And how exactly did religion obtain such "moral values and worldview"? (worship, quote)

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by HalfNelson

The Bible neither encourages it nor states that it is moral, and yes I did read those texts. There is a difference between the slavey of a few centuries ago and the slavery mentioned in the Bible. Much of the slavery in the OT and even into the NT, were slaves by choice, which was a lot more common in those days. People would choose servitude as a means to pay off debt or simply provide for their family. Slavery, as it is most commonly viewed by people today is wrong and morally reprehensible, for it is primarily based on regarding other races as sub-human, and forcing them against their will.

I've read this claim about slavery from apologists before, but they never seem to provide any sources for the claim. Care to provide any?

And how do these stories from the OT fit your explanation of slavery? (or morality for that matter)

__________________________________________________ ________

Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Exodus 21:2-6 Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever

Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Deut 20:10-14 As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deut 21:10-14 "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Numbers 31:7-18 They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Judges 21:10-24 So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

[tigetmax24]

Is this a thread discussion concerning "moral values and worldview" or Biblical hermeneutics?

I'm still looking for one of the bright lights of the relative moral variety to explain, logically, how you can have your cake and eat it too. How do you condemn some forms of morality and, at the same time, claim that all morality is relative?

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

This is about the silliest argument!

Say's you. You won't explain why Transcendent Law (absolute morality) is silly and why, IYO, relative morality makes sense.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

By what basis do we judge mass murder wrong, we judge these acts wrong as a result of 150,000 years of collective human experience!

150,000 years eh? That's a lot of years and a lot of laws. How do you suggest we parse our way through them? Who decides? What makes one person's, state's or societies view superior to any other?


As we all noted in the other thread, you will not answer the mail on this. The only "silly" thing around here has been your meandering rhetorical obfuscation.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by HalfNelson

There is a difference between the slavey of a few centuries ago and the slavery mentioned in the Bible.

Ya think?

I suppose that slavery in the ancient world was so cool, that folks wouldn't pray for seven plagues to rain down upon their captors, wouldn't so throughly lament their own enslavement, or commit mass suicide to avoid it.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Say's you. You won't explain why Transcendent Law (absolute morality) is silly and why, IYO, relative morality makes sense.

Who decides where the "Transcendent Law" (absolute morality) comes from? The Bible? Or some other Holy Book? Or someone who claims to know the will of this Transcendent Being? Who decides on the "correct" interpretations of these Holy Books? Or who decides which people absolutely and correctly know the will of this Being?

If you are looking at the Bible for absolute morality - Why would a Transcendent Being command his people to slaughter, pillage, kidnap, enslave and rape? (See my post above for some examples). Is mass slaughter, pillaging, kidnapping, slavery and rape included in your idea of your absolute morality? If not, who decides which laws in your Holy Book to follow and which not to follow?

If you get your absolute morality from the Bible, but don't think the commands by YHWH for his people to slaughter, pillage, kidnap, enslave and rape are "moral", and so shouldn't follow them, it's starting to look a lot like relative morality to me.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

150,000 years eh? That's a lot of years and a lot of laws. How do you suggest we parse our way through them? Who decides? What makes one person's, state's or societies view superior to any other?

What makes one person's idea of a Transcendent Being/Holy Book superior to any other? There are a lot of different ideas especially amongst the different Christian sects. And there have been many many other religions with very different ideas of supreme beings.

I think you'll find the poster you were addressing has already anwered you, but you've absolutely decided you didn't like the answer- relatively speaking.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Say's you. You won't explain why Transcendent Law (absolute morality) is silly and why, IYO, relative morality makes sense.

It is silly for the simple fact that there is no such thing, all morality is relative, always has been and always will. As I have explained over and over again, your "Transcendent Law" requires priest, rabbis, imams and judges to parse, interpret, translate, apply and bend the principles of the relevant "Transcendent Law" to the particular circumstances of the act that may or may not have violated them.

Thou shalt not kill, caveat, except under the following circumstance. That is not transcendent, that is relative. Additionally, morality, if transcendent would not be in a constant state of evolution, unless you wish to argue that the so called "Transcendent Law" of the 1st Century is somehow superior to the morality of the 21st! And, if you do, please by all means outline that superiority. Perhaps you would like to start with your favorite canard slavery.

150,000 years eh? That's a lot of years and a lot of laws. How do you suggest we parse our way through them?

Perhaps a history class might do?

Who decides?

Humanity! The same folks who craft morality.

What makes one person's, state's or societies view superior to any other?

The superiority of one morality over another becomes readily apparent through its reasoned adoption. The morality of the divine right of kings gave way to the superior morality of participatory democracy. The morality of racial superiority gave way to the idea of universal equality. The morality of male dominance is steadily giving way to the morality of gender neutrality. All despite the "Transcendent Laws" that were used to justify such inequalities. The world is becoming increasingly more moral not less, despite the all too frequent attempts to thwart moral progress. Recently you tried to use, Mao and Stalin as examples of moral relativity, where are they now? What has happened to their morality? Why did their morality end up in the waste bin of history, because of some violation of god's law or the violation of the laws of man? Moralities, I might add, that were opposed by theist and atheist alike.

As we all noted in the other thread, you will not answer the mail on this.

Who is this all, my "mail" would indicate quite the opposite.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Who decides where the "Transcendent Law" (absolute morality) comes from?

No one has to decide - it simply is. If a Transcendent Being in truth exists, and this Transcendent Being in truth has proclaimed a Transcendent Law, then, obviously, no one has to make any decisions about which being or which law.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

The Bible? Or some other Holy Book?

You tell me. Which Holy book is true?

Originally Posted by Jaymax

...Or someone who claims to know the will of this Transcendent Being? Who decides on the "correct" interpretations of these Holy Books? Or who decides which people absolutely and correctly know the will of this Being?

How do we decide the truth of anything? Because someone else say's so? Or would it be through honest study and the application of critical thinking?

Originally Posted by Jaymax

If you are looking at the Bible for absolute morality - Why would a Transcendent Being command his people to slaughter, pillage, kidnap, enslave and rape? (See my post above for some examples). Is mass slaughter, pillaging, kidnapping, slavery and rape included in your idea of your absolute morality? If not, who decides which laws in your Holy Book to follow and which not to follow?

If you get your absolute morality from the Bible, but don't think the commands by YHWH for his people to slaughter, pillage, kidnap, enslave and rape are "moral", and so shouldn't follow them, it's starting to look a lot like relative morality to me.

Are you stating that such things are immoral?

Originally Posted by Jaymax

I think you'll find the poster you were addressing has already anwered you, but you've absolutely decided you didn't like the answer- relatively speaking.

I'm sure she appreciates your moral support - she definitely needs it!

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Ya think?

I suppose that slavery in the ancient world was so cool, that folks wouldn't pray for seven plagues to rain down upon their captors, wouldn't so throughly lament their own enslavement, or commit mass suicide to avoid it.

What was even better was if you were a young virgin girl who belonged to one of those neighbouring tribes mentioned in the OT. Of course I'm sure they had a lovely time of it being one of those nice well treated "bondswomen" *cough* to some old bearded goat-herding coot - after he and his brave men massacred everyone in their tribe - fathers, mothers, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends, looted the whole village, then kidnapped all the young virgins and raped them.

Someone once tried to tell me the girls would not have been forced to have sex -aka be raped. Ummm...riiiiight - it's every young girl's dream (we're talking under 12 or 13 year olds here) to have some guy sweep her off her feet and carry her away and make sweet sweet love to her.... just after he viciously murdered everyone she loved and knew right in front of her.

Yep being a slavegirl in those times was like... a little holiday away from home with just a tad of some light domestic cleaning chores, I'm sure.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

No one has to decide - it simply is. If a Transcendent Being in truth exists, and this Transcendent Being in truth has proclaimed a Transcendent Law, then, obviously, no one has to make any decisions about which being or which law.

Well so far there hasn't been any evidence of any Transcendent Being who "has proclaimed a Transcendent Law, where no-one has to make any decisions about which being or which law". So are you just speaking hypothetically? Or are you claiming to know of some Transcendent Being which meets that criteria?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

You tell me. Which Holy book is true?

None of them, in my opinion. Do you have a personal preference?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

How do we decide the truth of anything? Because someone else say's so? Or would it be through honest study and the application of critical thinking?

In my experience, most people who follow religions and the various gods follow because of someone else's say so and don't do a lot of honest study or critical thinking.
But what honest study and application of critical thinking are you referring to? Study of History? Science? Philosophy? Metaphysics, Comparative religions?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Are you stating that such things are immoral?

Mass slaughter, pillaging, kidnapping, slavery and rape of young girls? Well yes, in my opinion, these acts are immoral. Are you saying that you believe they are not immoral?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

I'm sure she appreciates your moral support - she definitely needs it!

In my opinion, she's doing fine without any help.

[agnostic soldier]

Did you read my post?

Transcendent law can only come from a Transcendent Being.

Yes, I did read your post. Nazism is religiously based. Read Mein Kamf if you don't believe me. I know that requires reading something other than the church directory, but it will show you that Hitler's ideology is based on a 'transcendent being.'

So, according to your 'logic' (term applied loosely here), if someone were to invent an ideology based, let's say, on the transcendent nature of the tooth fairy, and then proceed to make up all sorts of law that is claimed to be transcendent law, we would then conclude, using your 'reasoning' here, that tooth fairy law is as valid as any other law?

According to your logic, it is as valid as any other law. I'm not the one claiming that transcendent law is necessary for moral judgements, you are.

You appear to be leaving out the element of truth.


In truth, does a Transcendent Being exist?

Does Jesus exist?

Is Christianity true?

You're making the presumption that christianity is true, when in fact it has as the same amount of 'evidence' as any other religious ideology does.

Again, you neglect the concept of truth. It naturally and logically follows that all ideologies cannot be true because truth cannot be contradictory.

Now, I suppose you could logically assert that all false ideologies are relative.

You neglect the fact that christianity has no evidence to support it, which makes it just as equally 'valid' as any other ideology based on a transcendent being.

Hitler claimed to be a Christian when he thought it would help him to achieve political ends. He believed that the ends justified the means. He was also an avowed atheist and greatly admired Nietzsche. This, by the way, was why he and his cohorts were able to rationalize the murder of millions of people - it's all relative don't you see.

Hitler wasn't an avowed atheist and if you read all his speeches and books, you would know that he was a self professed christian. It isn't relative. You're the only one claiming morality is relative in a godless worldview, when in fact your moral stance is very relativistic.

"It therefore follows" that Hitler was obviously wrong. The ends are not justified by the means and morality is not relative.

This is nothing but a value judgement.

I say the Transcendent Law says it's wrong. You say the Transcendent Law says it's right. You say tomayto...I say tomawtow...

You mean you think it's wrong despite what your ideology says.

This is just ignorance on parade. Please get up to speed on some real history and inform yourself. Keep in mind that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

No, it isn't ignorance. I have bothered to come up to speed. I've actually bothered to learn something.

Now, are you going to get back on topic and explain how it is that you, as an atheist, are able to levy moral judgments from a relative perspective?

I have clearly explained multiple times why I am able to levy moral judgements. You just close your eyes and ignore it.