially nothing. If good and evil are something outside of us, then we need to conform to goodness and not to evil. Either we conform morality, which is what we're supposed to do, or we will try to get morality to conform to us.

Big words, but since I know that you are mistaken for believing that you get your morality from the Christian god, I say that you are simply fending off questions about this supposedly divine morality because you realize that you cannot answer them. If you want to convince me that you really get an objective morality from the biblical god, tell me how it works. For example, does the biblical god beam radio waves into your mind 24/7 telling what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong? Does the Bible contain clear and explicit moral rules that allow anyone and everyone to easily and quickly determine what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong in each and every conceivable human interaction everywhere on the planet throughout all of history? Are specific rules and guidelines supernaturally imprinted on our brains while we are tiny embryos forming in the womb? Tell me specifically how you think your divine morality works. Until you do this I have no reason to take your belief that you possess a divine morality seriously, nor much of anything you say about morality.

Big words and I know what they mean. If you were so sure I was mistaken, you'd be willing to engage me there. You're not, so I conclude you refuse to because you don't want to be shown to not know what you're talking about.

Even though it's evident you don't know.

I have told you how I determine goodness. Now it is time for you to stop stalling and tell me how YOU determine goodness, badness, rightness and wrongness. That is what this thread is for-for Christians who believe in a divine objective morality to explain in detail how they think it works.

Cheers,

Jimbo

You haven't even said what goodness itself is. You've just said what you consider good.

Get the ontology and then we discuss the application.

Originally posted by jimbo

volcano rocket,



Thank you very much for your reply. I think that you are the first Christian on this thread to actually attempt to respond to my OP directly and answer my questions. So congratulations.

Now, I know that you believe what you say, but can you explain to me how you know that the biblical god created human beings with "inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" I mean, is that written in the Bible somewhere and if it is, why should anyone besides a Christian think it is true?

First of all, the biblical God of creation is a viable answer to the origin of life. Science has no answer to how life originated. This makes it a supernatural event. This means that the creation story in Genesis can be accepted as a true and trustworthy explanation of this supernatural event.

Next, God created human life to worship and glorify Him. In Matthew 22:37-38: “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.” This commandment directs us to the source of truth and morality, the Christian God. Further, in Matthew 22:39 Jesus went on to say, “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And in Matthew 22:40, he states, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” These two commandments show how much God loves us and wants us to love each other. To sum up God’s love for us, John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Considering all these biblical commandments given to us by God and the nature of reality, it is logical to conclude that God created us with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words are not specifically stated in the Bible, but they are definitely a logical and rational outcome from Jesus’ teachings.

Furthermore, I hope you are aware that the reason I posed this specific question of my good buddy Max Vel is because the biblical god actually seems to support putting people into lifelong slavery. Let's take a look at Leviticus 25:44, shall we?

Christian god: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Here is a related quotation:

Christian god: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

Exodus 21:20

Based on these direct quotes from the Christian god (well, they are at least attributed to the Christian god by the Bible writers), does it really make sense to say that the biblical god created human beings "with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" How does that idea jibe with these pronouncements that are attributed to the biblical god?

I am not convinced this is the Christian God speaking. How are you making such a connection in these examples? Nowhere does Jesus endorse the laws you provided in Leviticus 25:44 and Exodus 21:20 nor would they be a logical outcome from his teachings. Your point that the Christian God seems to support putting people into lifelong slavery is not proven.

The reason I posed this specific question is because-like the previous question-it points to a problem with the Christian claim that a wondrous, perfect, objective morality comes from the biblical god. In the Bible the Christian god repeatedly orders the slaughter of little cooing babies and massacres little cooing babies himself. Here are some pertinent quotes:

"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken."

Christian god-Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17

"Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 6:21

"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."

Deuteronomy 2:33

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15



"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5

If little cooing babies are created and imbued "with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" then why is it not objectively morally wrong for the biblical god to order them slaughtered and to slaughter them himself? There seems to be a contradiction here.

This question is answered the same way as the first. How are you making the connection that the Christian God is ordering little babies to be slaughtered? Nowhere does Jesus endorse such action nor does such action logically flow from his teachings. Thus no contradiction as you are pointing out.

Of course humans cannot torture humans for eternity. But humans can make up stories about all-powerful beings called gods and they can claim that these gods will torture people for all eternity for not accepting this or that religious claim. This idea of a god torturing or tormenting or making things really, really uncomforable for people for eternity for their opinions can be a powerful tool for changing opinions, for converting people to one religion or another. And this is probably why this idea is incorporated into both Islam and Christianity, two of the world's largest religions.

So the Christian god is said to send people to a place of eternal suffering for not believing in Jesus, for not having the opinion that Jesus is a magic-working godman who came to earth 2000 years ago. If Christians want others to believe that they derive a perfect, wondrous, objective morality from the biblical god, is seems to me that they need to explain the objective moral goodness of their god torturing people for eternity for their thoughts.

My view is that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous.

Cheers,

Jimbo

You have positioned yourself in a predicament with this argument. It is unclear whether you support objective morality or not. If we assume you do not, then you must believe in morality that is subjective which changes with the “shared cultural and societal moral values…” If this is the case, then your view “that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous” is not an objective moral denouncement but a subjective one that will change with cultural and societal moral values. In other words, it is only the expression of your cultural and societal moral values.

However, if your denouncement is supposed to be an objective one, then where do you derive your objective morality that is equally available to everyone else? It cannot be “bred into us by evolution” because it was supposed to have existed all along.

My argument is that your claim “that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous” lacks credibility because it is not logically coherent. It violates the law of non-contradiction. You are using objective morality to bash objective morality. It makes no sense.

Apologia,

J: Feel free to give me an education. I say that human beings determine what is right or wrong based on their values. For example, most people value little cooing babies, so they agree that slaughterig them is morally wrong. In the Bible, the biblical god doesn't seem to value little cooing babies all that much since he condones, commands of commits the slaughter of little cooing babies not a few times.

A: And if that was really the case, then all you could say is "Well those are his value and they differ from mine but all they do is differ. They are neither good or evil."

J: No. Human beings generally determine that actions are good or evil based on whether the actions help or harm people's lives lives and welfare.

A: Which is such a vague term that we will end up with problems. For instance, the refrigerator industry put a lot of ice suppliers out of a job. That did a lot of harm to them and their families. Was that wrong? The automobile industry wrecked the horse industry. Was that wrong?

J: Technological advancements can have have both beneficial and harmful effects on different groups of people so there isn't a yes/no answer to your question. But hey, since you ask the question, what is YOUR answer and how did you go about determining it?

A: Jimbo. You're the one who made the claim. Are you telling me some harm is justifiable now? Based on what standard? How do you know?

I am saying that the question refers to a large scale event involving technological advancement which has mixed effects. It doesn't really lend itself to a yes/no answer on its moral goodness or badness. And of course you clearly have no answer to the question yourself so it is not a little bit disengenuous for you to be asking it.

I would like to refer to something you wrote in another thread to robertb:

R: Is it more ethical to return a wallet because you may be rewarded, or simply to return it because it is the right thing to do?

(and I know you are going to equivocate, so take it as a rhetorical question...).

A: I can answer the latter because I happen to have an objective standard by which to measure. A relativistic position can simply say about each action "It simply is an action." It would be just as much an action to keep it all for yourself. (emphhasis added) ...

....B]Mor[ality is based on the nature of being and what things are. It comes from God[/b] whose being is his essence and I would argue depends on treating things as they are.(emphhasis added)

Isn't this just your personal subjective opinion? Show me why anyone else should believe this idea.

J: Because when we refer to human morality, we are referring to a morality that involves human beings.

A: Oh? So it's perfectly moral for me to go obliterate the Amazon rainforest?

Excuse me everyone. I'm going to go have some fun!

Destroying the rainforests will have negative consequences for most human beings. Among other things, rainforests help recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen and provide many pharmcetical products. Most people value oxygen and pharmacetical products and would suffer from their loss. Because of the negative results of destroying the rainforests-losing oxygen, pharmecutical products and also rare animals and plants, most people would agree that it would be wrong to destroy them.

Now, why don't you consult with your objective moral standard-the biblical god-and tell me what his personal subjective opinion is regarding the destruction of the rainforests. Tell me if he says whether it is objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong to destroy the rainforests.

Thanks.

J: I value other human beings (like most people) so I feel that harm to them is generally a bad thing and that helping and improving their lives is generally a good thing.

A: Which is simply stating that your conclusion is your conclusion.

I am giving you a point-by-point explanation of how human morality works. It is based on our values.

A: I asked how you reached that conclusion. Why should I value other human beings?

You should value human beings if you value companionship, friendship, love and all the benefits you get from living in a cooperative society with other human beings. If you do not value any of things, of course, then you probably will not value human beings.

Why do you believe that anyone should value other human beings? Will you say it is because they are made in the image and likeness of the biblical god? If so, how does that impart value to them?

Should anyone value the biblical god? If so, why?

J: How do you determine whether an action is wrong or right? Do you consult the Bible? Do you pray really hard for the biblical god to tell you what is right or wrong? Do you ask the local neighborhood minister for his personal subjective opinion on the subject? Or do you do it some other way? I don't think you have an good answer to this question, but go ahead and surpise me.

A: Might be a shock to you Jimbo, but I don't think something is moral or immoral because the Bible says so. In fact, I believe it's the other way around,

So you believe that the Bible says that something is moral or immoral based on the supposed objective moral standard of the biblical god, right? How did you determine that the biblical god is an objective moral standard? Isn't this just your own personal subjective opinion?

J: But I don't. I have specifically said, repeatedly, over and over again, that my morality is based on my values and the values of the society in which I live. If I have ever said that I appeal to a divine morality, then I am sure that you would provide the quote. But you can't. So why do you say this?

A: Because for someone who doesn't believe morality is objective, you sure appeal to moral standards all the time!

I appeal to human morality, but not an objective (other than human) morality.

J: It is clear to me that, like Max Vel, you fend off questions about how your divine morality works because you really don't know how it works. About all you can say about your supposedly divine morality is "God did it" right? So you put up a wall of questions to others regarding their views about morality. You are doing it to me on this thread and you are doing the same thing to a poster named Robert in a another thread.

A: Want a tissue to cry on?

No Jimbo. The problem is I don't discuss the second principles until I have the first ones agreed on and you don't even know the basics. When we get past the ontology of morality, we can discuss the application of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being (neuter participle of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences

.

I am providing you with clear and I think fairly obvious natural explanations of morality, but you are not reciprocating by explaining the supposed objective basis of morality. Why are you so terrified of discussing this idea? I had to go to another discussion board to find a quote where you claim that the biblical god is the objective moral standard for human morality. Now that is it clear that you believe this, it is high time for you explain-in detail-how the biblical god actually functions as an objective moral standard for humans. Do you believe, for example, that the biblical god sends something like radio waves into people's head containing instuctions on what the right thing to do is in every conceivable situation they might find themselves in? Do you think that the biblical god imprints an objective morality roadmap in each and every fetus brain in the womb? Do you think that the Bible contains a clear and coherent objective morality troubleshooting tree that allows people to confidently work their way through any ethical dilemma they might encounter in life?

It is my view that you are deluded for believing the biblical god is an objective moral standard for human beings. It is my view that the biblical god is simply a make believe god invented by primitive people. That is precisely why I am asking you to describe how an objective morality is derived from this god, because I believe that once you attempt to do this, you will recognize how insupportable the idea is.

Why does morality have to have meaning beyond us?

If we can make good and evil be whatever we want, then they mean essentially nothing.

Human morality is based on human values, which are largely shared. I think that when a moral system is seperated from the values of human beings, it makes that morality worthless and potentially very dangerous. For example, if people base a morality on the the supposed fancies of an imaginary god, it can have very bad consequences. As we know, Christians once thought that it was morally wonderful to torture and kill unbelievers, heretics and witches based on what is written n the Bible.

If good and evil are something outside of us, then we need to conform to goodness and not to evil. Either we conform morality, which is what we're supposed to do, or we will try to get morality to conform to us.

Good and evil on based on human values and judgments. Always have been. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Big words, but since I know that you are mistaken for believing that you get your morality from the Christian god, I say that you are simply fending off questions about this supposedly divine morality because you realize that you cannot answer them. If you want to convince me that you really get an objective morality from the biblical god, tell me how it works. For example, does the biblical god beam radio waves into your mind 24/7 telling what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong? Does the Bible contain clear and explicit moral rules that allow anyone and everyone to easily and quickly determine what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong in each and every conceivable human interaction everywhere on the planet throughout all of history? Are specific rules and guidelines supernaturally imprinted on our brains while we are tiny embryos forming in the womb? Tell me specifically how you think your divine morality works. Until you do this I have no reason to take your belief that you possess a divine morality seriously, nor much of anything you say about morality.

Big words and I know what they mean. If you were so sure I was mistaken, you'd be willing to engage me there. You're not, so I conclude you refuse to because you don't want to be shown to not know what you're talking about.

Even though it's evident you don't know.

I am explaining morality to you as best I can, but you are continually running away from explaining how your supposedly objective morality works.

I have told you how I determine goodness. Now it is time for you to stop stalling and tell me how YOU determine goodness, badness, rightness and wrongness. That is what this thread is for-for Christians who believe in a divine objective morality to explain in detail how they think it works.

You haven't even said what goodness itself is. You've just said what you consider good.

I have told you that human beings will generally describe actions that harm human beings as bad and say that actions that benefit the health, life and welfare of human beings are good. When you finally get the courage to do so, tell me specifically why you think this is wrong and what your believe the alternative is.

Before you answer any of my questions, try to think how you could convince anyone that what you say to me is anything other than your personal, subjective opinion.

Cheer,

Jimbo

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

Jimbo. You're the one who made the claim. Are you telling me some harm is justifiable now? Based on what standard? How do you know?

In the long term technological advancements generally have a beneficial effect for humanity, e.g. the Industrial Revolution has been of enormous benefit overall in better food production and high living standards in the developed world.. But in the short term it caused great suffering as the population adjusted from the Agricultural Age to the industrial era. And the same is occurring today as we shift into the computerized era. Change will always leave some behind. It is incumbent on the rest to alleviate their suffering as far as possible. The alternative would have been to remain in the Stone Age...as did the Australian Aborigine’s for 60,000 years.

Oh? So it's perfectly moral for me to go obliterate the Amazon rainforest?

Excuse me everyone. I'm going to go have some fun!

No, it is not perfectly moral for you “to go obliterate the Amazon rainforest” because such a vast destruction of the natural environment will have direct consequences on all life...including the human life and the survival of the species is the basis of morality. This applies to all environmental damage as we are discovering perhaps too late. Furthermore, I’m sure you understood what J was getting at here.

Which is simply stating that your conclusion is your conclusion. I asked how you reached that conclusion. Why should I value other human beings?

One values other human beings because we have evolved via Natural Selection as social animals. We are not capable of surviving in isolation and it is in our best interests to ensure as far as possible that society functions as a united organism. In simplistic terms, ‘Good’ is what benefits society and ‘Evil’ is what harms it. In order for us to survive the social fabric must be protected and this is the basis of morality.

Might be a shock to you Jimbo, but I don't think something is moral or immoral because the Bible says so. In fact, I believe it's the other way around, but then you've never cracked open a book on Natural Law theory.

Ah yes, deductions from the innate knowledge we supposedly possess. But, Christian theism, which is based on such speculation demonstrably does not provide a better reason to be moral than secular humanism and Natural Selection reveals that many of the characteristics of human morality can be seen in the behaviors of many other social animals, especially the hominids. Are they behaving morally or have they, like the human animal, simply evolved particular behaviors to maximize the survival of their species...the primary precept of living organisms being ‘survival’.

Because for someone who doesn't believe morality is objective, you sure appeal to moral standards all the time!

You are evading the question. What are the objective moral standards provided by your deity? I’ve given the basis of secular humanist morality. Your turn!

Want a tissue to cry on?

No Jimbo. The problem is I don't discuss the second principles until I have the first ones agreed on and you don't even know the basics. When we get past the ontology of morality, we can discuss the application of it.

See above! Now explain the basis of Christian morality as provided by your deity. What is 'objective morality' for a Christian?

If we can make good and evil be whatever we want, then they mean essentially nothing. If good and evil are something outside of us, then we need to conform to goodness and not to evil. Either we conform morality, which is what we're supposed to do, or we will try to get morality to conform to us.

But, except for sociopaths, we don’t “make good and evil be whatever we want”. We make it to best enhance the survival of the species. Now, you tell us what is this “good and evil” which is outside of us. In what Platonic heaven can we find these objective laws of good and evil and how can they be verified as objectively existing?

Big words and I know what they mean. If you were so sure I was mistaken, you'd be willing to engage me there. You're not, so I conclude you refuse to because you don't want to be shown to not know what you're talking about.

Even though it's evident you don't know.

Please stop prevaricating and answer J's question. To repeat: “what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong? Does the Bible contain clear and explicit moral rules that allow anyone and everyone to easily and quickly determine what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong in each and every conceivable human interaction?”

You haven't even said what goodness itself is. You've just said what you consider good.

Get the ontology and then we discuss the application.

‘Goodness’ is the behavior that best enables the primary evolutionary precept of the survival of the species as determined by our environment. "Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed . . . as in man." —Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

Tassman,

Thanks for providing more specific and detailed explanations of human morality than I have been able to. I have responded to Apologia's questions out of courtesy, but he has obviously been taking advantage of my courtesy to stretch things out so he doesn't have to answer difficult questions about his supposedly objective morality.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Originally posted by jimbo

Tassman,

Thanks for providing more specific and detailed explanations of human morality than I have been able to. I have responded to Apologia's questions out of courtesy, but he has obviously been taking advantage of my courtesy to stretch things out so he doesn't have to answer difficult questions about his supposedly objective morality.

Cheers,

Jimbo

A pleasure!

volcano rocket,

J: Thank you very much for your reply. I think that you are the first Christian on this thread to actually attempt to respond to my OP directly and answer my questions. So congratulations.

Now, I know that you believe what you say, but can you explain to me how you know that the biblical god created human beings with "inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" I mean, is that written in the Bible somewhere and if it is, why should anyone besides a Christian think it is true?

V: First of all, the biblical God of creation is a viable answer to the origin of life. Science has no answer to how life originated. This makes it a supernatural event. This means that the creation story in Genesis can be accepted as a true and trustworthy explanation of this supernatural event.

Wow. We are not sure how life started yet, but there are some good natural explanations for how it may have started. The latest Scientific American actually has a good article on the latest research into this subject.

V: Next, God created human life to worship and glorify Him.

Why should anyone believe this?

V: In Matthew 22:37-38: “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.”

How do you know that a guy named Jesus said this and if so why anyone should care? How do you know this God thing actually exists and why do you feel that its morality is something we should try to emulate?

V: This commandment directs us to the source of truth and morality, the Christian God.

Why should I accept this idea? Doesn't this just represent the personal subjective opinions of Christians?

V: Further, in Matthew 22:39 Jesus went on to say, “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And in Matthew 22:40, he states, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” These two commandments show how much God loves us and wants us to love each other. To sum up God’s love for us, John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

How do you know that this god exists and is morally good? Isn't this just your personal subjective opinion and the personal subjective opinions of other Christians?

V: Considering all these biblical commandments given to us by God and the nature of reality, it is logical to conclude that God created us with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words are not specifically stated in the Bible, but they are definitely a logical and rational outcome from Jesus’ teachings.

How do you know that the Bible is not simply a human creation which reflects the archaic and mistaken ideas of ancient people? In other words, why should anyone else accept your belief that the biblical god is the foundation of human morality?

J: Furthermore, I hope you are aware that the reason I posed this specific question of my good buddy Max Vel is because the biblical god actually seems to support putting people into lifelong slavery. Let's take a look at Leviticus 25:44, shall we?

Christian god: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Here is a related quotation:

Christian god: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

Exodus 21:20

Based on these direct quotes from the Christian god (well, they are at least attributed to the Christian god by the Bible writers), does it really make sense to say that the biblical god created human beings "with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" How does that idea jibe with these pronouncements that are attributed to the biblical god?

V: I am not convinced this is the Christian God speaking.

That is great. Neither am I, but that is who the Bible writers attribute the comments to. Do you think that the Bible writers just made up these quotes themselves and put them into the mouth of the Christian god? I think that that is true of all the comments that are attributed to the Christian god. I think that the Bible writers also made up all of the actions of the Christian god as well.

V: How are you making such a connection in these examples? Nowhere does Jesus endorse the laws you provided in Leviticus 25:44 and Exodus 21:20 nor would they be a logical outcome from his teachings.

Nowhere does Jesus speak out against slavery and he actually uses slavery in his stories and parables. Here are some examples:

"Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes...."

Jesus-Luke 12:37


"No servant can serve two masters..."

Jesus-Luke 16:13


"A servant is not greater than his master."

Jesus-John 15:20


"And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating."

Jesus-Luke 12:47

You would think, wouldn't you, that if Jesus was such a wonderul and morally perfect guy, he would-at some point-make it clear to people that slavery is objectively morally wrong. But he doesn't do that, does he? Kind of strange, don't you think? But if we recognize Jesus as simply a fallible human being or the imaginary creation of the Bible writers, we can understand why there wouldn't be any words attributed to him which condemn slavery. In either of these cases, his view would merely reflect the morality of his culture, a culture which supported slavery.

Your point that the Christian God seems to support putting people into lifelong slavery is not proven.

I don't know how much clearer it could be made to you that the biblical god does promote and support lifelong slavery. Let's try this again, with the pertinent comments of the biblical god put in bold:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

J: The reason I posed this specific question is because-like the previous question-it points to a problem with the Christian claim that a wondrous, perfect, objective morality comes from the biblical god. In the Bible the Christian god repeatedly orders the slaughter of little cooing babies and massacres little cooing babies himself. Here are some pertinent quotes:

"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken."

Christian god-Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17

"Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 6:21

"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."

Deuteronomy 2:33

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15


"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5

If little cooing babies are created and imbued "with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" then why is it not objectively morally wrong for the biblical god to order them slaughtered and to slaughter them himself? There seems to be a contradiction here.

V: This question is answered the same way as the first. How are you making the connection that the Christian God is ordering little babies to be slaughtered? Nowhere does Jesus endorse such action nor does such action logically flow from his teachings. Thus no contradiction as you are pointing out.

In the OT, the biblical god kills everyone in the world except for Noah and his family, and he kills alll the firstborn of Egypt. He also orders his chosen people to kill men, women and children.

"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15

J: Of course humans cannot torture humans for eternity. But humans can make up stories about all-powerful beings called gods and they can claim that these gods will torture people for all eternity for not accepting this or that religious claim. This idea of a god torturing or tormenting or making things really, really uncomforable for people for eternity for their opinions can be a powerful tool for changing opinions, for converting people to one religion or another. And this is probably why this idea is incorporated into both Islam and Christianity, two of the world's largest religions.

So the Christian god is said to send people to a place of eternal suffering for not believing in Jesus, for not having the opinion that Jesus is a magic-working godman who came to earth 2000 years ago. If Christians want others to believe that they derive a perfect, wondrous, objective morality from the biblical god, is seems to me that they need to explain the objective moral goodness of their god torturing people for eternity for their thoughts.

My view is that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous.

V: You have positioned yourself in a predicament with this argument. It is unclear whether you support objective morality or not. If we assume you do not, then you must believe in morality that is subjective which changes with the “shared cultural and societal moral values…” If this is the case, then your view “that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous” is not an objective moral denouncement but a subjective one that will change with cultural and societal moral values. In other words, it is only the expression of your cultural and societal moral values.

However, if your denouncement is supposed to be an objective one, then where do you derive your objective morality that is equally available to everyone else? It cannot be “bred into us by evolution” because it was supposed to have existed all along.

My argument is that your claim “that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous” lacks credibility because it is not logically coherent. It violates the law of non-contradiction. You are using objective morality to bash objective morality. It makes no sense.

I am using my own morality and modern human morality to bash the the ancient biblical morality of warring, slave-holding, baby slaughtering people. I don't claim to use an objective morality. I am not aware that such a thing exists, but you are free to show that such a thing exists.

Thank you for you response.

Cheers,

Jimbo