Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[leroy]

1: your attempt to classify mcdonalds workers and military personell as slaves is disingenuous. They are employees and are treated as such - personal development, promotion opportunities, pensions, benefits all come under working conditions. No reasonable person could ever classify an employee as a slave.

2: It is not moral. We're done. I will not dignify any more of your vile arguments with a response.

as a slave one could also have personal development, promotion opportunities,etc. For example some slaves where financial advisors, they manage their masters money



There are many cases in which a slave had the opportunity to be free, but decided to stay with his master.


Our modern understanding of “slave” is very different from the ancient understanding, the bible does forbids kidnapping someone and forcing him to become a slave, so slaves where typically volunteers, perhaps people that where starving to death and decided to work for free (just for food and shelter)

 

[dybmh]

Are you a theist?


If not, i woudl ask,:... how do you justify "objectivly wrong" as a non-theist?

Under what metric did you determine that stoning a gay man is morally wrong?

Yes. I believe in the Abrahamic version of God.

Question: what metric did I use to determine stoning a gay man is wrong?

It feels wrong. It feels unfair. It's a feeling. It's not something I can prove objectively.

 

[Deeje]

Hold up, doesn't that mean that the law to execute homosexuals is "perfect"?

Shouldn't you then try to follow this perfect law as closely as possible?

First of all, I am not Jewish so the Law is not incumbent on me as a Gentile. The nation of Israel was authorised to execute those who broke God's laws. These were capital crimes and covered a range of offences.

Sexual crimes were particularly specific because the transmission of life is a sacred act to the Creator and must be respected. It is meant to produce children in a stable family setting....not viewing pregnancy or disease as an unwanted side effect of one's sex life. There were no LGBTQ rights back then. And since God does not change his moral laws to accommodate human demands, he does not recognize their rights at the present. God does not condemn homosexuals, only their behavior. Those who remain celibate break no law of God.

Secondly, the laws regarding sexual morality covered any sexual deviation from what was stated in the Law. Since sexual relations were strictly limited to those in a scriptural marriage (involving a man and a woman as the start of a new family with a view to them having children) there was no way for unmarried people, regardless of gender, to engage in sexual intimacy without breaking God's law. Jesus carried those moral laws over to Christians. Christians have no right to execute anyone. We are bound by the laws of the land like anyone else.
Sex is not a right to us.....it is a God given privilege to be exercised only within legitimate marriage.

Under the Law, God's attitude towards those who engaged in any form of deviant sexual behavior (homosexual sex, beastiality, adultery or even masturbation) was clearly stated....he called this behavior an "abomination" and those who engaged in it were liable to the stated penalty. All knew the penalty before they committed the crime. Not having sex is not life-threatening.

 

[leroy]

Yes. I believe in the Abrahamic version of God.

Question: what metric did I use to determine stoning a gay man is wrong?

It feels wrong. It feels unfair. It's a feeling. It's not something I can prove objectively.

agreed

 

[Audie]

as a slave one could also have personal development, promotion opportunities,etc. For example some slaves where financial advisors, they manage their masters money



There are many cases in which a slave had the opportunity to be free, but decided to stay with his master.


Our modern understanding of “slave” is very different from the ancient understanding, the bible does forbids kidnapping someone and forcing him to become a slave, so slaves where typically volunteers, perhaps people that where starving to death and decided to work for free (just for food and shelter)

It is not "the", or, "ancient" The "bible" is very very
narrow focus re place and time. As you know.
Be not so careless in speech and thought!

 

[wandering peacefully]

First of all, I am not Jewish so the Law is not incumbent on me as a Gentile. The nation of Israel was authorised to execute those who broke God's laws. These were capital crimes and covered a range of offences.

Sexual crimes were particularly specific because the transmission of life is a sacred act to the Creator and must be respected. It is meant to produce children in a stable family setting....not viewing pregnancy or disease as an unwanted side effect of one's sex life. There were no LGBTQ rights back then. And since God does not change his moral laws to accommodate human demands, he does not recognize their rights at the present. God does not condemn homosexuals, only their behavior. Those who remain celibate break no law of God.

Secondly, the laws regarding sexual morality covered any sexual deviation from what was stated in the Law. Since sexual relations were strictly limited to those in a scriptural marriage (involving a man and a woman as the start of a new family with a view to them having children) there was no way for unmarried people, regardless of gender, to engage in sexual intimacy without breaking God's law. Jesus carried those moral laws over to Christians. Christians have no right to execute anyone. We are bound by the laws of the land like anyone else.
Sex is not a right to us.....it is a God given privilege to be exercised only within legitimate marriage.

Under the Law, God's attitude towards those who engaged in any form of deviant sexual behavior (homosexual sex, beastiality, adultery or even masturbation) was clearly stated....he called this behavior an "abomination" and those who engaged in it were liable to the stated penalty. All knew the penalty before they committed the crime. Not having sex is not life-threatening.

Just amazing. The whole lot of it. So much arrogance and hateful attitudes that book teaches. It's so sad to see how far behind morally and ethically some religious teachings are. But of course it was written over 2000 years before present so it was written in the age of fearful humans who knew nothing about biology or compassion. Maybe if it could be updated or at least not have its major flaws and hatred followed anymore, the entire world could get moving on more important ideas. If there is or was one a God, I doubt it would care one iota about sex, gays, or masturbation. Time for religion to grow up.

 

[Deeje]

Just amazing. The whole lot of it. So much arrogance and hateful attitudes that book teaches.

There is no 'hatred' in the book...only laws which are NOT based on human emotions and desires but on God's perfect laws. It is God who dictates his morality to us...not the other way around. There is nothing that says we have to like them, because in our imperfect state, our flesh may dictate something else, so if God's laws rob us of what we WANT to do, we may chafe. Poor us. No one ever died from not having sex....

It's so sad to see how far behind morally and ethically some religious teachings are. But of course it was written over 2000 years before present so it was written in the age of fearful humans who knew nothing about biology or compassion.

What is sad is that humans demand that God change his moral standards to accommodate their unnatural fleshly desires. Human standards change as we see throughout history, and at the present all standards of decency seem to have disappeared altogether. God's laws apply in any age because he does not alter his standards because we alter ours. That doesn't make him a bad God.....it makes humans bad for demanding that he lower his standards. Its never going to happen.

Maybe if it could be updated or at least not have its major flaws and hatred followed anymore, the entire world could get moving on more important ideas. If there is or was one a God, I doubt it would care one iota about sex, gays, or masturbation. Time for religion to grow up.

Time for humans to grow up instead of wanting God to stoop to their level.

The greatest empire in history (Rome) was not overthrown by a greater power, but decayed from within due to its own decadence and abandonment of decent moral standards. The family unit disintegrated and with it the whole structure of society collapsed. We are almost there again...look around you.

Things will never change if humans do not learn from the lessons of the past....God will have to intervene to stop this rot from being perpetuated any further. We are witnessing the death of democracy right now....another failed human system.....and according to the Bible there is only one last form of rulership to try because all others have failed.

Watch for the introduction of a "one world government" that the Bible foretells.....it won't last long because it will plunge the world into chaos. Their promise of "peace and security" will be hollow. It will not turn out to be what they sign up for.

 

[shmogie]

Isn't that the old testament?

Yes, not NT, not the law of Christ, not the law for Christians.

 

[shmogie]

Just amazing. The whole lot of it. So much arrogance and hateful attitudes that book teaches. It's so sad to see how far behind morally and ethically some religious teachings are. But of course it was written over 2000 years before present so it was written in the age of fearful humans who knew nothing about biology or compassion. Maybe if it could be updated or at least not have its major flaws and hatred followed anymore, the entire world could get moving on more important ideas. If there is or was one a God, I doubt it would care one iota about sex, gays, or masturbation. Time for religion to grow up.

Sorry, it isn´t going to change. What hatred are you speaking of ? I know a bit about biology, and according to Darwin, the primary purpose of any organism is to see that the species survives, by reproduction.

Which makes homosexuality a dead end, a practice that abrogates the role evolution has given to every species, an anomaly of no biological value.

So, should you or I make a moral judgement as good evolutionists ?

Nature can be hateful and immoral can´t it ?

 

[Skreeper]

Sorry, it isn´t going to change. What hatred are you speaking of ? I know a bit about biology, and according to Darwin, the primary purpose of any organism is to see that the species survives, by reproduction.

Which makes homosexuality a dead end, a practice that abrogates the role evolution has given to every species, an anomaly of no biological value.

So, should you or I make a moral judgement as good evolutionists ?

Nature can be hateful and immoral can´t it ?

We don't base our moral values on what happens in nature, that would be fallacious reasoning.

Moreover, homosexuality is no dead end since we have plenty of methods of procreation. Also there more than enough orphans in the world, adopting them is also contributing to our species survival.

 

[Skreeper]

First of all, I am not Jewish so the Law is not incumbent on me as a Gentile. The nation of Israel was authorised to execute those who broke God's laws. These were capital crimes and covered a range of offences.

Sexual crimes were particularly specific because the transmission of life is a sacred act to the Creator and must be respected. It is meant to produce children in a stable family setting....not viewing pregnancy or disease as an unwanted side effect of one's sex life. There were no LGBTQ rights back then. And since God does not change his moral laws to accommodate human demands, he does not recognize their rights at the present. God does not condemn homosexuals, only their behavior. Those who remain celibate break no law of God.

Secondly, the laws regarding sexual morality covered any sexual deviation from what was stated in the Law. Since sexual relations were strictly limited to those in a scriptural marriage (involving a man and a woman as the start of a new family with a view to them having children) there was no way for unmarried people, regardless of gender, to engage in sexual intimacy without breaking God's law. Jesus carried those moral laws over to Christians. Christians have no right to execute anyone. We are bound by the laws of the land like anyone else.
Sex is not a right to us.....it is a God given privilege to be exercised only within legitimate marriage.

Under the Law, God's attitude towards those who engaged in any form of deviant sexual behavior (homosexual sex, beastiality, adultery or even masturbation) was clearly stated....he called this behavior an "abomination" and those who engaged in it were liable to the stated penalty. All knew the penalty before they committed the crime. Not having sex is not life-threatening.

The creator you describe sounds like a pretty nasty dude.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that I won't worship someone who thinks that my sexual activity makes me worthy of death.

 

[Deeje]

The creator you describe sounds like a pretty nasty dude.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that I won't worship someone who thinks that my sexual activity makes me worthy of death.

Ummm.....I don't really think that God needs or misses our worship? He would rather people not practice immoral sex, or any other activity that merits his displeasure so that he could offer them something far more worthwhile than a few moments of illicit pleasure. If a person's sexual activity is against the law of God, then the law may well catch up with them sooner or later methinks. Can anyone break the laws of the land and expect no penalty?

The Creator is not a nasty dude at all, but he is very powerful.....he just has rules for decency in human behavior...especially when it concerns sexual activity which he designed primarily for the sacred purpose of producing children, creating new life. The fact that it is pleasurable is a bonus to be enjoyed within the bonds of God approved marriage. I don't find that restrictive or unreasonable personally.

But God doesn't force anyone to obey him or to even believe in him.....he simply tells us his rules and the penalty for disobeying them, and leaves the rest up to us. He tells us what his purpose is for this earth and how we can have a really wonderful future but he won't force it on anyone.

I don't think its ever a good idea to get into God's bad books though....

 

[Dan Mellis]

as a slave one could also have personal development, promotion opportunities,etc. For example some slaves where financial advisors, they manage their masters money



There are many cases in which a slave had the opportunity to be free, but decided to stay with his master.


Our modern understanding of “slave” is very different from the ancient understanding, the bible does forbids kidnapping someone and forcing him to become a slave, so slaves where typically volunteers, perhaps people that where starving to death and decided to work for free (just for food and shelter)

And still owned, bought and sold as legal property which is not moral

What is it with people trying to wriggle out of that?

Modern definitions are immaterial. Even if I conceded your point on that, and even if I accepted that ancient slaves were typically volunteers (nonsense by the way, there may have been instances of this but slaves in the traditional sense were not usually willing participants), you're still not addressing the point I'm making.

 

[Dan Mellis]

About the bit I highlighted:

- if the Bible is true, then the highlighted statement is false. There would - or at least could - be other sources.

- if the Bible is false, then it wouldn't provide any insight into God's will.

- To reach this conclusion, you have to have already proved god. The fact that there could be other sources, then, doesn't matter.

- If the bible is false, then christianity (and likely judaism) is false. It is solely reliant on assertions made in that book.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Ummm.....I don't really think that God needs or misses our worship? He would rather people not practice immoral sex, or any other activity that merits his displeasure so that he could offer them something far more worthwhile than a few moments of illicit pleasure. If a person's sexual activity is against the law of God, then the law may well catch up with them sooner or later methinks. Can anyone break the laws of the land and expect no penalty?

The Creator is not a nasty dude at all, but he is very powerful.....he just has rules for decency in human behavior...especially when it concerns sexual activity which he designed primarily for the sacred purpose of producing children, creating new life. The fact that it is pleasurable is a bonus to be enjoyed within the bonds of God approved marriage. I don't find that restrictive or unreasonable personally.

But God doesn't force anyone to obey him or to even believe in him.....he simply tells us his rules and the penalty for disobeying them, and leaves the rest up to us. He tells us what his purpose is for this earth and how we can have a really wonderful future but he won't force it anyone.

I don't think its ever a good idea to get into God's bad books though....

"God isnt a nasty dude, he just gives us illogical and immoral rules with no reason given, then uses his power to torture us eternally if we don't abide by them"

Yeah, right. Could you define "to force someone" for me? Because to say "well I'm not physically gonna force you to do it, but my mate is gonna beat you up if you don't" is pretty clearly forcing someone onto something to me

 

[leroy]

And still owned, bought and sold as legal property which is not moral

What is it with people trying to wriggle out of that?

Modern definitions are immaterial. Even if I conceded your point on that, and even if I accepted that ancient slaves were typically volunteers (nonsense by the way, there may have been instances of this but slaves in the traditional sense were not usually willing participants), you're still not addressing the point I'm making.

What is the point that you are making?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

It is clear from the OT that when God lead the people out if Israel, that Moses was given laws to keep them in their time in the wilderness.
Out of these people would come the Messiah and they were given laws by which they are the tribes of Israel had to live by.. God made woman for man not man for man.
This is for believers not atheists or agnostics. The way in which God wanted his people to conduct themselves. Anyone can choose what they believe and what they will do. As a believer they will obey God. As an unbeliever they will live as they choose. It is about what matters more to a person. If you wanted to remain part of Gods people then in that time you lived as one of them. It really is nothing to do with people of no faith or unsure of what they believe. Do you want to share why you are perplexed by this?

 

[Dan Mellis]

It is clear from the OT that when God lead the people out if Israel, that Moses was given laws to keep them in their time in the wilderness.
Out of these people would come the Messiah and they were given laws by which they are the tribes of Israel had to live by.. God made woman for man not man for man.
This is for believers not atheists or agnostics. The way in which God wanted his people to conduct themselves. Anyone can choose what they believe and what they will do. As a believer they will obey God. As an unbeliever they will live as they choose. It is about what matters more to a person. If you wanted to remain part of Gods people then in that time you lived as one of them. It really is nothing to do with people of no faith or unsure of what they believe. Do you want to share why you are perplexed by this?

That would be fine, except it leaks outside of the church into society. If you truly believed this, then you would have no problem with others being gay and wouldn't think it immoral for an atheist to be homosexual.

The trouble is, what you believe influences what you do and your actions affect others. If I set up a church which excluded black people and said that it was immoral to be black, even though that belief would technically be confined to my congregation it would affect those in the community in which I operate and would be outlawed immediately.

What you're effectively saying is "yes, we're homophobic but it doesn't matter because we only think it amongst ourselves," which is not only patently untrue, but even if it were the case - preaching discriminatory views is harmful to others who are subjected to the effects of that.

It's why we all understand why white supremacist groups are frowned upon.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Are you a theist?


If not, i woudl ask,:... how do you justify "objectivly wrong" as a non-theist?

Under what metric did you determine that stoning a gay man is morally wrong?

As an atheist, I can provide some insight here.

I think that the only way the be objective is from an atheist, or at least secular, point of view. Your morality is coloured (if not outright defined) by religion, so it's not objective. It's subjective.

We can come to a conclusion about stoning a gay man by using one simple sentiment:

Everything is morally ok, until it can be shown not to be

By "shown not to be ok" we mean by using solid, logical argument - not instructions from someone who may or may not exist.

So, does stoning someone, to death or otherwise, impact on their wellbeing and personal rights? Absolutely, so it's morally wrong.

Does being gay have any adverse affects, other than those risks which are mutually accepted by each party, have any negative affect on anyone? No, but it also doesn't have any positive affects, so its amoral. The notion of immorality/morality doesnt apply.

If a gay man had AIDs, and knowingly passed it onto another gay man, this impacts one person negatively, so it's immoral.

Can it be argued that preaching that being gay is sinful, despite having little to no evidence to suggest otherwise, thus turning an entire community against another is an immoral thing to do? Damn right it can. It does nothing for those people who aren't gay. For those who are, it marginalises them and, in some cases, impacts their wellbeing. This is immoral.

I hope this makes sense; my point being that secular morality is the only objective way to do things - I think your point was that the only way to know what is moral is through religion but that's simply untrue.

 

[wandering peacefully]

There is no 'hatred' in the book...only laws which are NOT based on human emotions and desires but on God's perfect laws. It is God who dictates his morality to us...not the other way around. There is nothing that says we have to like them, because in our imperfect state, our flesh may dictate something else, so if God's laws rob us of what we WANT to do, we may chafe. Poor us. No one ever died from not having sex....



What is sad is that humans demand that God change his moral standards to accommodate their unnatural fleshly desires. Human standards change as we see throughout history, and at the present all standards of decency seem to have disappeared altogether. God's laws apply in any age because he does not alter his standards because we alter ours. That doesn't make him a bad God.....it makes humans bad for demanding that he lower his standards. Its never going to happen.



Time for humans to grow up instead of wanting God to stoop to their level.

The greatest empire in history (Rome) was not overthrown by a greater power, but decayed from within due to its own decadence and abandonment of decent moral standards. The family unit disintegrated and with it the whole structure of society collapsed. We are almost there again...look around you.

Things will never change if humans do not learn from the lessons of the past....God will have to intervene to stop this rot from being perpetuated any further. We are witnessing the death of democracy right now....another failed human system.....and according to the Bible there is only one last form of rulership to try because all others have failed.

Watch for the introduction of a "one world government" that the Bible foretells.....it won't last long because it will plunge the world into chaos. Their promise of "peace and security" will be hollow. It will not turn out to be what they sign up for.

I see that is how you personally view the Bible. On the other hand there is ample reason to believe the Bible was written exactly as you say as a collection of emotional feelings and desires by bronze age men. There is no reason from my perspective to take it literally. And certainly not as an actual dictation from "God".

Why would it be difficult for believers to accept that? What harm would there be in seeing it as a reflection of men's attitudes and emotional desires? Certainly it wouldn't preclude people from taking what could be considered productive or morally accepted advice and heaving the hate and junk science which cause problems for other members of humanity that arise from a strict literal interpretation. I'm not going to list all of the hate written in the Bible. If you don't know what it is or can't find it yourself, it makes a clear example of the dangers of following doctrine from nothing more than faith and human emotions.

Btw, I am curious if JWs vaccinate their children against measles?