-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Your observation is irrelevant.
So, the writers of the bible knew about various forms of slavery, including chattel slavery. One of the most important features in human history. It is, however, silent on the issue.
And this is supposed to be the ultimate guide to timeless and unchanging morality? HAH!
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
According to wiki, the temporary arrangement was only for male Hebrew slaves. Slaves of non-hebrew ethnicity were property and inheritable, much like elsewhere.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
So, the writers of the bible knew about various forms of slavery, including chattel slavery. One of the most important features in human history. It is, however, silent on the issue.
Did they know about chattel slavery from TV or from the newspapers?
Quote:
And this is supposed to be the ultimate guide to timeless and unchanging morality? HAH!
The Ten Commandments are very much timeless and unchanging.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Did they know about chattel slavery from TV or from the newspapers?
....living in Rome, perhaps...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
The Ten Commandments are very much timeless and unchanging.
....And yet they offer no guidance on the question of slavery? They are no guarantee against one person owning another, to do with as he pleases? If so, it's practically useless, isn't it?
Also, you have noted that they have changed over the years, right?
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
....living in Rome, perhaps...?
Biblical laws on slavery predate the Roman Republic.
Quote:
....And yet they offer no guidance on the question of slavery? They are no guarantee against one person owning another, to do with as he pleases?
So what? They deal with personal conduct, not with social institutions. If you're looking for a more exhaustive and comprehensive how-to guide to living, the Koran might be more suitable.
Quote:
Also, you have noted that they have changed over the years, right?
Wut?
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Let's not forgot that sending girls out to be gang raped is also part of the whole Christian morale perspective.
Disgusting, if you ask me.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Biblical laws on slavery predate the Roman Republic.
So Jesus didn't change anything? He couldn't introduce something new...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
So what? They deal with personal conduct, not with social institutions. If you're looking for a more exhaustive and comprehensive how-to guide to living, the Koran might be more suitable.
Taking ownership of another is no less an issue of personal conduct than taking the life of another. It's a basic limitation on our relationship with our neighbor.
You are on very shaky ground now, I must say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Wut?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image <-try finding this commandment in a lutheran church.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
So Jesus didn't change anything? He couldn't introduce something new...?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Jesus pointed out what people were doing wrong because of misinterpretation and/or skewed perspective.He himself said that his mission was to re-affirm God's law.
Quote:
Taking ownership of another is no less an issue of personal conduct than taking the life of another. It's a basic limitation on our relationship with our neighbor.
If you stole your neighbor's freedom, well, that's theft. Thou shalt not steal.
Quote:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image <-try finding this commandment in a lutheran church.
The Ten Commandments are beyond the jurisdiction of a drunken German priest.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Jesus pointed out what people were doing wrong because of misinterpretation and/or skewed perspective.He himself said that his mission was to re-affirm God's law.
So he did not care about the station of the majority of the worlds population who lived in crap conditions?
How on earth does his morals have any value, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
The Ten Commandments are beyond the jurisdiction of a drunken German priest.
Lutherans are heretics...?
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
So he did not care about the station of the majority of the worlds population who lived in crap conditions?
Oh, I don't know. If preaching universal equality and brotherhood qualifies as "not caring", then yeah.
Quote:
Lutherans are heretics...?
Depends on who you ask.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Oh, I don't know. If preaching universal equality and brotherhood qualifies as "not caring", then yeah.
....Which is apparently not extended to slaves. Useless git.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
Mill's utilitarianism is based on maximizing utility AKA happiness. Scientifically you can pretty much verify that almost every human at least has various receptors which do communicate a signal that is interpreted as pain or pleasure. So while the individual experience may be subjective, the presence of pain and pleasure is objectively universal and so we can build off of that without invoking God.
Aristotle if I remember the beginning to Nicomachean Ethics correctly doesn't even bother with first principles. He lays out a guideline for particular humans and kind of waves away the foundation by saying it is not really important to define the Good (like Plato tries) before promoting what is Good.
I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.
Well, as you say, Aristotle is more concerned about being good than with pondering its philosophical/metaphysical foundations. As for Kant, from what I understand, he seems to take the position that absolute morality is somehow self-evident because of its general pervasiveness across time and place. So I don't think either of those two are really getting to the heart of what we are discussing here.
I would agree that Mill does attempt to make the sort of argument I was looking for, in that he appeals to human pleasure/happiness as some sort of ultimate standard by which the morality of actions may be judged. However, happiness is a bit less concrete and a bit more abstract than a personal, all-powerful God, and from that perspective, his concept of absolute morality is not as robust as a theistic one.
Also, I would say that, despite being irrelevant to the truth of the matter, it is worth noting that it would be extremely difficult to develop a practical framework of ethics from Mill's viewpoint. Unlike a theistic (or indeed Kantian) viewpoint, where an action has an objective moral value in and of itself; from Mill's viewpoint, the action only takes on a moral character insofar as it relates to the happiness of an individual, which will be determined according to their subjective interpretation, rather than any inherent value in the action itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
They care more. The monotheistic route at its core is that there a God and you need to obey him, the differences in religion are superficial rituals. The secular route kind of gets treated as a buffet where people pick and choose what they like for individual situations. I personally still try to understand more about Kant and Aristotle because I actually take it seriously as to which I choose to follow.
I remember having an argument with my ex (who I inadvertently turned into an atheist) where she was trying to argue why pirating songs and movies wasn't wrong. It was silly and I didn't understand why something so clearly wrong by any standard is so common among people who are otherwise 'moral' and like to take pride that they don't need God to be nice to fellow people.
I think there is more to it than the theists just caring more. I think that atheists that attempt to hold to absolute morals must realise that on some level that they hold some rather contradictory views - in those circumstances, they are going to be half-hearted. Also, although this is off-topic, I do not agree that the only difference between religions is superficial rituals. Prior to around 33AD I would have agreed - religions were all 'religions of works' as people from all faiths across the world (not just ancient Judaism) tried to fulfil that law that they know by nature. But since Jesus died for our sins we now have a 'religion of grace' which is drastically different from the 'religions of works' that so many people still hopelessly slave under. Christianity is the one that stands out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
So, the writers of the bible knew about various forms of slavery, including chattel slavery. One of the most important features in human history. It is, however, silent on the issue.
And this is supposed to be the ultimate guide to timeless and unchanging morality? HAH!
Love your neighbour as yourself... do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
How can the brutality of the slave trade be compatible with such commandments?
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
....Which is apparently not extended to slaves. Useless git.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but to each their own.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
Let's not forgot that sending girls out to be gang raped is also part of the whole Christian morale perspective.
It's not.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
Love your neighbour as yourself... do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
How can the brutality of the slave trade be compatible with such commandments?
Please explain the part about slaves obeying their masters.
Next, if this passage is misinterpreted: given that this passage was used as justification of slave-owners, please elaborate on the usefulness of the bible when it allows itself to be used to justify slavery for centuries.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
It's not.
No?
My version of the "holy texts" rather much imply that the moral there - says girls can be sent out to be gang raped.
You have read about Lot, haven't you?
Same guy and same moral also totally approve of incest, pretty much in rape form.
Gang rape: Genesis 19:1–11
Incest: Genesis 19:30–38
Rather creepy stuff, if you ask me. And most definitely against human and humane moral values.
I have seen the incest part defended, havent quite got any defense on the gang rape thingy. However you bend it, women are seen as lesser beings.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
...please elaborate on the usefulness of the bible when it allows itself to be used to justify slavery for centuries.
Absolutely anything and everything can be, is, and will be misinterpreted somewhere by somebody every single day. People make mistakes. Those mistakes do not subtract from the value of the absolute moral truth.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Absolutely anything and everything can be, is, and will be misinterpreted somewhere by somebody every single day. People make mistakes. Those mistakes do not subtract from the value of the absolute moral truth.
Yeah, the "absolute" moral truth as understood by humans, based on texts from a bronze age desert living people.
Yey for the obvious moral superiority, not to mention logic, of that claim :laugh4:
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Absolutely anything and everything can be, is, and will be misinterpreted somewhere by somebody every single day. People make mistakes. Those mistakes do not subtract from the value of the absolute moral truth.
So, it's absolutely useless, then ~;)
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
So, it's absolutely useless, then ~;)
I find it extremely useful. Your mileage may vary.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
I find it extremely useful. Your mileage may vary.
If you need someone to tell you how to behave, fine by me.
I'm quite capable of figuring that out by myself.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
If you need someone to tell you how to behave, fine by me.
I'm quite capable of figuring that out by myself.
Your attempts at oversimplification are rather clumsy. Still, they do reveal a lot of hubris, and hubris is baaaaad.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Your attempts at oversimplification are rather clumsy. Still, they do reveal a lot of hubris, and hubris is baaaaad.
You shall have no other Gods than me... :rolleyes:
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Your attempts at oversimplification are rather clumsy. Still, they do reveal a lot of hubris, and hubris is baaaaad.
I will happily offend any and all gods.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
I will happily offend any and all gods.
I doubt God will take offense. Hubris is bad in general, God or no God.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.
Wrong. Chattel slavery is the oldest form of slavery. And was in fact practiced by the Israelite's, as it was by most ancient civilizations in some form. Israelite's just had a quirk in their law that an Israelite could not permanently keep another Israelite as a slave (the 7 years bit only applies under that circumstance). However a non-Israelite was fair game for permanent chattel enslavement. And if an Israelite man kept a non-Israelite woman as a slave, any children produced were considered non-Israelite. And subject to permanent bondage. Bondage that was able to be passed to the masters heirs when he died.
All of this was taken from bible versus BTW. So the bible does condone slavery.
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
I doubt God will take offense. Hubris is bad in general, God or no God.
Care to elaborate on why you believe man is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong?
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
The common good, mostly.
Reason. Logic.
Careful, Icarus...
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sigurd
Careful, Icarus...
I've flown a hangglider, like Icarus. I landed without any hassle.
I am indeed a GOD!!!
-
Re: Speaking of Israel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
Care to elaborate on why you believe man is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong?
They only learnt what being wrong was when they ate an apple they were not meant to, apparently.