Wait a bit. While a good post with interesting points, is the list you posted more of a “social” or codes associated with established societies and not directly related to one’s own personal conduct?
Let me think about this a while.
Societal norms and codified behaviors seem different than personal moral conduct.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Wait a bit. While a good post with interesting points, is the list you posted more of a “social” or codes associated with established societies and not directly related to one’s own personal conduct?
Let me think about this a while.
Societal norms and codified behaviors seem different than personal moral conduct.
TF,
That's a valid question.
The list is about PERSONAL moral values. As an example, some people may have personal moral values that promote the general welfare of the society, because if the society fails, well, that's bad for all of us. Other's may have a personal moral value hierarchy that emphasizes values focused on the individual.
Liberals might be focuses on the plight of the poor illegal immigrants as individuals, while conservatives may be more concerned about crime and disease they bring, along with how it's unfair they consume more tax money than they pay in.
So think of it as six variable through which people can view moral issues at both the micro and macro level.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Wait a bit. While a good post with interesting points, is the list you posted more of a “social” or codes associated with established societies and not directly related to one’s own personal conduct?
Let me think about this a while.
Societal norms and codified behaviors seem different than personal moral conduct.
TF,
That's a valid question.
The list is about PERSONAL moral values. As an example, some people may have personal moral values that promote the general welfare of the society, because if the society fails, well, that's bad for all of us. Other's may have a personal moral value hierarchy that emphasizes values focused on the individual.
Liberals might be focuses on the plight of the poor illegal immigrants as individuals, while conservatives may be more concerned about crime and disease they bring, along with how it's unfair they consume more tax money than they pay in.
So think of it as six variable through which people can view moral issues at both the micro and macro level.
Well, I’ve got to cogitate some more and life is busy back east so I have to be gone for awhile.
Still seems like ethics as taught by a society and their norms and is different from how a moral or immoral person may behave.
One would think that a person with “ethics” would behave consistent with the norms, but when somehow challenged on a very personal level, may make an immoral judgment or take immoral or unethical action.
Morals and societal ethics seem different to me.....
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
Easy.......summed up. Not sure if I’m a ‘skeptic’ or not, though you’d likely classify me as such. 1) Courage 2) Truth 3) Honour 4) Fidelity 5) Discipline 6) Hospitality 7) Industriousness 8) Self Reliance 9) Perseverance
Qualities most often found in the progressive lieberal movement?
I do applaud you, but dont ask me to belive those are more than rare in todays progressive culture. Much more common is the "If it feels good, do it" and "Do unto others before they do it to you".
Your platitudes are hardly applicable to most of those in the dimocrap camp of our govt.
Last edited by jaguartx; 07/11/19.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Once again. It is not my moral standards that are under question. It is the moral standards of the bible that are under question. Your trying to impose your own conditions onto me as way of deflection from the actual issues.
Do you really mean to say that if I don't provide a description of my own moral standards there are no contradictions in the bible?
That is not an argument. It's ludicrous.
That there are problems in the bible is undeniable. For example;
If God is good to all and his tender mercies are all of his works;
''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9
Yet God has a man killed for gathering sticks on a Sabbath;
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36:
God is clearly not good to all and has shown no mercy toward what to us as mere humans would call a trivial offense. Certainly not a Capital Crime.
We have;
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offense.
This is an excellent post to use as an example of a skeptic moralizing from their own arbitrary standards. Rather than even trying to understand the texts within their contexts an outside morality is inserted which makes moral judgments without stating the moral law which is the basis of that judgment. I have been noting this regularly with others, but you have done it a few more times here which helps illustrate the point being made.
Now let's look at these texts.
The sabbath was established as part of the order of creation--a fundamental part of the original law and order for the moral code of man. Gen.2:2,3 God knew that man needed to be in relationship with Him in order for the world to perform as He intended. He sanctified that 7th day and asked that it be observed for physical rest and spiritual focus. This was essential for the creation order and the well being of man. Man needed to recognize the existence of God, the fact that he is the servant of God, and that he also needs physical rest. The laws of the 10 commandments did not ordain the sabbath, rather it reinforced the sabbath by saying "remember" the Sabbath day to keep it holy." So the order of keeping the Sabbath holy from the very beginning is part of the first moral code of conduct.
This is where personal morals come into play because atheists or agnostics typically cannot see any value in remembering God or in keeping any day holy for Him. With all the moral law flowing from God, the moral lawgiver; keeping God in view was essential to preserving God's moral law. Therefore the Sabbath was the first and highest ordinance of honor to God. A violation of the sabbath was a deliberate act of profanation against God and a rebellion against His moral law. The violation of it is not about picking up sticks per se, it is about defiance against God, and God's law, and all that both of them stand for. Its picking the one day that God has sanctified using that day to express open defiance against Him, His law, and the order of His people. Let this go unpunished, or even trivialized, and the sabbath ordinance will cease and man will drift away from God and His laws.
In a more practical sense the whole concept of a 7 day week comes from this ordinance and the concept of 1 day off in 7 for rest and spiritual focus. Simply dropping the Lord's day (1st day in 7 according to the new creation by Christ) and treating it like any other day will eventually degrade our spiritual priorities and focus and undermine everything sacred and holy.The Jews, their families, their servants, and their livestock all rested on the 7th day.
When you have this proper understanding of the sabbath (and you can verify this with traditional Judaism) you can easily understand why the gathering of sticks was a capital offense--because it was a deliberate act of rebellion and profanation against God, His laws, and the spiritual welfare of His people.
The capital punishment was a beneficent act of mercy because it shielded the rest of the people from contemplating a similar action. The punishment maintained the sanctity of the people and preserved their faith and the ordinance which would help maintain their relationship with God and His moral law.
So to the Jew, even the corporal punishments of their law were just acts of mercy which shielded the rest of the people from the degradation of their society. The offenders knew when they made a rebellious choice that consequences were likely to be swift and deadly if they were caught.
But again, if you do not have the same moral background or respect for God and His laws you will never understand how the mercy and grace of God were manifested in justice. The same authors who extolled the mercy of God were the same ones who said they loved the law of the Lord. Catching an offender and executing corporal punishment was viewed as a cleansing from rebellion and moral decline. There is absolutely no tension in these passages when they are understood within the context of the Jewish faith--they see perfect harmony.
So when you reject this explanation -- remember you are doing so on the basis of your own morality and are doing so because you also would consider it a trivial thing to despise God and His laws.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible.
And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein".
What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals.
But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement.
The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness.
The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law.
An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.
I'm looking at two things: 1. If a person does not believe in any morals or have any moral code of conduct they are not qualified to judge morality because their amoral prejudice will likely pervert their moral judgment because they have already rejected the value of any moral standards and that discussion will be pointless. They will focused on seeing contradictions and will not be open to reconciliations. 2. I'm also asking for their proposed standard of moral measurement by which we will judge the Bible--whether that is personal, corporate, Hammurabi's or Buddha's. We need to fairly declare that standard before we engage in any more moral analysis.Not having that in place will again be a fruitless exercise because someone will likely invent their rules of logic and moral standards as we go.
Why am I insisting on this? We have pages which have already demonstrated that this is how it has already gone. We dealt with alleged contradictions, some of which a young teenager with a little common sense could have figured out and seen they were not contradictions at all ... and then they get repeated again. When I see this happen I can only assume someone is not looking for a profitable discourse or even answers, but is looking to obfuscate.
I am ready to take this forward into more detail if a skeptic or the group is willing to engage with all of the moral benchmark data on the table. Mine is already there and I am waiting.
Thunderstick:
Here's the six moral foundations that make up moral systems:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
Here's a couple of video's discussing how liberals, conservatives, and libertarian order these differently:
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
Here's the six moral foundations that make up moral systems:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
Here's a couple of video's discussing how liberals, conservatives, and libertarian order these differently:
I am done for tonight but this is a very good basis to speak from. Tomorrow as time allows I will try to go through some unifying points between the Testaments and then I will go through some clear changes. I would prefer to do this one premise at a time so we understand each other. I am not asking you to agree with anything I say. All I am asking is that you try to understand the Bible within the context of it's own morality as I would try to do the same for you. We can make comparative observations from your points and mine. Thanks again
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Did you read my explanation above? That explanation will make sense to a Christian or Jew. It will not make sense to an infidel. The Bible will always be hidden to those who reject its message no matter how much they study it. As Jesus said seeing they shall see and not perceive. Conversely an unbelievers moral reasoning can appear very distorted to believers. In the case above though that logic shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Did you read my explanation above? That explanation will make sense to a Christian or Jew. It will not make sense to an infidel. The Bible will always be hidden to those who reject its message no matter how much they study it. As Jesus said seeing they shall see and not perceive. Conversely an unbelievers moral reasoning can appear very distorted to believers. In the case above though that logic shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
Your explanation is false for the given reasons. The words and descriptions we have in the bible cannot be interpreted to mean something other than what the words and descriptions actually say and mean.
The words and descriptions do not change if the reader happens to be Hindu, Christian, Jew or sceptic.
Your objection fails to account for the contradictions that are clearly there to be seen and read.
This is all getting rather silly and hard to read. One has to have documented moral beliefs in order to comment on the perceived differences between the OT and NT? And those moral beliefs must conform to some standard for the opinion not to be dismissed out of hand? Sounds like a liberal progressive theme. Disagree with the orthodoxy (as proclaimed by AOC) and you are deemed worthless and your opinion amounts to nothing more than gibberish. Socrates would be shocked.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Did you read my explanation above? That explanation will make sense to a Christian or Jew. It will not make sense to an infidel. The Bible will always be hidden to those who reject its message no matter how much they study it. As Jesus said seeing they shall see and not perceive. Conversely an unbelievers moral reasoning can appear very distorted to believers. In the case above though that logic shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
Your explanation is false for the given reasons. The words and descriptions we have in the bible cannot be interpreted to mean something other than what the words and descriptions actually say and mean.
The words and descriptions do not change if the reader happens to be Hindu, Christian, Jew or sceptic.
Your objection fails to account for the contradictions that are clearly there to be seen and read.
My explanation would make a lot sense to other religions with holy days but it won't make any sense to someone who rejects anything holy.
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
So you have to subscribe to the bible before you can understand the bible?
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
This is all getting rather silly and hard to read. One has to have documented moral beliefs in order to comment on the perceived differences between the OT and NT? And those moral beliefs must conform to some standard for the opinion not to be dismissed out of hand? Sounds like a liberal progressive theme. Disagree with the orthodoxy (as proclaimed by AOC) and you are deemed worthless and your opinion amounts to nothing more than gibberish. Socrates would be shocked.
Yes, the degree of denial is quite astonishing. The definition of a contradiction is not that difficult to grasp. A contradiction within a book or sentence does not entail the beliefs or moral standards of reader. To impose such a condition is absurd.
My explanation would make a lot sense to other religions with holy days but it won't make any sense to someone who rejects anything holy.
That's ludicrous. Anyone who is able to read in the language the bible is printed in is capable of reading the bible and understanding the meaning of its verses.
If there is are verses that tell us that god is Love and god is good to all, and we have verses that tell us that god is vindictive, causing evil, willing to kill a man for gathering sticks for his fire, then there clearly is a contradiction between the two claims.
There is no way of reading or interpretation that changes what the verses clearly say and clearly mean into something that they don't say or mean.
In case the definition of a contradiction is not understood, here is a primer;
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a situation in which inconsistent elements are present. "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction" the statement of a position opposite to one already made. "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
Phrases contradiction in terms — a statement or group of words associating incompatible objects or ideas.
