Morality -- I wonder...

[Colt]

This is a very pervasive, harmful myth. It's the basis of people complaining that the world has become more immoral since state-led prayer was removed from public schools, but the evidence is that that praying accomplishes nothing. They never stopped praying in the Catholic church as it was abusing children and covering it up for centuries. More religion is never the answer, and wherever we have had less of it, it pays off, such as with the advent of the secular state, and where its removal from investigations of reality unleashed science. And here you are trying to claim credit for moral thought for the church and its gods when what we actually see from it is an endless trail of immorality and hypocrisy.

This myth is why people are shocked at religious moral failures and why they trusted their children with priests. It's why people put religious symbols on their business cards and logos. It's why my neighbor referred to her grandchildren riding ATVs through our woodlands as them having good Christian fun, as if that made it OK. ATVs, forbidden in woodlands, tear up the ground, terrify the wildlife, and made unwelcome noise, but I guess it's all wholesome if you call it Christian and those opposing it become satanic.

No, it's not. It's a winning strategy for those who can be faithful easily deduced using reason applied to experience, and not limited to relationships with intimate partners. There are great rewards for the person who can be internally consistent and true to his word - my definition of personal integrity.

The rational ethicist has a better source for his values than the claims of others about unseen gods with commandments for us - his own conscience. Mine has been a reliable guide to right behavior for decades now, obedience to which not only feels good, but reliably leads to other desirable outcomes in the interpersonal affairs characterizing daily life.

I'll bet he feels the same about the Abrahamic god as I and many others do. Of course we're better off if no such god exists. Believers have simply accepted that it is a benevolent deity whose word can be trusted, but that has been ruled out by the evidence supporting evolutionary theory even if the theory is ever falsified. Also, for the believer, what did the angels who rejected heaven see that made them uninterested in being there, and how much of eternity would have passed before you did the same? A million years before you get tired of it and simply want to be elsewhere? A billion? A billion billion? Remember, this deity likes free will, not "robots."

Dawkins has a pretty low opinion of the deity of the Old Testament: "The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Why would we prefer that such a thing and its hell and demons and torture existed over its nonexistence?

Catholic church bla, bla, bla! They've done far more good in society then bad! Pedophiles invade every institution in society!

A person must first be moral before committing immoral acts. The materialist atheist thinks evolution produced his (unseen) morality and values.

The Old Testament is largely a human production, revision, editing, rewriting etc. It's a God created in the image of those who wrote it however there is some based on some real events.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheists and secularist plagiarize their morality, they ignore their creator as the source! Spiritual influences around the world within all evolved cultures result in common values. Religious institutions are about the preservation of those values.

Yeah, you are the One! The joke is that the rest of us still can do differently than you, Two!!!

 

[Colt]

Yeah, you are the One! The joke is that the rest of us still can do differently than you, Two!!!

Somethings true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Somethings true.

Yeah, but there is more than one version of truth.

 

[joelr]

Atheists and secularist plagiarize their morality,

As do religions. The code of Hammurabi (1728 B.C.E.-1686 B.C.E.) has 282 laws. The 10 commandments are already in these laws. The OT borrowed older wisdom.
The wisdom books in the OT are no different than older Near Eastern books of wisdom -
"The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.["

and one of the books in the OT is literally an Egyptian book -
" The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation."

Book of Proverbs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So this claim is absurd. Do you actually think we needed people claiming revelations from a sky God before people had rules about not killing, lying, stealing?
However the first (most important) commandments Christians generally now sweep under the run, another clear demonstration you make up morals the same as secular society. How forbidden is graven images now? No other Gods? Nope, freedom of religion is considered a basic human right. Sundays holy, nope. Christians pick and choose what morals now fit with society.

they ignore their creator as the source!

Just like you ignore Allah and Brahman. You also ignore Krishna who wants a personal relationship with you. Why would you ignore them?
Because you think they are fiction? Well guess what, your Gods are also fiction. Secular people are not "ignoring" anything. You cannot ignore fictional characters.
The source of morality is not religion. Every law in the OT is in religions that date thousands of years older. You haven't thought these apologetics through at all it seems.

Spiritual influences around the world within all evolved cultures result in common values. Religious institutions are about the preservation of those values.

Yes but you don't believe in the thousands of other religions. So you know the morals were made up by people. The morals in your religion are basically the same and are probably also made up by people.
There are now many secular nations in Europe, a large part of Judaism is secular and same in the U.S. Yet we still have the same morals?
The U.S. has laws, a constitution, media, books, fiction, telling stories about moral people. Religion as a moral base is barely a factor.

But even if it was what you claim, that doesn't mean it's true? Like all the other religions where people agree on morals then a religious leader has revelations where a God also tells people those are good morals. No different in Christianity. We no longer need the supernatural fiction placed on stories about morality.
Also it IS NOT moral to tell people a worship of a supernatural being is the only way to get to the afterlife. You have no proof, no proof of afterlifes and it's rather unethical.

 

[joelr]

A person can be smart but terribly unwise when they take themselves too seriously. Lucifer was like that.

Lucifer isn't in the Bible. Judaism completely rejects that interpretation of the Hebrew. That one passage is a mis-translation:

In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labour forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!"[58] After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: "Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"[59]

For the unnamed "king of Babylon",[60] a wide range of identifications have been proposed.[61] They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time,[61] the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began,[62] or Nabonidus,[61][63] and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib.[64][65] Verse 20 says that this king of Babylon will not be "joined with them [all the kings of the nations] in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever", but rather be cast out of the grave, while "All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own house".[46][66] Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers.[67]

Isaiah 14:12 became a source for the popular conception of the fallen angel motif.[68] Rabbinical Judaism has rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels.[69] In the 11th century, the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer illustrates the origin of the "fallen angel myth" by giving two accounts, one relates to the angel in the Garden of Eden who seduces Eve, and the other relates to the angels, the benei elohim who cohabit with the daughters of man (Genesis 6:1–4).[70] An association of Isaiah 14:12–18 with a personification of evil, called the devil, developed outside of mainstream Rabbinic Judaism in pseudepigrapha,[71] and later in Christian writings,[72] particularly with the apocalypses.[73]

The problem with the Bible is that some of it is true!

The cities were real. All supernatural characters are made up. Feel free to present historical evidence from a historian.

What you are really saying is you think some of the Bible is true. People get lots of ideas. Billions of people think the Quran is true. Billions think Krishna is a real deity. The Bible stories are lessons and metaphors, like Greek fiction.

If we judge the past by the presnt then the past will always come up short! Rather its how we measure progress.

We have had a lot of progress. None is from any religion. It's from science and philosophy.

 

[Colt]

Lucifer isn't in the Bible. Judaism completely rejects that interpretation of the Hebrew. That one passage is a mis-translation:

In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labour forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!"[58] After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:


For the unnamed "king of Babylon",[60] a wide range of identifications have been proposed.[61] They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time,[61] the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began,[62] or Nabonidus,[61][63] and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib.[64][65] Verse 20 says that this king of Babylon will not be "joined with them [all the kings of the nations] in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever", but rather be cast out of the grave, while "All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own house".[46][66] Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers.[67]

Isaiah 14:12 became a source for the popular conception of the fallen angel motif.[68] Rabbinical Judaism has rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels.[69] In the 11th century, the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer illustrates the origin of the "fallen angel myth" by giving two accounts, one relates to the angel in the Garden of Eden who seduces Eve, and the other relates to the angels, the benei elohim who cohabit with the daughters of man (Genesis 6:1–4).[70] An association of Isaiah 14:12–18 with a personification of evil, called the devil, developed outside of mainstream Rabbinic Judaism in pseudepigrapha,[71] and later in Christian writings,[72] particularly with the apocalypses.[73]

The cities were real. All supernatural characters are made up. Feel free to present historical evidence from a historian.

What you are really saying is you think some of the Bible is true. People get lots of ideas. Billions of people think the Quran is true. Billions think Krishna is a real deity. The Bible stories are lessons and metaphors, like Greek fiction.




We have had a lot of progress. None is from any religion. It's from science and philosophy.

Isaiah can be interpreted as envisioning Lucifers influence as the real "king of Babylon".

The Israelites got some stuff wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Catholic church bla, bla, bla! They've done far more good in society then bad! Pedophiles invade every institution in society!

A person must first be moral before committing immoral acts. The materialist atheist thinks evolution produced his (unseen) morality and values.

The Old Testament is largely a human production, revision, editing, rewriting etc. It's a God created in the image of those who wrote it however there is some based on some real events.

Does every other institution of society systematically protect and re-locate those known to abuse children, like the Catholic Church has done for who knows how long now? The great "Church" who wants to sit on it's high horse and dictate morality to the rest of us immoral peons while they're guilty of that on a mass scale? Don't think so.

There's your difference.

 

[joelr]

Isaiah can be interpreted as envisioning Lucifers influence as the real "king of Babylon".

The Israelites got some stuff wrong.

What interpretation are you going by? Which scholar? What journal, paper or book?

What did the Israelites get wrong and what OT Hebrew expert says this?

Or are you doing a conspiracy theory, "only you know the truth" no moon landing, flat Earth thing?

 

[Colt]

What interpretation are you going by? Which scholar? What journal, paper or book?

What did the Israelites get wrong and what OT Hebrew expert says this?

Or are you doing a conspiracy theory, "only you know the truth" no moon landing, flat Earth thing?

It should be noted that religion contains much speculation and conjecture concerning the meaning of events. Over time those events are understood differently by new generations which has led to the revision and editing of previous works.

While it is true that many commentators see Isaiah 14:12 as a poetic reference to a human king, it should be noted that Isaiah is drawing from existing Mesopotamian mythology. In his day his writings may have meant different thing to the audience.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

12. O Lucifer; son of the morning] In his splendour he is likened to the morning star; which was worshipped by the Babylonians under the name of Istar, and is described in Assyrian by an epithet, mustilil (shining star), which seems to correspond to the word here used (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, on this verse). The translation “Lucifer” (light-bearer) is quite correct, and is needlessly abandoned by the R.V. By some of the fathers the passage was applied to the fall of Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); hence the current use of Lucifer as a name of the devil.

For weaken, read lay prostrate.

12–15. The third strophe contains the prophet’s reflection on the sudden fall of the king of Babylon. That he should go to Sheol at all was a fate never contemplated by his soaring and self-deifying pride.

The Urnatia Book revelation has much to say about Lucifer, his assistant Satan and many who followed them into default!

The Lucifer Rebellion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being faithful to a partner is a value derived from religion. Thats where the idea came from. But you haven't been faithful to God, the source of the values preserved in religion.

Is your religion the only reason you're faithful to your partner?

- if no, then you ought to know that what you're saying isn't true.

- if yes, then this says more about you than about morality.

 

[Colt]

Is your religion the only reason you're faithful to your partner?

- if no, then you ought to know that what you're saying isn't true.

- if yes, then this says more about you than about morality.

No, but religion is what has informed the evolution of monogamy. There was a time in our evolution when multiple mating was normal.

 

[Colt]

Does every other institution of society systematically protect and re-locate those known to abuse children, like the Catholic Church has done for who knows how long now? The great "Church" who wants to sit on it's high horse and dictate morality to the rest of us immoral peons while they're guilty of that on a mass scale? Don't think so.

There's your difference.

The Catholic churches history of dealing with pedophiles is terrible! Its really difficult to understand why they keep "forgiving" and retaining sexual abusers. But is see it as the forest and the trees scenario.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but religion is what has informed the evolution of monogamy. There was a time in our evolution when multiple mating was normal.

Polygamy is still normal, just not in the West.

The only major religion I'm aware of that prohibits polygamy is Christianity, and even then not universally across all denominations.

Christianity is certainly a big chunk of "religion as a whole," but I think it's disingenuous to say that religion in general encourages monogamy.

 

[Colt]

Polygamy is still normal, just not in the West.

The only major religion I'm aware of that prohibits polygamy is Christianity, and even then not universally across all denominations.

Christianity is certainly a big chunk of "religion as a whole," but I think it's disingenuous to say that religion in general encourages monogamy.

The point is values comes from God. In Judaism and Christianity, the marriage institution evolved. The "ideal" marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

 

[joelr]

It should be noted that religion contains much speculation and conjecture concerning the meaning of events. Over time those events are understood differently by new generations which has led to the revision and editing of previous works.

Yes it's syncretic mythology and has been reinterpreted many many times.

While it is true that many commentators see Isaiah 14:12 as a poetic reference to a human king, it should be noted that Isaiah is drawing from existing Mesopotamian mythology. In his day his writings may have meant different thing to the audience.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

12. O Lucifer; son of the morning] In his splendour he is likened to the morning star; which was worshipped by the Babylonians under the name of Istar, and is described in Assyrian by an epithet, mustilil (shining star), which seems to correspond to the word here used (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, on this verse). The translation “Lucifer” (light-bearer) is quite correct, and is needlessly abandoned by the R.V. By some of the fathers the passage was applied to the fall of Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); hence the current use of Lucifer as a name of the devil.

For weaken, read lay prostrate.

12–15. The third strophe contains the prophet’s reflection on the sudden fall of the king of Babylon. That he should go to Sheol at all was a fate never contemplated by his soaring and self-deifying pride.

The Urnatia Book revelation has much to say about Lucifer, his assistant Satan and many who followed them into default!

The Lucifer Rebellion

It's a Jewish book and to ignore Jewish interpretations seems absurd. There does seem to be reference to an older myth but Daniel 4 sets this up, it's a reference to a king.

(Dr. Nicholas Schaser earned his PhD from Vanderbilt University. In addition to being a Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies at Israel Bible Center, )

According to Christian tradition, Satan has a backstory: The devil was once the most beautiful angel in heaven but this angelic being, then called Lucifer, rebelled against God and was cast down to hell. In part, this tradition comes from a particular interpretation of Isaiah 14:12-15. The text describes someone who, in Isaiah’s original Hebrew, is called Helel ben Shachar (הילל בן שׁחר)–variously translated as “Day/Morning Star, son of Dawn/Morning” (14:12). In the Latin Vulgate, the Hebrew “Helel” becomes Lucifer. Yet, while Isaiah taunts someone who equates himself with God and suffers the consequences, the prophet does not disclose the origin of evil. Instead, Isaiah 14 refers to the king of Babylon, and “Satan” appears nowhere in the passage. Thus, if we ground our theological understanding on Scripture alone, then we have no reason to posit an angelic prehistory for Satan based on Isaiah.

Isaiah addresses Helel ben Shachar, saying, “How you are fallen from heaven…. You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high…. I will make myself like the Most High’” (14:12-14). Responding to Helel’s hubris, Isaiah tells him, “You are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit” (14:15). Taken out of context, Isaiah’s taunt can certainly be made to refer to an angel who rebelled in heaven and ended up in hell; hence, the start of Satan’s antipathy toward God and humanity. Yet, immediately before the above verses, Isaiah tells Israel that after their exile ends they will “take up this taunt against the king of Babylon (מלך בבל; melekh bavel)” (14:4). The prophet addresses an earthly king, not a rogue angel in heaven.

Those who see Shachar as Satan might object that the text should be understood in both ways: while Isaiah does address a human king, there is a spiritual reality beyond the earthly focus. However, this interpretive assumption can only be speculative since the Bible itself provides no textual data that would lead us to associate the story with Satan. Interestingly, Isaiah 14:12-15 may be an Israelite reworking of an Ugaritic tale called the Baal-Athtar myth, in which a divine underling is punished for attempting to dethrone the reigning Canaanite deity. While parallels exist between this ancient narrative and Isaiah, neither text mentions “Satan” (שׂטן). More, while Isaiah may sound something like an Ancient Near Eastern myth about polytheistic conflict, the Hebrew prophet repurposes the story to speak of Babylon’s monarch; that is, Isaiah humanizes the story and applies it to a Gentile king.

Finally, Isaiah’s text does not affirm the traditional story of Satan’s fall from heaven. According to popular tradition, Lucifer begins in heaven and is cast down; in Isaiah, “Lucifer” says, “I will ascend [to] heaven (השׁמים אעלה; hashamayim e’eleh)” (14:13). In Scripture, the arrogant individual begins on earth—fitting for an earthly king—and resolves to work his own way to God in heaven. More, Isaiah’s king is “brought down to Sheol (שׁאול)” (14:15)—not to “hell” (גהינם; gehinnom)—which means he dies: “Your pomp has brought you down to Sheol… the maggot is laid as a bed beneath you, and the worm is your covering” (14:11). The “maggot” (רמה; rimah) and “worm” (תולעה; toleah) are biblical metaphors for death and decay (e.g., Isa 41:14; Job 17:14; 21:26; 24:20; cf. Isa 66:24). Isaiah chastises a mortal king whose fate is in the ground, not a supernatural usurper who now reigns unrepentantly in hell. Though the Bible mentions “Satan” outside of Isaiah 14, it does not provide narrative insight into his origins; Scripture is concerned, not with Satan’s past, but with the present and future sovereignty of God.

Israel Bible Center | Discover the Hebrew roots of the Bible with some of the world’s best scholars

weekly.israelbiblecenter.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Catholic church bla, bla, bla! They've done far more good in society then bad!

Errrr............................. Just... no. Really, really not.

A person must first be moral before committing immoral acts.

That makes no sense.

The materialist atheist thinks evolution produced his (unseen) morality and values.

Evolution theory and what it did and didn't do, has nothing to do with atheism.
Some of the world most renown evolutionary biologists are theists.
That evolution theory is somehow exclusive to atheists is just sheer nonsense.

Speaking of catholics, it's the official stance of the Vatican itself that evolution occurred.
The pope's exact words were "God is not a magician with a magic wand..." when talking about the topic.

The Old Testament is largely a human production, revision, editing, rewriting etc. It's a God created in the image of those who wrote it

Yes. Which explains why it reflects the very primitive morals of the very societies that produced these works of fiction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but religion is what has informed the evolution of monogamy. There was a time in our evolution when multiple mating was normal.

So what informed monogamy in species other then humans?
Also, we are just going to ignore all religions that don't require monogamy?

We are also going to ignore human cultures that are no of the judeo-christian (or even abrahamic) variety that are also mongamous?

Your statement is obviously blatantly false.
You are pointing to a correlation and pretending it to be a causal relationship, and while doing so are also completely ignoring that this correlation isn't even universal to begin with.

 

[Colt]

So what informed monogamy in species other then humans?
Also, we are just going to ignore all religions that don't require monogamy?

We are also going to ignore human cultures that are no of the judeo-christian (or even abrahamic) variety that are also mongamous?

Your statement is obviously blatantly false.
You are pointing to a correlation and pretending it to be a causal relationship, and while doing so are also completely ignoring that this correlation isn't even universal to begin with.

"Monogamy is cultural and societal, artificial and unnatural, that is, unnatural to evolutionary man." UB

 

[Colt]

Errrr............................. Just... no. Really, really not.





That makes no sense.




Evolution theory and what it did and didn't do, has nothing to do with atheism.
Some of the world most renown evolutionary biologists are theists.
That evolution theory is somehow exclusive to atheists is just sheer nonsense.

Speaking of catholics, it's the official stance of the Vatican itself that evolution occurred.
The pope's exact words were "God is not a magician with a magic wand..." when talking about the topic.



Yes. Which explains why it reflects the very primitive morals of the very societies that produced these works of fiction.

In many places around the world the Catholic church has been feeding and clothing the poor for ages, the Atheists are just antagonists, hecklers on the road of life, feeding their own egos. IMOP

One must first have a moral conscience to sense that he or she has committed an immoral act. Not sure why that's hard to understand.