Originally posted by CalJustActually, I don't need to provide any more information. That's the great thing about hypotheticals, is that I can simply state something is a fact and then ask what flows from this.
Before I take the hypothetic seriously, you need to provide some more information.
When you stipulate that it WAS god who reinstated it, then you need to also specify HOW do you know for certain, or postulate, that it was, indeed, god.
If (as I said before) the instruction came through supposed priests or human agency, then I would neither believe it ...[text shortened]... her with all those that witnessed that event, conclude that it was indeed the right thing to do.
However, as you have answered my question, I don't think we need to argue this anymore!
I guess I would, together with all those that witnessed that event, conclude that it was indeed the right thing to do.
There are many people, including myself, who would not agree with your conclusion. So your statement is false.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderHow can a statement be false if I say: I guess I would do so-and-so?
CJ: I guess I would, together with all those that witnessed that event, conclude that it was indeed the right thing to do.
RO: There are many people, including myself, who would not agree with your conclusion. So your statement is false.
And how can you disprove that "those that witnessed the event" would do likewise? Just because YOU wouldn't?? I assert that your assertion is false!
Let's pursue the hypothesizing a little further. On this forum there are many people who have attacked, for example, slavery as being something they they would never, ever, have themselves condone HAD THEY BEEN ALIVE AT THAT TIME!
This is very easy to say, but also easy to disprove.
Psychologists will tell you that if you were placed in a society where certain rules apply THAT YOU DID NOT PREVIOUSLY AGREE WITH, then peer pressure (or other similar forces) will make you want to comply.
Many such experiments have been documented. For example, a volunteer (let's call him Bill) is placed in a room with nine other students, which are all "in on it" and he is placed last in the row. There are two lines drawn on a blackboard, A and B, with A obviously the longer one. The subjects are asked which line is the longest and the first one answers "B". Bill is shocked, and as each one in turn answers the same, he is visibly uncomfortable. But when it is his turn to answer, the chances are better than 60% that Bill will also answer (obviously wrongly), B.
So, I am hypothesizing that if you were born into an ancient society, (or if that ancient society where somehow resurrected) where resistance to authority is punished by the ground opening up and swallowing the rebels with their families, where people that touch a certain mountain are immediately stricken down by lightning, where several offences are immediately punished by death, I would hazard a guess that you would probably toe the line, rather than buck the entire system.
Of course, there WERE rebels, and on second thoughts you may well have been one of them.
But my point here is merely that hypothesizing certain actions and reactions in a postulated society is actually quite simple. Psychologists will tell you what most people would do - most would comply with the norms, and the very few rebels would probably be removed violently from that society.
13 Jul 15
Originally posted by CalJustThat you have to be sure that such was a command from "God" is a good call, but one part of your final paragraph that I take issue with is that you have no way to conclude that the God-event was instantiated by the God you hold to be existent. By that I mean that perhaps there is some sort of God, but far from the nice God you believe exists - a God that might have a good purpose for this reinstating this system (a purpose higher than our means to comprehend); perhaps it is instead a cruel one, with no reason for reinstating other than for pure malevolence. Assuming you agree there is no way you could ever tell the difference, even if we were to agree you would still obey his commands, how can one assume it is RIGHT to do it?
Before I take the hypothetic seriously, you need to provide some more information.
When you stipulate that it WAS god who reinstated it, then you need to also specify HOW do you know for certain, or postulate, that it was, indeed, god.
If (as I said before) the instruction came through supposed priests or human agency, then I would neither believe it ...[text shortened]... her with all those that witnessed that event, conclude that it was indeed the right thing to do.
13 Jul 15
10 edits
Originally posted by CalJustHow can a statement be false if I say: I guess I would do so-and-so?
How can a statement be false if I say: I guess I would do so-and-so?
And how can you disprove that "those that witnessed the event" would do likewise? Just because YOU wouldn't?? I assert that your assertion is false!
Let's pursue the hypothesizing a little further. On this forum there are many people who have attacked, for example, slavery ...[text shortened]... y with the norms, and the very few rebels would probably be removed violently from that society.
And how can you disprove that "those that witnessed the event" would do likewise? Just because YOU wouldn't?? I assert that your assertion is false!
You said that people would conclude it was the right thing to do. It is this that I was objecting to and I know I would never conclude this, and many others would agree with me. Whether I or they would actually do it or not is a separate matter.
Let's pursue the hypothesizing a little further.......and the very few rebels would probably be removed violently from that society.
Not sure why you think this is relevant. After all, I posted to robbie earlier that, if he had been born into the ancient world, he might have made a very good Israelite.
But when you say 'If I were born into an ancient society' you are completely changing the terms of my hypothesis. My OP talks about God coming down now and reinstating Mosaic law now, knowing what we know now and what we believe now. If you don't like that hypothesis, feel free to pose your own, but don't try and argue they are one and the same.
My interest was in how Christians today would react to this new edict, not to imagine how they would have reacted if brought up in an entirely different world.
13 Jul 15
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI forgot now, since I accepted Christianity as the true religion many years ago. 😏
How many other religions have you done a detailed analysis of?
And what specifically stopped you from choosing Shinto, Baha'i and Rastafarianism?
Just the main 5 or 6 points.
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by AgergWhat would be an objective RIGHT in such a situation?
. Assuming you agree there is no way you could ever tell the difference, even if we were to agree you would still obey his commands, how can one assume it is RIGHT to do it?
If you postulate an ultimate Ruler/Creator of the universe, who would be in total charge of everything, whatever he/she/it said was by definition RIGHT.
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by CalJustNot so sure there even is an objective right in any given situation (in a moral, as opposed to most pragmatic sense of right)
What would be an objective RIGHT in such a situation?
If you postulate an ultimate Ruler/Creator of the universe, who would be in total charge of everything, whatever he/she/it said was by definition RIGHT.
But perhaps you can help change my mind, how does morally right enter into the definition of any entity capable of creating at least one universe? Because it just does!?
Originally posted by CalJustI disagree. Why does absolute power make everything God does right?
What would be an objective RIGHT in such a situation?
If you postulate an ultimate Ruler/Creator of the universe, who would be in total charge of everything, whatever he/she/it said was by definition RIGHT.
In our human lives, we do not accept that more powerful people are innately more 'right' than less powerful ones. We have words for people who exercise 'absolute' power over others in a malevolent fashion (tyrants, dictators etc).
So please justify the claim you have just made.
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by AgergOh, I don't know. I think I can safely say that torturing people for eternity in hell is immoral and objectively wrong.
Not so sure there even is an objective right in any given situation (in a moral, as opposed to most pragmatic sense of right)
In fact, it is infinitely immoral and infinitely wrong.
14 Jul 15
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBy our standards it is maximally wrong, but suppose, for argument sake, there exists some other type of creature - somewhere which, for whatever reason, experiences a level of pleasure which is indirectly proportional to the pleasure it sees others experience. Well in that case it would see the eternal torture of humans to be maximally right!! (and conversely it would say that eternal paradise for humans would be maximally wrong)
Oh, I don't know. I think I can safely say that torturing people for eternity in hell is immoral and objectively wrong.
In fact, it is infinitely immoral and infinitely wrong.
Can we really say in this (hypothetical) case that our perception of maximally wrong is perfectly aligned with what is objectively morally wrong?
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWould it be okay with you if said God simply casts murders and evil doers into outer darkness so that they can not see to commit more murders and crimes?
Oh, I don't know. I think I can safely say that torturing people for eternity in hell is immoral and objectively wrong.
In fact, it is infinitely immoral and infinitely wrong.
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHow about just admitting the whole edifice of religion is strictly man made? you act like people could not possibly have been smart enough to come up with all the pithy sayings in the bible or the Quran or the Ipanashads.
Would it be okay with you if said God simply casts murders and evil doers into outer darkness so that they can not see to commit more murders and crimes?
They are in fact creative enough when they are motivated to start a religion for the sole purpose of control and political power. It worked really well too, have to give them that.
Billions of people like you totally duped into accepting the most outrageous BS and their BSometer totally turned off. And they are totally happy in their delusions. Too bad they just can't grow 2 new ones and chuck all the fear mongering in your religion and chuck the stupid fear of death like all you theists. You claim not to fear death because you know you go to your so-called heaven but all it does is cover your basic fear of death and there is no getting around that fact.