Shopping & Style3 mins ago
Right And Wrong
97 Answers
God is my ulitmate authority on right and wrong, but if you don't believe in God, from where does moral authority originate?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
How whackey can you get? How on earth did TWO bears manage to kill FORTY TWO children / men. what were they all doing?standing around waiting for their turn to be mauled? why werent they running away? And why all the fuss whether they were children or adults.There are many,many cases in the bible where God slaughters kiddies.In fact the bible tells us that we should be HAPPY to bash in the heads of babies of our enemies (psalm137:9).Its the psalm made famous by Bony M in the 70's....strange how they overlooked this last verse
Wizard69 - Is not the last line of that psalm siad in an "eye foe an eye, tooth for a tooth" sort of context, where the psalmist is talking about revenge in kind for what has been done to his people?
When they went to war in those days, they were out to utterly destroy each other it seems, men, women, children, even animals, and some carried off into slavery.
Does it not need to be read in the historical context of the times?
When they went to war in those days, they were out to utterly destroy each other it seems, men, women, children, even animals, and some carried off into slavery.
Does it not need to be read in the historical context of the times?
Theland
Its an interesting question. First we would have to define 'moral' in this context but that could take a while, so i'll say its social behaviour. You assume the moral authority (based on the abrahimic god being THE moral authority) of religious belief. However there is no evidence to suggest that religion improves one's moral outlook or behaviour or indeed that it will necessarily improve one's spiritual outlook. In some cases (suicide bombers, presidents) religion can be the root of antisocial behaviour to the extreme of murder. Here, the protagonists often cite absolute moral authority from god as justification for their actions. Hitler has been mentioned as a godless tyrant yet he used religion to stir his christian population into supporting him in mass genocide.
On the other hand, I would never argue that a lack of religion is any guarantee of social behaviour. I also think that much of what mainstream religion has to say about behaviour is common-sense and welcome.
Ok but lets assume that most people don't go around blowing themselves up or instructing their armies to kill people. On a day to day level we learn social behaviour in order to get by, because we are social animals. We are taught (or learn the hard way) not to smack, to be polite to people, to use friendly body language. In other words, to be successful we must learn to co-operate, social behaviour is co-operation.
We can also argue about the merits of prescribed moral behaviour. Is having sex before marriage moral immoral amoral? Is divorce a moral issue? Is it moral to kill animals for food? Should we allow a terminally ill patient to end their own life? should we help them? Here I think religion often influences opinion but does religion (of one kind or another) have absolute moral authority on these issues? Didn't someone once say 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
Its an interesting question. First we would have to define 'moral' in this context but that could take a while, so i'll say its social behaviour. You assume the moral authority (based on the abrahimic god being THE moral authority) of religious belief. However there is no evidence to suggest that religion improves one's moral outlook or behaviour or indeed that it will necessarily improve one's spiritual outlook. In some cases (suicide bombers, presidents) religion can be the root of antisocial behaviour to the extreme of murder. Here, the protagonists often cite absolute moral authority from god as justification for their actions. Hitler has been mentioned as a godless tyrant yet he used religion to stir his christian population into supporting him in mass genocide.
On the other hand, I would never argue that a lack of religion is any guarantee of social behaviour. I also think that much of what mainstream religion has to say about behaviour is common-sense and welcome.
Ok but lets assume that most people don't go around blowing themselves up or instructing their armies to kill people. On a day to day level we learn social behaviour in order to get by, because we are social animals. We are taught (or learn the hard way) not to smack, to be polite to people, to use friendly body language. In other words, to be successful we must learn to co-operate, social behaviour is co-operation.
We can also argue about the merits of prescribed moral behaviour. Is having sex before marriage moral immoral amoral? Is divorce a moral issue? Is it moral to kill animals for food? Should we allow a terminally ill patient to end their own life? should we help them? Here I think religion often influences opinion but does religion (of one kind or another) have absolute moral authority on these issues? Didn't someone once say 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
Hmmm. I think there are a few points to come out of the 'Sunday School lesson', Clanad, you old fraud. Firstly, you're constantly invoking 'was probably', 'may have' and other similar phrases so whilst you've spent time and effort on trying to understand what the Bible tells you, in your response to me you're still having to make assumptions all over the place. Thus, we surely have to question whether your interpretation can be trusted, do we not? It's not a definitive reading, certainly. For instance, you seem quite happy to believe that the two bears attack the children because of God. But it doesn't actually say that. Maybe it's coincidence they came out of the woods at that time. Another assumption not supported by the text. Doesn't the need to assume bits all over the place rather make a mockery of the usefulness of it all?
Incidentally, I'm disinclined to go with your take on 'children', having done a little research of my own. As far as I can determine the best you can do is 'pre-teens' which I think hardly excuses it. Mind you, I don't think it's moral whatever the age of the people who mocked.
Incidentally, whilst I was looking into that, I found where you cut and pasted most of your argument from. Does adding 'in my opinion' at the end *really* make it *your* opinion?
Incidentally, I'm disinclined to go with your take on 'children', having done a little research of my own. As far as I can determine the best you can do is 'pre-teens' which I think hardly excuses it. Mind you, I don't think it's moral whatever the age of the people who mocked.
Incidentally, whilst I was looking into that, I found where you cut and pasted most of your argument from. Does adding 'in my opinion' at the end *really* make it *your* opinion?
(cont).
But even if we were to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your interpretation, bringing it back to the essential point, is this really an instructive tale?
If we accept that a load of men mocked a holy man's faith and as a result, that holy man invoked a curse, and God (who despite being omnipresent didn't do anything until the holy man uttered said curse) caused two bears to come out of the woods and maul 42 people out of a crowd of undetermined size, what moral lesson are we to take?
God uses violence to strike down those who mock him?
That's why I find the tale worthy of derision in the first place and certainly not indicative of a moral code I wish to follow.
But thanks for the lesson anyway, eh?
But even if we were to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your interpretation, bringing it back to the essential point, is this really an instructive tale?
If we accept that a load of men mocked a holy man's faith and as a result, that holy man invoked a curse, and God (who despite being omnipresent didn't do anything until the holy man uttered said curse) caused two bears to come out of the woods and maul 42 people out of a crowd of undetermined size, what moral lesson are we to take?
God uses violence to strike down those who mock him?
That's why I find the tale worthy of derision in the first place and certainly not indicative of a moral code I wish to follow.
But thanks for the lesson anyway, eh?
WaldoMcFroog...would this http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha .html be the link that clanad gets her own(?) opinions from? What a joke.If ANYBODY sat down to read the bible without the aid of these ridiculous commentries they would throw it in the bin and be sickened by it.Christian apologists have to make more twists and turns than a Brands Hatch racing driver to make it palatable.As ive already stated, trying to sanatize this story by making "children" into"men" is a futile endeavour when the bible is choc a block of God killing infants.Either way it is a story that I wouldnt want my 10yr old son listening to in sunday school...oh! I forgot, they dont teach these stories in church.
Theland..by your own admission you havnt read the entire bible.Here's some verses about God, murdering people that you may have missed (scroll dow the page and have a gander at the kiddies section). The bible sure is pro life (not) http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
So, using assistance, whether from on line sources or my own library of Commentaries renders the opinions invalid? I suppose ya'll never actually learned to read or write, you were born with the ability? Ironically (there's that word again), Waldo at least, admits to using the web for informaiton as well, so that, of course makes you equally fraudulent, does it not?... as does, I expect, wizard. At any rate, the use of probably, may have, could be is well and readily accepted by you, I'm sure, when an authority figure is explaining, for example, evolution, no? Or is it only in your chosen cases that it's acceptable?
The writers I use for reference are usually Phd.s or at least have a good reputation for study... whether you or anyone else chooses to believe them is your choice. I for one have come to realize that the Bible, not unlike anyother ancient documents requires some familiarity with the origi nal languages and some understanding of how the words were interpreted as well as considering the context.
I find it usual that the last refuge of a failed disagreement is the resort to ad hominem attacks.
Fact is, the Hebrew phrase to indicate the attackers of Elisha is used elsewhere in the Old Covenant and is translated as young men, regardless of what you think.
The writers I use for reference are usually Phd.s or at least have a good reputation for study... whether you or anyone else chooses to believe them is your choice. I for one have come to realize that the Bible, not unlike anyother ancient documents requires some familiarity with the origi nal languages and some understanding of how the words were interpreted as well as considering the context.
I find it usual that the last refuge of a failed disagreement is the resort to ad hominem attacks.
Fact is, the Hebrew phrase to indicate the attackers of Elisha is used elsewhere in the Old Covenant and is translated as young men, regardless of what you think.
It's the cutting and pasting of someone else's work then adding 'in my opinion' which I find disengenous, old fruit.
As for complaining about ad hominem attacks, shall we see how many logical fallacies we can spot in your last post?
Let's see... straw man, proof by assertion, special pleading...
(I didn't actually remember all the specific names of all the fallacies off the top of my head, so I'd like to dedicate the Clanad Memorial Citation Award (That's another ad hominem attack by the way) to Wikipedia for those.)
But first rate avoidance of the point.
As for complaining about ad hominem attacks, shall we see how many logical fallacies we can spot in your last post?
Let's see... straw man, proof by assertion, special pleading...
(I didn't actually remember all the specific names of all the fallacies off the top of my head, so I'd like to dedicate the Clanad Memorial Citation Award (That's another ad hominem attack by the way) to Wikipedia for those.)
But first rate avoidance of the point.
Is this really, the best you can do? I find one paragraph out of more than 2800 characters (by AB's count) that you object to and yet that's your focus. Look, no one asked you to change your belief system or lack there of, but the exegesis is solid... and certainly explains a view alternate to the one held by you. One that is reasonable to any reasonably minded investigator to at least consider. There's no doubting that Adonai is an absolutist beyond our comprehension, especially in the area of justice and judgement and there's no way that I or anyone else can explain, sufficient to your requirements the holiness inherent in those factors of His very nature. Your acceptance (nor mine) by the way is required. An important corollary to the aspects mentioned is the absolute, iron clad guarantee of Adonai's respect for your free will.
I would mention, that over the last two years or so on Answer Bank, (one thread ran for over 500 posts) I've unflinchingly participated in debates of this very nature... does God exist, etc., and almost without fail the atheists/agnostics have proven their inability to engage without rancor or denigrating any Christian's intelligence, non vrai, noxlumos?...
I would mention, that over the last two years or so on Answer Bank, (one thread ran for over 500 posts) I've unflinchingly participated in debates of this very nature... does God exist, etc., and almost without fail the atheists/agnostics have proven their inability to engage without rancor or denigrating any Christian's intelligence, non vrai, noxlumos?...
Bloody hell clanad, calm down my friend, it was only a joke. I've debated this, as have others, with you, ad nauseum. Is there much point us debating further, when all you do is repeat yourself and all I do is the same?I've read nothing in your previous posts that's any different than the arguments you have already presented me with. Faith requires ... well faith, and that is not where my conscience lies, but you know that already. I am ultimately my own authority on right and wrong, as are we all. I do not wish to abdicate that responsibility to anyone or anything else, not another man, and not your God. I think to do so would be dangerous, as it demeans us all to feel we do not have ultimate authority over the validity of our actions.
I suppose if I think about it really hard for a nanosecond or two, I guess I just find it a rather niggly point that someone who has many times distanced himself from autrocities carried out by people who would proclaim their absolute alleigence to his God by saying, 'Oh, well, of course that's not what I believe; they're not really Christians' yet thinks that is a reasoned and sensible response when someone says 'Logic' is their basis for a moral system immediately equates that with the perpetrators of the halocaust.
Plus the book you believe in is a load of old crap, of course.
Plus the book you believe in is a load of old crap, of course.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News15 mins ago
Charging Order On Leasehold Flat
Law16 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music19 mins ago
