Religious belief and morality

[Moz]

That is returned in kind when you seemingly fail to acknowledge the harms that religions have caused over the ages! Are you that blind?


Your language use doesn't indicate this.


Why is it so different from the laws we seemingly enact, which, if one looked all around the world are not that different? You really think we cannot do both?

To reiterate..... I think that you are NUTS if you think that establishing an agreed moral code is possible and any serious attempt will be accompanied by massive bloodshed before it fails.

Why is it so different from the laws we seemingly enact, which, if one looked all around the world are not that different? You really think we cannot do both?


So a moral code decided by Law. How about a version of this.......Here are the commandments which were written as a part of the Third Party Programme: i have just tweaked them i little to fit the west.

1. Loyalty to Communism(Democratic principles), and love of the socialist Motherland (Counrty) and other socialist (Democratic)countries.
2. Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat.
3. Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property.
4. High consciousness of the social responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests.
5. Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all.
6. Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being.
7. Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life.
8. Mutual respect in the family, and care for the upbringing of the children.
9. Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness.
10. Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, (World) intolerance to all racial and national dislike.
11. Intolerance to the enemies of communism (Democratic principles) , peace and freedom of peoples of the world.
12. Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.

The above would seem to be reasonable moral ethics.... they resulted in the liquidation of tens of millions people. Why would you think that state legislating morality would not end in the same bloodbath?

 

[Wandering Monk]

We've heard it before: you cannot be moral without God, or other similar sentiments. (A friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman, great humanist and oncologist, wrote a book called "Can We Be Good Without God?" He passed away a few years ago, sadly.)

But thinker Steven Weinberg once said something along the lines of "believing in an omniscient creator doesn't contain any inherent moral value -- you still have to decide whether to obey His commands."

Thus, think of Abraham, prepared -- at the command of God -- to slaughter his son Isaac. His own son! Now, to me, it is a spurious theological argument to suggest that, since God interfered at the last moment and supplied a goat for the purpose. Abraham, as a human being with a moral sense of his own, should have KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that to kill a child -- on anybody's "orders" -- is simply wrong.

Likewise, the Israelites under Joshua, killing all the Canaanites, except for the virgin girls who could be put to "better use." Surely the Israelites were moral agents, and could reason for themselves whether such a command from God could be the right thing to do -- could they not?

Please try to stick to the argument in question: does "divine command" outweigh your own sense of moral behaviour, or is it better you should do what God seems to command, even if you feel queasy about it?

By happy coincidence I watched a video that addresses this very question.

Animals exhibit moral behavior.

What was the source for human morality before Judaism or Christianity even existed? Were primitive religions immoral? and so on.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

By happy coincidence I watched a video that addresses this very question.

Animals exhibit moral behavior.

What was the source for human morality before Judaism or Christianity even existed? Were primitive religions immoral? and so on.

Thank you SO MUCH for this! I really mean that. I wish everybody on the forum would watch it (under 30 minutes). It's really worth it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is all very anecdotal, but the discussion isn't about you, and your childhood does not represent the norm.

But it does show that religion or gods or threats of punishment or promises of rewards as sole motivation for doing good, is not required at all.

Off course it's anecdotal, since it's an example...
But it's an example that shows that religion isn't at all required in any way to impart morals, to conclude morals, to live by morals or to deduce morals.

 

[Mock Turtle]

To reiterate..... I think that you are NUTS if you think that establishing an agreed moral code is possible and any serious attempt will be accompanied by massive bloodshed before it fails.

Why is it so different from the laws we seemingly enact, which, if one looked all around the world are not that different? You really think we cannot do both?


So a moral code decided by Law. How about a version of this.......Here are the commandments which were written as a part of the Third Party Programme: i have just tweaked them i little to fit the west.

1. Loyalty to Communism(Democratic principles), and love of the socialist Motherland (Counrty) and other socialist (Democratic)countries.
2. Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat.
3. Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property.
4. High consciousness of the social responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests.
5. Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all.
6. Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being.
7. Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life.
8. Mutual respect in the family, and care for the upbringing of the children.
9. Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness.
10. Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, (World) intolerance to all racial and national dislike.
11. Intolerance to the enemies of communism (Democratic principles) , peace and freedom of peoples of the world.
12. Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.

The above would seem to be reasonable moral ethics.... they resulted in the liquidation of tens of millions people. Why would you think that state legislating morality would not end in the same bloodbath?

Rather than going down this particular rabbit hole, how about explaining why we have so many different religious beliefs, and their associated moralities (which often don't seem to coincide), as if this is any different from those without religious beliefs?

Perhaps you have a particular religious view (and belief), am I supposed to accept this as the 'one way' rather than just seeing it as being one amongst many, and not a lot to choose between them if I had to do so.

Plus the fact that many religious beliefs seem to have such morals as might have applied when the religions originated but seem rather out of place now. Where art thou graven images? And coveting my neighbours pet rabbits, cleaning lady or whatever seems so of the times. See how some morals are of their time and rather fixed because they come from such and such religion? We might also add some moral values that seem absent then - like not exploiting workers, or not worshipping wealth or power to the exclusion (and detriment) of others. What we need is morality that deals with the present, not something fixed in time. Religions don't always do this and inevitably are slow to change. After all, if one does criticise such and such moral value (ensconced in some religious doctrine) one might be then saying God is in error. Woe is me!

 

[Moz]

Rather than going down this particular rabbit hole, how about explaining why we have so many different religious beliefs, and their associated moralities (which often don't seem to coincide), as if this is any different from those without religious beliefs?

Perhaps you have a particular religious view (and belief), am I supposed to accept this as the 'one way' rather than just seeing it as being one amongst many, and not a lot to choose between them if I had to do so.

Plus the fact that many religious beliefs seem to have such morals as might have applied when the religions originated but seem rather out of place now. Where art thou graven images? And coveting my neighbours pet rabbits, cleaning lady or whatever seems so of the times. See how some morals are of their time and rather fixed because they come from such and such religion? We might also add some moral values that seem absent then - like not exploiting workers, or not worshipping wealth or power to the exclusion (and detriment) of others. What we need is morality that deals with the present, not something fixed in time. Religions don't always do this and inevitably are slow to change. After all, if one does criticise such and such moral value (ensconced in some religious doctrine) one might be then saying God is in error. Woe is me!

Rather than going down this particular rabbit hole,

No we will stay with the rabbit hole for a little .This is important. You have been talking about legislating morality. The below is an example of that being put into practice...... but it led to millions being killed.... why do you think that happened when they laid out such a fine plan that seems to reflect exactly what you are asking for......

1. Loyalty to Communism(Democratic principles), and love of the socialist Motherland (Country) and other socialist (Democratic)countries.
2. Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat.
3. Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property.
4. High consciousness of the social responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests.
5. Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all.
6. Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being.
7. Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life.
8. Mutual respect in the family, and care for the upbringing of the children.
9. Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness.
10. Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, (World) intolerance to all racial and national dislike.
11. Intolerance to the enemies of communism (Democratic principles) , peace and freedom of peoples of the world.
12. Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.

..........................................
Plus the fact that many religious beliefs seem to have such morals as might have applied when the religions originated but seem rather out of place now.

You are just thinking too shallow about this stuff. They only seem to be out of place because you have not dug into them..
...................................
Where art thou graven images?
Wow. So you do not see the tendency of people to set up idols. The principle of giving false or unimportant things undue reverence is old fashioned... OK
...........................................
And coveting my neighbours pet rabbits, cleaning lady or whatever seems so of the times. See how some morals are of their time and rather fixed because they come from such and such religion?
So envy and covetousness are no longer issues to be given moral consideration. OK
............................................
We might also add some moral values that seem absent then - like not exploiting workers,

Wow. So you can not see anything in scripture that would cause you to think that exploiting people is against Gods nature.... ok
.............................................
or not worshipping wealth or power to the exclusion (and detriment) of others.

Well this is tied up with the ENVY quote which you dissed. See that's what i meant about being to SHALLOW in your thinking. If you can not see that envy extrapolates out into greed for power and wealth then what can i say.
..............................................

What we need is morality that deals with the present, not something fixed in time. Religions don't always do this and inevitably are slow to change. After all, if one does criticise such and such moral value (ensconced in some religious doctrine) one might be then saying God is in error.

I am not sure what you think morals are if you think that they are changeable due to human whim.

What particular moral value contained in the Bible, other than the gay stuff i guess, do you think need to be changed.
..........................................

Woe is me!

Agreed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Rather than going down this particular rabbit hole,

No we will stay with the rabbit hole for a little .This is important.

No. You don't decide the rules.

You have been talking about legislating morality.

No I didn't. I said that laws all around the world - the major ones - all tend to have agreement. I suggested that the same might apply to morality - that is that a consensus tends to operate - perhaps as long as religions don't interfere - but all too often they do.

.........................................
Plus the fact that many religious beliefs seem to have such morals as might have applied when the religions originated but seem rather out of place now.

You are just thinking too shallow about this stuff. They only seem to be out of place because you have not dug into them..

Do I need to when simple ones like equality and the fair treatment of all seems so lacking in some religions.

...................................

Where art thou graven images?
Wow. So you do not see the tendency of people to set up idols. The principle of giving false or unimportant things undue reverence is old fashioned... OK

I doubt that was what was meant about 'graven images' when it applied. It was more about protecting that particular religion. Much like heresy, blasphemy and such were.

...........................................

And coveting my neighbours pet rabbits, cleaning lady or whatever seems so of the times. See how some morals are of their time and rather fixed because they come from such and such religion?
So envy and covetousness are no longer issues to be given moral consideration. OK

They might be, but then we could list a whole load of other negative feelings too if one wanted to. Going to do this for all thoughts and feelings that might seem inappropriate?

............................................
We might also add some moral values that seem absent then - like not exploiting workers,

Wow. So you can not see anything in scripture that would cause you to think that exploiting people is against Gods nature.... ok

Which of the ten commandments mentions this? After all, this is what we are talking about. - morality that can be encapsulated in moral laws. I would think that most might see exploitation as a more serious sin than coveting almost anything. But it is missing from the ten commandments - perhaps because exploitation was just natural then? Do you not think this is because the commandments were so of their times, much like other religions too, and not to apply for all time?

.............................................

or not worshipping wealth or power to the exclusion (and detriment) of others.

Well this is tied up with the ENVY quote which you dissed. See that's what i meant about being to SHALLOW in your thinking. If you can not see that envy extrapolates out into greed for power and wealth then what can i say.

Hardly, it is in the use of these whilst ignoring the effects of doing so. We might have fairer and better societies if we tended to restrict the ease with which so many are able to exploit others - using their wealth and/or power.

What we need is morality that deals with the present, not something fixed in time. Religions don't always do this and inevitably are slow to change. After all, if one does criticise such and such moral value (ensconced in some religious doctrine) one might be then saying God is in error.

I am not sure what you think morals are if you think that they are changeable due to human whim.

What particular moral value contained in the Bible, other than the gay stuff i guess, do you think need to be changed.

That one alone would have alleviated a lot of suffering over the centuries - still occurs in other religions too. Morals need to adapt to changing circumstances not to whims.

It's not up to me to define moral values - it's all about morality being tied down to a specific moment in time and having such tied to some deity - when we have a multitude of such religious beliefs and hence less chance for humanity to become as one but remain more divided since many moral values do conflict. Fortunately, over time, religions have mellowed, and their stances on various things (like homosexuality) have changed too. Similarly, female rights have changed for the better, but much of this has been delayed because of previous religious doctrines.

Many might see religions as being a stabilising force in the world, even if they subscribe to one particular one, but they also, for me, tend to slow progress because they are so resistant to change.

 

[Moz]

No. You don't decide the rules.


No I didn't. I said that laws all around the world - the major ones - all tend to have agreement. I suggested that the same might apply to morality - that is that a consensus tends to operate - perhaps as long as religions don't interfere - but all too often they do.

Do I need to when simple ones like equality and the fair treatment of all seems so lacking in some religions.

I doubt that was what was meant about 'graven images' when it applied. It was more about protecting that particular religion. Much like heresy, blasphemy and such were.

They might be, but then we could list a whole load of other negative feelings too if one wanted to. Going to do this for all thoughts and feelings that might seem inappropriate?

Which of the ten commandments mentions this? After all, this is what we are talking about. - morality that can be encapsulated in moral laws. I would think that most might see exploitation as a more serious sin than coveting almost anything. But it is missing from the ten commandments - perhaps because exploitation was just natural then? Do you not think this is because the commandments were so of their times, much like other religions too, and not to apply for all time?


Hardly, it is in the use of these whilst ignoring the effects of doing so. We might have fairer and better societies if we tended to restrict the ease with which so many are able to exploit others - using their wealth and/or power.

That one alone would have alleviated a lot of suffering over the centuries - still occurs in other religions too. Morals need to adapt to changing circumstances not to whims.

It's not up to me to define moral values - it's all about morality being tied down to a specific moment in time and having such tied to some deity - when we have a multitude of such religious beliefs and hence less chance for humanity to become as one but remain more divided since many moral values do conflict. Fortunately, over time, religions have mellowed, and their stances on various things (like homosexuality) have changed too. Similarly, female rights have changed for the better, but much of this has been delayed because of previous religious doctrines.

Many might see religions as being a stabilising force in the world, even if they subscribe to one particular one, but they also, for me, tend to slow progress because they are so resistant to change.

I posted an example of a "social moral code" and you had no comment.... i know why..... it led to 100 000 000 deaths. What changes would you suggest?
..................................................
No I didn't. I said that laws all around the world - the major ones - all tend to have agreement. I suggested that the same might apply to morality - that is that a consensus tends to operate - perhaps as long as religions don't interfere - but all too often they do.

So the international community using some mechanism of collective discussion is your answer to human morality. This might work is as far as you can bring yourself to commit. I am unsure how you can even write the words....... that is that a consensus tends to operate If you see the world acting in consensus over anything but the most basic issues then i can fully understand how you think the rest of your ideas are viable.
...............................................
I am a bit confused..... you say in answer to my comment where i said....You have been talking about legislating morality..

You answered .....No I didn't.

And then in the next paragraph you contradict this by saying.......After all, this is what we are talking about. - morality that can be encapsulated in moral laws.

What's with that?
....................................................

 

[Mock Turtle]

...............................................
I am a bit confused..... you say in answer to my comment where i said....You have been talking about legislating morality..

You answered .....No I didn't.

And then in the next paragraph you contradict this by saying.......After all, this is what we are talking about. - morality that can be encapsulated in moral laws.

What's with that?
....................................................

The moral laws of religion is what I meant, since that is what they are often referred to as.

Not willing to explain why the Ten Commandments - seemingly made for all time - just appear a bit arbitrary? (coveting being so much more serious than exploitation, for example - and where the latter is not even mentioned).

Explain why these commandments are so exceptional and compare them with other religions perhaps. Not see that they were just of their times and hence not that valid for all time? This is what religions so often do and which is not that helpful.

 

[Moz]

The moral laws of religion is what I meant, since that is what they are often referred to as.

Not willing to explain why the Ten Commandments - seemingly made for all time - just appear a bit arbitrary? (coveting being so much more serious than exploitation, for example - and where the latter is not even mentioned).

Explain why these commandments are so exceptional and compare them with other religions perhaps. Not see that they were just of their times and hence not that valid for all time? This is what religions so often do and which is not that helpful.

What are the motivations behind exploitation

 

[Mock Turtle]

What are the motivations behind exploitation

Could be all sorts of things - power, wealth, contempt for other humans or not seeing them as such - you name it. But you are still evading the issue as to why an action (exploitation - which I hope you would agree is worse than a thought or feeling, but is missing as a commandment) seems to take lower precedence over coveting (three commandments). Not see that exploitation - which now is almost universally deplored - was just so natural then? With the church often colluding with those in power so as to maintain both as the status quo.

That is the issue - that moral codes then were just reflecting the times - as were most other such religions. If they were truly objective, without fault, and for all time we might not argue with any, but we obviously do, since as I have pointed out they seem just so arbitrary and rather human-inspired rather than being divinely-inspired.

 

[Moz]

The moral laws of religion is what I meant, since that is what they are often referred to as.

Not willing to explain why the Ten Commandments - seemingly made for all time - just appear a bit arbitrary? (coveting being so much more serious than exploitation, for example - and where the latter is not even mentioned).

Explain why these commandments are so exceptional and compare them with other religions perhaps. Not see that they were just of their times and hence not that valid for all time? This is what religions so often do and which is not that helpful.

What you have shown is that you do not understand nuance.
You seem hung up that exploitation was not specifically addressed and can not see that the teaching about greed, envy and loving your neighbor address the subject at its deeper level.

What other commandments do you think are outdated btw

 

[Bird123]

We've heard it before: you cannot be moral without God, or other similar sentiments. (A friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman, great humanist and oncologist, wrote a book called "Can We Be Good Without God?" He passed away a few years ago, sadly.)

But thinker Steven Weinberg once said something along the lines of "believing in an omniscient creator doesn't contain any inherent moral value -- you still have to decide whether to obey His commands."

Thus, think of Abraham, prepared -- at the command of God -- to slaughter his son Isaac. His own son! Now, to me, it is a spurious theological argument to suggest that, since God interfered at the last moment and supplied a goat for the purpose. Abraham, as a human being with a moral sense of his own, should have KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that to kill a child -- on anybody's "orders" -- is simply wrong.

Likewise, the Israelites under Joshua, killing all the Canaanites, except for the virgin girls who could be put to "better use." Surely the Israelites were moral agents, and could reason for themselves whether such a command from God could be the right thing to do -- could they not?

Please try to stick to the argument in question: does "divine command" outweigh your own sense of moral behaviour, or is it better you should do what God seems to command, even if you feel queasy about it?

Religion is a catalyst that brings so many of mankind's problems to the surface so they can be dealt with. After all, when one thinks they have God's backing, one can justify anything.

Morals are not learned through religion. Morals are learned through life's lessons. God does have a hand in that. One the other hand so do each of us.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What you have shown is that you do not understand nuance.
You seem hung up that exploitation was not specifically addressed and can not see that the teaching about greed, envy and loving your neighbor address the subject at its deeper level.

What other commandments do you think are outdated btw

I think he understands a lot of nuance. In reading the dialogue between the two of you, I've seen that you seem to lack an eye for the obvious fail. In fact, however, exploitation was specifically addressed in scripture ------ and APPROVED. Scripture says you can own slaves, and that you can mistreat them. Scripture says that this can be for the entire life of the slave, in many circumstances. Scripture NOWHERE denies this.

I don't find morality in scripture that can do that. And if you think you do, then I tell you that your morality is still only coming from your own mind -- every time you ignore things like that which scripture permits.

 

[Moz]

I think he understands a lot of nuance. In reading the dialogue between the two of you, I've seen that you seem to lack an eye for the obvious fail. In fact, however, exploitation was specifically addressed in scripture ------ and APPROVED. Scripture says you can own slaves, and that you can mistreat them. Scripture says that this can be for the entire life of the slave, in many circumstances. Scripture NOWHERE denies this.

I don't find morality in scripture that can do that. And if you think you do, then I tell you that your morality is still only coming from your own mind -- every time you ignore things like that which scripture permits.

Slavery was an economic issue that faced the pre modern world and every society found slavery to be a necessary institution. NOT all slavery was exploitative.... much slavery was VOLUNTARY so your claim that slavery is immoral exploitation in all circumstances is just not historically true. See that is another place where nuance comes into it for example.

So if you are following the admonishment to not be covetous and greedy and to love your neighbor, this sort of person would still be exploitative if he owned a slave in your opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What you have shown is that you do not understand nuance.
You seem hung up that exploitation was not specifically addressed and can not see that the teaching about greed, envy and loving your neighbor address the subject at its deeper level.

What other commandments do you think are outdated btw

You don't seem to understand logic. If I was presented with something so perfect - like the moral laws handed down from God, and supposedly perfect, for example - I would only need one instance that refutes this perfection to prove that perhaps these laws did not come from God, or that God was not infallible. Not see that? One can't have imperfections in a perfect thing.

I chose exploitation, as it seems to me, such an obvious one. I could also perhaps have chosen the treatment of children (not mentioned as a commandment) - where again, anything of the time would not find favour now. We enact various laws to protect children because they are not adults - no mention in the Ten Commandments though.

And I think you are failing to grasp that any nuanced explanations of any moral laws should follow rather than precede any such laws - that is, that any moral laws should define all those areas of concern, not leaving rather large gaps, and that explanations of how they might be applied would come later. My point is that the Ten Commandments does not in fact do this, and just seems so because the commandments are of their time and of the culture around then. How can we have universal and for all time moral laws on such a basis.

The slavery aspect, as discussed later, is implied since exploitation not being a major priority would be normal then because of slavery being common and so as not to challenge rulers and/or religious leaders. We could hardly have had Do not exploit others for your own profit as a commandment when it was often the norm - by the rich and powerful and often the religious leaders. But it tends not to be so these days even if it still happens. We do regard exploitation, in the many ways that it occurs, as not something morally good. Sensible people do, at least.

So I'm hardly inclined to be bothered with what particular commandment might be outdated. I was just trying to point out the likelihood of them not coming from any divine source.

 

[Moz]

You don't seem to understand logic. If I was presented with something so perfect - like the moral laws handed down from God, and supposedly perfect, for example - I would only need one instance that refutes this perfection to prove that perhaps these laws did not come from God, or that God was not infallible. Not see that? One can't have imperfections in a perfect thing.

I chose exploitation, as it seems to me, such an obvious one. I could also perhaps have chosen the treatment of children (not mentioned as a commandment) - where again, anything of the time would not find favour now. We enact various laws to protect children because they are not adults - no mention in the Ten Commandments though.

And I think you are failing to grasp that any nuanced explanations of any moral laws should follow rather than precede any such laws - that is, that any moral laws should define all those areas of concern, not leaving rather large gaps, and that explanations of how they might be applied would come later. My point is that the Ten Commandments does not in fact do this, and just seems so because the commandments are of their time and of the culture around then. How can we have universal and for all time moral laws on such a basis.

The slavery aspect, as discussed later, is implied since exploitation not being a major priority would be normal then because of slavery being common and so as not to challenge rulers and/or religious leaders. We could hardly have had Do not exploit others for your own profit as a commandment when it was often the norm - by the rich and powerful and often the religious leaders. But it tends not to be so these days even if it still happens. We do regard exploitation, in the many ways that it occurs, as not something morally good. Sensible people do, at least.

So I'm hardly inclined to be bothered with what particular commandment might be outdated. I was just trying to point out the likelihood of them not coming from any divine source.

So let me get this straight. You think it is all bollocks because exploitation or Treatment of children was not mentioned in the ten commandments specifically and therefore God must be imperfect and i am the one stretching logic.
................................................
And I think you are failing to grasp that any nuanced explanations of any moral laws should follow rather than precede any such laws - that is, that any moral laws should define all those areas of concern, not leaving rather large gaps, and that explanations of how they might be applied would come later.

You are stating that ....Moral laws should define ALL areas of concern, written and addressing all possible situations with specific advise and containing detailed explanations of how they are to be applied. You do not seem to get that morals are principles that are applied not specific instructions. If you think that Greed and Envy are wrong then why would you need the extra step of banning exploitation, that would seem redundant.
.............................................................
We could hardly have had Do not exploit others for your own profit as a commandment when it was often the norm - by the rich and powerful and often the religious leaders.
But it tends not to be so these days even if it still happens. We do regard exploitation, in the many ways that it occurs, as not something morally good. Sensible people do, at least.

"Even if it still happens".... exploitation is more of a problem now in our post enlightenment secular humanist world than any other time in history, how can a sensible person like you not see it. Just think about the factory system in the less developed world producing consumer products for the U.S
In my estimation we are in a more Greedy and Envious world because the underlying framework that informed the majority has been stripped away by people who think like you. I think that the Biblical principles that teach against greed ,envy and a lack of Love may be a better answer and at a deeper level.
...............................................................
So I'm hardly inclined to be bothered with what particular commandment might be outdated. I was just trying to point out the likelihood of them not coming from any divine source.

While claiming that the commandments are outdated you can't be bothered to mention which particular ones. It should have been an easy one.
It seems to me that your problem is that the commandments were not comprehensive enough.... you do know that there are 600+ other laws or commandments in the scriptures don't you. Doesn't the FACT that the Hebrew polity was NOT some rampaging slave state trying to dominate and exploit the Levant as overlords go some way to prove that the Jewish mindset was not about exploiting or dominating other peoples.

Actually come to think of it that would be a good way for you to prove that you are correct.

I have no idea of your knowledge of the Late bronze, early iron age world of Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant but it was full of multiple national and ethnic groups all trying to become the next Sargon, all except for the Hebrews. The basic economic model of the ancient world was to conquer your neighbors and exploit their manpower and resources for the mother country. Exploitation for the sake of power and resources did not seem to be the Hebrew thing. Maybe there are some principles that you have failed to discern from your shallow attempt at showing up the Creator that contributed to the decided difference between the Hebrews and their counterparts. It is not merely polytheism versus monotheism but also a fundamental difference in the laws and morals that they were forced to follow. Every time that a expansionist regime grabbed the reigns of power and tried to implement a more exploitative mode of government Jehovah would step in and smack them down. When they tried to engage in Geo-political power plays with the big players of the region Jehovah would step in and smash them again. Even up to the loss of ten tribes and exile for the rest in Babylon. Anyone who reads the scriptures with a discerning heart could not fail to understand that the exploitation of people for selfish benefit is something that Jehovah does not endorse.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So let me get this straight. You think it is all bollocks because exploitation or Treatment of children was not mentioned in the ten commandments specifically and therefore God must be imperfect and i am the one stretching logic.

Nope. I just chose two areas that seem to me rather obvious ones that might not have applied at the time because things were different then. Hence why any supposed laws (codes, moral values, whatever) mainly applied to the peoples living then and couldn't be anticipated to apply to all that followed, since they didn't actually anticipate the future - regardless of anything supposedly claiming so. Interpretation is everything all too often. I'm sure a decent barrister could go through any set of laws supposedly emanating from a divine source and pull them apart. This joker might do likewise:

And I think you are failing to grasp that any nuanced explanations of any moral laws should follow rather than precede any such laws - that is, that any moral laws should define all those areas of concern, not leaving rather large gaps, and that explanations of how they might be applied would come later.

You are stating that ....Moral laws should define ALL areas of concern, written and addressing all possible situations with specific advise and containing detailed explanations of how they are to be applied. You do not seem to get that morals are principles that are applied not specific instructions. If you think that Greed and Envy are wrong then why would you need the extra step of banning exploitation, that would seem redundant.

Thou shall not kill/murder - can't have just kill when the death penalty for certain crimes is so popular (US at least), and warfare is not banned. Plus the adultery and theft - not specific instructions?

.............................................................

We could hardly have had Do not exploit others for your own profit as a commandment when it was often the norm - by the rich and powerful and often the religious leaders.
But it tends not to be so these days even if it still happens. We do regard exploitation, in the many ways that it occurs, as not something morally good. Sensible people do, at least.

"Even if it still happens".... exploitation is more of a problem now in our post enlightenment secular humanist world than any other time in history, how can a sensible person like you not see it. Just think about the factory system in the less developed world producing consumer products for the U.S
In my estimation we are in a more Greedy and Envious world because the underlying framework that informed the majority has been stripped away by people who think like you. I think that the Biblical principles that teach against greed ,envy and a lack of Love may be a better answer and at a deeper level.

Since when have any moral laws, from whatever source, halted the behaviour they would like to prohibit or recommend? We are human - we err, commit crimes, etc., and always have done, no breaks at all - whether we have laws supposedly from a divine source or laws made by man. If you believe Pinker, which I tend to do on this, we are much less violent than we used to be, perhaps because our laws and moral behaviour are becoming more consensual - communications getting better perhaps. I doubt we are more greedy and/or envious than ever - we just have a lot more technology that currently causes such things but this might die down as we understand a bit more on the effects of such.

...............................................................
So I'm hardly inclined to be bothered with what particular commandment might be outdated. I was just trying to point out the likelihood of them not coming from any divine source.

While claiming that the commandments are outdated you can't be bothered to mention which particular ones. It should have been an easy one.

No, I'm not that bothered, since my aim is to show that in fact any such moral laws, commandments and such, are not coming from any divine source but are projected by man onto some divinity - with the divinity giving credence to any such laws. If they did indeed come from a divine source I would hope a better job would have been made of them. The fact that there are so many different religions - with conflicting beliefs - should alone indicate this, apart from the fact that the laws cannot seem to apply to all peoples in all times.

It seems to me that your problem is that the commandments were not comprehensive enough.... you do know that there are 600+ other laws or commandments in the scriptures don't you.

Doesn't the FACT that the Hebrew polity was NOT some rampaging slave state trying to dominate and exploit the Levant as overlords go some way to prove that the Jewish mindset was not about exploiting or dominating other peoples.

The Old Testament is still very much believed by many as being direct from God. Do I have to go through every religious belief? Not going to happen since I just don't have the interest or time to do so. The Ten Commandments are just an example really of how absurd the proposition is that they come from God.

I have no idea of your knowledge of the Late bronze, early iron age world of Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant but it was full of multiple national and ethnic groups all trying to become the next Sargon, all except for the Hebrews. The basic economic model of the ancient world was to conquer your neighbors and exploit their manpower and resources for the mother country. Exploitation for the sake of power and resources did not seem to be the Hebrew thing. Maybe there are some principles that you have failed to discern from your shallow attempt at showing up the Creator that contributed to the decided difference between the Hebrews and their counterparts. It is not merely polytheism versus monotheism but also a fundamental difference in the laws and morals that they were forced to follow. Every time that a expansionist regime grabbed the reigns of power and tried to implement a more exploitative mode of government Jehovah would step in and smack them down. When they tried to engage in Geo-political power plays with the big players of the region Jehovah would step in and smash them again. Even up to the loss of ten tribes and exile for the rest in Babylon. Anyone who reads the scriptures with a discerning heart could not fail to understand that the exploitation of people for selfish benefit is something that Jehovah does not endorse.

Believe what you want. Jehovah acting or just a bit of history interpreted how you want to see it - by believing what was written rather than being more skeptical. History, even written by those without an agenda (not easy and certainly not the religious), is always tricky to decipher when things change so much - especially who writes what and what words mean at the time they are written.

 

[viole]

So let me get this straight. You think it is all bollocks because exploitation or Treatment of children was not mentioned in the ten commandments specifically and therefore God must be imperfect and i am the one stretching logic.
................................................
And I think you are failing to grasp that any nuanced explanations of any moral laws should follow rather than precede any such laws - that is, that any moral laws should define all those areas of concern, not leaving rather large gaps, and that explanations of how they might be applied would come later.

You are stating that ....Moral laws should define ALL areas of concern, written and addressing all possible situations with specific advise and containing detailed explanations of how they are to be applied. You do not seem to get that morals are principles that are applied not specific instructions. If you think that Greed and Envy are wrong then why would you need the extra step of banning exploitation, that would seem redundant.
.............................................................
We could hardly have had Do not exploit others for your own profit as a commandment when it was often the norm - by the rich and powerful and often the religious leaders.
But it tends not to be so these days even if it still happens. We do regard exploitation, in the many ways that it occurs, as not something morally good. Sensible people do, at least.

"Even if it still happens".... exploitation is more of a problem now in our post enlightenment secular humanist world than any other time in history, how can a sensible person like you not see it. Just think about the factory system in the less developed world producing consumer products for the U.S
In my estimation we are in a more Greedy and Envious world because the underlying framework that informed the majority has been stripped away by people who think like you. I think that the Biblical principles that teach against greed ,envy and a lack of Love may be a better answer and at a deeper level.
...............................................................
So I'm hardly inclined to be bothered with what particular commandment might be outdated. I was just trying to point out the likelihood of them not coming from any divine source.

While claiming that the commandments are outdated you can't be bothered to mention which particular ones. It should have been an easy one.
It seems to me that your problem is that the commandments were not comprehensive enough.... you do know that there are 600+ other laws or commandments in the scriptures don't you. Doesn't the FACT that the Hebrew polity was NOT some rampaging slave state trying to dominate and exploit the Levant as overlords go some way to prove that the Jewish mindset was not about exploiting or dominating other peoples.

Actually come to think of it that would be a good way for you to prove that you are correct.

I have no idea of your knowledge of the Late bronze, early iron age world of Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant but it was full of multiple national and ethnic groups all trying to become the next Sargon, all except for the Hebrews. The basic economic model of the ancient world was to conquer your neighbors and exploit their manpower and resources for the mother country. Exploitation for the sake of power and resources did not seem to be the Hebrew thing. Maybe there are some principles that you have failed to discern from your shallow attempt at showing up the Creator that contributed to the decided difference between the Hebrews and their counterparts. It is not merely polytheism versus monotheism but also a fundamental difference in the laws and morals that they were forced to follow. Every time that a expansionist regime grabbed the reigns of power and tried to implement a more exploitative mode of government Jehovah would step in and smack them down. When they tried to engage in Geo-political power plays with the big players of the region Jehovah would step in and smash them again. Even up to the loss of ten tribes and exile for the rest in Babylon. Anyone who reads the scriptures with a discerning heart could not fail to understand that the exploitation of people for selfish benefit is something that Jehovah does not endorse.

May I ask what principles did you use to ascertain that exploitation is negative? Or wrong? You seem to attribute a moral value to it.

I agree they are, but I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Are they wrong per se?

Suppose I tell you that smashing exploiters like Jehovah did, even if they are older than 1 day, is wrong, how would you contradict me?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

May I ask what principles did you use to ascertain that exploitation is negative? Or wrong? You seem to attribute a moral value to it.

I agree they are, but I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Are they wrong per se?

Suppose I tell you that smashing exploiters like Jehovah did, even if they are older than 1 day, is wrong, how would you contradict me?

Ciao

- viole

I don't know why you have come over here to play when you have so much to answer on the other thread. Like Mockingturtle you seem unable to give any historical backing to your claim that the bible endoses exploitative slaughtrer, see how i addressed both your concerns. Surley between you you can come up with multiple examples of how the scriptures ordered conquest, rape, pillaging, genicide and slavery of peoples for over a 1000 years. Good luck'


Below is an extract from a site that records over the 100 Bible Verses about Rich Exploiting The Poor. I did not post them all but i can f you still wish to try and tell me the bible endorses exploitation of the weak i can post another 80 or so examples.


Proverbs 22:16 ESV / 38 helpful votes
Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.

Matthew 6:24 ESV / 24 helpful votes
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Proverbs 14:31 ESV / 24 helpful votes
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Proverbs 22:22-23 ESV / 21 helpful votes
Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the Lordwill plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.

Proverbs 22:9 ESV / 20 helpful votes
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.

Proverbs 17:5 ESV / 20 helpful votes
Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.

James 2:2-6 ESV / 19 helpful votes
For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?

Proverbs 19:17 ESV / 19 helpful votes
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

Ezekiel 16:49 ESV / 17 helpful votes
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Proverbs 22:16 ESV / 38 helpful votes
Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.

Matthew 6:24 ESV / 24 helpful votes
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Proverbs 14:31 ESV / 24 helpful votes
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Proverbs 22:22-23 ESV / 21 helpful votes
Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the Lordwill plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.

James 2:2-6 ESV / 19 helpful votes
For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?

Proverbs 19:17 ESV / 19 helpful votes
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

Ezekiel 16:49 ESV / 17 helpful votes
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Proverbs 28:27 ESV / 16 helpful votes
Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.

James 1:27 ESV / 14 helpful votes
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Psalm 14:6 ESV / 14 helpful votes
You would shame the plans of the poor, but the Lord is his refuge.

James 2:5 ESV / 13 helpful votes
Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

Hebrews 13:5 ESV / 13 helpful votes
Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

Ezekiel 22:29 ESV / 13 helpful votes
The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice.
.....................


OK..... I hope this finally puts the Exploitation is not prohibbited by God crap to bed.