This issue of objective morality...

The way I see it, its either God defines morality or he doesn't. If he does not define morality, then objective morality can exist without God.

Where morality is defined by God, he is not bound by it anymore than man is bound by a man defined morality. In other words, such a morality is not absolute since it is not binding on God.

For example, if it so happened that there were two true Gods of equal power (something like the holy trinity), and they both happened to have differing morals, would the moral laws of the one be binding on the other?

I don't think so.

As far as God has to define morality for us, such a morality seems subjective to me. I may have the issue upside down tho.

thehomer:


This means that the Christian God is immoral since he ordered the murder of infants and the rape of people.

If God is the standard of morality, how can he be immoral, the meter stick can never not be the meter stick ....for the fact you said God commanded rape, my time will be wasted talking to you.

PastorAIO:


9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Psalm 137

I'm sure you had an education, but who knows, anyway if you did and you took an English class, I'm sure you were taught how to read in context. there are so many resources online you could to your personal benefit.

tevinsolt:

I'm sure you had an education, but who knows, anyway if you did and you took an English class, I'm sure you were taught how to read in context. there are so many resources online you could to your personal benefit.

I totally apologise. Indeed, you said 'torturing a baby for fun ...' is immoral. The psalm does not say it is done for fun. Torturing a baby for another reason apart from fun is perfectly okay.

tevinsolt:

If God is the standard of morality, how can he be immoral, the meter stick can never not be the meter stick ....for the fact you said God commanded rape, my time will be wasted talking to you.

The fact is that your God is not the standard of morality. If he were, he won't have had to change any of his previous laws.
I notice that you didn't object to my pointing out the fact that your God commanded the murder of infants. Would I be right in concluding that he did command the murder of infants? It is also a fact that your God commanded rape. Rather than just rage quitting, you can ask me how I know and I'll happily show you from your Bible.

tevinsolt:

I'm sure you had an education, but who knows, anyway if you did and you took an English class, I'm sure you were taught how to read in context. there are so many resources online you could to your personal benefit.

In what context would that passage be acceptable to you? Please go ahead and put it in context.

PastorAIO:


I totally apologise. Indeed, you said 'torturing a baby for fun ...' is immoral. The psalm does not say it is done for fun. Torturing a baby for another reason apart from fun is perfectly okay.

Apology accepted, let's get in context shall we? the psalmist and is people were in captivity being tortured and taunted by the Babylonians, Historically the culture of revenge was prevalent back then but this didn't mean God approved of it, the psalmist was calling for the same measure of action against their captors.

thehomer:


In what context would that passage be acceptable to you? Please go ahead and put it in context.

Umm in the context of an oppressed man in captivity calling for retaliation against their captors?

But if there's no God (which I assume is the view you hold) and ultimately there's no purpose to life what's wrong with it?

thehomer:


The fact is that your God is not the standard of morality. If he were, he won't have had to change any of his previous laws.
I notice that you didn't object to my pointing out the fact that your God commanded the murder of infants. Would I be right in concluding that he did command the murder of infants? It is also a fact that your God commanded rape. Rather than just rage quitting, you can ask me how I know and I'll happily show you from your Bible.

I don't know what previous laws you're talking about. the same moral laws in the old testament are repeated in the new testament. God commanded the Canaanites to be killed, why they were sacrificing their babies, after series of warnings they kept at it, and God brought judgement on them. According to you if God is not the standard of Morality then isn't it Just survival of the fittest in an unguided world? so where do you get off saying it is immoral?

tevinsolt:

Apology accepted, let's get in context shall we? the psalmist and is people were in captivity being tortured and taunted by the Babylonians, Historically the culture of revenge was prevalent back then but this didn't mean God approved of it, the psalmist was calling for the same measure of action against their captors.

I do not recall any record of the Babylonians torturing the Israelites. Please can you point me to your sources.

From what the psalm says they were weeping because of homesickness. Nobody was torturing them. Plus, according to historical records, as far as I'm aware, Babylonians didn't torture or taunt their captives.

If it is a matter of revenge then the psalmist should seek to inflict homesickness on babylonians in return, not smash their babies heads against rocks.


We'll leave the fact that, according to the bible, the captivity of Israel was actually Yahweh's doing to punish them for not listening to him. If they want vengeance surely they should turn their vexations towards Yahweh.

No, let's leave that and stick with the issue at hand that we are discussing. Namely, Objective Morality.

You said:

tevinsolt:
there's never a time the murder of someone is right or the rape of someone is right, in the absolute sense of it rape is wrong, regardless of anyone's opinion.

and:

If God does not exist then objective moral principles and obligations do not exist. Morality would only be a matter of individual or cultural opinion. But this would mean that torturing babies for fun, rape, & child abuse are not really objectively wrong, and are only a matter of opinion.

First you say that it is objective that torturing babies is wrong. Then when I show you that it is condoned in the bible you say that context matters.

Are you now saying that torturing babies is not objectively wrong in the context of being forced away from home and feeling homesick?

PastorAIO:


I do not recall any record of the Babylonians torturing the Israelites. Please can you point me to your sources.

From what the psalm says they were weeping because of homesickness. Nobody was torturing them. Plus, according to historical records, as far as I'm aware, Babylonians didn't torture or taunt their captives.

If it is a matter of revenge then the psalmist should seek to inflict homesickness on babylonians in return, not smash their babies heads against rocks.


We'll leave the fact that, according to the bible, the captivity of Israel was actually Yahweh's doing to punish them for not listening to him. If they want vengeance surely they should turn their vexations towards Yahweh.

No, let's leave that and stick with the issue at hand that we are discussing. Namely, Objective Morality.

You said:

and:


First you say that it is objective that torturing babies is wrong. Then when I show you that it is condoned in the bible you say that context matters.

Are you now saying that torturing babies is not objectively wrong in the context of being forced away from home and feeling homesick?

If i get you right, captivity is not torture, no they were just removed from their land to be given a fair shot at realizing the Babylonian dream!
let us address the comprehension troubles we're having here. Writing about something doesn't necessarily mean, the writer condones it. If I decide to write about "rape", it doesn't mean I condone it, I'm just shedding light on it. You see this is the difference between you and I, I see this in the bible and I think they have the embarrassing stuff in there too not just the good stuff, which makes it even more credible because it doesn't portray the authors as perfect, but humans just like any other in need of God's grace and mercy.

tevinsolt:


Umm in the context of an oppressed man in captivity calling for retaliation against their captors?

So in retaliation, people should be happy to kill their children by bashing their heads in? Is this the sort of cry that you Christians would make?

tevinsolt:

But if there's no God (which I assume is the view you hold) and ultimately there's no purpose to life what's wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is bashing the heads of children in till they die. Or don't you think there's anything wrong with this?

tevinsolt:


I don't know what previous laws you're talking about. the same moral laws in the old testament are repeated in the new testament.

Laws like people not working on the Sabbath or they get killed, not mixing garments, not eating certain foods and many other laws. Is the Sabbath law a moral law? I ask because people were killed for working on the Sabbath.

tevinsolt:

God commanded the Canaanites to be killed, why they were sacrificing their babies, after series of warnings they kept at it, and God brought judgement on them.

How does this then make it right for this same God to order the killing of their children and infants? How does it make it right for him to order that the female virgins be kept as "spoils of war"?

tevinsolt:

According to you if God is not the standard of Morality then isn't it Just survival of the fittest in an unguided world? so where do you get off saying it is immoral?

I get off saying it is immoral because it is immoral to order the killing of innocent children. It is immoral to order the rape of women. Do you think that ordering the killing of innocent children is moral or immoral? Is ordering the rape of women is moral or immoral?
What do you think survival of the fittest refers to? And how is that relevant here?

tevinsolt:


If i get you right, captivity is not torture, no they were just removed from their land to be given a fair shot at realizing the Babylonian dream!
let us address the comprehension troubles we're having here. Writing about something doesn't necessarily mean, the writer condones it. If I decide to write about "rape", it doesn't mean I condone it, I'm just shedding light on it. You see this is the difference between you and I, I see this in the bible and I think they have the embarrassing stuff in there too not just the good stuff, which makes it even more credible because it doesn't portray the authors as perfect, but humans just like any other in need of God's grace and mercy.

torture
ˈtɔːtʃə/
noun
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.
"the torture of political prisoners"

captivity
kapˈtɪvɪti/
noun
the condition of being imprisoned or confined.
"he was released after 865 days in captivity"
synonyms: imprisonment, confinement, internment, incarceration, custody, detention, restraint, constraint, committal, arrest

you can be captured and not feel any pain. You can be tortured and yet not be in custody. captivity does not equal torture.

they were just removed from their land to be given a fair shot at realizing the Babylonian dream!

When the captivity ended how many Jews returned to Israel?

Why did more Jews remain in the diaspora than existed in Israel itself?

It just so happens that you are right. They were given a fair shot at realizing hte babylonian dream. First of all it was not all of the jews but only the Nobility, the educated and the highly skilled workers that removed to babylon. They were brought to babylon to practice their skills in the service of Babylon with ample reward for their efforts. Some of them even rose to become the highest officials in the land, like in the story of Daniel.

If I decide to write about "rape", it doesn't mean I condone it, I'm just shedding light on it.

So when you shed light on torturing babies you came to the conclusion, without condoning it, that the person who does so will be happy.


O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;
happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

it doesn't portray the authors as perfect, but humans just like any other in need of God's grace and mercy.

I agree with you. At least you are not one of those clowns that consider the bible to be God's own words given to us via prophets.

PastorAIO:





you can be captured and not feel any pain. You can be tortured and yet not be in custody. captivity does not equal torture.



When the captivity ended how many Jews returned to Israel?

Why did more Jews remain in the diaspora than existed in Israel itself?

It just so happens that you are right. They were given a fair shot at realizing hte babylonian dream. First of all it was not all of the jews but only the Nobility, the educated and the highly skilled workers that removed to babylon. They were brought to babylon to practice their skills in the service of Babylon with ample reward for their efforts. Some of them even rose to become the highest officials in the land, like in the story of Daniel.


So when you shed light on torturing babies you came to the conclusion, without condoning it, that the person who does so will be happy.


O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;
happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.





I agree with you. At least you are not one of those clowns that consider the bible to be God's own words given to us via prophets.

Israel was taken captivity not just once but many times over after series of rebellion by Hebrews. I mean it is bizarre, why rebel when they were being done huge favors by those wonderful Babylonians, who stripped them of their land and culture. Why haven't African Americans returned back to Africa, where their ancestors were taken as slaves? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) I think you should educate yourself more, use that link.

writing about something doesn't equate approval. context is important friend and any Historians will tell you there are different literal styles in the bible.

thehomer:


Laws like people not working on the Sabbath or they get killed, not mixing garments, not eating certain foods and many other laws. Is the Sabbath law a moral law? I ask because people were killed for working on the Sabbath.



How does this then make it right for this same God to order the killing of their children and infants? How does it make it right for him to order that the female virgins be kept as "spoils of war"?



I get off saying it is immoral because it is immoral to order the killing of innocent children. It is immoral to order the rape of women. Do you think that ordering the killing of innocent children is moral or immoral? Is ordering the rape of women is moral or immoral?
What do you think survival of the fittest refers to? And how is that relevant here?

Still you haven't shown me, or quote where it says God approves of rape. It'll be moral, because first of all he gave the life, and decides when to take it back, second the babies won't go through life as orphans, third prevents the kids from eventually following the path of their progenitors and as a result attacking the Israelite. Which actually did happen because King Saul didn't do as God asked of him.

If there's no God, then can you explain why it is immoral to kill babies, then I will explain why I said "it is the survival of the fittest in an unguided world"

tevinsolt:


Israel was taken captivity not just once but many times over after series of rebellion by Hebrews. I mean it is bizarre, why rebel when they were being done huge favors by those wonderful Babylonians, who stripped them of their land and culture. Why haven't African Americans returned back to Africa, where their ancestors were taken as slaves? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) I think you should educate yourself more, use that link.

writing about something doesn't equate approval. context is important friend and any Historians will tell you there are different literal styles in the bible.

Okay, things are starting to make sense. You've 'educated' yourself by using that link. Now I know that your 'education' comes from gotquestionsdotcom I'll know how to proceed.

I never said that babylon attacked Judah just once. Please try to think. The creme de la creme of Judah were taken to captivity. The remnants were left. It was those that were left in Judah that rebelled and were attacked again. It wasn't the jews in captivity.

Let me say that again slowly. Please read it very slowly.

1) There were some jews taken in captivity. They were treated very well but they often got homesick.

2)There were some Jews left behind. They stupidly decided to rebel again in spite of Jeremiah's repeated warnings.

The Jews in Judah did not rebel due to the condition of their upper class in babylon.


So when you say they rebelled cos the babylonians stripped them of their land and culture you are totally and utterly WRONG!!

Even gotquestion doesn't support you on that one, that is if you actually read the gotquestiondotcom.

Why haven't African Americans returned back to Africa, where their ancestors were taken as slaves?

Actually they have. And guess what. In liberia where many of them went back to, they kept their US passports!!
any small yawa like this and those guys run back to the US.

After the captivity they had to beg many of those jews to go back to Judah. They didn't want to leave. They were enjoying life in what was at the time the greatest civilisation in the known world.

context is important friend and any Historians will tell you there are different literal styles in the bible.

Someone asked you already, what is the context? Ansa na!?

PastorAIO:


Okay, things are starting to make sense. You've 'educated' yourself by using that link. Now I know that your 'education' comes from gotquestionsdotcom I'll know how to proceed.

I never said that babylon attacked Judah just once. Please try to think. The creme de la creme of Judah were taken to captivity. The remnants were left. It was those that were left in Judah that rebelled and were attacked again. It wasn't the jews in captivity.

Let me say that again slowly. Please read it very slowly.

1) There were some jews taken in captivity. They were treated very well but they often got homesick.

2)There were some Jews left behind. They stupidly decided to rebel again in spite of Jeremiah's repeated warnings.

The Jews in Judah did not rebel due to the condition of their upper class in babylon.


So when you say they rebelled cos the babylonians stripped them of their land and culture you are totally and utterly WRONG!!

Even gotquestion doesn't support you on that one, that is if you actually read the gotquestiondotcom.




Actually they have. And guess what. In liberia where many of them went back to, they kept their US passports!!
any small yawa like this and those guys run back to the US.

After the captivity they had to beg many of those jews to go back to Judah. They didn't want to leave. They were enjoying life in what was at the time the greatest civilisation in the known world.

Someone asked you already, what is the context? Ansa na!?

only few left for Liberia, but most stayed because for 400 years their ancestors have settled in the land, moving back to a land totally strange and different in culture is probably not the first choice of action. It didn't mean they had it rosy, it didn't mean they did not fight to gain freedom, and it wasn't all blacks that were slaves, those up North were freemen and some rose to be quite wealthy even in the slavery ridden south, but according to history most blacks were going through hell. the captivity of Israel where skilled men were taken to SERVE under the king was after prior captivities and former of others.

tevinsolt:


only few left for Liberia, but most stayed because for 400 years their ancestors have settled in the land, moving back to a land totally strange and different in culture is probably not the first choice of action. It didn't mean they had it rosy, it didn't mean they did not fight to gain freedom, and it wasn't all blacks that were slaves, those up North were freemen and some rose to be quite wealthy even in the slavery ridden south, but according to history most blacks were going through hell. the captivity of Israel where skilled men were taken to SERVE under the king was after prior captivities and former of others.

What's your point?

You can't compare african slaves in US to Jewish captives in Babylon.

For a start Babylonian captivity only lasted about 70 years.

Why didn't they return home?

And please if you're going to make any historical claims you'll need to back it up with evidence.

@tevinsolt. I understand that you may have a lot on your plate right now, but I'd love to hear your take on this.

undercat:
This issue of objective morality...

The way I see it, its either God defines morality or he doesn't. If he does not define morality, then objective morality can exist without God.

Where morality is defined by God, he is not bound by it anymore than man is bound by a man defined morality. In other words, such a morality is not absolute since it is not binding on God.

For example, if it so happened that there were two true Gods of equal power (something like the holy trinity), and they both happened to have differing morals, would the moral laws of the one be binding on the other?

I don't think so.

As far as God has to define morality for us, such a morality seems subjective to me. I may have the issue upside down tho.

PastorAIO:


What's your point?

You can't compare african slaves in US to Jewish captives in Babylon.

For a start Babylonian captivity only lasted about 70 years.

Why didn't they return home?

And please if you're going to make any historical claims you'll need to back it up with evidence.

what historical claims? you mean about blacks, well my evidence is, I was taught in global history in high school.
and the funny thing is many blacks do think they're Hebrews in captivity, well they're delusional, that's what captivity does to someone and their offspring

Historicity is not the main point here, why do you think killing of babies is immoral?

undercat:
@tevinsolt. I understand that you may have a lot on your plate right now, but I'd love to hear your take on this.

Morality is embodiment of God's character. God is good, holy, omniscient just and so on but these are the ones that pertain to morality. what we are expected by God to morally carry out is what God himself can never break. subjective morality would be looking a murderer in the face and saying "from my perspective you are wrong, but i understand that in your perspective you are right" in that case there's no such thing as right or wrong. Because if there's no God, then human life is not any more valuable than any other life or substance found in the universe, so killing, cheating or any other actions we consider bad when done to further your endeavors is neither wrong nor right, it's just what it is. Survival of the fittest.

tevinsolt:


Still you haven't shown me, or quote where it says God approves of rape.

You never asked me to show it to you. If I showed it to you, will you accept that your God is immoral?

tevinsolt:

It'll be moral, because first of all he gave the life, and decides when to take it back,

Firstly, I disagree with the claim that your God gave anyone life. Secondly even if your God did give life, it still doesn't give your God the right to order others to do this killing. Why doesn't he simply kill these people by lighting strikes rather than forcing people to be murderers? Thirdly, this makes your God arbitrary or immoral rather than just.

tevinsolt:

second the babies won't go through life as orphans,

In that case, why not kill all orphans?

tevinsolt:

third prevents the kids from eventually following the path of their progenitors and as a result attacking the Israelite. Which actually did happen because King Saul didn't do as God asked of him.

So it is now moral to pre-emptively kill children because they may do something wrong? Frankly, this means that your God is not even as moral as the law which doesn't allow you to kill people before they've committed a crime.

tevinsolt:

If there's no God, then can you explain why it is immoral to kill babies, then I will explain why I said "it is the survival of the fittest in an unguided world"

It is immoral to kill babies because babies haven't done anything wrong to warrant their murder. Please go ahead with your explanation.

You never explained whether or not the Sabbath law is a moral law.

tevinsolt:


Morality is embodiment of God's character. God is good, holy, omniscient just and so on but these are the ones that pertain to morality. what we are expected by God to morally carry out is what God himself can never break. subjective morality would be looking a murderer in the face and saying "from my perspective you are wrong, but i understand that in your perspective you are right" in that case there's no such thing as right or wrong. Because if there's no God, then human life is not any more valuable than any other life or substance found in the universe, so killing, cheating or any other actions we consider bad when done to further your endeavors is neither wrong nor right, it's just what it is. Survival of the fittest.

So God defines morality and He is bound by it.

Is He bound by it the same way man is? What do you say would happen to God if He pays no heed to a moral law?

I don't imagine there would be any consequences.

tevinsolt:


Morality by definition is an idea that upholds the worth and dignity of humans. immorality is opposite, you can't have one be the other that's a contradiction. there's never a time the murder of someone is right or the rape of someone is right, in the absolute sense of it rape is wrong, regardless of anyone's opinion.

Have you read the bible?

Even though we contest whether God exists or not, and whether he is the anchor for morality; let us agree on what exactly 'objective morality' is:

1. All acts have an inherent moral value, by which on account of this, it is judged. And God loves good acts by this standard.

2. All acts are neutral and required a value allocation by some authority namely God. The absence of this authority is the absence of morality.

undercat:


So God defines morality and He is bound by it.

Is He bound by it the same way man is? What do you say would happen to God if He pays no heed to a moral law?

I don't imagine there would be any consequences.

If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

Weah96:


Have you read the bible?

yes, have you?

tevinsolt:


If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

This doesn't actually address the question.

PastorAIO:


9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Psalm 137

nice south-paw comeback

tevinsolt:


what historical claims? you mean about blacks, well my evidence is, I was taught in global history in high school.
and the funny thing is many blacks do think they're Hebrews in captivity, well they're delusional, that's what captivity does to someone and their offspring

Historicity is not the main point here, why do you think killing of babies is immoral?

I never said that I thought killing of babies is immoral. However it is a generally held opinion. Furthermore, in many places in the bible Murder is condemned. Even though in just as many other places the bible condones murder.

It is a general opinion in societies around that world that taking a life is wrong. A)most people don't want to die so their lives would be taken against their will. B) It will cause immense suffering for their loved ones who will miss them. That's not good. C) Humans have an inborn instinct to protect the youngest of their species. to kill a baby would be violating this instinct. ......

Are we having this debate again? I addressed this on the other thread.

Are you people saying you approve of pharaoh killing the hebrew babies and likewise herod killing toddlers?

You make no sound about these examples but are constantly squawking like witches over verses you twist for your evil agenda?

Fear God

If you are killed first by the person you meant to kill, then take it as your destiny. The bible says you don't enter a strong man's house if you are not ready to die.