Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2011, 12:00 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,774,159 times
Reputation: 1325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post

Objective moral absolutes are merely a reflection of God's natural character and nature. Therefore, God is not restricted by some a priori notion of morality nor does God command his creatures to commit acts that are contrary to his own nature nor is it possible for God to violate his own nature.
My problem with this, is that it is the same as saying that God can arbitrarily make the rules. Instead of just acknowedging that God can be capricious and arbitrary, Christian theology maintains that when God does what appears to be evil, it is really good and we must just resign ourselves to trusting that this is true in spite of evidence to the contrary. For instance, when God commands, through his prophets in the OT, murder, genocide, rape, and infanticide, we are asked to assume that all these acts were good, because God cannot do evil, and thus his actions are good. If there was an objective morality behind this, there would be an objective justification, other than because God said so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Is something wrong because it's wrong, or is it wrong simply because the atheist says it's wrong?
First off, I can't give you a comprehensive atheist answer, because atheism does not address the question of morality. There are however many different ideas about morality that would give different answers. Boxcar mentioned some in his post.

My tendency right now is that morality appears to be defined by social groups. Human beings are social creatures and morality appears to me to be a sort of an emergent behavior stemming from the issues within a given society. This is why some societies sanction polygamy, a few polyandry, some have valued the killing of enemies or the stealing of horses. Our view of what is moral is highly dependent on the society and culture within which it is being measured.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Jesus basically reduced them to two. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
I don't buy this. I assume you are referring to loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself. If these were the foundation for objective morality, why do the religious condemn polygamy, homosexuality, and other issues that don't seem to have anything to do with these two injunctions. Taken alone, these two statements define a far more permissible and decidedly different morality than any I have ever seen espoused by Christianity. They do not allow for the possible morality of war, or any form of self-defense. They also do nothing to restrict religious persecution of non-believer or heretics. Only when you add loads of doctrine and dogma to them can they be twisted into any semblance of historical Christian definitions of morality.

My point is that this is not a comprehensive list of what is moral or not, and while it may logically define a morality, taken alone, they do not define a morality akin to anything I have ever seen espoused before. I certainly do not see any way to arrive at what evangelical protestants typically consider morality from these two statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2011, 07:28 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,619,471 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
In order for a first cause to logically be necessary and possible, it would also be necessary and possible for the first cause to have it's own first cause. Thus it would not be a first cause to begin with.

That is proof that the first cause theory is incoherent.
This actually "proves" nothing. At any rate, I'm not looking for "proof" one way or the other, simply logical reasoning. What empirical proof that does exist would appear to support the notion that the universe had a beginning.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The Universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Which one of these do you find to be illogical? Why?

Do you believe it's possible for an actual infinite or infinite temporal regress to exist? If so, please explain why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Yet rather than reject the first cause argument, (correct if I'm wrong) you introduce an illogical god. A god that can do what is logically not possible to do: Not require a first cause agent.
I simply asked if it were possible that God could be the first cause agent. Science appears to inform us that the universe had a beginning. What does science inform us about the nature of a primary first cause agent? I can understand why we would posit a cause of the universe. What would cause us to posit a necessary cause for a primary first cause agent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
That is a case of "special pleading"- an unexplained claim of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter.
I'm not asking for a special exemption. I'm asking what would be illogical about the notion of a primary first cause agent? Science informs us about our surroundings (such as the universe), what does science inform us about a primary first cause agent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
So, unless you can explain a logical reason that the first cause doesn't also need a first cause, the first cause agent hypothesis is incoherent. The introduction of an illogical god doesn't prove the theory, it only proves it relies on illogical premises.
Causality is a basic assumption of science. We're not talking about a "hypothesis" here. I'm fine with the posited notion that everything needs a cause (hyper-causality), I just don't see anything in science to justify such a notion nor anything intrinsically illogical about the notion of a primary first cause agent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Secondly, you claim both logic AND science demand a first cause. That is not true. Logic MAY demand it, but science doesn't. It certainly doesn't require the first cause to be something other than the universe itself. But there is nothing in science that would prevent an eternal universe, one that existed prior to the big bang.
Science and logic inform us that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What existed prior to the big bang? What does science inform us about whatever it was that existed prior to the big bang?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
It is not necessary. That does not mean it is illogical. There are several things that are not necessary but that are logical. As was stated previously, I find it pleasurable to have a self-defined meaning, but not everyone may feel the same.

The same basic premise applies to a theistic meaning of life. It's not necessary to adopt the meaning of life applied by theism, even if one believed they were true. One could decide that they would rather face the consequences rather than adopt the meaning provided by theism.
Theism posits the existence of a necessarily existing Transcendent Being. This automatically places it in a completely different category with respect to classification of various philosophical perspectives. It posits the existence of an outside force that creates with purpose.

You don't need to accept it. However, if you have a REASON as to why you view the theistic view as illogical, I would be interested to hear your explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I strongly disagree. You could hardly be more wrong.
Okay. Shall we take this one step at a time?

Do you object to my definition of moral relativity? It seems pretty basic to me. Either God exists or God doesn't exist. Either the Ten Commandments are true or they are false.

Again, one doesn't need to accept these in order to demonstrate the intrinsic logic of theism. IF God exists and IF the Ten Commandments are truly from God, we can logically conclude that moral absolutes exist. BASIC theism 101.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
There are far more choices than you have listed.

How would one categories utilitarianism, for example? It does not contend that morality is subjective or that "what is moral to you may not be moral to me." Yet it doesn't require a god.
Please explain. How does utilitarianism or any other 'ism' get us to anything above or beyond the concept of moral relativity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
There are also theories of absolute morality that exist without a god. For example, Kant's Categorical Imperatives explicitly are founded on reason and explicitly do not require a god. It is classically define as a moral absolute theory. (Kant does assume later that one would want to do what is "good" so they wouldn't be punished in hell. But that does not exclude the theory that one would want to do good simply because it brings them satisfaction to be a good person.)
Kant was a theist. Having provided his assessment that the existence of God cannot be empirically proved, he ushers God back in through the back door by virtue of the moral argument. He basically concludes that life is unworkable and impractical in the absence of moral absolutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
On to your last "world view" question. I don't know what you mean by "hope for destiny." Could you be more specific? Why is it even required to be included in a "world view?"
BASIC theism provides hope for what lies beyond the grave and ultimate and eventual hope for persevering through the common travails of life. What sort of ultimate hope can there be if there is no God? It seems to me that Sartre was on to something when he stated that perhaps the only question we have left to ponder is whether or not to commit suicide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Earth. For now.
1,289 posts, read 2,117,180 times
Reputation: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
...
Causality is a basic assumption of science. We're not talking about a "hypothesis" here. I'm fine with the posited notion that everything needs a cause (hyper-causality), I just don't see anything in science to justify such a notion nor anything intrinsically illogical about the notion of a primary first cause agent.

Science and logic inform us that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What existed prior to the big bang? What does science inform us about whatever it was that existed prior to the big bang?
...
Actually, it seems more and more that on a quantum level, there is NO causality. And in a singularity (at the moment of the Big Bang), the entire structure of reality is quite different. Cause and effect have no meaning.

To quote the blogger Copernicus,

What are we to make of this? Mainly that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself. This view is associated with the demand for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, since philosophy has not progressed to a non-distributive, non-classical form – it therefore can have squat to say about ultimate reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 10:13 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,483,742 times
Reputation: 1775
The universe may have began to exist or it may have existed forever.

If it is logically impossible for the universe to have always existed, it is also logically impossible for a god to have always existed.

If the universe logically required a first cause, god (or any primary agent) required a first cause.

I don't know whether an infinite regression is possible or not, but if it is logically possible it is possible for the universe as well as god. If it's not possible, it's not possible for the universe or god.

It would be a special pleading to suggest that an infinite regression is not possible for the universe, but is possible for god.

Thus the argument that for a primary mover is incoherent. If it is required for the universe, it is also required for the primary mover, which would make it not a primary mover. The only way to avoid this incoherence is to posit a special pleading, in which a first cause is not required for a god (or any other first cause) but is required for the universe.

You seem to rest your position on the notion that science has shown that the universe had a first cause. I don't believe that is the case. There is no settled theory about what came before the big bang. There are some that believe that the universe always existed. There are some that believe that there was a cause of the big bang, but of those I know of none that have explained what caused the cause of the big bang. We simply aren't there yet.

On to purpose:

You parents may have a purpose for your life. You may have a purpose for your life. God may have a purpose for your life. You get to decide which purpose you want to adopt. There is no reason to accept that a God's purpose is more organic to you then a purpose your parents chose for you or one that you adopt for yourself. God's purpose is just one of many purposes you may chose from. Certainly, there may be consequences to choosing a purpose, but if you have free will you are free to choose whichever purpose you deem most worthy.

God may have a purpose for your life, but so may you. You get to choose which purpose you want to guide your life, even if you are a theist. So even if you believe god had a purpose for your life, it is not necessary for you to adopt that purpose anymore than if your parents had a purpose for your life or if you had a purpose you derived on your own.

On to Absolutism

If God exist, and if God made the ten commandments, it would morally absolute to the following extent:
1. This must be the entire set of laws. No other relativistic laws would allowed to come into place.
2. The ten commandments must be absolutely applied to everyone at all times in all circumstances. One could not claim that Jesus came and changed some of the laws of the old testament, particularly the one about which day to worship on. One could not claim that the killings in the old testament, even the ones committed by God, were morally permissible. The laws must exist absolutely, applied to all beings, at all times, in all circumstances.
3. They must be applicable in all circumstances. If one could save 1000 innocent babies by dishonoring their father, they must let the innocent babies die if they are to do the moral thing.

I don't know of any Christians who have that belief. The ones I know think the Jesus changed at least some of the old testiment laws, that the laws do not apply to everyone in all times in all circumstances, and they would all say that the morally write thing to do would be to save the children's lives even if you had to curse your parents.

So let me ask you, if you could save 1000 children's lives by telling a lie about what the time of day was, what would be the moral thing to do?

If you believe that God has laws which do not apply to everyone (including him) at all times in all circumstances, you have theistic relativism.

Utilitarianism - Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good". It is form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. It is not a theory that advocates "what is moral to you may not be moral to me." Instead, it advocates that what is moral is that which does the most amount of good to the most amount of people.

Kant - Kant very specifically said God was not required for his catagorical imparatives. It you read it's premises, his theory is worked out by reason alone and no where does it require a God. Kant was a theist, but his theory was atheistic. Outside of his theory, he pondered that people would want to do good to avoid god's wrath, but he was very careful to note that his theory was derived at from reason alone, without reference to a god.

My world view isn't based on hope. It's based on a logical analysis of what I think is most likely. That's why it doesn't require faith in anything. What ever I think is most likely true, I will believe, despite whatever I may or may not like or hope for. Accordingly, I think it overwhelmingly obvious that sapient thought is derived entirely from a working brain. You see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and think with your brain. Just like you can't see without your eyes, you can't think without a brain. After death your brain will not work and therefore you will no longer have thought. That's not a hope, it's just what I think is most likely.

If there is any possibility for an indefinate lifespan, it comes from science like biogerentology or transhumanism. But I think that is a very improbable.

Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-20-2011 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 12:48 AM
 
54 posts, read 111,626 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
This actually "proves" nothing. At any rate, I'm not looking for "proof" one way or the other, simply logical reasoning. What empirical proof that does exist would appear to support the notion that the universe had a beginning.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The Universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Which one of these do you find to be illogical? Why?
Neither 1) nor 2) are sound.

There are common events which violate 1). For example, a quantum fluctuation does not have a cause that precedes it in time.

2) is incorrect because the universe cannot begin to exist if time is a property of the universe (the same goes for space). Therefore, the universe does not exist within time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 06:19 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,878,283 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post

1) You seem to be missing the primary point here...the basic reason why it's reasonable to posit a primary first cause agent is to avoid the illogical endless eternal repetition of cause and effect. It's the notion of a primary first cause agent that does not require a first cause which would be necessary to begin the chain of causes and effects that can be empirically verified.

You infer that any primary cause agent must also be assumed to have a cause. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Answer: Why not. Why do you get to interrupt that backwards-seeking lineage exactly at a point you choose, which is also at the most convenient point to void "the endless eternal repetition of cause & effect"? And yet, Christians regularly throw that exact same argument up to atheists claiming that "you can't start something from nothing, and thus the Big Bang theory is impossible!"

How, exactly, do you "square" this logical anomaly? It's quite OK for you to claim prior existence of God and the necessary matter for him to create it all, but not OK for us. I'm confused.
2) Moral relativity would fall into line with the those who deny the existence of absolute truth and morality. In other words, that truth and morality are reduced to personal preference. Hence the saying: 'What's true and moral for you, is true and moral for you and whats true and moral for me is true and moral for me.' Relativity denies the existence of any a priori absolutes.

Basic theism does not deny the existence of moral absolutes. I would suggest that it does quite the opposite.

"Do what you think is right" is most certainly NOT a tenet of basic theism.

This sounds more like a Jiminy Cricket sort of theology - "Let your conscience be your guide." More suggestive of moral relativity than objective morality I would think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
I agree with moral relativism. It' easily observed out in the real world. There's been altogether too many historical examples of moral relativism (What's OK for Dictator NO. 1 is suddenly not OK for Dictator No. 2; Christianity vs. Islam, etc. etc.). Since humanity and it's various fine examples of societal evolution existed long before the rise of organized Christianity, and yet it's various societies all seemed to get along, why do you insist there are theistically based moral absolutes, which can only be maintained through adherence to some codified religious mandates? and those who do not fit the mold are often thrown into the slammer! (The Spanish Inquisition is a good example...)
Yes, the old: "We create our own meaning" response seems to be the most popular among professing agnostics and atheists. However, it completely misses (or purposely avoids) the weight of the question:

Why is it logical to presume that we have ANY meaning if we are simply the chance product of some random chance occurrence somewhere in space time? If there is no God and no creation, how does one ascribe true meaning to anything? Why should I be convinced, under an atheistic model, that I have ANY intrinsic or inherent meaning to my existence?
Well, you answer your own inquiry. Why exactly do we need any, as you call it, "inherent meaning" to it all? A bunch of folks sitting around gazing at their navels and demanding some sort of overriding rationale for being here? Can't we just "be"?

I have come to realize this viewpoint is simply not comfortable nor acceptable for theists, that they must have some explanation for their being here, and the answer mostly seems to be "to serve God". This is a very circular argument: we need God to "be", and His existence gives us reason to be here, for the seemingly sole purpose of praising and glorifying Him.

I and several billion other sentient atheists seem to be getting along quite alright absent such groveling at the feet of a wooden icon. Or some artificial definition of moral absolutes, which we can easily prove do not actually exist. (Though I do see that theists regularly try to force their versions of same on the general population, from mandatory school prayers to science class curricula, the persecution of gays, absolutes about social behavior, etc. etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,483,742 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facepalm17 View Post
Neither 1) nor 2) are sound.

There are common events which violate 1). For example, a quantum fluctuation does not have a cause that precedes it in time.

2) is incorrect because the universe cannot begin to exist if time is a property of the universe (the same goes for space). Therefore, the universe does not exist within time.

Good points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 02:45 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,619,471 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
My problem with this, is that it is the same as saying that God can arbitrarily make the rules. Instead of just acknowledging that God can be capricious and arbitrary, Christian theology maintains that when God does what appears to be evil, it is really good and we must just resign ourselves to trusting that this is true in spite of evidence to the contrary.
It seems to me, that as creatures, we are logically limited to what God chooses to reveal about himself through scripture and science. What is it about God's revelation that causes you to conclude that God acts capriciously or arbitrarily?

You state the God does "what appears to be evil." Would you care to elaborate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
For instance, when God commands, through his prophets in the OT, murder, genocide, rape, and infanticide, we are asked to assume that all these acts were good, because God cannot do evil, and thus his actions are good. If there was an objective morality behind this, there would be an objective justification, other than because God said so.
Specifically, where does God command murder, genocide, rape and infanticide?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
First off, I can't give you a comprehensive atheist answer, because atheism does not address the question of morality. There are however many different ideas about morality that would give different answers. Boxcar mentioned some in his post.

My tendency right now is that morality appears to be defined by social groups. Human beings are social creatures and morality appears to me to be a sort of an emergent behavior stemming from the issues within a given society. This is why some societies sanction polygamy, a few polyandry, some have valued the killing of enemies or the stealing of horses. Our view of what is moral is highly dependent on the society and culture within which it is being measured.
How about this: If there is no God then everything is ultimately nonsense and there really is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil,' only personal preference.

Some cultures encourage people to treat their fellow human beings with kindness and consideration. Other cultures encourage cannibalism. Do you have a preference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I don't buy this. I assume you are referring to loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself. If these were the foundation for objective morality, why do the religious condemn polygamy, homosexuality, and other issues that don't seem to have anything to do with these two injunctions. Taken alone, these two statements define a far more permissible and decidedly different morality than any I have ever seen espoused by Christianity. They do not allow for the possible morality of war, or any form of self-defense. They also do nothing to restrict religious persecution of non-believer or heretics. Only when you add loads of doctrine and dogma to them can they be twisted into any semblance of historical Christian definitions of morality.

My point is that this is not a comprehensive list of what is moral or not, and while it may logically define a morality, taken alone, they do not define a morality akin to anything I have ever seen espoused before. I certainly do not see any way to arrive at what evangelical protestants typically consider morality from these two statements.
Again, it all seems pretty straight-forward to me. Following these two commandments will automatically encompass the entire law and the prophets.

The Bible condemns "polygamy" and "homosexuality." Where does the Bible command Christians to condemn those who engage in "polygamy" and "homosexuality?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 02:49 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,619,471 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astron1000 View Post
Actually, it seems more and more that on a quantum level, there is NO causality. And in a singularity (at the moment of the Big Bang), the entire structure of reality is quite different. Cause and effect have no meaning.

To quote the blogger Copernicus,

What are we to make of this? Mainly that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself. This view is associated with the demand for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, since philosophy has not progressed to a non-distributive, non-classical form – it therefore can have squat to say about ultimate reality.
You're certainly not alone in this perspective.

IMO, if the scientific community ever chooses to make a determination to ignore logic and stop asking why and/or how, it will be the end of true science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 03:22 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,483,742 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
You state the God does "what appears to be evil." Would you care to elaborate?



Specifically, where does God command murder, genocide, rape and infanticide?
Of course, the story of the flood is a genocide, and when god sent an angel to kill all the first born children he directly committed infanticide. There's also that whimsical storey about God sending a bear to kill those kids for mocking a baldman.

Still, your question was about ordering murder, genocide, rape, and infanticide.

Here's an easy one:

1 Samuel 15

Quote:
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves[b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD’s instructions.”
14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.”
“Tell me,” Saul replied.
17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”
20 “But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king.”
24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the LORD’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD.”
26 But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!”
27 As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. 28 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
30 Saul replied, “I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
32 Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.”
Agag came to him in chains.[c] And he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
33 But Samuel said,
“As your sword has made women childless,
so will your mother be childless among women.”
And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul. 35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.
’”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top