The problem with Christian morality

[drakim]

While most atheist believe that morality is the result of evolution (killing your family is obviously a major disadvantaged to spreading your genes), the Christian version of morality comes from God, though the Bible.

The problem with this is that there can be no questions asked. If the Bible clearly says that X is wrong, then X is wrong. The atheist with his position can say that "evolution is a blind process and thus doesn't see the bigger picture" as an explanation for questions about morality (like, why do we seem to not care so much about the people we don't know closely?), the Christian has no such luxurity. He cannot simply say that "God didn't think this rule quite though" or something like that, that would be absurd.

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Now, you can argue schematics, that Jesus came along and that the laws of the old testament doesn't apply anymore, and so on. But all that is moot, because you still have to accept that at one point of the history of humanity, this behavior was okay. You could beat somebody who was your slave to death, as long as said slave survives a day or two.

I don't think anybody but psychopaths can honestly be okay with something like that. I think that the very morals that's supposed to be "imprinted in our hearts" would make anybody feel agony and pain if they saw a person beat another person until he is dying, no matter who is supposed to have owned who.

You can argue that this is God's law and thus what's moral, but, could you honestly say that if your daughter or mother was a slave of a violent person, and you lived in the OT times, and you saw them be beaten until they would die after a day, you would not flinch? You would find that perfectly okay and moral?

I can't.

[steve]

The 2 things I find quite puzzling within Christian morality (at least with evangelism) is the concept of everything must be black or white, good or bad, right or wrong (correct me if I'm misinformed since I'm basing my conclusions off of experience.) The other issue is of invincible authority in which God makes the rules yet not a single person can question nor object to His rules. If someone does, they are normally called sinners. Is being open minded and questioning God's authority a sin? Will someone go to Hell for questioning God's word/authority?

Last time I checked, questioning authority was extremely liberating to slaves in the US. Rather than using force, they used wit through art, dance, music, religion, non-violent rebellion by breaking tools, family unity, and non-compliance with their master or the system itself. However in the case of religion, there can be times where people abuse their authority and use the Bible to create fear and control others (I have a personal example of this too graphic to share publically.) There's also the famous Ghandi, MLK, John Lennon, William Cooper, and Aung San Suu Kyi who have spent their entire lives exploiting the ill nature of governments who exploit and abuse the weaknesses of populations.


1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

How can anyone say we shouldn't question authority including God? I've yet to hear of a government that didn't abuse their power. Even if government abuses power, I still shouldn't question them (because God says so) even if they use it to kill, torture, enslave and detain people for ambitious reasons?

[drakim]

Well, there is a short counter to that. God is omnipotent, which means he can do ANYTHING, and will never do a single mistake. Thus, his authority will be perfect, and questioning parts of it will always be because you don't quite understand it or because you are thinking wrongly.

[steve]

Interesting. Thinking wrongly is subjective, perfection is subjective, and never making a mistake is an extreme intensifier fallacy. Doesn't seem to be a counterargument at all xD.

[drakim]

Apr 18, 2009 10:25:30 GMT -5 steve said:

Interesting. Thinking wrongly is subjective, perfection is subjective, and never making a mistake is an extreme intensifier fallacy. Doesn't seem to be a counterargument at all xD.

Hey, I never said it was a good counterargument. The thing I'm most bothered by is that it's assumed that God is omnipotent because God says so, and assumed that God tells the truth because God says that he never lies. What a perfect system

[Ryan Dozier]

Drakim,

You pose a great question.


Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

How can we reconcile morality with this verse?



I have homework to do, so I will have to make my comments brief.

First, one must understand that the slaves and manservants were from other nations that the Israelite's were suppose to destroy. God commanded the Israelites to destroy nations to execute Divine justice. God was demonstrating His justice by punishing the wicked nations, and God was demonstrating His grace towards the Israelites by not destroying them for their wickedness.

However, some Nations were not destroyed, so the Israelites made the people of the Nations slaves.


Also, here is an interesting article I recently read.

Taken from here: triablogue.blogspot.com/

By Peter Pike

Evil
Since the Arminian blogosphere's argument du jour happens to be "Calvinism makes God the author of evil" I thought I would come at it at a slightly different angle than the one that Steve has already taken. The problem with throwing around a phrase like "author of evil" is that it's kind of important that two words ("author" and "evil") get defined, yet Arminians seem to think such a step is too burdensome to enact. Steve has recently focused a great deal on what "author" means, so I want to look at the other term. This also ties in to my recent posts on Divine Command Theory, and I must point out in passing that for some strange reason we never see Arminians attempt to ground morality in a like manner to how I have argued for it in DCT.

With that said, what do we mean by evil when we ask if God is the author of evil?

Well, evil could mean simply those things as natural disasters—hurricanes, famines, floods, etc. Indeed, these are often called "natural evils" for that very reason. But most Christians would have no problem saying that God is the "author" of natural evils given the myriad examples of God causing/sending/creating disasters. A few specifics from Scripture will suffice to validate this point:

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground" (Genesis 7:4).

"And I will heap disasters upon them; I will spend my arrows on them; they shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured by plague and poisonous pestilence; I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with the venom of things that crawl in the dust" (Deuteronomy 32:23-24).

"Then they will say, 'Because they abandoned the LORD their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt and laid hold on other gods and worshiped them and served them. Therefore the LORD has brought all this disaster on them'" (1 Kings 9:9).

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
Because of how plentiful such descriptions are in Scripture, most people who contend that God is not the author of evil ought not mean evil in the sense of natural disasters (although given the state of inconsistency that plagues a certain branch of theology, I am hesitant to be dogmatic). Instead, they should mean it in the sense of immorality, unrighteousness, sinfulness.

When we are talking about moral evils—sins—then we have to have some kind of moral framework in place. That is, we have to have a proper frame of reference to determine whether something is good or evil in the first place before the question "Is God the author of evil?" is even meaningful.

Now as I've argued before, since I am a Divine Command Theorist, God is the standard of good. There is nothing else that God can point to other than Himself to say "This is what the definition of good is." As such, anything God does will be, by definition, good. That means that it is ruled out by definition that God could ever do anything evil Himself.

But saying that God is good isn't the whole picture, for that does not tell us how we ought to behave in order for us to be good too. Thankfully, there is something that tells us what the standard of behavior we ought to uphold are: God's commands (i.e., laws).

Now of God's commands, the apostle Paul writes:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Romans 7:7-12).
Now there is a lot to this passage that addresses the issue we are looking at. First, Paul states that "if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." Indeed, he insists "apart from the law, sin lies dead." Therefore there is no sin if there is not first a commandment from God. That means that if we are to look at evil as a function of immorality instead of natural evil, then evil can only exists because a commandment first exists. Consequently, Paul says "I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'"

The logical conclusion of this must therefore be that it is impossible for any immorality to come about if God does not issue any commands. Yet despite this, Paul maintains "the commandment is holy and righteous and good." We can ask rhetorically: How can it be anything but good? God is, after all, the definition of good, and His commands must be good too even if evil cannot come about unless they exist. This doesn't mean the commands are sufficient for evil to occur, but it does mean that the commands are necessary for evil to occur.

Let us then examine the scope of the commandments. It is one thing to say that men are under the commands of God; but is God bound by those same commands? I merely point back to the above natural evils that God authors and ask, "If you did that would you be doing evil?" If you flooded the Earth and killed all but 8 people, would such genocide by considered good or evil? If you sent famines and plagues on people, would you be good or evil? Obviously you would be considered evil, yet God is not evil for doing so.

That's because God is not under His commands but rather He issues those commands. This is why James says: "There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12). God has the right to judge while you do not. That is why along a similar vein Paul writes: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls" (Romans 14:4). We who have been created by God do not have the same rights as He who created us. God does not have to obey the commands that He gives us, and therefore even if we think we have seen a conflict between what we are not allowed to do and what God is allowed to do, that is not grounds for us to say that God has committed evil.

Finally, God can also use instruments of evil without Himself being evil. We read, for instance: "Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you" (1 Kings 22:23). We see that God is the one who "put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these…prophets." We read Jeremiah's words: "Then I said, 'Ah, Lord GOD, surely you have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, "It shall be well with you," whereas the sword has reached their very life'" (Jeremiah 4:10). And if it weren't enough for Jeremiah to say God deceived fallen Israel, he also says: "O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived" (Jeremiah 20:7).

While this last passage is part of a lament of Jeremiah, it is nevertheless evidence that Jeremiah didn't have any problem with the concept of God deceiving people for His own reasons. Yet Hebrews 6:18 says that it is impossible for God to lie. How would it be possible for God to deceive someone without lying? One way would be by putting "a lying spirit in the mouth of [false] prophets." For in that case, God is not the one who lies (the lying spirit lies), but God does put the lying spirit in the position where it will be believed. We see this again when Paul asserts "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The thrust of the passage cannot be ignored: God is the one who sends the delusion so that sinners believe what is false even though God Himself does not lie.

In other words, when God uses evil instruments that does not mean ipso facto that God Himself is evil. If God uses evil people with their penchant to lie in order to deceive other evil people that does not mean God is evil. And just as God can use a liar to establish His purposes without being evil, so too can He use other types of sinners for the same reason.

So let us take stock of where we are. Is God the author of evil? Well, He is obviously the author of natural evils, and He gave the commands without which there could be no evil at all. So yes, He is the author of evil (when the term is properly defined). The reason why so many hesitate to accept this is because they believe it would make God evil, but I have shown that despite God being the author of evil (again, as properly defined) He is not evil, for 1) God is good by definition; 2) God's commands are for us and not for Him; and 3) we have Biblical examples when God used evil instruments that increased sin without being evil Himself.

Given this, it is improper for Arminians to claim that "God is the author of evil" is a defect of Calvinism. They must show how God's authoring of evil actually makes God evil, and that requires them to A) ground morality somewhere and, B) deal with the Scripture I have presented above showing God using evil to increase sin without being culpable.

[drakim]

Thanks for the reply.

Aug 30, 2009 20:30:40 GMT -5 Ryan Dozier said:

Drakim,

You pose a great question.


Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

How can we reconcile morality with this verse?



I have homework to do, so I will have to make my comments brief.

First, one must understand that the slaves and manservants were from other nations that the Israelite's were suppose to destroy. God commanded the Israelites to destroy nations to execute Divine justice. God was demonstrating His justice by punishing the wicked nations, and God was demonstrating His grace towards the Israelites by not destroying them for their wickedness.

However, some Nations were not destroyed, so the Israelites made the people of the Nations slaves.

But this changes nothing. Am I to accept that some people, by the mere sin of being born in the wrong country, can justly be enslaved and beaten to death?

This argument gives me cold chills, because it condones slavery as just. And not just the "servant" slavery that Christians talks about sometimes. Pure slavery of "people from other countries". Don't you see how it's only a small step from this to justifying keeping slaves from say, Africa?

"God told us that taking slaves from Africa was okay, and see, the Bible confirms that this sort of thing is acceptable!"

And even if we evaded all this, it doesn't change the basic point that if I was citizen of Israel at that time, I could beat slaves, young or old, to death, for my enjoyment, provided that they survive a day or two before their wounds overcome them. And I would be just to do so. It would be within my rights to do so, and nobody could call me evil for it. At least the Nazis gave the Jews a quick death.

Also, here is an interesting article I recently read.

Taken from here: triablogue.blogspot.com/

By Peter Pike

Evil
Since the Arminian blogosphere's argument du jour happens to be "Calvinism makes God the author of evil" I thought I would come at it at a slightly different angle than the one that Steve has already taken. The problem with throwing around a phrase like "author of evil" is that it's kind of important that two words ("author" and "evil") get defined, yet Arminians seem to think such a step is too burdensome to enact. Steve has recently focused a great deal on what "author" means, so I want to look at the other term. This also ties in to my recent posts on Divine Command Theory, and I must point out in passing that for some strange reason we never see Arminians attempt to ground morality in a like manner to how I have argued for it in DCT.

With that said, what do we mean by evil when we ask if God is the author of evil?

Well, evil could mean simply those things as natural disasters—hurricanes, famines, floods, etc. Indeed, these are often called "natural evils" for that very reason. But most Christians would have no problem saying that God is the "author" of natural evils given the myriad examples of God causing/sending/creating disasters. A few specifics from Scripture will suffice to validate this point:

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground" (Genesis 7:4).

"And I will heap disasters upon them; I will spend my arrows on them; they shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured by plague and poisonous pestilence; I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with the venom of things that crawl in the dust" (Deuteronomy 32:23-24).

"Then they will say, 'Because they abandoned the LORD their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt and laid hold on other gods and worshiped them and served them. Therefore the LORD has brought all this disaster on them'" (1 Kings 9:9).

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
Because of how plentiful such descriptions are in Scripture, most people who contend that God is not the author of evil ought not mean evil in the sense of natural disasters (although given the state of inconsistency that plagues a certain branch of theology, I am hesitant to be dogmatic). Instead, they should mean it in the sense of immorality, unrighteousness, sinfulness.

When we are talking about moral evils—sins—then we have to have some kind of moral framework in place. That is, we have to have a proper frame of reference to determine whether something is good or evil in the first place before the question "Is God the author of evil?" is even meaningful.

Now as I've argued before, since I am a Divine Command Theorist, God is the standard of good. There is nothing else that God can point to other than Himself to say "This is what the definition of good is." As such, anything God does will be, by definition, good. That means that it is ruled out by definition that God could ever do anything evil Himself.

But saying that God is good isn't the whole picture, for that does not tell us how we ought to behave in order for us to be good too. Thankfully, there is something that tells us what the standard of behavior we ought to uphold are: God's commands (i.e., laws).

Now of God's commands, the apostle Paul writes:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Romans 7:7-12).
Now there is a lot to this passage that addresses the issue we are looking at. First, Paul states that "if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." Indeed, he insists "apart from the law, sin lies dead." Therefore there is no sin if there is not first a commandment from God. That means that if we are to look at evil as a function of immorality instead of natural evil, then evil can only exists because a commandment first exists. Consequently, Paul says "I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'"

The logical conclusion of this must therefore be that it is impossible for any immorality to come about if God does not issue any commands. Yet despite this, Paul maintains "the commandment is holy and righteous and good." We can ask rhetorically: How can it be anything but good? God is, after all, the definition of good, and His commands must be good too even if evil cannot come about unless they exist. This doesn't mean the commands are sufficient for evil to occur, but it does mean that the commands are necessary for evil to occur.

Let us then examine the scope of the commandments. It is one thing to say that men are under the commands of God; but is God bound by those same commands? I merely point back to the above natural evils that God authors and ask, "If you did that would you be doing evil?" If you flooded the Earth and killed all but 8 people, would such genocide by considered good or evil? If you sent famines and plagues on people, would you be good or evil? Obviously you would be considered evil, yet God is not evil for doing so.

That's because God is not under His commands but rather He issues those commands. This is why James says: "There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12). God has the right to judge while you do not. That is why along a similar vein Paul writes: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls" (Romans 14:4). We who have been created by God do not have the same rights as He who created us. God does not have to obey the commands that He gives us, and therefore even if we think we have seen a conflict between what we are not allowed to do and what God is allowed to do, that is not grounds for us to say that God has committed evil.

Finally, God can also use instruments of evil without Himself being evil. We read, for instance: "Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you" (1 Kings 22:23). We see that God is the one who "put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these…prophets." We read Jeremiah's words: "Then I said, 'Ah, Lord GOD, surely you have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, "It shall be well with you," whereas the sword has reached their very life'" (Jeremiah 4:10). And if it weren't enough for Jeremiah to say God deceived fallen Israel, he also says: "O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived" (Jeremiah 20:7).

While this last passage is part of a lament of Jeremiah, it is nevertheless evidence that Jeremiah didn't have any problem with the concept of God deceiving people for His own reasons. Yet Hebrews 6:18 says that it is impossible for God to lie. How would it be possible for God to deceive someone without lying? One way would be by putting "a lying spirit in the mouth of [false] prophets." For in that case, God is not the one who lies (the lying spirit lies), but God does put the lying spirit in the position where it will be believed. We see this again when Paul asserts "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The thrust of the passage cannot be ignored: God is the one who sends the delusion so that sinners believe what is false even though God Himself does not lie.

In other words, when God uses evil instruments that does not mean ipso facto that God Himself is evil. If God uses evil people with their penchant to lie in order to deceive other evil people that does not mean God is evil. And just as God can use a liar to establish His purposes without being evil, so too can He use other types of sinners for the same reason.

So let us take stock of where we are. Is God the author of evil? Well, He is obviously the author of natural evils, and He gave the commands without which there could be no evil at all. So yes, He is the author of evil (when the term is properly defined). The reason why so many hesitate to accept this is because they believe it would make God evil, but I have shown that despite God being the author of evil (again, as properly defined) He is not evil, for 1) God is good by definition; 2) God's commands are for us and not for Him; and 3) we have Biblical examples when God used evil instruments that increased sin without being evil Himself.

Given this, it is improper for Arminians to claim that "God is the author of evil" is a defect of Calvinism. They must show how God's authoring of evil actually makes God evil, and that requires them to A) ground morality somewhere and, B) deal with the Scripture I have presented above showing God using evil to increase sin without being culpable.

This still doesn't change anything with what I originally posed as an issue in this thread. In fact, it only makes it worse! Morality has become a worthless concept because if God merely commands it, taking a knife to a kindergarten and murdering everybody is a holy action. And don't try to say that it's outside God's nature to do something like that. He has commanded much worse in the old testament.

[Ryan Dozier]

I will respond soon; I have homework I have to do.

[johnmcglone]

Drakim, why do you find fault with these 'lesser evils' God has done in the Bible? Why not speak of when God repented of making mankind and destroyed the entire population of the earth with a flood. Or, when God destroyed many cities including Sodom and Gomorrah with fire?

How do you a finite creature think you can judge the infinite God of the Bible and get away with it?

[drakim]

Sept 7, 2009 14:18:13 GMT -5 johnmcglone said:

Drakim, why do you find fault with these 'lesser evils' God has done in the Bible?

Because picking the lesser of two evils is by definition a compromise. And an omnipotent being doesn't need to make compromises, he makes the rules themselves.

Why not speak of when God repented of making mankind and destroyed the entire population of the earth with a flood. Or, when God destroyed many cities including Sodom and Gomorrah with fire?

Those are also terrible things, but I wanted to limit the scope of the topic a little, otherwise it would become bloated.

How do you a finite creature think you can judge the infinite God of the Bible and get away with it?

Yes, if said God only exists in the minds of the believer.

[meiday04]

Drakim,

You're taking select texts and isolating them. You seem to have missed all the other verses giving slaves rights and protections, such as:

21:1-2 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."

21:7-11 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."

21:14-17 "But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die. Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

21:26-27 "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth."

The chapter then goes on to talk about accidents that are the result of carelessness, and so on. Not to mention in Jewish culture, the death penalty was rarely used. Other means of payment were usually found.

You're also completely avoiding the culture of this time. It wasn't like today, where I can get a job down at the grocery store if I'm strapped for cash. And they couldn't just pick land and start farming. That land belonged to somebody. Slavery in the time of colonialism was clearly unbiblical, if you're looking at these verses I've just provided. (Especially 21:16)

The kind of institution the Bible is talking about here is clearly different. It is a way for people to survive who could not provide for themselves, or a way mercy was shown to those captured in battle. These rules exist to protect slaves. And just because God provides laws governing the practice of slavery does not mean God instituted the practice. He placed restrictions on a sinful human practice.

Also, Christians who were slaves once they believed were encouraged not to flee from their masters, but to be the best possible servant, as though they were serving Christ Himself. (Eph.6:5-7)

God sees masters and slaves as equal beings. (Gal. 3:28, Eph. 6:8-9, Col. 3:11)

In fact, you seem to be missing the whole area of history where slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to a Biblical view of human equality.

2. Question redirected: With atheism you have no right to argue that slavery is wrong. If one animal, being superior to another animal, can capture them and put them to work, then the advantage is to the stronger animal. By what law of nature do you argue that slavery is wrong? Why would racism be wrong? You, being a naturalistic atheist, have no grounds to even conclude the first argument. Why is genocide wrong if the result would mean I can more effectively spread my genes? Where do you find the grounds to 'care' about anyone else?

You say: "I think that the very morals that's supposed to be "imprinted in our hearts" would make anybody feel agony and pain if they saw a person beat another person until he is dying, no matter who is supposed to have owned who."

I agree. Where does this universal truth and morality come from? Surely not from random mutation over an extended period of time.

[drakim]

Dec 6, 2009 22:48:54 GMT -5 meiday04 said:

Drakim,

You're taking select texts and isolating them. You seem to have missed all the other verses giving slaves rights and protections, such as:

On the contrary, I think you are the one who is missing something here. While you have built a nice case for why a Christian would opposite slavery, you ignore other parts where the deal is a bit more bleak. The whole idea of slavery being the welfare of the old ages fails miserably considering that the Bible gives clear instruction that you may beat your slave to death as long as you do it the right way, because the slave is your money.

You can pretty it up and paint it pink but this doesn't change the fact that the slavery of the Bible isn't all goodie. And it doesn't matter if there are more "good" verses in the Bible talking nicely about slavery than "bad" ones. All there needs to be is a single verse condoling violence against slaves, and Christian slave owners in the past had a God given right to do violence against their slaves.

In fact, you seem to be missing the whole area of history where slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to a Biblical view of human equality.

And the people who opposed the abolishment of slavery in these areas, what were they? Atheists and Buddists?

Christianity was on both sides of this cultural war. No matter what outcome Christians would have triumphed it as a victory of Biblical values.

The setup is pretty identical to the whole homosexuality issue. If homosexuality becomes negative in the public's eyes again and it's no longer acceptable, Christians will take credit for that, stating that they saved so many from being fooled into it. If homosexuality becomes accepted in society and nobody opposes it anymore, Christians will take credit for that, since there were many Christians who lead the end of the discrimination against homosexuals using Biblical values.

It's always a win-win situation. The few times it's not a win-win situation, such as the burning of innocent women for a crime they didn't commit (witchcraft) then it's simply ignored or blamed on ignorance.

2. Question redirected: With atheism you have no right to argue that slavery is wrong.

Why not? Are you saying that atheism follows an absolute morality? Because it does seem like you are saying that. Who decided that I have no right to do so? Some sort of atheist God?

You clearly do not understand the position you are arguing against. How do you expect to beat relative morality by saying that relative moralists absolutely most do this and that? Does not the irony strike you like a frying pan?

If one animal, being superior to another animal, can capture them and put them to work, then the advantage is to the stronger animal. By what law of nature do you argue that slavery is wrong?

What law dictates that the laws of nature has the final say? This mysterious atheist God who creates absolute moralities that all the relative moralists atheist follow? Your question is only an issue because you don't understand atheism.

Why would racism be wrong? You, being a naturalistic atheist, have no grounds to even conclude the first argument. Why is genocide wrong if the result would mean I can more effectively spread my genes? Where do you find the grounds to 'care' about anyone else?

What decided that spreading the genes is the thing that matters most in the world absolutely? Again the apparent mysterious atheist God decides that mimicing nature is the one true way, and all the relative moralists follows the commandment because it's absolute. I would like some support for these accusations, along with some explanations of your basic logic, because it's either very confusing or very flawed.

Tell me exactly why a relative moralist must do something.

You say: "I think that the very morals that's supposed to be "imprinted in our hearts" would make anybody feel agony and pain if they saw a person beat another person until he is dying, no matter who is supposed to have owned who."

I agree. Where does this universal truth and morality come from?

I'm guessing evolution as a result of teamwork. Caring for your fellow man is a good way for a herd creature to survive. Not giving a crap about the people around you is a good way to make your genes go extinct within a decade.

Although I said it was "imprinted in our hearts", I didn't say it was universal. Different animals behave differently because they are in different living situations. Dogs will stay loyal even in the face of injustice because loyalty to the pack helps more than individual decisions.

Surely not from random mutation over an extended period of time.

Why not?

Imagine two scenarios. In one scenario you have the Humin, who have genes that makes them co-operate and work together. In another scenario you have the Humon who are overly aggressive and violent and fights over all resources and murders each other at a heartbeat. Which race do you think will be the most successive after a million years? Which one do you think could populate the entire planet and fly to the moon?

It seems to me that your challenges to atheism arises only because you don't know anything about atheism, so you are forced to construct your own idea of how it works. An idea where atheist worship evolution as if it was a God, and where nothing has value.

But this is simply not true. Atheism is simply the lack of theism. A-theism. A in latin means "not" or "without" so atheism literally means "without theism". So there are very few things that atheists have in common, because atheism itself isn't a creed. it's merely saying what somebody is not. Like a non-vegetarian or a non-stamp collector.

You can very well be an atheist and believe in ghosts, spirits, demons, heaven and hell, and anything, except God(s). That includes moral absolutes.

You are in reality arguing against relative morality (and not doing very well at it), where it does not fit into this thread. The only alternative to Christianity isn't relative morality.

[meiday04]

Bible gives clear instruction that you may beat your slave to death as long as you do it the right way

Actually, the Bible says that IF you beat a slave to death, you will be punished with death, as a murderer. And under that law, if a man so brutally beats his slave, the slave will go free, according to vs 21:26-27 "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth."

This law is stipulating that if the slave lives, the owner is not punished, and that he will then let the slave go free.

All there needs to be is a single verse condoling violence against slaves, and Christian slave owners in the past had a God given right to do violence against their slaves.

Ok, but your example is not condoling the beating of slaves. It is stipulating that IF a master beats his slave, and the slave dies, he will be punished. If the slave lives, as is clear later in the chapter, the slave goes free. This is utterly different that a verse that says "If you feel displeasure toward your slave, beat him as you see fit."

Christianity was on both sides of this cultural war. No matter what outcome Christians would have triumphed it as a victory of Biblical values.

It is true that Christians were on both sides of the culture war. But the argument was that Christians supporting slavery were not following the Bible. We cannot judge an idea by the abuse of that idea. The argument that human beings are equal and should be treated fairly is a distinctly Judeo/Christian view. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. all have classes values of people. The Bible states that all humans are equal, and makes laws for slaves to protect them from the human cultural practice of keeping slaves. God does not command his followers to keep slaves, and where it is allowed, it is to the benefit of the person either economically or mercifully (e.i. captured in battle). He makes laws to protect them, because to him owner and slave are equal.

You didn't answer my question, you just side-stepped it. How can an atheist justify calling slavery wrong? You define good as being in the best interest of the group. If it is in the interest of the group to commit genocide, or keep slaves, then is that to be considered good?

Are you saying that atheism follows an absolute morality?
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite.

How do you expect to beat relative morality by saying that relative moralists absolutely most do this and that? Does not the irony strike you like a frying pan?

Doesn't it strike you odd that, as a relative moralist, you're telling me I'm wrong? If morality is relative, we're both as right and wrong as each other. You have no way around that. If slavery is relative, then that it is wrong is only in your opinion. If a group decides it is right, then that is only their opinion, if relativity is to be upheld. If you're saying all truth is relative, I can type gibberish into a line, claim that as my answer, and we'd be at a stalemate, because anything would be relative to the other.

The fact is, when you claim slavery is 'wrong', you're speaking about an objective moral truth, and completely debunking your own argument regarding relativity. So my question is, again, how can an atheist conclude that slavery is 'wrong'?

Your question is only an issue because you don't understand atheism.

Ad Hominem. It is your task to help me understand. But you're sidestepping my questions. Where does atheism allow for moral judgement of good and evil? If it is cultural opinion, then logically you cannot call something objectively good or bad. Can you please explain?

Tell me exactly why a relative moralist must do something.

The question is not must, it is 'why anyone should do something.' You're telling me I should not support slavery. Why?

Caring for your fellow man is a good way for a herd creature to survive. Not giving a crap about the people around you is a good way to make your genes go extinct within a decade.


You're claiming that 'caring for a fellow man' is 'good'. But what if 'enslaving my fellow man' gets a better result? Is that then 'good'?

Which race do you think will be the most successive after a million years? Which one do you think could populate the entire planet and fly to the moon?

Ok, but you're still avoiding my question. You're arguing that success dictates what is 'good' and 'bad'. Working together is 'good' because it is successful. So if genocide gives a more successful result, then is it 'good'?

Where nothing has value

Can you explain how one arrives at value in atheism? If everything comes from nothing, and goes to nothing, I as a creature must give value to things. There is not intrinsic worth in random molecular actions. Therefore, one creature or culture could value genocide, just as another values fairness. Neither could be judged right or wrong.

where it does not fit into this thread

It specifically fits in this thread because you're claiming either 1. Objectively, slavery is wrong, and the Bible supports it. 2. I think slavery is wrong, and the Bible supports it.

I have already given you my answer to the Biblical view of slavery. You disagree, and that's ok with me, because I've given you my proof. But you seem to be making a universal claim in simply stating that 'slavery is bad'. You need to either answer for that, or you can't.

I would like some support for these accusations

My conclusions toward atheism follow this reasoning:
1. There is no God, living matter comes from non-living matter.
2. If living matter comes from nothing and ends in nothing, value in the middle of nothing is only what I as a creature assign to it.
3. If I value fairness over slavery, and another values slavery over fairness, that is only a difference of opinion. There cannot be objective morality.
4. Therefore slavery cannot be wrong.

Biblically, I reason as follows:
1. There is a God.
2. Looking at the evidence, I believe Christianity best defines that God.
3. The God of the Bible created humans with an objective morality imprinted in their consciousness. This accounts for judgments of good and evil.
4. This God has given us rules by which we should or should not act. People know these laws.
4. Therefore, slavery can be wrong.

Contradictions:
1. "What decided that spreading the genes is the thing that matters most in the world absolutely?" and then "Not giving a crap about the people around you is a good way to make your genes go extinct within a decade." and "Which race do you think will be the most successive after a million years? Which one do you think could populate the entire planet and fly to the moon?"

2. "Bible gives clear instruction that you may beat your slave to death as long as you do it the right way"(Implication being that it is bad.) and then "Different animals behave differently because they are in different living situations."(Relativistic)

Summary of questions:

Doesn't it strike you odd that, as a relative moralist, you're telling me I'm wrong?

If you are an atheist, what are the grounds for making the claim that slavery is wrong?

The question is not must, it is 'why an anyone should do something.' You're telling me I should not support slavery. Why?

If success dictates 'good' and 'bad', what if slavery is more successful than fairness? Does slavery then become 'good'. What of genocide? Burning witches? Rape? Murder? Unfairness?

You're claiming that 'caring for a fellow man' is 'good'. But what if 'enslaving my fellow man' gets a better result? Is that then 'good'?

Could you explain your view on this: You can very well be an atheist and believe in ghosts, spirits, demons, heaven and hell, and anything, except God(s).

[drakim]

Dec 11, 2009 1:39:11 GMT -5 meiday04 said:

Bible gives clear instruction that you may beat your slave to death as long as you do it the right way

Actually, the Bible says that IF you beat a slave to death, you will be punished with death, as a murderer. And under that law, if a man so brutally beats his slave, the slave will go free, according to vs 21:26-27 "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth."

This law is stipulating that if the slave lives, the owner is not punished, and that he will then let the slave go free.

All there needs to be is a single verse condoling violence against slaves, and Christian slave owners in the past had a God given right to do violence against their slaves.

Ok, but your example is not condoling the beating of slaves. It is stipulating that IF a master beats his slave, and the slave dies, he will be punished. If the slave lives, as is clear later in the chapter, the slave goes free. This is utterly different that a verse that says "If you feel displeasure toward your slave, beat him as you see fit."

I checked up on some other translations of the Bible, and you are right, in some it says "if the slave survives" rather than "if he dies after a few days".

But I'm still not convinced. A lot of Christians try to portray the slavery of the old days more as servitude rather than slavery, but the fact remains that the slave owners had the right to beat the slaves, young or old, man or woman, and the Bible doesn't bother to condemn it (instead just saying that if you do it too much it's bad).

This line of defense is about as weird to me as if we had a situation where the Bible merely condemned mass murderers but not murderers, and you talked about how God was wise to condemn mass murderers.

Christianity was on both sides of this cultural war. No matter what outcome Christians would have triumphed it as a victory of Biblical values.

It is true that Christians were on both sides of the culture war. But the argument was that Christians supporting slavery were not following the Bible.

If the pro-slavery side in America had won, then I would most likely be arguing the exact opposite with a Christian today. The Christians not supporting slavery were not following the Bible instead just like the Christians supporting homosexuality today.

It's such a dead end argument because slavery happened durring a very Christian period of the modern world. There was no big rising Islam entering Europan and American culture. There were no big foe Christians had to stand up against. There were mainly just Christians. Christians brought slavery in the western world and Christians ended it. It's nothing to be proud of.

We cannot judge an idea by the abuse of that idea. The argument that human beings are equal and should be treated fairly is a distinctly Judeo/Christian view. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. all have classes values of people.

Buddism does not, but I see your point.

The Bible states that all humans are equal,

The Bible states that all humans are equal before God, not in relation to each other. See, all you need is a little crack like that in the Biblical values, and suddently you have Christians who believes that slavery is okay, with divine justification.

and makes laws for slaves to protect them from the human cultural practice of keeping slaves. God does not command his followers to keep slaves, and where it is allowed, it is to the benefit of the person either economically or mercifully (e.i. captured in battle). He makes laws to protect them, because to him owner and slave are equal.

But why couldn't God just make a command to not keep slaves? "Thou shall not enslave anybody, for he is your brother no matter nationality or skin color".

You didn't answer my question, you just side-stepped it. How can an atheist justify calling slavery wrong?

I didn't side step it, I showed you how your whole premissis is flawed. I can't answer this question because the question itself is based on the wrong idea, and thus all answers will also result in the wrong idea.

If you wish to learn how realtive morality and/or atheism works, then make a new thread or something.

You define good as being in the best interest of the group. If it is in the interest of the group to commit genocide, or keep slaves, then is that to be considered good?

This question is kinda like the Chicken and the Egg dilemma.

I wouldn't considure it good, although they may. But I am under no law to respect the opinion of those anymore than you are required to respect the opinion of the devil alongside God.

I think you are somehow mixing up relative morality and political correctness into one big pot and thinking it's the same.

1. Political correctness in this context is when you don't push your own ideals as being superior.

2. Relative morality is in this context when you think morality is a construct of society.

Are you saying that atheism follows an absolute morality?
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite.

Then why are you saying that atheists absolutely must do X and Y? That's the sign of an absolute morality, is it not?

How do you expect to beat relative morality by saying that relative moralists absolutely most do this and that? Does not the irony strike you like a frying pan?

Doesn't it strike you odd that, as a relative moralist, you're telling me I'm wrong?

Now you are definitly sidestepping the issue. It's okay to ask your question, but don't pretend it an answer to my question above. Again:

How do you expect to beat relative morality by saying that relative moralists absolutely most do this and that? Does not the irony strike you like a frying pan?

As for your question. No. Why would it be strange for me to be telling you that you are wrong?

If morality is relative, we're both as right and wrong as each other. You have no way around that.

Oh, how so? Because that despite that I'm a relative moralist, I follow the absolute moral of respecting all relative morals? I'm saying it again, you don't understand what you are arguing against. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but you are making a mess out of the whole deal by thinking that you are. This is just as dumb as if I kept saying "If Christianity opposes homosexuality then why does all the male Christians say they love Jesus despite Jesus being a man?" It's an utterly absurd line of thinking that soley stems from the inability of the person to understand what he is talking about, but yet he insists on doing so.

If slavery is relative, then that it is wrong is only in your opinion. If a group decides it is right, then that is only their opinion, if relativity is to be upheld. If you're saying all truth is relative, I can type gibberish into a line, claim that as my answer, and we'd be at a stalemate, because anything would be relative to the other.

I wonder how you cope with national laws. In one nation killing somebody is always wrong. In another nation it's okay if it's self defence. Does not this make your head explode? There is no national law that applies to all countries! How does it all work out!?!?

Simple. Nations don't care for each others laws. There is no international law that says that if you break a law in one country you are guilty everywhere. Just like there is no absolute commandment in relative morality that all relative moralities are equal.

But if you want I can put it in more simple terms. If you can disregard the opinion of the devil, then why can't I disregard the opinion of nazis? What is it that you have that I don't?

The fact is, when you claim slavery is 'wrong', you're speaking about an objective moral truth, and completely debunking your own argument regarding relativity.

You are wrong. When I say that slavery is wrong, or when I say that blue is pretty, or that ice cream is good, I don't mean that any of these things are universal across all mankind. These are my opinions.

So my question is, again, how can an atheist conclude that slavery is 'wrong'?

An atheist cannot because atheism does not contain any creeds. your real question should be "How can a humanist conclude that slavery is wrong?".

Your question is only an issue because you don't understand atheism.

Ad Hominem. It is your task to help me understand. But you're sidestepping my questions. Where does atheism allow for moral judgement of good and evil? If it is cultural opinion, then logically you cannot call something objectively good or bad. Can you please explain?

If you want me to help you understand, that's fine, but I feel that it's wrong to do so in this thread, which is a bunch of questions about Christianity, not humanism or atheism or relative morality. I'll be happy to join you in another thread.

I cannot answer all of your questions because your premises if flawed in so many cases. To answer you despite that would be the same as lying or making up answers. If you ask me "How much does yellow weight" then I'm wrong no matter what I answer.

Tell me exactly why a relative moralist must do something.

The question is not must, it is 'why anyone should do something.' You're telling me I should not support slavery. Why?

I can give you a ton of personal reasons for why you should not support slavery, but I'm guessing that's not what you are looking for. So, the law. It's how society works. You want to stay on this patch of land, you follow these rules, which includes the ban on slavery.

Caring for your fellow man is a good way for a herd creature to survive. Not giving a crap about the people around you is a good way to make your genes go extinct within a decade.


You're claiming that 'caring for a fellow man' is 'good'. But what if 'enslaving my fellow man' gets a better result? Is that then 'good'?

The thing is, if it was good, I don't think you would have seen it as bad. Imagine if we were having the same debate only about eating meat. I'm guessing you are okay with eating meat, but an alternative you who grew up in an alternative society might feel equal horror to that as he does to slavery.

If slavery led to better results, we would probably both think slavery was completely okay, and would be debating another issue like artificial life or whatnot.

My point is, just like how the lottery winner asks himself "how come I won?" (somebody has to win), an evolving morality must have ended up in some way, and now you are asking "how come we got this exact morality?". If we got something else, you'd be asking the same.

Ok, but you're still avoiding my question. You're arguing that success dictates what is 'good' and 'bad'. Working together is 'good' because it is successful. So if genocide gives a more successful result, then is it 'good'?

If genocide was successful, you'd be in this thread asking me:

"If this so called 'working together' was more successful than our tactic of 'genocide against evil humans' then would it have been good?"

Can you explain how one arrives at value in atheism?

Nope. Atheism has no creed. Although I would be interested in how you arrive at value in Christianity.

If everything comes from nothing,

Atheism has no creed.

and goes to nothing,

Atheism has no creed.

I as a creature must give value to things. There is not intrinsic worth in random molecular actions. Therefore, one creature or culture could value genocide, just as another values fairness. Neither could be judged right or wrong.

Because if I did judge one of the societies as wrong, I'd be doing something wrong?

Again I think that you have political correctness and relative morals confused.

where it does not fit into this thread

It specifically fits in this thread because you're claiming either 1. Objectively, slavery is wrong, and the Bible supports it. 2. I think slavery is wrong, and the Bible supports it.

And if you prove that I have no foundation for objective morals then suddenly the Bible doesn't support it?

My question is entirely valid within the context of Christianity without the need to drag the world-view of the asker.

I have already given you my answer to the Biblical view of slavery. You disagree, and that's ok with me, because I've given you my proof. But you seem to be making a universal claim in simply stating that 'slavery is bad'. You need to either answer for that, or you can't.

That depends on what kind of question that is asked. If the Bible says that rape is wrong, and somebody in the Bible rapes and is praised for it, then it's entirely valid to ask what's going on, no matter what world-view the asker holds. I am not saying that atheism is better than Christianity, I am questioning internal working of Christianity and Christianity alone. This thread is not titled "Why atheism is better than Christianity", it's titled "The problem with Christian morality". No other world-views were supposed to be dragged in. I didn't want to have a battle of world-views, but to look up close on a single world-view with critical analysis. If I ever got derailed then I am truly sorry for that, because I hate it when that happens.

I would like some support for these accusations

My conclusions toward atheism follow this reasoning:
1. There is no God, living matter comes from non-living matter.

You could be an atheist and believe that life comes from spiritual angels. The only condition is that there is no God involved, thus, atheism.

It's like me thinking that Christianity and pro-gun is really the same thing. True, a lot of Christians are pro-gun, but there is no real connection other than popularity.

2. If living matter comes from nothing and ends in nothing, value in the middle of nothing is only what I as a creature assign to it.

I guess that's correct. But it's really no different from Christianity. in Christianity, value is merely what God decided has value. Why is God's decision more meaningful than the decision of some other being?

3. If I value fairness over slavery, and another values slavery over fairness, that is only a difference of opinion. There cannot be objective morality.
4. Therefore slavery cannot be wrong.

Here is where you burn yourself. There is no objective morality thus slavery cannot be objectively wrong. Well, duh!

However, I can say that I, and my society, see slavery as wrong, and we don't have any regard for what others think. What's the problem then?

Biblically, I reason as follows:
1. There is a God.
2. Looking at the evidence, I believe Christianity best defines that God.
3. The God of the Bible created humans with an objective morality imprinted in their consciousness. This accounts for judgments of good and evil.
4. This God has given us rules by which we should or should not act. People know these laws.
4. Therefore, slavery can be wrong.

You mean, slavery can be wrong according to God's opinion. Simply saying that he is God and thus decides isn't sound reasoning. Who decided that? God?

Unless you can better establish why God's opinion is the absolute opinion then your argument isn't made. I really wanted to argue this in another thread with you, but here we go.

Contradictions:
1. "What decided that spreading the genes is the thing that matters most in the world absolutely?" and then "Not giving a crap about the people around you is a good way to make your genes go extinct within a decade." and "Which race do you think will be the most successive after a million years? Which one do you think could populate the entire planet and fly to the moon?"

Not a contradiction. You are reading more into what I say that I actually say. Nowhere did I say that avoiding going extinct changes anything, or that it decides what is the absolute moral.

You are mixing up "what is" and "what should be" which are too different things.

Okay, stopping here. I've lost control over this post. When you reply, please do several posts at once which aims at different parts of our topic, or I simply won't be able to reply to it.

[meiday04]

I'll try to keep this shorter...

The fact remains that the slave owners had the right to beat the slaves, young or old, man or woman, and the Bible doesn't bother to condemn it.

You have yet to show proof of this. The text you cited deals with IF a man beats his slave. God is not urging his followers to keep slaves or beat them as they see fit. There are many times in the Bible where human culture does not follow God's laws. I have shown you verses where the beating of slaves and depriving them of basic human needs are condemned, such as verses 21:26-27, and 21:7-11. And where slaves and masters are defined as equals: Gal. 3:28, Eph. 6:8-9, Col. 3:11.
My argument is that even though people were committed to work for others for an extended period of time, slaves were seen as people with rights, and not just the material possessions of the owner.

There were mainly just Christians. This was a time where everyone was expected to be a 'Christian'. It doesn't mean they even practiced the religion or were even followers of Christ.

The Christians not supporting slavery were not following the Bible Show me a verse where the Bible commands the keeping of slaves.

Buddism does not... I live in Thailand. Buddhism creates classes of people. Not so much like Hinduism, but these classes of people have different values. I can walk outside my house right now and see people who are pretty much indentured servants, too poor to buy their way out of moving form place to place, living on the job site. Thailand is one of the worst countries for human trafficking and sex trade. But, I can only observe that this is a Buddhist nation with these things in it. Buddhism does not expound slave and sex trade. But it does create different classes and values of human beings, making these things easier to tolerate.

The Bible states that all humans are equal before God, not in relation to each other. I think everyone would need to recognize that some people have authority over others. But the Christian argument is that this does not make persons in authority more valuable than those under authority. God sees value in each individual.

But why couldn't God just make a command to not keep slaves? He could have. But was there benefit in the keeping of "slaves"? My argument is that there was mutual benefit for both the owner and the slave. The owner has men to do work, the slaves have a home and food. If they are treated unjustly, according to the laws we looked at, they would go free.

I want to move away from the other arguments, because it is getting off topic, and in some cases I just don't understand what you're talking about. I'll try to answer your questions head on.

Relative morality is in this context when you think morality is a construct of society. Ok. In your opinion, what we have as good and bad are a result of society. Although I don't understand your points about how atheists don't have to do things x and y and what not. Atheism is still bound by logical reasoning, was my point. That got a little out of hand, haha.

In one nation killing somebody is always wrong. In another nation it's okay if it's self defence. Does not this make your head explode? No. Can you give me an example of a nation where killing in self-defense will get you punished? This rather supports my idea of objective truth, because in both cases the killing of innocent life is prohibited.

When I say that slavery is wrong, or when I say that blue is pretty... These are my opinions. That's what I wanted to get to. How can you claim that that your opinion of 'slavery is bad' is superior. Is that based on success for the group alone, and not on the intrinsic badness of slavery?

An atheist cannot because atheism does not contain any creeds. your real question should be "How can a humanist conclude that slavery is wrong?". We can't play ball here if you're not willing to step up to the plate. I feel like you're hiding from the questions behind these definitions. Ok, so how can an atheist arrive at being a humanist?

I feel that it's wrong to do so in this thread. Well, I'm trying to make the point that, as an atheist, your argument that slavery is bad is only your opinion, which you already conceded. Within your own reasoning, you don't really have any grounds to say one opinion is better than another opinion. You offered that it is decided by the group, by culture. But it is still only opinion.

You want to stay on this patch of land, you follow these rules, which includes the ban on slavery. So is slavery only bad because a law says it is wrong? In other words, if the law said slavery was to be done in every household, would that be 'good'?

The thing is, if it was good, I don't think you would have seen it as bad. Here you're using 'good' objectively. Do you mean, it it was accepted, I wouldn't see it as bad? Because there was a time when it was accepted and practiced. Was it good then, and bad now?

Can you explain how one arrives at value in atheism? "Nope. Atheism has no creed." Unfortunately, that's not an answer. My question is simply: Can you explain how one arrives at value in atheism? As an atheist, I hope you can answer this one. I acknowledge that you aren't speaking for all atheists. But you are AN atheist. You can give me your belief.

Because if I did judge one of the societies as wrong, I'd be doing something wrong? No, If you judge, you need to have grounds for judging. What is that ground? Is it just opinion?

And if you prove that I have no foundation for objective morals then suddenly the Bible doesn't support it [slavery]? No, if I prove that you have no foundation for objective morality, you have no grounds with which to conclude your first argument, that slavery is bad. Your opinion and an opinion which supports slavery would be only opinion.

I am questioning internal working of Christianity and Christianity alone. Ok, and my argument against your view of slavery in the bible is above. No one ever gets praised for slavery. But you are assuming that everyone in this forum will have the idea that slavery is bad. You aren't arguing "I think blue is pretty, and Biblically blue isn't pretty." In effect, you're arguing using objective morality, and then turning around and denying that it exists. Could you explain?

You could be an atheist and believe that life comes from spiritual angels. The only condition is that there is no God involved, thus, atheism. That's an interesting view. Is this arrived at by just opinion, or what?

However, I can say that I, and my society, see slavery as wrong, and we don't have any regard for what others think. What's the problem then? Because I can say a different society sees slavery as right and wholesome, and there's no problem with that, because it comes down to opinion. I'm making the point that I see slavery as bad because people have value. You see slavery as bad because it just happens to be your opinion, or your culture's opinion. So when you when you judge that your opinion is better than a supposed Biblical view where slavery is supported, you're appealing to a objective moral standard.

Simply saying that he is God and thus decides isn't sound reasoning. God is the creator, and gives value to his creation. My point is, the grounds I have for judging actions as good or bad is based on the laws God has given me, and the intrinsic value of human life that God purports. You have only opinions of equal value.

As for your contradiction, you dodged my question by appealing to the fact that success isn't what dictates if an action is good and bad. Then only a few lines later you are appealing to that very claim. Seems like a contradiction to me.

Anyway, I'm hungry. Off to lunch!