Morality

[a completely inoffensive name]

Evolution has never been proven. Secular scientists look at data and interpret it according to a predetermined view. Creationist scientists do the same thing. Evolution has been shown to be statistically improbable, virtually impossible. I could get into it more, but it would take too long. Bottom line is, the data is interpreted based on your worldview. It is historical science, meaning we cannot say for certain what happened because nobody was there from your point of view (which you take by faith), and you do not accept the word of the One who was there, whose word I take on faith.

AKA, you have no idea what you are talking about and have nothing.

[Beskar]

Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...

Absolutely right => Divine.

If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.

Get it now?

Okay.

There is nothing absolutely right, so nothing is divine?

Got you.

[rvg]

Okay.

There is nothing absolutely right, so nothing is divine?

Got you.

There we go... now you're getting it. Except that we differ on the question of whether or not something can be classified as absolutely right. But yeah, that's what I was trying to convey: if a moral statement isn't absolutely right, it's not divine. And that's the way to recognize something divine: it's absolutely right.

[Beskar]

There we go... now you're getting it. Except that we differ on the question of whether or not something can be classified as absolutely right. But yeah, that's what I was trying to convey: if a moral statement isn't absolutely right, it's not divine. And that's the way to recognize something divine: it's absolutely right.

Can you give an example of something absolutely right? I can honestly not.

'Thou shalt not kill' ends up falling short when you factor in things such as self-defense, the army, and other bodies. Similar scenarios can be said for a lot of other things.

Only thing which could be argued in your favour is Matthew 22:39 "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." which is my favourite phrase in the Bible.

But this is not an absolute and very wishy-washy definition.

[rvg]

Can you give an example of something absolutely right? I can honestly not.

'Thou shalt not kill' ends up falling short when you factor in things such as self-defense, the army, and other bodies. Similar scenarios can be said for a lot of other things.

'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.

[Beskar]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.

Exodus 20:13, King James Version.

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is from a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible, dogma or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?

If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Exodus 20:13, King James Version.

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?

If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.

This has always been by understanding of truth - if it exists.

[ICantSpellDawg]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.

There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

The problem is ones interpretation of Justice.

[rvg]

Exodus 20:13, King James Version.

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is from a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible, dogma or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?

If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.

I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. The Ten Commandments might be one possible exception, but other than that it's up in the air. But yeah, you understand my position.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. The Ten Commandments might be one possible exception, but other than that it's up in the air. But yeah, you understand my position.

What you have just written is logically flawed.
Where did your understanding of the 10 Commandment's come from? Our only record of them comes from "the Holy Scriptures" that you've just cited as an untrustworthy source. It's not like the Tablets and the Torah are separate entities any more than Moses, Elijah, Jesus and their activities (walking on water, parting the sea, being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot, etc.) are separate entities from the Bible.

It is easy for you to call these things BS, but not that God might have spoken to a guy on the mountaintop and inscribed tablets using lightning?

Existence is nonsensical. The older I get, the less anything makes sense. The idea that people come out of other people and have mouths is endlessly strange. It doesn't really bother me to believe that crazy deity related stuff happens. Even if there was nothing after death, there would be no reason not to impose jihad on others - if that's what you wanted to do.

[Beskar]

This has always been by understanding of truth - if it exists.

I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. But yeah, you understand my position.

If that is your position, then I have no real arguments with you. My apologies for misunderstanding.

I may disagree that I don't think we can get any absolute truths, but I believe in the endeavour to try to find them and learn them so we may better ourselves, so any position which aims/strives for truth I don't have conflicts with.

[Vincent Butler]

He was wrong in sending them out, and the Bible never justifies it. I thought you were talking about his daughters after that.
The common descent picture. Bear in mind those are evolutionary artist's impressions. Bear in mind that there is no evidence that those creatures evolved one into another. Every change would have had to work right the first time. I'm sorry, I don't have the faith to believe that, though apparently you do. Nobody was there to see it happen, it is impossible to say for sure that is what happened. That is why I say evolution and creation are both taken by faith. But at least creationists have a claim from One who claims to have been there. That is more than evolutionists have.
The so-called similarity in DNA was made from selected genes. When the entire genome sequence is taken into account the similarity is much lower.

no real stock is taken in its involvement because it actually doesn't matter to their faith

It plays a huge role in faith. If I don't believe in a literal Genesis, how do I know what else to believe? Many Christians have sadly bought into the idea that the view on creation has no bearing on belief. It has much to do with it. And note, 100 years from now the theory of evolution may, and probably will, be much different than it is now. How many times has it changed already? The Bible account never changes.

Evolutionists do not suggest maggots come from meat magically

I know that. But it is still a life-from-non-life belief.

Great many genetic trees show similar traits and even the same 'spelling mistakes'. There is a lot of evidence pointing towards a common ancestor

Common ancestor or common designer? By the way, if mankind were as old as they say we are, we would have mutated ourselves into extinction by now.

the thing is, for an evolutionist to admit there even might be a God, would a)mean they are not the ultimate judge of what they do, and b)they are accountable to a higher being.

OK, I said that wrong. Replace evolutionist with atheist, many of whom are evolutionists. Some people, and PVC is probably one of them, have been told over and over that evolution is true and don't know any better, no slight on his intelligence, but evolutionism is much more prevalent in our culture than creationism. Those are not the ones I am talking about.

[rvg]

What you have just written is wildly flawed logically.
Where did the 10 Commandment's come from? Our only record of them comes from "the Holy Scriptures" that you've just cited as an untrustworthy source.

I don't see a problem here. Just because something might be partially or fully flawed doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be partially or fully flawed. You can find a diamond in a pile of refuse.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see a problem here. Just because something might be partially or fully flawed doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be partially or fully flawed. You can find a diamond in a pile of refuse.

Why do you think that the 10 commandments are OK?

[Vincent Butler]

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible

It is, but not in Exodus, though the context is about murder. Jesus referencing the Ten Commandments in Matthew 19:18 quotes it as "Thou shalt do no murder".

There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

It depends on the reason for killing, God instituted the death penalty for various crimes, but did not condone murder, as that was the primary reason for the death penalty. Murder flies in the face of God, the creator of life. When one being takes an innocent's life, he forfeits his own right to life.

I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men

An understandable view. Mankind is very fallible. However, there is a doctrine of preservation, described in the book of 2 Peter 1:21 (and other places), stating the the men were writing the words as directed by God, and part of that doctrine is that the Scripture is infallible and inerrant in its recording, that is, the men were divinely helped to write without mistake, and that continues through the different translations (Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, etc., there were a total of seven). The modern Bibles were translated from the Critical Texts rather than the Received Text (the traditional text), by people who did not even believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I am not including those in my list, and please do not turn this into yet another fiery debate, this time about Bible versions. There is a time and a place for that discussion, and now is neither. I will not respond to any comments regarding Bible versions. I myself use the KJV, what you use is between you and God.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7

[rvg]

Why do you think that the 10 commandments are OK?

Because I do not see a situation where they would lose their relevance or would require a revision. I might be mistaken of course.

[Kadagar_AV]

Because I do not see a situation where they would lose their relevance or would require a revision. I might be mistaken of course.

It's pretty much guaranteed.

Heard of other religions?

[Beskar]

The common descent picture. Bear in mind those are evolutionary artist's impressions. Bear in mind that there is no evidence that those creatures evolved one into another. Every change would have had to work right the first time.

Where are you getting the 'right the first time' from? Everything is constantly evolving, all around us, all this very second. What the picture pretty much showing is that these have diverged significantly enough to show. There is a lot of 'failures' and some mutations are very harmful and kill us.

It wasn't as simple as a 'proto-horse suddenly popped out a modern day horse' it was a process of them gradually changing over a long time to get that way.

Nobody was there to see it happen, it is impossible to say for sure that is what happened.

But there evidence is there within our DNA code. By comparing the similarities and differences, we can see how mutations occurred and what directions they took.

By comparison, it would be me going into your living room, sitting on your sofa, putting my feet up on the table and eating out of a yogurt pot then left. Then, you walk into the room, you see the dent where I sat on the sofa, the small sprinkle of mud from my shoes upon the table, and the finished yoghurt pot.It is very likely from this information, you can recreate that someone was in your room, with their feet upon the table and ate a yoghurt.

The evidence is as obvious as that. In comparison, there is no evidence for creationism. Zip, zap, none. Especially young-earth creationism. I am guessing by similar comparison, instead of me eating a yoghurt pot, you are arguing that Santa Claus came in, ate a mince pie and sat himself upon the TV.

I know which I would rather believe.

That is why I say evolution and creation are both taken by faith. But at least creationists have a claim from One who claims to have been there. That is more than evolutionists have.

Really.. ?
.... Really?
I mean.. really?

It plays a huge role in faith. If I don't believe in a literal Genesis, how do I know what else to believe? Many Christians have sadly bought into the idea that the view on creation has no bearing on belief. It has much to do with it.

Well, that is a issue for you, because sadly no one sane actually believes in a literal genesis, not even the Pope.

And note, 100 years from now the theory of evolution may, and probably will, be much different than it is now. How many times has it changed already? The Bible account never changes.

There is three fundamental problems with this statement:
1) Science is not absolute, it is discovering and exploring reality, attempting to demonstrate and understand the world around us. If something is inaccurate, it self-corrects and this is usually brought about with advances in technology and other knowledge, to give us better understanding.
2) By contrast as you said yourself, the Bible is 'literal truth', it is absolutely right and cannot be wrong. So compared with Science which is constantly updating our current knowledge, your belief is that we already know the answer, therefore, change is very bad.
3) The Bible account has changed a great many times. There are the various councils, the Apocrypha, the Dead-Sea scrolls, Torah, Gospel of Barnabas and Thomas, from the differences due to the Septuagint...

So ignoring 1 and 2 is linked with 3 and since number 3 is something far more tangible...:
We have the Codex Sinaiticus, here is a link to a news article about it. Or the 1500-year old Turkish bible shown here. This is forgetting the differences between many of the new bibles, such as the New International version (version 2, it was updated!) and the King James.

There is also a great debate about the creation story in genesis too. You can get your bible out, and lets take a look at Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. See before your eyes, the following:
Ch1: Water is created before land.
Ch2: Land is created before water.
Ch1: Plants, Animals and then God creates man and woman.
Ch2: God creates man, he then creates the plants and animals, than a woman from the mans rib.

Ch2 is sometimes argued as a postscript version of chapter 1, but then, it wouldn't be the literal truth, would it?

Psalm 104 - this is a different order.
We then have Job 38 has another account.

These seem to be different stories to me.
This is the biggest difference between a fundamentalist, and the majority of mainstream Christians, such as ICantSpellDawg, rvg, PVC, etc. Perhaps you should consider asking them how they keep their faith knowing the Bible isn't the literal truth, word for word.

By the way, if mankind were as old as they say we are, we would have mutated ourselves into extinction by now.

How does one 'mutate' themselves into extinction ?

The only species alive are the 'survivors', those who fail to adapt or evolve to changing environment end up dying, like the do-do. I don't know of any species which have 'mutated' themselves into extinction, unless you are discussing cancer. Now that is a horrible cell mutation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The beauty of beliefs is that you can believe in whatever you want. You can believe in evolution and a Heliocentric system, and in a God that is involved in our daily lives for some reason, and in angels, but not in politicians and not in natural supplements etc..
Why not? Is Richard Dawkins going to be at the gates, judging you on how logical you were in your life? Who cares? Religious yourself out all over the place. Have fun. I have fun - I do whatever I want, but I try to go to Mass every Sunday (failing miserably this summer). Why not? I have values and they are more consistent in some ways with devoted Catholics than anybody else. But not too devoted. I'm not sure why I have values, I don't know if they are valuable. Or what valuable is. Or really anything at all.

I'm just glad that I don't have to collect nuts all summer and get eaten by foxes. But even then, maybe you would just deal with it?

[Beskar]

Heading back in the territory of morality, I have been talking to a Jewish friend of mine in regards of the Torah.

Apparently even during the days of the old testament, there was quite a number of disagreements with what was written and reality, with the Sanhedrin (the highest court of the great temples) overruled the Torah itself in certain cases and it certainly wasn't called as the end-all book of laws. This is also why there are later law books like the Mishnah and the Talmud which clarify the rules sert forth.

There are instances where 'rebellious sons' should be stoned, for simply disagreeing with their father, yet this rule is so stringent, it wasn't enforced.

Majority of current Torah scholars say that it is a guideline of how to live/parables than anything else. Not the 'literal truth'.

[Beskar]

..but not in politicians and not in natural supplements etc..

Your own argument falls on itself when you start mentioning not to believe in things such as homeopathy~

Unfortunately, a lot of beliefs are harmful. Whilst thinking a microwavable spaghetti monster fondled the universe in existence with its noodly appendage is not going to hurt anyone, forcing Tolkien's version of creation upon everyone and trying to return everyone to a dark age of elves and orcs is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your own argument falls on itself when you start mentioning not to believe in things such as homeopathy~

Unfortunately, a lot of beliefs are harmful. Whilst thinking a microwavable spaghetti monster fondled the universe in existence with its noodly appendage is not going to hurt anyone, forcing Tolkien's version of creation upon everyone and trying to return everyone to a dark age of elves and orcs is.

Bad manners sure, but where is the imperative not to do things harmful to others? You seem to suggest that it is "truth" that one should not harm others. Why? What if someone were to desire the harm of others. It wouldn't be their truth.

To suggest that people "just don't do that" is patently false. To suggest that doing harm to others necessitates that harm be done to you is false. So, why shouldn't you do it?

Personally, I believe that I will be inescapably punished for wrongdoings. This is generally why I don't do terrible things that I feel like doing. I don't particularly fear punishment in this life - the human mind finds ways to cope. I do believe in a superlative and unexplainable judgement for wrongdoing. If I didn't, wrongdoing is a lot of fun and who cares what happens to others. Terrible stuff makes life more interesting - and most people value interesting more than being nice. Seriously.

I'd still be a pretty nice guy, with the occasional low drag behind the back suspension and prostitute in the passenger seat.

[Vincent Butler]

We have the Codex Sinaiticus

Found in a trash can, unless I am thinking the Vaticanus. Those two are the basis for most of the modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, and virtually every modern version. Part of the Critical Text. Bible manuscripts is something I have actually studied, so I know something about it.

Science is not absolute

Then you can't say evolution is true, because other findings may disprove it. Whenever that has happened, they just changed their beliefs instead of trashing it. After all, when the main alternative is Creation...

creation story in genesis too

Heard that argument too. A detailed creating of the planting of the Garden of Eden. If you are referring to Genesis 2:4 about day, that is a different use of the word "day" than a 24 hour day, just as we would say "back in my day". There are multiple meanings we use for the word day, that is talking about when he created it in the past, not as a 24 hour day. Psalm 104 seems to be talking about the flood. Anyway, the dry land was under the water, 1:9. The waters separated by the firmament were those in the atmosphere and those in outer space. There is water, albeit ice, in outer space. Job 38 is not a creation account as it were, but God mentioning some of the stuff he did at creation.

How does one 'mutate' themselves into extinction

Our genetic code would be so scrambled that we could not survive.

The Bible account has changed a great many times

The Apocrypha and such like books were never accepted as biblical canon. True, the original KJV had it, but the translators of the KJV did not believe in it for doctrine, but for good reading.
As far as changing science. The biblical account never changes. How many times has science changed? Leaving creation for the purpose of this question, where is the Bible wrong? Everybody who has tried to prove it wrong has ended up with egg on their face. And you know what? It makes sense.
As to the DNA, the supposed evolution would require new information being created. Mutations only lead to a loss of information. And sure, some mutations may be beneficial in select circumstances, but overall those mutations are harmful. Again, information is lost, not gained.

Everything is constantly evolving, all around us, all this very second. What the picture pretty much showing is that these have diverged significantly enough to show

Then how do we know it is happening at all? You only assume that, nobody has actually been around long enough to verify it. I will bring up one evidence of young creation, found out by an evolutionist who decided that the discrepancy was due to his own error and left it there. The earth is not yet at equilibrium for Carbon 14. Starting with none present and only forming in the atmosphere, we should reach equilibrium in around 30,000 years. Yet we are not there. He used valid methods, but because it did not match up to what he believed, he just figured he had made a mistake and left it there. I have heard of peer review sessions where somebody in front of a bunch of evolutionists goes through his work, everybody agreeing on what he has done, until his work showed that the earth was young. Then they just say they made a mistake, when everybody had been agreeing up to that point. There are many other evidences for the biblical account, not "none" as you say. As I have already pointed out, the data is the same, the interpretation is based on worldview. I do find it interesting how as soon as God came into the picture, everybody went on the attack. It drove them mad.

[Papewaio]

How can the bible ever be thought of as set in stone never changing?

It's called the New Testament because its a variation/appendix/new version of the older belief system.

[Vincent Butler]

The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. The New Testament tells of the fulfillment of the Old Testament. When the Bible was actually compiled, there were set guidelines used to determine whether or not to accept a book. A big part of that was authorship, who wrote it. It has been too long, though I could probably dig out my materials on that stuff. Bear in mind that initially the church did not have a Bible as we know it. Books were expensive, and many times the epistles were sent to various churches, not everybody had all the materials. Also, they saw no need for the collection of the Scriptures (New Testament manuscripts, mainly) because they were expecting the imminent return of Christ. Those who will mock that, I direct you to to 2 Peter 3. I think it was around AD 200 that a full copy of the Scriptures was finally compiled, it has been too long so don't quote me on that. I am getting off for the time being, it is getting late. I hope this does not erupt like it has before. That was interesting. Thanks for your help Rhy, rvg.
I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety. Psalm 4:8

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why are all the new people coming in religious fundamentalists? It frustrates me to no end. Why can't there be one guy or girl that is normal and has a different view on things that doesn't rely on ignoring modern science or slapping on bible quotes in bold at the end of every post as if we will see the light just by reading the LORD's words.​

[Greyblades]

ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

I definitely agree with your last point about Mill. That's why I am not interested in Utilitarianism at all actually.

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.

Hold on Rhy, you are asserting the conclusion before we reached any. The question is about if you can have absolute morals without God, I said it seems that good Christians are better people than good atheists, you can't simply go straight to "it's because atheism is incompatible with absolute morals". First give an example of these contradictory views and lets see if it holds up.

Also, I never really gave much thought to that distinction you pointed out about Christianity and other religions. It's interesting.

[Fragony]

ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.

That wasn't such a good decision imho, backroom was better when it was more of a hidden gentlemen's club. It's still way better than any other forum I know though. I would love a followup on MRD stories of his experiences in Afghanistan, but because it's now fuly public I am not getting it.

Edit, in no way critisism of our moderators. Freedom of speech goes VERY far when compared to other sites.

[Crandar]

ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.

Well, the situation is not particularly different, now. Except for Vincent Butler and myself, nobody of the Backroom poster is what I would describe with the words "newbie" or "troll".