Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

Quote

I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality.

Now you're just being ridiculous, of course there is a separation between murdering someone, and sentencing someone to death because they have murdered.

There is a difference because murder is a relative moral. I am still awaiting your absolute moral.

Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

Quote

The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit.

Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love".

Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc.

Morals are not created by those using the moral system (first point), God is still good(second point), and empathy is not a valid source of morality(third point). I suppose I could take three paragraphs to say what I just said, but that would be a waste of space.

What is a waste is your bothering to answer as you have. Simply concede or maybe just don't answer at all. I can say red is green but that doesn't make it so. You don't provide any evidence or argument but simply state a position. That is your concession on these points.
[/quote]

Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

So multiple people get together and decide what is moral? Like the German government?

They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.

Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

The rest of your argument is "the ten commandments are bad, your morals are bad". The ten commandments are good, a 10th grade could not create a better 10 commandments, and moral relativism = utilitarianism, both are evil, an 10th grader could make a better ideology than moral relativism.

I didn't think you'd give up this easily.

Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

Quote

The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone."

The choice of writing material is a human one,. God shows a clear preference for stone in the creation of the ten commandments. The amount of effort put forth by the Jews in their preservation of the Torah is quite incredible, stone sounds fun, until you realize the practical limitations of it. You need a good source of well hewn stone, you need enough stone to write the Torah, and finally you need more effort to record in stone than papyrus.

The law of God was meant to be used by the people, and stone is not very practical.

Well, I suppose I should be happy you even tried to argue your point, thin as it is. Why would the choice of writing material be any more a human choice than the words written? The argument sounds pretty arbitrary. You'd be better off just saying "faith has no need of logic" and leave it there.

Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

Quote

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

This is not being simply naughty, this is flat out rebellion by the child. And do not assume young child either, glutton and drunkard are listed as well.
Furthermore this passage is more a protection to the child, in that the child must be taken to the elders of the city to determine whether of not the child's rebellion deserve death, I would imagine this was not a common occurrence. This is not a commandment to stone all rebellious children. Due to the patriarchal system, this stops the parents from simply stoning the child.

Well, I must say I wasn't expecting you to condone child abuse. One would think I'd know better by now. At least your values can serve as a warning to others to steer a wide course around religion.

Quote from: Tekkna on May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

Slavery Slavery in the context of the bible is very widely misunderstood. First, when you say slavery, everyone get's the image of the enslavement of the Africans, however man-stealing in the bible is clearly punishable by death. I imagine this would have been a counter-cultural thing to say.

Quote

Exodus 20:16: Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Slavery was allowable in the bible, such as in the repayment of debts or captives in war. However all slaves were granted freedom in the year of jubilee, every 49 or 50 years (at regular intervals of time, if a slave was captured 10 years from the year of jubilee, they were granted freedom 10 years later). Furthermore, all hebrew slave were to be let free 7 years after their enslavement.

What seems to be misunderstood is that slavery is a bad idea but your god condones it. Period.

In what context is slavery good? If it was "right" back then and "wrong" now then it is another example or moral relativism, or that your god was wrong, take your pick.

I don't know if I'll ever understand when christians answer the question of slavery nearly the same every time by saying, "slavery is wrong but god did allow it for 10 or 20 or maybe 50 years per slave anyway." It's as if you don't even listen to yourself speak.

I'd rather hear a christian say, "yeah, slavery is a pretty big fuck up in the bible. What can I say? I believe in god but I also believe he wasn't perfect, or maybe he was and the bible was just a manmade guideline for life in the medieval world." The strict adherence to such absurd illogic as perfection simply turns an educated populace away from your cause, and the world's populace is experiencing a massive education boost with access to the internet.

Christians also never point out "the catches" with releasing slaves, like one's own daughter given to slavery couldn't be released, or if a slave had a family they weren't released.