Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[SkepticThinker]

I have empathy. I'm also somewhat Socratic when I teach at RF.

From where does empathy come, for example?

I'm gonna go ahead and wait until you respond to my questions and my point instead.
You say you have empathy, which I'm sure you probably do, because most of us do. So you should be able to see my point.


This isn't the Socratic method. This is deflection.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's almost like name calling at this point. I need not accept the evidence of someone without evidentiary facts in an argument.

Sorry if you took it that way. But seriously, the idea that morality exists to keep nonbelievers from murdering Christians is ludicrous.

It's also not a very well thought out argument given that you think morality comes from the Bible/God, which of course, nonbelievers don't follow and don't derive their morality from.

 

[Nakosis]

I understand, and again, I appreciate your stance.

But consider why Jesus volunteered to receive much unnecessary (He was sinless) harm, to spare us needless harm IMHO.

Personally, I think Jesus accepted the judgement of the authorities of his time to show that earthly judgement, earthy punishment regardless of how severe was nothing compared to being right with God. To put God first despite any consequences you may face because of it.

Jesus set an example that few have the courage to follow. Instead, folks came up with a theology to make Jesus the scapegoat. Not that I'm judging because I certainly don't have that courage. For me to be a Christian, I'd have to have a certainty about God I don't possess. It would require that I follow Jesus' example in all things.

Something I never saw in Christians or Christian leadership.

 

[rational experiences]

Thank you, but this is contradicted by changed lives, the Bible's predictive prophecy powers, Bible design and construction, Bible morality, and the Bible's significant scientific accuracies.

Saviour of God. Meant gods stone gas history. Was saved

Teaching. No man is God.

What spirit gases got released by stone into spatial womb. Cold space pressure space changed those gases.

Science teaching God stone no longer owned gases in womb of space.

Humans lived inside of those gases owned them. What a human says.

All taught as a human thinking concepts to teach.

A human teaches other humans.

Where ownership as status is now misconstrued it once was taught and known for what it meant.

God stone gases are not immaculate. Science owns no copy.

Reason life healthy was supported by natural God. Science attacked natural God sacrificed us.

Common sense. If you live a natural life healthy as origin to God history and your life body changed. You do an assessment.

In the past medical assessor a healer.

Said asteroid savior saved God heavens spirit. Alight gases. Not immaculate.

We live in water heavens. It never saved water from evaporation.. satanic act brought UFO hot radiation back into our gases.

Our gases burst. Start burning.

Heating space removed vacuum effect. Night time even balanced change. Went back to burning. As eve sacrifice teaching.

Womb did it. Sacrificed life.

Maths mother teaching.

Teaching once God stone gases heavens burnt originally.

Vacuum womb immaculately conceived non burning gases.

Sun attacked God. Set the gases on one side alight. Heavens went back in time to burning.

Science copied the sun.......
Set alight both sides heavens.

Earth once owned a huge heavens. By gas presence. Slowly diminished causing pressure changes.

Do that again to earth we won't survive.

Father said now less mass of gases...reactions not as powerful.

Why science using old information do not understand. Mass is gone. Moses 40 diminished to Jesus 33. As a maths status.

Radiation UFO mass no longer the same.

Death however of life apparent.

 

[night912]

I'm not going to pursue four different threads with you, but I'll answer both your relevant points here:

1) I can accept your ethical view on moral absolutism. The Bible contains moral absolutes and also, the pragmatic and sage realization that sentient, sapient beings have to judge where one moral and another seem to conflict, therefore, there are judges.

So slavery being moral for some people and immoral for another, by definition, is not moral absolutism.

2) Me knocking your tooth out harms your wellbeing. Therefore, there are Bible laws and precepts prohibiting and punishing such behavior (love your neighbor as yourself, an eye for an eye).

Beating a slave without knocking out a tooth, still harms your wellbeing. What makes you think that a tooth must be knocked out in order for it to harm your wellbeing? And since it's not immoral for you to beat a slave as long as you didn't knock the tooth out, violate your wellbeing. That makes it immoral.

Nice try.

 

[night912]

I'm not going to pursue four different threads with you, but I'll answer both your relevant points

You still haven't answered my points, whether or not you are willing to be treated like a slave, just like I asked you. Again, it was apparent that you were offended by what I asked, and wouldn't be willing to be treated like that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's a choice. If I imagine a world where people mimic the behavior they see in animals and in the natural world, then that is not a world I want to live in. It's savage and cruel.

One of the purposes of true religion IMHO is to inform us, rather than let everyone "choose their own path". Many in jail for murder "made a choice" on an a-religious, immoral basis.

The good news is, per the Bible, that those who trust God for eternal life will receive it, and gain moral perfection (able to live in Heaven/always make right choices) via the power of Yeshua HaMashiach.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry if you took it that way. But seriously, the idea that morality exists to keep nonbelievers from murdering Christians is ludicrous.

It's also not a very well thought out argument given that you think morality comes from the Bible/God, which of course, nonbelievers don't follow and don't derive their morality from.

I disagree although I can do so respectfully.

Moral will is a gift of God IMHO. It is undeniable that each person (except for Jesus Christ) has a dual nature, sometimes behaving morally and sometimes immorally, Jekyll and Hyde. No secular humanist ideal, no secular ethics set, no will of a person's flesh--secular or Christians, can stop people from sinning.

The Bible explains that (logically) people cannot live in a utopia with this dual nature, and that those who trust God will receive power in the next world to live without resorting to immoral behavior.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Personally, I think Jesus accepted the judgement of the authorities of his time to show that earthly judgement, earthy punishment regardless of how severe was nothing compared to being right with God. To put God first despite any consequences you may face because of it.

Jesus set an example that few have the courage to follow. Instead, folks came up with a theology to make Jesus the scapegoat. Not that I'm judging because I certainly don't have that courage. For me to be a Christian, I'd have to have a certainty about God I don't possess. It would require that I follow Jesus' example in all things.

Something I never saw in Christians or Christian leadership.

I think it's both/and and not either/or:

Jesus was a ransom
Jesus was an example
Jesus was a scapegoat
etc.

I need Jesus to receive my punishment, sin, guilt and shame for a simple reason--despite all our best efforts, no Christian follows Jesus's example (as you wrote) or is even ABLE TO DO SO (Romans 8).

Instead, per the Bible, those who trust Jesus will be made morally perfect (not relatively good) after this life, and THEN will be able/eligible to be in Heaven.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So slavery being moral for some people and immoral for another, by definition, is not moral absolutism.


Beating a slave without knocking out a tooth, still harms your wellbeing. What makes you think that a tooth must be knocked out in order for it to harm your wellbeing? And since it's not immoral for you to beat a slave as long as you didn't knock the tooth out, violate your wellbeing. That makes it immoral.

Nice try.

I agree. Slavery as a general principle is not a moral absolute, however, one could follow biblical precepts for slavery (be both a slave owner and love your slave as yourself, for two examples) and actually use slavery for good, for restitution (remember that slavery in the OT is mostly an alternative to death following warfare).

Before you respond to the above, CONSIDER:


Yes, beating a slave is not loving one's neighbor, yes, so the Bible prescribes more laws to punish violent slavers than any other class of person. Let's rephrase so you understand Bible laws as if you and I were Bible-era judges:

1) We have a fight today, I'm a born again Christian, you strike me in the face, you say, "Oh man! Sorry, BB!" I get up, shake it off, and say, "No prob, you didn't hit me that hard, just caught me off balance, I fell down, I'm fine, don't sweat it. It's over."

2) " " but you knock my tooth loose from my mouth. I say, "I forgive you, I'm a Christian, do you mind paying for the replacement filler tooth I'm getting at the dentist? You say, "Sure!" because you're a nice person.

3) " " You refuse to pay for my tooth and I forgive you, sincerely, yet pursue you in Small Claims for the dental bill since it's really your dental bill (Christians are allowed to sue non-Christians as a last resort, per the NT).

I think you see my point. Or I hope you see it!

**

You are free to think as you choose, but seem to think the Bible, rather than agreeing with 1-3 above, is saying, "YES! Go ahead and beat the living stuffing out of your slave, he's not a person. And if his tooth falls out, let him have a day off work or something."

What you're missing -- if that's how the Bible treats slaves, WHY PUT IN A LAW ABOUT THEIR TOOTH OR IF THEY DIE AT ALL? Why bother? Why not instead say, "No one cares if you beat a slave, his tooth comes loose, or he dies. He's not your responsibility."

**

Once you see their are protection/union/safety laws FOR slaves in the Bible, not AGAINST slaves, you'll see the difference between Theocratic Israel and the nations without direct teaching from God. And then you only have to answer "Were there any good reason(s) slavery was permissible in Bible times?" or "Why weren't the NT writer abolitionists?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

You still haven't answered my points, whether or not you are willing to be treated like a slave, just like I asked you. Again, it was apparent that you were offended by what I asked, and wouldn't be willing to be treated like that.

I would actually be willing to be a Bible slave in Israel, just like I'm willing to work now to pay debts or to work for good masters (bosses).

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree although I can do so respectfully.

Moral will is a gift of God IMHO. It is undeniable that each person (except for Jesus Christ) has a dual nature, sometimes behaving morally and sometimes immorally, Jekyll and Hyde. No secular humanist ideal, no secular ethics set, no will of a person's flesh--secular or Christians, can stop people from sinning.

The Bible explains that (logically) people cannot live in a utopia with this dual nature, and that those who trust God will receive power in the next world to live without resorting to immoral behavior.

You can't disagree with logic.
Nor did you even address it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would actually be willing to be a Bible slave in Israel, just like I'm willing to work now to pay debts or to work for good masters (bosses).

How about for life? And your wife and kids as well?

Can we please stop pretending like slavery, as described in the Bible is in any way comparable to paying off debts or having a job in today's day and age? It borders on disingenuousness.
Your boss doesn't own you as property. Your boss can't beat you. Your boss can't buy and sell you. Your boss doesn't own any children you have. You are free to leave your job any time you choose. There's no comparison.

 

[dybmh]

One of the purposes of true religion IMHO is to inform us, rather than let everyone "choose their own path". Many in jail for murder "made a choice" on an a-religious, immoral basis.

The good news is, per the Bible, that those who trust God for eternal life will receive it, and gain moral perfection (able to live in Heaven/always make right choices) via the power of Yeshua HaMashiach.

The problem with this logic is that it's short-sided. If a person's decision on whether or not to murder is based solely on their trust in God and the belief that the scripture is true, then if they have a crisis of faith then they immediately lose their moral compass.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How about for life? And your wife and kids as well?

Can we please stop pretending like slavery, as described in the Bible is in any way comparable to paying off debts or having a job in today's day and age? It borders on disingenuousness.
Your boss doesn't own you as property. Your boss can't beat you. Your boss can't buy and sell you. Your boss doesn't own any children you have. You are free to leave your job any time you choose. There's no comparison.

Yes, beating a slave is not loving one's neighbor, yes, so the Bible prescribes more laws to punish violent slavers than any other class of person. Let's rephrase so you understand Bible laws as if you and I were Bible-era judges:


1) We have a fight today, I'm a born again Christian, you strike me in the face, you say, "Oh man! Sorry, BB!" I get up, shake it off, and say, "No prob, you didn't hit me that hard, just caught me off balance, I fell down, I'm fine, don't sweat it. It's over."


2) " " but you knock my tooth loose from my mouth. I say, "I forgive you, I'm a Christian, do you mind paying for the replacement filler tooth I'm getting at the dentist? You say, "Sure!" because you're a nice person.


3) " " You refuse to pay for my tooth and I forgive you, sincerely, yet pursue you in Small Claims for the dental bill since it's really your dental bill (Christians are allowed to sue non-Christians as a last resort, per the NT).


I think you see my point. Or I hope you see it!


**


You are free to think as you choose, but seem to think the Bible, rather than agreeing with 1-3 above, is saying, "YES! Go ahead and beat the living stuffing out of your slave, he's not a person. And if his tooth falls out, let him have a day off work or something."


What you're missing -- if that's how the Bible treats slaves, WHY PUT IN A LAW ABOUT THEIR TOOTH OR IF THEY DIE AT ALL? Why bother? Why not instead say, "No one cares if you beat a slave, his tooth comes loose, or he dies. He's not your responsibility."


**


Once you see their are protection/union/safety laws FOR slaves in the Bible, not AGAINST slaves, you'll see the difference between Theocratic Israel and the nations without direct teaching from God. And then you only have to answer "Were there any good reason(s) slavery was permissible in Bible times?" or "Why weren't the NT writer abolitionists?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem with this logic is that it's short-sided. If a person's decision on whether or not to murder is based solely on their trust in God and the belief that the scripture is true, then if they have a crisis of faith then they immediately lose their moral compass.

No. I've had crises of faith as a Jew and as a Messianic Jew, and didn't immediately lose my moral compass. I know atheists who grew up Christian or Jewish and likewise carry a strong moral compass.

Nor is my logic "short-sided" as you wrote. You have a double standard (I say that respectfully!). After all, I can say "If a person's decision is murder is NOT based on trust in God or authority of scripture, they can change their morality at will.

 

[dybmh]

No. I've had crises of faith as a Jew and as a Messianic Jew, and didn't immediately lose my moral compass. I know atheists who grew up Christian or Jewish and likewise carry a strong moral compass.

Nor is my logic "short-sided" as you wrote. You have a double standard (I say that respectfully!). After all, I can say "If a person's decision is murder is NOT based on trust in God or authority of scripture, they can change their morality at will.

Then we agree. A strong moral compass is the ideal. This prevents changing morality on impulse or due to a lack of religious faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, beating a slave is not loving one's neighbor, yes, so the Bible prescribes more laws to punish violent slavers than any other class of person. Let's rephrase so you understand Bible laws as if you and I were Bible-era judges:

Beating a slave as long as they don’t die within a few days and as long as you don’t take out their eye, is not punishable in any way in the Bible.

Please don’t deflect to parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with slavery.

1) We have a fight today, I'm a born again Christian, you strike me in the face, you say, "Oh man! Sorry, BB!" I get up, shake it off, and say, "No prob, you didn't hit me that hard, just caught me off balance, I fell down, I'm fine, don't sweat it. It's over."

2) " " but you knock my tooth loose from my mouth. I say, "I forgive you, I'm a Christian, do you mind paying for the replacement filler tooth I'm getting at the dentist? You say, "Sure!" because you're a nice person.

2) " " You refuse to pay for my tooth and I forgive you, sincerely, yet pursue you in Small Claims for the dental bill since it's really your dental bill (Christians are allowed to sue non-Christians as a last resort, per the NT).

I think you see my point. Or I hope you see it!

So where’s the part in the Bible that says a non-Hebrew slave can sue anybody for being beaten within inches of his life? Or the part where the Bible says not to enslave people?

Let’s think about this …

So you’ve got a God who easily gave something like 600 commandments to his people. These commands include things like don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t wear clothing of mixed fabrics, don’t eat shellfish, don’t worship other gods before me, etc., etc.

This same God forgot to mention in any of these commandments that it’s immoral to own human beings as property, and not only that, this God goes into great detail about where to obtain slaves and how to purchase them and then goes on about how they can be beaten as long as you don’t kill them, and how they and their children are your slaves for life, among other terrible things.

What on earth would lead us to believe that this God thinks we shouldn’t own human beings as property? There are no commandments or declarations of such. The best you can do is quote parts of the Bible that don’t even mention slavery in the slightest. There is no where in the Bible where it is ever stated that the owning of human beings as property is immoral or wrong. I mean, we can tap dance around this whole “yeah but it was nice slavery” or whatever just because a slave owner couldn’t go so far as to kill their slave, but I think such a tap dance makes it even more obvious how the Bible fails on the question of morality.

You are free to think as you choose, but seem to think the Bible, rather than agreeing with 1-3 above, is saying, "YES! Go ahead and beat the living stuffing out of your slave, he's not a person. And if his tooth falls out, let him have a day off work or something."

If God wanted us to think otherwise, he should have had his people write the Bible more clearly then. Starting with “Owning human beings as property is immoral.” Rather than, “well it’s going to happen anyway, so just don’t take your slave’s eye out while you’re beating him and you won’t be punished.”

I mean, seriously, if you were writing a universal moral code for all time, would you be crystal clear on such serious matters as owning human beings as property, or would you muddle around and suggest that it’s fine as long as you take them from the heathens among you and then go onto explain how you can beat these people, as long as you don’t take their eye out, and only then will you be punished for immorality?

Or, would you simply say “Thou shalt not own human beings as property.” … ?

That’s what I would say. Because I am concerned about the well being of all human beings.

What you're missing -- if that's how the Bible treats slaves, WHY PUT IN A LAW ABOUT THEIR TOOTH OR IF THEY DIE AT ALL? Why bother? Why not instead say, "No one cares if you beat a slave, his tooth comes loose, or he dies. He's not your responsibility."

The only moral thing the Bible should say about slavery is not to do it, rather than going into great detail about exactly how to do it.

Once you see their are protection/union/safety laws FOR slaves in the Bible, not AGAINST slaves, you'll see the difference between Theocratic Israel and the nations without direct teaching from God. And then you only have to answer "Were there any good reason(s) slavery was permissible in Bible times?" or "Why weren't the NT writer abolitionists?"

To this I say, so what?

If the Bible contains absolute morality, as you claim, then there should be nothing to say about slavery other than “Thou shalt not own human beings as property. Ever.”

‘Cause if you don’t, you’re stuck with your position where we have to justify immoral behaviours simply because an old book written by people living in a completely different time said so.

There is no good reason to own any human being as property. Especially one you can’t articulate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then we agree. A strong moral compass is the ideal. This prevents changing morality on impulse or due to a lack of religious faith.

Yes, we agree, thanks for your patience. I urge you to consider the truth claims of both testaments also.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Beating a slave as long as they don’t die within a few days and as long as you don’t take out their eye, is not punishable in any way in the Bible.

Please don’t deflect to parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with slavery.



So where’s the part in the Bible that says a non-Hebrew slave can sue anybody for being beaten within inches of his life? Or the part where the Bible says not to enslave people?

Let’s think about this …

So you’ve got a God who easily gave something like 600 commandments to his people. These commands include things like don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t wear clothing of mixed fabrics, don’t eat shellfish, don’t worship other gods before me, etc., etc.

This same God forgot to mention in any of these commandments that it’s immoral to own human beings as property, and not only that, this God goes into great detail about where to obtain slaves and how to purchase them and then goes on about how they can be beaten as long as you don’t kill them, and how they and their children are your slaves for life, among other terrible things.

What on earth would lead us to believe that this God thinks we shouldn’t own human beings as property? There are no commandments or declarations of such. The best you can do is quote parts of the Bible that don’t even mention slavery in the slightest. There is no where in the Bible where it is ever stated that the owning of human beings as property is immoral or wrong. I mean, we can tap dance around this whole “yeah but it was nice slavery” or whatever just because a slave owner couldn’t go so far as to kill their slave, but I think such a tap dance makes it even more obvious how the Bible fails on the question of morality.



If God wanted us to think otherwise, he should have had his people write the Bible more clearly then. Starting with “Owning human beings as property is immoral.” Rather than, “well it’s going to happen anyway, so just don’t take your slave’s eye out while you’re beating him and you won’t be punished.”

I mean, seriously, if you were writing a universal moral code for all time, would you be crystal clear on such serious matters as owning human beings as property, or would you muddle around and suggest that it’s fine as long as you take them from the heathens among you and then go onto explain how you can beat these people, as long as you don’t take their eye out, and only then will you be punished for immorality?

Or, would you simply say “Thou shalt not own human beings as property.” … ?

That’s what I would say. Because I am concerned about the well being of all human beings.



The only moral thing the Bible should say about slavery is not to do it, rather than going into great detail about exactly how to do it.



To this I say, so what?

If the Bible contains absolute morality, as you claim, then there should be nothing to say about slavery other than “Thou shalt not own human beings as property. Ever.”

‘Cause if you don’t, you’re stuck with your position where we have to justify immoral behaviours simply because an old book written by people living in a completely different time said so.

There is no good reason to own any human being as property. Especially one you can’t articulate.

There are 613 OT laws. How many laws are there in the USA? How many hundreds of thousands of specific laws? There are 613 specific laws in the Bible--most of which point to the Christ, and principles, from which it is known (check Talmud, Jewish history and tradition) that even Gentile slaves had rights before local elders and Israel's judges.

I disagree with you, but know you're coming from a sincere place.

The Bible does contain absolute morality--and that's why we disagree. For example, I see how capital punishment is moral, or outlawing abortions not threatening the life of the mother.

I understand Bible slavery in its historic and biblical context. For example, here are some good statements I found online:

The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area. In the NT case, the problem is hugely complicated by the SEEMING position that ALL socio-economic institutions are 'neutral'; that they can be either used wonderfully or abused woefully...for example, i am called to be a 'slave to Christ'...and to obey (within conscience and stewardship) the demands of oppressive governments...this area of cultural forms is notoriously difficult (in my opinion)

"New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery") In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).

Source: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html