 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Veritas
Posts:250
 | | 10/03/2007 9:19 PM |
 Alert | A dude named Michael Ruse wrote a book in 1989 titled "The Darwinian Paradigm". On page 268 he writes that morality is just like hands, feet and teeth ... "the ephemeral product of evolutionary process". He also states that "morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and has no being beyond this".
He goes on to to describe the utility and function of this paradigm by using the Indian practice of suttee, where a widow is burned alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. Bottom line, he ain't got no problem saying that its not immoral and wrong to do this.
Here's my point, moral relativism in conjunction with Darwinism leads to the tragic nonsense that all practice is equally good and that life is not sacred. When life has no value and nothing is false, then nothing is wrong and there is no such thing as value.
Is anyone out there ready to come to the defense of The Darwinian Paradigm? | | | |
| | JAG
Posts:477
| | 10/04/2007 1:01 AM |
Alert | Its all relative. 
*runs..... | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/04/2007 12:33 PM |
Alert | I wouldn't describe myself as a darwinist or a moral relativist, so I'm not sure I'm the one to come to the defense of burning one spouse when another dies. But, like or not, morals are defined by our society and change over time.
You can pick out some extreme examples of history of horrible practices, I'll point out some view of the last century of Christian morals, You'll state the misunderstood Christian morals. . . .
We'll go around in circles for that for a while. Did you want to have that conversation?
Suttee was supposed to be a voluntary choice on part of the wife being burned on the pyre. So I guess it all comes down to whether or not you think suicide is right or wrong.
It's been illegal in all states in India since 1846, so I guess the Indians made their decision on whether it is right or wrong. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/04/2007 8:33 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/04/2007 12:33 PM
You can pick out some extreme examples of history of horrible practices, I'll point out some view of the last century of Christian morals, You'll state the misunderstood Christian morals. . . .
We'll go around in circles for that for a while. Did you want to have that conversation?
No, that would be almost completely pointless. The discussion that I want to have is the basis of morality, and perhaps whether or not the social impact of Darwinism is desirable.
Here goes...
ON THE BASIS OF MORALITY...
When people make claims about "good" and "bad", "fair" and "unfair" etc., what is the standard by which we make those sorts of judgments? The example of suttee is just one of many that demonstrate the inconsistency of a moral standard that is relative. A practice or belief cannot be both right and wrong ... this is simply not logical. It's like saying that 1+1=2 AND that 1+1=11. The nonsense of "well, that's true for you" cannot survive the rigors of logic. Systems have rules that preserve their logical consistency.
So, given the undeniable existence of both good and evil, it must be the case that there exists a standard (or moral code) by which we judge between them. In order for there to be a moral law, there must in turn be a moral law-giver. This is not a function of biology, but rather mind. Anything but an absolute standard for morality is philosophically self-defeating; therefore, there exists an Absolute Mind (perhaps God) as the basis for morality.
This is the only reasonable explanation for the general and seemingly inherent consensus among humans, that it is morally wrong (evil) to torture babies, molest children, murder people, rape, robbery, etc.
ON THE IMPACT OF DARWIN...
Basically, the eradication of a Designer equates to our existence serving no purpose. Life exists by accident. An accidental origin is an existence without purpose. Under this scenario, meaning may be lost, but it is certainly diminished. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/04/2007 9:41 PM |
Alert | I still think that morals are derived from the segment of the society from which we live. Keeping morals of the society helps keeps the society safe, and stable.
An extreme example would be the Spartans. Spartans performed all the things you mentioned. Killing babies, torturing children, molesting children, murdering people, rape, robbery. To not do these things would weaken their society. They were outnumbered by their slaves 10:1. Weakness, sloth and cowardice were the largest dangers to their society, and that is what they considered the greatest sins.
In a more stable society like ours, weakness, sloth and cowardice aren't considered sins by many, however doing the acts that you mention are considered very evil.
So I guess I am saying, if we go by a slightly different math analogy that both 4+4=8 and 4+4=10. It all depends if you are talking base 10 or base 8, it really depends on your perspective.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/04/2007 10:04 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/04/2007 9:41 PM
I still think that morals are derived from the segment of the society from which we live.
The fact that different people groups have different moral structures does not solve the problem of morality or moral absolutes.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/04/2007 9:41 PM
Keeping morals of the society helps keeps the society safe, and stable.
What is "safe" about rape, murder, etc.? Do the people being raped or murdered feel "safe". Is it right or wrong that order is maintained or that a threatened status quo is preserved by these means?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/04/2007 9:41 PM
An extreme example would be the Spartans. Spartans performed all the things you mentioned. Killing babies, torturing children, molesting children, murdering people, rape, robbery. To not do these things would weaken their society. They were outnumbered by their slaves 10:1. Weakness, sloth and cowardice were the largest dangers to their society, and that is what they considered the greatest sins.
They needed to go away, and go away they did. They went down in a blaze of glory ... maybe that's a bad metaphor.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/04/2007 9:41 PM
In a more stable society like ours, weakness, sloth and cowardice aren't considered sins by many, however doing the acts that you mention are considered very evil.
Hence my point about the inconsistency of multiple moral standards with which to judge good and evil. Is it right or wrong that gays in Iran are hung to death in public, whereas they are celebrated as noble and brave in ours? Both position cannot be right or even true at the same time. The fact that different standards exist simultaneously does not make them correct.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/04/2007 9:41 PM
So I guess I am saying, if we go by a slightly different math analogy that both 4+4=8 and 4+4=10. It all depends if you are talking base 10 or base 8, it really depends on your perspective.
The only problem with that analogy is that (1) numbers do not exist and are therefore (2) NOT able to suffer nor prosper under any moral law. Also, the nature of the inputs to either system (number bases that is) are fundamentally different, whereas human beings are fundamentally the same. The system which governs the interaction drives the meaning. | | | |
|
|  | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/05/2007 1:02 PM |
Alert | Ok, who defines moral absolutes? It's not like they are written in stone or anything. Well not all of them anyway.
Going back to the treatment of slaves, in the case of the Spartans, they didn't consider the feelings of their slaves and didn't consider them when they thought of their morals. Of course looking from the slaves point of view, Spartans were very immoral. And I agree with you that it's best that their society has gone away.
If there really are moral absolutes, we should probably focus this discussion on more morally ambiguous acts, rather than murder, rape and the like. You brought up homosexuality and I think that might be a better focus, as there are probably people right here on this forum that feel strongly on one side or the other on the morality of homosexuality. Is homosexuality immoral? You don't even need to go to Iran to find extreme differences on this question.
Since there are (and have been throughout history) so many differences of opinion on the morality of homosexuality, I can't see how there is a universal moral code. Perhaps we are just taught right and wrong during our development. This method wouldn't have morals being a function of biology, and it wouldn't have need a single moral law giver. This would explain why some people treat gay people as people, and some other people treat gay people like criminals.
In order to have moral absolutes, shouldn't most of the morals be static throughout history? Or do most societies miss many of the morals truths? Which brings up another question, which moral truths are we missing in our lives?
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/05/2007 1:20 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/05/2007 1:02 PM Ok, who defines moral absolutes? It's not like they are written in stone or anything. Well not all of them anyway.
God defines moral absolutes and has revealed them in His Word as well as writing them on our hearts.
It would be interesting though, to consider the 10 commandments as the the basis for all morality. Not that they cover every question explicitly, but that the logical outcome of those 10 commands could serve as the basis for moral judgments. We might need a new topic area for that one though; but I am not opposed to it happening in this one.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/05/2007 1:02 PM
If there really are moral absolutes, we should probably focus this discussion on more morally ambiguous acts, rather than murder, rape and the like. You brought up homosexuality and I think that might be a better focus, as there are probably people right here on this forum that feel strongly on one side or the other on the morality of homosexuality. Is homosexuality immoral? You don't even need to go to Iran to find extreme differences on this question.
OK ... I'll take the plunge ... homosexuality is immoral. There are reasons for this, including that God declares it "an abomination to Him", but I'll bypass that and go straight a philosophical/scientific explanation.
1. With respect to biology, it is unnatural. There is no biological function that Natural Selection could preserve as an advantage for the species.
2. It is undeniably a medical hazard.
... but I am not to the morality yet ...
3. It desacralizes the human body. Christian theology places the highest value on human life and subsequently the body itself. The two points above represent a threat to the wholeness of an individual not only physically, but emotionally as well.
4. Any assault on the wholeness of a person is by definition "evil", as evil is the absence or privation of that which is good. The concept of "wholeness" is the essence of what God means with respect to the term "holiness". Holiness is completeness; hence the assault on individual holiness present in the homosexual orientation is immoral.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/05/2007 1:02 PM
Since there are (and have been throughout history) so many differences of opinion on the morality of homosexuality, I can't see how there is a universal moral code. Perhaps we are just taught right and wrong during our development. This method wouldn't have morals being a function of biology, and it wouldn't have need a single moral law giver. This would explain why some people treat gay people as people, and some other people treat gay people like criminals.
In order to have moral absolutes, shouldn't most of the morals be static throughout history? Or do most societies miss many of the morals truths? Which brings up another question, which moral truths are we missing in our lives?
Moral relativism between cultures does not mean that moral absolutes do not exist, it simply means that they are suppressed by some other means. The suppression of a moral absolute as given by a moral law giver is simply a rejection of that moral law giver.
God is a gentleman; meaning that He does not force anyone to do anything. C.S. Lewis said it best when he said, "there are two kinds of people in this world, those who bend the knee to God and those who do not. Those who bend the knee say to God, "Thy Will be done"; to those who do not bend the knee to God, God says, "alright, thy will be done." | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/06/2007 9:59 AM |
Alert | I'd buy the God is the moral giver a bit better if their were a good document where he lists the morals. Sure we have the bible, but it is an imperfect document from which to derive morals from.
I'll skip the first two points on homosexuality since they don't pertain to the morality question. I'm not exactly sure what desacralizes mean. Does that mean that my body is sacred, but I engage in a homosexual act that it's not? I'm not even sure what sacred means in this case. I'm guessing that leads into the 4th and the wholeness aspect.
I'm thinking C.S. Lewis got it wrong. Sure, I'll grant that there are two kinds of people, those who bend to his will, and those that don't. However, some of those that don't bend to his will, actually think that they are. How are we supposed to know what his will really is? And if we don't know what his will really is, how can we have moral absolutes? | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/06/2007 3:31 PM |
Alert | Chimney ... I'm really digging our interaction here ... I believe that this'll go somewhere before it's all over.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 9:59 AM
I'd buy the God is the moral giver a bit better if their were a good document where he lists the morals. Sure we have the bible, but it is an imperfect document from which to derive morals from.
Well, if it isn't the Bible, then there does not exist another document with the historical reliability, the archaeological validation and the documentary evidence that even comes close to that of the Bible.
What exactly is "imperfect" about the Bible?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 9:59 AM
I'll skip the first two points on homosexuality since they don't pertain to the morality question.
But they do pertain to the question of morality IF morality is a result of biology, or evolution. A complete lack of function and therefore a lack of functional advantage means that (1) Natural Selection "selects" to eliminate it and (2) it is therefore "unnatural".
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 9:59 AM
I'm not exactly sure what desacralizes mean. Does that mean that my body is sacred, but I engage in a homosexual act that it's not? I'm not even sure what sacred means in this case. I'm guessing that leads into the 4th and the wholeness aspect.
From Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=desacralizing)
to divest of sacred qualities or status
Yes, it has to do with wholeness. But even without a theological viewpoint, the medical hazard alone is enough to make the case for evil in that the individual is robbed of "wholeness" by virtue of the end game that the gay lifestyle holds for many, perhaps most of its victims. Evil is the absence of good ... health and long life are good ... homosexuality diminishes one's health in a way that few other things do.
But on a higher plane, it not only violates the obvious physiological design and purpose of the sexes, but it also violates the plan for personal wholeness that God established through marriage. God is interested in BOTH aspects of wholeness and is therefore "offended" by this violation of His morl absolute.
Christianity, and theism in general, places enormous value on the body and thusly makes it a sacred thing. It's a sacred thing because God wants it to be "holy" (complete, whole, without lack, etc.) Also, from a New Testament perspective, it is also "the temple of God" in accordance with the promise that God lives in believers, His children.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 9:59 AM
I'm thinking C.S. Lewis got it wrong. Sure, I'll grant that there are two kinds of people, those who bend to his will, and those that don't. However, some of those that don't bend to his will, actually think that they are.
The fact that some who think they are submissive to God's Will, are not; and thusly those who think that they are not, truly are, is completely irrelevant to this discussion. A moral absolute, much less the Moral Absolute Law Giver are totally independent of those who do or do not believe, obey, follow, etc.
The focus here is on the logical and practical need for an absolute standard by which we can judge good from evil. Variations in beliefs or perceptions of that standard are part of the chaos that exists in the world today. The claim of theism in general, and certainly Christianity, is that this moral standard is self-evident to the species because the species was made by God to "know" the difference between good and evil; hence the reference to C.S. Lewis.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 9:59 AM
How are we supposed to know what his will really is? And if we don't know what his will really is, how can we have moral absolutes?
You have His Will and His moral absolutes in the wrong order ... moral absolutes are a standard that exists within His Will, not the reason that He has a Will.
Since this message is long enough, I'll speak to the question about His Will in another post. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/06/2007 3:50 PM |
Alert
| Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 9:59 AM
How are we supposed to know what his will really is? And if we don't know what his will really is, how can we have moral absolutes?
Wow ... how to condense God's Will into a forum answer when books on this topic are 200 pages long.
Here goes...
1. God's Ultimate Will is that EVERYONE come to know Him through salvation in Jesus Christ. In 2 Peter 3:9, it states ... "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Please disregard the Calvinists who will surely pollute this discussion once they hear that I've said this.
2. Once a person is "saved", God's Will is that they be holy. Basically, this includes all sorts of things from joy to peace in abundant supply, but also a life of purity ... purity of mind, body and soul, or the complete person.
3. The first two points address the nature of God's Will as it is specified in Scripture. His Permissive Will is subordinate to that and in one sense gives you freedom to do whatever you want in accordance with the specific aspects of His Will. He also reveals His "perfect will" individually to believers and guides them along the path of life in various ways that are most often somewhat "mysterious". By no means is it easy to know God's Will aside form the clearly stated part that is given in Scripture. God's Will is known primarily through a long and on-going spiritual relationship with him.
----------------------
A lot of people, some Christians included, look to God as some sort of "sugar daddy" Who will give them whatever they want. My best retort to this nonsense is to think about raising children. A good parent doesn't give their child anything that they want because much of what they want is bad for them. Raising a child takes a great deal of time and children are slow to come into knowledge. A mere declaration takes 20 years or so to make sense in the child's life and thusly become meaningful. If it is this hard to raise children, why would expect our own growth as a child of God to work like a microwave oven? The ultimately eternal process of growing up a child of God is a life-long transformation that God carefully and with great patience supervises.
There's much more that could be said on this, but I'll pause for now in order to "catch our breath". | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/06/2007 8:36 PM |
Alert | I didn't mean that the bible is imperfect, I meant that the bible as a reference for morals is imperfect. To explain that a bit further, I mean with some few exceptions such as the 10 commandments, the rest of the bible consists of stories and in some cases letters. Sometimes there is history, sometimes there are morals to be derived from the stories. In some cases people say that you should do things. Since it's the bible, should we listen to the characters in the bible about proper things to do? Or should we only do what Jesus and God specifically state?
More specifically, Paul. Should we listen to him? He's one of the primary authors of the new testament, and as such, he should have some authority. But he says things like this which seem pretty unambiguous. 1 Timothy 2 states that women shouldn't say anything in church, or exercise any authority over a man. This is also reinforced by what he says in 1 Corinthians 14:34. It seems pretty unambiguous if we listen to Paul that woman should not be allowed to talk at all in church. Reading the passages it seems like he is teaching his morals to us. Since it is in the bible, is it immoral for women to speak in church? Or was it just Pauls opinion as the first church leader, and we shouldn't listen to him?
What about slavery? For hundreds of years slavery was declared moral because slavery existed in the bible, in some cases, God even seemed to order it. If there are only one true set of morals, what is God trying to tell us here if there are moral absolutes?
Some of the commandments are pretty short, do we extrapolate from them? What if two are in conflict with each other, is there a heirarchy? Those are some of the questions I had in mind when I stated that the bible was imperfect as a moral teaching document.
Also as a side note (I probably shouldn't digress as this conversation is getting pretty long to respond to anyway. . . Login times out after 20minutes or so. . . hit ctrl+A,ctrl+c to copy test to clipboard before trying to post, so you can repost it if you are auto logged out.) but If God wanted us to know right from wrong, why is it that we had to steal it? Or am I misinterpreting Genesis?
That is one example of what I mean by the bible is imperfect as a moral document. It's entirely up for debate what to follow and what not to. The bible is a large book written largely written over 2000 years ago. Allegory and idioms follow throughout. It is a really tough book to get all the meanings unless you are a scholar of middle-eastern history, and are fluent in the ancient languages.
I really didn't mean to write that much on that topic in this post, as I really wanted to explore other points of your post.
Getting back to the first two points of homosexuality, you stated after the first two points that you hadn't gotten to the morality yet. I'm thinking you were right there. If I understand your response to my post you state that they are pertainant if morals were a function of biology or evolution. I'm not sure I want to go there. I'm more of the opinion that morals are largely a function of learning and society. I'm of the opinion that morals are gradually getting better as civilization advances.
By that I don't mean that there aren't times and places that go backwards, but take a look through history, things do seem to be getting more moral, in my pagan eyes, anyway. 500 years ago, slavery was rampant in pretty much the entire world. People were torturing and killing each other for religious ceremonies, for being witches, or for not following religious leaders. Just a little over 100 years ago, even the US was engaging in a caste system, and performing genocide (or at least ethnic cleansing.) 60 years ago, carpet bombing cities and killing civilians in times of war was rampant. Today, there is a world outcry when these things happen. Sure the outcry is delayed, but the world seems to have higher morals in these things.
I'll not respond to your brief explaination of God's will as it doesn't seem to directly affect this part of the discussion. I'll reread it a couple more times later and try to absorb what you are trying to say.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/06/2007 10:42 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
I didn't mean that the bible is imperfect, I meant that the bible as a reference for morals is imperfect. To explain that a bit further, I mean with some few exceptions such as the 10 commandments, the rest of the bible consists of stories and in some cases letters. Sometimes there is history, sometimes there are morals to be derived from the stories. In some cases people say that you should do things. Since it's the bible, should we listen to the characters in the bible about proper things to do? Or should we only do what Jesus and God specifically state?
I see your point, and agree that sorting through 66 books written by 40 authors covering 1600 years would be a difficult task regardless of what answer(s) you were looking for. This is one reason that God chose a system (community) for preserving the Word and promulgating the Word ... in other words, The Church. Not that we are to blindly follow "the church", but that it is an institution dedicated to the instruction of the Word to those who believe. Those who believe are then to go out and (1) live lives that invite without a word and to then (2) have the right words when invited to say something. This actually happens from time-to-time when stupid human tricks are suppressed.
We learn from every story or declaration and interpret every story in light of the declarations. We also must take great care to logically balance the entire message in order to preserve its consistency. I have yet to find an inconsistency or hear of any scholarly work that has uncovered an inconsistency in spite of non-specific claims to the contrary. I do freely admit that given the size and scope of the Bible that it is sometimes very difficult to keep track of the differing themes.
Also, Jesus was a threat to the establishment religion of Judaism at the time he was on earth. His message was a number of things, but He came to "fulfill the Law, not to abolish it". This is actually a rabbinical idiom still in use today whereby a person's judgment about the meaning of the law was deemed to uphold the law or deemed to destroy it. His use was focused directly at the establishment in the terms that they used. Everyone at the time knew what he meant when he said it. There were, and still are, two main schools of thought about the Mosaic Law, (1) that there is the "letter of the Law" or Haggadah and (2) that there is the spirit of the Law, "Hallakah". The spirit of the law would be understood as the fundamental philosophical basis for all "letter of the law" practice. The fulfillment Jesus offered was the Hallakah while the establishment held it power through the Haggadah; hence one of their main problems with Him, among other things.
So, all of that as an example that YES, you use the historical references as a guide as well as the strict declarations made by God, Jesus, Moses, etc. There is a global as well as local context to each book, verse and chapter that is only understood relative to the entire spectrum of scripture. MUCH confusion has come over the centuries by well-intentioned and some not-so-well intentioned people who focused too narrowly on one thing without consideration of the larger context(s).
Again, this is why we "go to church", read our Bibles, pray, etc. ... it is no easy task to take it all in correctly and to then let that internalization lead to transformation. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/06/2007 10:58 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
More specifically, Paul. Should we listen to him? He's one of the primary authors of the new testament, and as such, he should have some authority. But he says things like this which seem pretty unambiguous. 1 Timothy 2 states that women shouldn't say anything in church, or exercise any authority over a man. This is also reinforced by what he says in 1 Corinthians 14:34. It seems pretty unambiguous if we listen to Paul that woman should not be allowed to talk at all in church.
This passage is generally misunderstood and often poorly executed in religious practice.
1. There was a problem with disruption by women in that church, and this was Paul's recommendation/direction to that church.
2. The authority issue was one of spiritual authority and women directing in that fashion is contrary to the design that God has for the family and the church. This is not to say that women do not exert ANY spiritual authority. This has to be balanced with the rest of Paul's writings as well as the history of the group he was writing to. The issue was more about preserving order in the church and protecting God's design for spiritual authority, than anything to do with chauvinism.
3. Bottom line, women can speak, preach, teach in church and do so all of the time in Christian churches all over the world. The term "speak" was more specific to the nature of the speech, not just the mere act of opening the mouth and projecting an utterance. It was not a blanket prohibition, but rather a direction about the time and place for a particular kind of speech.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
Reading the passages it seems like he is teaching his morals to us. Since it is in the bible, is it immoral for women to speak in church? Or was it just Pauls opinion as the first church leader, and we shouldn't listen to him?
NO, it IS NOT "immoral" for a woman to "speak in church". Paul was not making a "moral" statement in this passage. His teaching was a directive about the formal practice of a church service.
And YES, we should listen to him very carefully; but the bible directs us to listen very carefully to every Bible teacher while thoughtfully considering everything that they say, checking it against the scriptures and giving that thought a great deal of prayer. There is NOTHING casual about getting to know God, His Word and thusly growing in the knowledge and Grace of Him. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/06/2007 11:09 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
What about slavery? For hundreds of years slavery was declared moral because slavery existed in the bible, in some cases, God even seemed to order it. If there are only one true set of morals, what is God trying to tell us here if there are moral absolutes?
Be careful here ... there is a significant difference between old-world slavery and the abomination that was imposed on slaves in America until its abolition.
1. MOST old-world slavery was voluntary and temporary in order to pay debt or to keep from starving to death.
2. MOST old-world cultures did not tolerate abuse of slaves.
3. When the Bible speaks of bond-slavery, it's referring to an ancient practice where instead of going free at the appointed time, a slave who loved his master could pledge himself for life to that master. The bond-slave would then have his ear pierced by taking an awl and driving a piece of his ear lobe into the door post of the masters home signifying that this slave is now "part of the family". Slaves of this sort were actually admired and well respected in their communities and beyond.
4. The Bible NEVER spoke of much less condoned the sort of slavery that went on in America up through the Civil War. There were some Old Testament instance of slavery, but these were conquests and judgments against people that God was punishing. I'd have to dig through the 613 civil laws in the Mosaic Law, but I believe there are at least a few dealing directly with issues of slavery that support what I'm saying here.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
Some of the commandments are pretty short, do we extrapolate from them? What if two are in conflict with each other, is there a heirarchy? Those are some of the questions I had in mind when I stated that the bible was imperfect as a moral teaching document.
Give me an example of what you mean.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
What if two are in conflict with each other, is there a heirarchy?
Give me an example of two in conflict. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/07/2007 1:47 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
but If God wanted us to know right from wrong, why is it that we had to steal it? Or am I misinterpreting Genesis?
Not exactly sure what you mean by learning right from wrong by "stealing it", but I'll take a shot at it ... correct me if I misinterpret your assertion.
1. Nothing was stolen in the Garden of Eden. Adam & Eve were told not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but no Bible scholar I've ever read or heard of has ever equated that to theft.
2. Adam and Eve were free to do anything that they wanted in Eden. God warned them "not to" take the fruit because of how it would change them bot physically and spiritually. They couldn't resist and God thusly followed through on His promise regarding the consequence of this transgression.
With regard to how mankind came into the knowledge of good and evil, God HAD TO provide the option for choice (freedom of choice) with regard to good and evil in order to preserve the greatest good, which is freedom. In providing knowledge of evil, He DID NOT create evil. Once someone is aware of the potential of evil (the absence of good), evil is not yet actual. Only when the free moral agent takes action in favor of evil (the suppression of good) does evil then have an existence. Evil is like a hole ... holes do not exist in and of themselves, only when something else is taken away and the part is removed from the whole.
Bible scholars agree, but admit that they can't truly know for sure, that there was nothing magical about the fruit; but rather that the fruit was simply a tangible symbol (perhaps a test) of freedom. According to scripture, as soon as they ate the fruit, they began to realize a few things; namely that they were naked. Suddenly they were ashamed. Why? Until this point, they roamed the garden naked not knowing that being naked is "wrong". Ultimately, in a perfect world, nudity is not a bad thing; however, the beauty of the human body has been besmirched by pornography and similar vices that violate the sacred beauty and gift of the human body.
I'll stop for now in case I've taken a high orbit from where you were going with your statement. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/07/2007 1:55 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
The bible is a large book written largely written over 2000 years ago. Allegory and idioms follow throughout. It is a really tough book to get all the meanings unless you are a scholar of middle-eastern history, and are fluent in the ancient languages.
Yes, it is a large book ... 66 books in fact, written by 40 authors covering 1600 years. Yes, it has a number of allegories, idioms, parables, etc., but most of those are explained by the Bible itself.
Though being a scholar in the ancient languages and history of the time is helpful, it is not necessary to acquire the understanding; in fact, one can get more than enough wisdom with just the Bible itself. having said that, I do not know any pastors or scholars who would be satisfied with people only studying scripture; rather, they expect that Christians will check out every claim of Scripture using every body of knowledge at their disposal. I have found that the Bible can stand tall among all of the other documents and philosophies that are out there. I would prefer that more Christians think and act this way, but unfortunately that is the case. No surprise, intellectual honesty at this level is not common in any belief system or non-belief system. Humans are just in general kind of lazy in this way. They don't take the time to (1) justify their own beliefs and (2) truly understand what the other beliefs are trying to say. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/07/2007 2:23 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
Getting back to the first two points of homosexuality, you stated after the first two points that you hadn't gotten to the morality yet. I'm thinking you were right there. If I understand your response to my post you state that they are pertinent if morals were a function of biology or evolution. I'm not sure I want to go there.
But that's the point I'm contending with in the original post for this topic. Is morality a function of biology or not? You brought up the example of homosexuality so that we could have a focal point capable of generating lots of discussion. So far, it's just you and me, but that's cool ... it's a little less cluttered that way.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
I'm more of the opinion that morals are largely a function of learning and society. I'm of the opinion that morals are gradually getting better as civilization advances.
Then if morals are a function of learning and society, then how is that separate from biology and how is it separate from theism? Also, it still is inconsistent logically because of the relative value of truth. The things that are considered right by some and wrong by others cannot both be true. They can both be false, but both cannot be true.
Theism, in this case Christianity, the insanity of relativism is solved (1) with not only the declaration of truth but also (2) a way to think and live in it, along with (3) an ultimate and unquestionable standard by which to judge both good and evil. Moral relativism offers nothing but confusion and discord.
The point that I made relative to homosexuality destroys the case for a biological reason to consider homosexuality as moral. If biology cannot support a case for morality with regard to homosexuality, then what does? Either there is another reason that the statement "homosexuality is moral" is true, or that statement is false and the reasons for that falsehood are known. Aristotelian philosophy offers an epistemology for knowledge where "knowledge" is defined as statements/propositions that are (1) believed, (2) true and (3) justified.
Belief is the easy part and totally possible by an act of free will. Truth is very difficult. As a category, it requires a systematic way to judge claims as having the quality of "true" or "not true". There are several theories about truth within philosophy, but most philosophers combine the correspondence and coherence theories to form a general definition of "truth is the coherent correspondence to reality.
I would enhance that definition slightly from a Christian worldview by making the "coherent correspondence" be a relationship that exists "between realitIES". Most people, theist or not, believe in the existence of both a spiritual and physical realities. Theists promote the fact that the spiritual reality is not only larger that the physical reality in every way imaginable, but also the source of physical reality.
A French philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, made a most interesting statement in one of his writings some time ago: "man is not primarily a physical being trying to have a spiritual experience, but rather, a spiritual being having a physical one."
I have more to say about that, but will pause so that we both can take a breath, a nap, an Excedrin, etc. and just chill for a while from the deep thoughts.
But since I mentioned deep thoughts, my favorite goes as follows...
"Some say that the most dangerous animal in the world is a Great White Shark ... others say that the most dangerous animal in the world is a charging Buffalo ... but I say, the most dangerous animal in the world is a Great White Shark, taped to the back of a charging Buffalo." | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/07/2007 2:32 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
By that I don't mean that there aren't times and places that go backwards, but take a look through history, things do seem to be getting more moral, in my pagan eyes, anyway. 500 years ago, slavery was rampant in pretty much the entire world.
What was the societal motivation to end slavery?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
People were torturing and killing each other for religious ceremonies, for being witches, or for not following religious leaders.
What was the philosophical basis for the Reformation?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
Just a little over 100 years ago, even the US was engaging in a caste system, and performing genocide (or at least ethnic cleansing.)
Please specify what you mean here.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
60 years ago, carpet bombing cities and killing civilians in times of war was rampant. Today, there is a world outcry when these things happen. Sure the outcry is delayed, but the world seems to have higher morals in these things.
Two things are true with regard to war-time bombing...
1. 60 years ago, there was no choice but to carpet-bomb other than not to carpet-bomb ... the technology for smart bombs was not even a fantasy yet.
2. There are theories for "just wars" that specify how a war is deemed "just". These would include everything about Hitler, Stalin, etc. that went on in WWII as a justification and even a need to "go to war". War is just an ugly thing, but it is also an unavoidable thing when one believes in self-defense, freedom of the individual, etc. | | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:1974
| | 10/08/2007 8:02 AM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 10/07/2007 2:32 PM Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
By that I don't mean that there aren't times and places that go backwards, but take a look through history, things do seem to be getting more moral, in my pagan eyes, anyway. 500 years ago, slavery was rampant in pretty much the entire world. What was the societal motivation to end slavery? Slavery still goes on today, in more subtle ways. Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
People were torturing and killing each other for religious ceremonies, for being witches, or for not following religious leaders. What was the philosophical basis for the Reformation? People are still killing each other, and using religion as an excuse to do it. Though no major religion teaches that killing is ok.... Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/06/2007 8:36 PM
Just a little over 100 years ago, even the US was engaging in a caste system, and performing genocide (or at least ethnic cleansing.) Please specify what you mean here. There is still a caste system here. Look at the wage gap, and the gap between lower and upper class. | |
"Your village called.........they're missing their idiot" | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|