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.
I claimed no such thing. Perhaps you skim read? I don't know. Im talking about tribal people and the reality of how tribes interact with one another. Shoving words to the contrary down my throat for me does not make me any more likely to want resay all I have already said. No worries. Not everyone is able to open their mind to what they don't want to hear anyway. Its no big deal.
Actually she stated what you inferred. If we got our morality from God s9 did those tribes who followed him back then. We all are much more moral than his chosen people who were just following God's orders to commit genocides.
So the Bible says, yet there is not a scrap of verifiable historical evidence that Egypt ever enslaved the tribes of Israel.
Actually, maybe there is. This could of course be some apologetic making things up but check it out for yourself. This does not imply that the whole Hebrew nation was enslaved though, just some. Those plus free migrants.
You are also an animal and don't have an ingrained understanding of the truths you state. It is simple, but like everything else in your life, you learned it somewhere.
Experiments show that almost everyone has the same basic moral code, regardless of their beliefs or where they live. So we do have some ingrained morality.
But that raises the question of WHY we need to learn further? If it was god given, why do we not already know this? Why did we have to invent tools such as science, maths and logic to get at truths our brains can easily over look?
Christians got the belief of divine forgiveness and sacrifice from Jesus. They did not witness a corpse returning to life and flying away. They witnessed the miracle of life beyond the one they know.
A god had to kill his own son because my daughters are sinners is NOT a lesson I want to teach my two children.
So the Bible says, yet there is not a scrap of verifiable historical evidence that Egypt ever enslaved the tribes of Israel.
Then why does Christianity do it's utmost to apply what was written 4000 years ago to today?
The archaeological evidence argues strongly that state building was done by a traained and paid workforce, living with their families near the construction site. And they were Egyptian, not even Canaanite, though you had Canaanites working (immigrant labour ) in the Sinai Turquoise mines and writing 'ptoto - hebrew' (phoenecian script) on potsherds. In addition, the Bible says that, after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, they went by way of Sinai in order to avoid the wars in the land of the Philistines. Well, we know that the Philistines were 'Sea peoples' settled in the Gaza area after their attack on Egypt was foiled by a later Ramessid king (Ramesses V I recall). But by then the israelites were already in Canaan, as Merneptah, who succeeded Ramesses II , refers to giving them a kicking during his Caneanite campaign.
I have a theory... ...(which some of you long - suffering folks, sick to death of my "Theories" may have heard before....that the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt was written in Babylon (along with Genesis), adapting the historical account of Ahmose I kicking the Canannites (Hyksos) Out of Egypt, the story of Moses in the Bulrushes being adapted from the story of king Sargon of Akkad.
Actually, maybe there is. This could of course be some apologetic making things up but check it out for yourself. This does not imply that the whole Hebrew nation was enslaved though, just some. Those plus free migrants.
Archaeological evidence supports that if there were Israelite in Egypt, they were there as immigrant labour and free to leave any time they wanted to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The archaeological evidence argues strongly that state building was done by a traained and paid workforce, living with their families near the construction site. And they were Egyptian, not even Canaanite, though you had Canaanites working (immigrant labour ) in the Sinai Turquoise mines and writing 'ptoto - hebrew' (phoenecian script) on potsherds. In addition, the Bible says that, after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, they went by way of Sinai in order to avoid the wars in the land of the Philistines. Well, we know that the Philistines were 'Sea peoples' settled in the Gaza area after their attack on Egypt was foiled by a later Ramessid king (Ramesses V I recall). But by then the israelites were already in Canaan, as Merneptah, who succeeded Ramesses II , refers to giving them a kicking during his Caneanite campaign.
Atheists typically insist that they are as “moral” as anyone else and bristle at any suggestion that they lack “morality.” However, almost never is anyone really accusing atheists as a group of being objectively less “good” than Christians or Hindus.
The real issue is, what is the reference point – the standard – for an atheist’s supposed morality? Almost always we find that the morality claimed by atheists is really derived from some religious moral code (the Ten Commandments, for example) or combination of moral codes the atheists have simply appropriated for themselves.
“I don’t rape or murder,” an atheist may say. OK, fine, but what is the atheist’s standard for thinking that rape and murder are immoral? Not raping or murdering may be a rational decision. You won’t have to hide from the police or face life in prison if you don’t rape or murder. But this has nothing to do with morality. The law prohibits and punishes rape and murder, but the law prohibits and punishes lots of things that no one considers immoral. Whether something is illegal, even criminal, is a different matter from whether it’s immoral.
“Everyone just knows rape and murder are immoral,” the atheist may respond. But this begs the question. How and why does everyone know this?
A Christian has an easy answer: Our reference point is God, who has revealed himself in the Bible and the person of Jesus. God determines our morality. Moreover, we believe (as Romans 2:14-15 teaches) that the basic laws of God are written on the hearts of even nonbelievers (“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”).
(A popular question is whether something is moral only because God prohibits it. If God had said “Thou shalt rape,” would rape then be moral? The point that is missed by those who play this game is that God is perfect goodness – there is no morality apart from God, but the God whose very nature is perfect goodness would never have said “Thou shalt rape.”)
Christian apologists like Dr. Frank Turek accuse atheists of “stealing from God” because they say you can’t have a genuine moral code without a higher external standard – like God. You can have a personal opinion or a group consensus or even a law, but you won’t have morality.
I used to try to understand the atheist position by thinking that perhaps evolution rather than God might have written a basic moral code in the hearts of humans. Evolution would serve as the higher external standard, if you will. But this doesn’t work for lots of reasons, as even atheist spokesmen like Richard Dawkins recognize.
According to Dawkins, we are “survival machines created by our selfish genes,” whose only objective is survival. The goal of evolution isn’t truth or morality.
It’s an unsolved puzzle as to how consciousness could arise in a survival machine in a purely materialistic universe. It’s an equally unsolved puzzle as to how a process whose only goal is survival would or could have produced minds capable of discerning truth or morality.
If a process whose only goal is survival could have generated a code of conduct and hardwired it into humans, would it look anything like the Ten Commandments? Would it look anything like the morality that most atheists claim for themselves?
I think it’s pretty clear that moral codes, both religious ones and the ones that atheists claim for themselves, are aimed at controlling and restraining the selfish, survival-driven human traits that atheists believe evolution has produced (and that Christians believe sin has produced). Most moral codes don’t come close to fitting into any model of the “survival of the fittest.”
The notion of an evolutionary moral code is an oxymoron. “Thou shalt not rape” would mean nothing more than “Survival will be enhanced if you don’t rape.” It’s not at all clear that most of the behaviors that we commonly regard as immoral would adversely affect survival. The elimination of the elderly and the physically and mentally infirm, which most people would regard as immoral, would seemingly fit nicely in a purely survival-driven moral code.
Dawkins is at least honest in this respect. In a debate with a computer scientist who is also an evolutionist, the following exchange took place:
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, ‘That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’”
Dawkins argues for a kinder and gentler world in which the best human instincts predominate, but he can’t tell you why we have those instincts or why a purely survival-driven process would allow us to switch it off so they can predominate.
I find a world in which right and wrong are purely matters of personal opinion, power-group consensus or legislation to be a frightening thought. But it seems to me that this is the world that honest atheists are stuck with. They simply have no legitimate claim to an “atheist morality.”
Christians and other believers are, of course, capable of perverting or misapplying their moral codes. But the point I'm making here is that believers can legitimately claim to be following (or at least attempting to follow) a moral code while an atheist can't. Atheist "morality" is always going to be subject to shifts in societal norms or the dictates of whichever group happens to be in power, which is really no morality at all.
Absent some "objective moral code" (from religion, or whereever) there is just personal opinion and/or consensus.
How could there be anything else?
And personal morality can be self serving, just based upon survival, or desire. Many times it is cultural.
For example: In the U.S. where I live, a man in his 50s getting together with a 14 year old would be considered so immoral it would carry heavy criminal penalties. That man would be seen as a horrible person...and a rapist.
In much of the Middle East, and other places, men in their 50s actually marry girls in their early teens...everyone celebrates it...and he does not see himself as bad, wrong, or evil.
For most of recent human history...well respected and admired people in the community were slavemasters...even elected to the highest leadership positions by the citizens.
So...without a "moral code" to go by...it is all relative and a matter of preference.
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.
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.
) in the Sinai Turquoise mines and writing 'ptoto - hebrew' (phoenecian script) on potsherds. In addition, the Bible says that, after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, they went by way of Sinai in order to avoid the wars in the land of the Philistines. Well, we know that the Philistines were 'Sea peoples' settled in the Gaza area after their attack on Egypt was foiled by a later Ramessid king (Ramesses V I recall). But by then the israelites were already in Canaan, as Merneptah, who succeeded Ramesses II , refers to giving them a kicking during his Caneanite campaign. 