quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman and Mr. Woolf:

It's a bit disconcerting to see you two rationalising away what is actually child sacrifice. Not surprising, but disconcerting. If you want to find an interpretation of this that you can fit into your christian framework, then fine, but any god that stands by while one of his worshippers sacrifices his daughter to him is in my opinion at least slightly morally suspect.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

He apparently didn't get the point of Abraham and Isaac.

And the point of Abraham and Isaac: do whatever your god demands of you, no matter how morally repugnant?

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman and Mr. Woolf:

It's a bit disconcerting to see you two rationalising away what is actually child sacrifice. Not surprising, but disconcerting. If you want to find an interpretation of this that you can fit into your christian framework, then fine, but any god that stands by while one of his worshippers sacrifices his daughter to him is in my opinion at least slightly morally suspect.

I don't think so: God always keeps His side of the bargain, so why should He expect that we should shy away from the consequences of covenants which we propose?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

I don't think so: God always keeps His side of the bargain, so why should He expect that we should shy away from the consequences of covenants which we propose?

So keeping your promise to god is more important than not killing your daughter?

Thanks, but I think I made the right decision giving up this christianity malarkey.

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

My point was that if everyone was allowed to say what is right and wrong, then there would be little consensus, so it's very handy to have a greater authority which makes up rules for us.

I absolutely understood that this was your point. It would indeed be very handy to have an objective authority which makes up the rules. My point was that the objective authority you were proposing has singularly failed to provide the rules on these two subjects.

I think that the answers which I gave should cover it?
Like "Don't smoke" and "Don't try to sh@g anything unless it's an adult of the opposite gender.": Or, the concept as expanded upon by Jesus....Don't even think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

By your own admission, points 2) and 3) are of no value.

So the main point is that if I promise something rashly to god, he's quite happy to stand by while innocent bystanders are sacrificed to him in order to fulfil the promise?

And then he'll just shrug his shoulders and say, "well, not my fault - you're the one who promised!".

What would god have said if Jephtha had said, "hang on a mo, it's my daughter, god, clearly you're not expecting me to sacrifice her?"

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

I don't think so: God always keeps His side of the bargain, so why should He expect that we should shy away from the consequences of covenants which we propose?

So keeping your promise to god is more important than not killing your daughter?

Thanks, but I think I made the right decision giving up this christianity malarkey.

You're looking at the wrong difference. Jephthah was the only sinner in this story.
If God had allowed Jeph to back out of the deal which he had proposed, it would have portrayed God as a welcher, which He is not.
God always keeps His covenants.
Which is a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I can't see that God ever destroyed anyone who hadn't done something to deserve it.

A bunch of kids calling someone 'baldy', yeh that deserves death doesn't it?

Obviously it does.

It does seem pretty clear what you are saying, but just for the avoidance of doubt, you think it is morally correct for a group of children to be mauled to death by a bear for calling someone bald?

quote:

Why don't you try visiting Baghdad and shouting towel head, and see how long you last.

This is the yardstick by which you judge morality is it, what happens in Baghdad?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

I think that the answers which I gave should cover it?
Like "Don't smoke" and "Don't try to sh@g anything unless it's an adult of the opposite gender.": Or, the concept as expanded upon by Jesus....Don't even think about it.

OK, I can see where you're going, and I have some sympathy, but you're claiming that there is an objective morality for us which takes away the problem.

However, this objective morality doesn't contain a clear set of rules covering every eventuality. It's ambiguous, and requires human intervention. So it's clearly then not objective any more.

Also, I bet I can point out something in biblical morality that is completely counter to your own morality. Want to take on the challenge?

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

However, this objective morality doesn't contain a clear set of rules covering every eventuality. It's ambiguous, and requires human intervention. So it's clearly then not objective any more.

Also, I bet I can point out something in biblical morality that is completely counter to your own morality. Want to take on the challenge?

Well, I don't doubt that you could find many such a moral dilemma, but go on, anyway.

Regarding the "rules don't cover every eventuality" gambit, I would have to say that I'd be astounded if they did.
Like the p@edo taking pictures of minors. The Hebrews would be scratching their heads saying "What's a photograph?"
Yet others would be saying, "Hey, I'd never of thought of that for a perversion before: I'm gonna try it"
The laws of the realm today would fill paper far beyond the volume of the Bible, and still there are glaring omissions which turn up day by day.
Do you not agree that to provide rules for every eventuality would be practically impossible? There has to be room for extrapolation? Shirley?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I can't see that God ever destroyed anyone who hadn't done something to deserve it.

A bunch of kids calling someone 'baldy', yeh that deserves death doesn't it?

Obviously it does.

It does seem pretty clear what you are saying, but just for the avoidance of doubt, you think it is morally correct for a group of children to be mauled to death by a bear for calling someone bald?

We've been here before, Free Thinker. I tell you what I really think, and you become so affronted by my attitude that you report me to Big Brother and get me banned. Anyways, here goes: I think it is perfectly right and proper that if some little thugs go hurling abuse at a messenger of God, that they should be mauled to death by a bear with sharp claws and big pointy teeth. Call me old fashioned, but we'll never do any good in this country until they bring back the birch.

quote:

Why don't you try visiting Baghdad and shouting towel head, and see how long you last.

This is the yardstick by which you judge morality is it, what happens in Baghdad?

No, my yardstick of morality is the Bible: It seems to me that the gresater part of the earth today is awash with immorality: Particularly so the western world, which has been so blessed by God, and yet rejects Him so carelssly.

quote:

Originally posted by Chairman Al:
Faith with rules is organised religion.

Do some faiths create rules because they really think they are meaningful in a spiritual way or are they created in order to give substance to intangible concept?

Is it really necessary from a spiritual point of view to ban eating pork, to fast on certain days or to eat fish on friday? Or is it because it creates an identity because without an identity it is impossible to exist?

Organised religion are just legal cults.

Soooooooooooot this is where you hide then Al

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf: I
think it is perfectly right and proper that if some little thugs go hurling abuse at a messenger of God, that they should be mauled to death by a bear with sharp claws and big pointy teeth.

You've got to admit he's consistent.

RS, is there any part of you that rebels against this? Any part at all that doubts that this is an appropriate moral stance?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

Do you not agree that to provide rules for every eventuality would be practically impossible? There has to be room for extrapolation? Shirley?

Of course I agree with this. What it means is that your claims for an objective morality within the bible are absurd. Shirley you can see this?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

Well, I don't doubt that you could find many such a moral dilemma, but go on, anyway.

OK. Would you have fought against Hitler in the second world war?

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman and Mr. Woolf:

It's a bit disconcerting to see you two rationalising away what is actually child sacrifice. Not surprising, but disconcerting. If you want to find an interpretation of this that you can fit into your christian framework, then fine, but any god that stands by while one of his worshippers sacrifices his daughter to him is in my opinion at least slightly morally suspect.

Well firstly it was not my intention to try and rationalise away anything; I was just pointing out some problems with your somewhat superficial presentation of the story.

Unfortunately the problem atheists and reductive materialists have when we begin talking about morality is that without any objective morality then it is by definition subjective and as such any 'look at that isn't that terrible' statements are pointless. As an atheist you are simply not in a position to question anyone's morality.

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

Well, I don't doubt that you could find many such a moral dilemma, but go on, anyway.

OK. Would you have fought against Hitler in the second world war?

That's an easy one: I would have been a consciencious objector.

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

Do you not agree that to provide rules for every eventuality would be practically impossible? There has to be room for extrapolation? Shirley?

Of course I agree with this. What it means is that your claims for an objective morality within the bible are absurd. Shirley you can see this?

Hmmm. Sorry: No

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf: I
think it is perfectly right and proper that if some little thugs go hurling abuse at a messenger of God, that they should be mauled to death by a bear with sharp claws and big pointy teeth.

You've got to admit he's consistent.

RS, is there any part of you that rebels against this? Any part at all that doubts that this is an appropriate moral stance?

No, not really. Although I'm perhaps starting to notice that some people think that maybe my position on some of these matters is a little unusual, though?
I don't believe that I'm a bigot, as such, but I really can't see how anyone could fail to understand my position in these matters.
Perhaps it's a form of extreme pragmatism?
Although it seems middle of the road to me.
Do you think it might be the Asperger's?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

That's an easy one: I would have been a consciencious objector.

OK, you've surprised me. You would birch children but not wield a gun against Hitler. It's pointless proceeding any further down this route, I feel.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

To be honest, RS, I find your moral framework personally repugnant, however I have a great respect for your consistency and integrity. You've taken your assumptions to their logical conclusion, which makes it very difficult to argue with you.

The christians that you can argue with are those that have a set of assumptions which they then apologise for, because it's a house of cards.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

Let's get this straight. Atheists are not even allowed to talk about morals?