17 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't "suggest" anything, I was explicit and clear. My comments were about Leviticus [and the like] and the numerous "ghastly" offences and punishments therein. The Hebrews "designed" them and for the most part they offer no valid code of morality whatsoever. They are arbitrary and ludicrous. If the eating of certain foods or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out constitute "sin", then your concept of "sin" is fatally compromised and irrelevant.
Although you suggest that the Bible is "ghastly" for its punishments and for even perhaps its offenses, the bottom line is that these punishments were ultimately designed to erradicate sinfulness.
An interesting exercise is to look at this topic through the lens of slavery.
Slavery is immoral, has always been immoral and will always be immoral.
The God of the Old Testament was wrong to condone slavery, is wrong to have condoned slavey and always will be wrong for having condoned slavery.
Any culture that practiced slavery was wrong, is wrong to have practiced slavery and always will be wrong for having practiced slavery.
Cultures that have eradicated slavery are merely recognizing what is.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Excepting people who lack any emotional responses or empathy WRT other people's situations, I think everyone can be taught to believe in certain admonitions as precepts they are morally obligated to follow. This capacity is for me, what "moral sense" means.
I agree 100%.
There is a universal sense of morality that we share.
But it differs at the "splitting hairs" level.
The precepts that allow the moral sense to play an active role in a person's moral life are those that concern cooperation, respect, fair play, nurturing, and ideas about who is of our "kind" (and so are worthy of preferential treatment). However, these precepts need to be taught. They do not come packaged with the moral sense, and their content (the versions that are learned) can vary even to the point of subversion.
17 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyObtuse and capricious nonsense like some of the stuff we see in Leviticus and similar books, is more suited to underpinning an amoral and fear/might is right based tyranny. Obtuse and capricious nonsense does not help us to define a shared and uniting sense of morality.
I have heard those of faith take two different approaches to books like Leviticus. Some approach it as purely man made doctrines and the other is that they were God inspired.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJaySo we both see morals as entirely subjective. By definition if individuals seek to justify themselves , it must be in relation to others,so the "prevailing " group moral code determines the individual's behaviour. As suggested the group code could be anything.
I'm quite sure that your rthemself it ight there about much of what you said, but I think it
goes way beyond that! The belief system of both the Crusaders and all other
groups can be a "group" thing no doubt about it, but in all things we do we set
out to justify ourselves, from the littles things in life to the big ones. We could
for example make the c ...[text shortened]... y core that we do this.
example: "...this is why I oppose any unquestioning... "
Kelly
17 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFArbitrary and ludicrous?
I didn't "suggest" anything, I was explicit and clear. My comments were about Leviticus [and the like] and the numerous "ghastly" offences and punishments therein. The Hebrews "designed" them and for the most part they offer no valid code of morality whatsoever. They are arbitrary and ludicrous. If the eating of certain foods or the composition of cloth or the w ...[text shortened]... t constitute "sin", then your concept of "sin" is fatally compromised and irrelevant.
They were forbidden to drink blood and eat fat from animals. Do you not think this was sound medical advice?
They were told to shun dead animals and people and to wash their hands repeatidly. In fact, during the Black Death in Europe the Jews were spared much of the anguish because they practiced the Mosaic sanitary laws. Of course, those who saw that they were largely untouched from the Black Death just assumed that the Jews had made a deal with the devil, so they killed them off.
How about forbidding them to murder or steal? Are laws such as these arbitrary as well? I think that your assessment is half arsed and disingenuous.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by OdBod"...so the "prevailing " group moral code determines the individual's behaviour."
So we both see morals as entirely subjective. By definition if individuals seek to justify themselves , it must be in relation to others,so the "prevailing " group moral code determines the individual's behaviour. As suggested the group code could be anything.
I believe what you are describing as subjective morality is called moral relativism by philosophers.
"Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
17 Feb 13
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe God of the OT saw the suffering of Israel and brought forth Moses to help deliver them. He then gave them the Sabbath, a day of rest, something unheard of in ancient times where almost men knew was slavery in some form 24/7. That included every slave and beast of burden. He then went further to say that slaves would be free in a 7 years time span so that they could start over again.
An interesting exercise is to look at this topic through the lens of slavery.
Slavery is immoral, has always been immoral and will always be immoral.
The God of the Old Testament was wrong to condone slavery, is wrong to have condoned slavey and always will be wrong for having condoned slavery.
Any culture that practiced slavery was wrong, is w ...[text shortened]... ving practiced slavery.
Cultures that have eradicated slavery are merely recognizing what is.
Although the Mosaic law did not outlaw slavery, it obviously took a dim view of it. Of course, if outlawing it meant that some would go hungry or worse, would it have been worth it?
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Thanks! I didn't know that,but I am definitely one of them,hell of a mouthful though,is there a shorter name?
"...so the "prevailing " group moral code determines the individual's behaviour."
I believe what you are describing as subjective morality is called moral relativism by philosophers.
"Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to u ...[text shortened]... ndividual or a group of people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyDon't "murder or steal" is not obtuse and capricious nonsense, whodey. Stuff about "eating of certain foods [like shell fish] or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out" certainly is.
How about forbidding them to murder or steal? Are laws such as these arbitrary as well? I think that your assessment is half arsed and disingenuous.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyMuch of it, yes. The sort of capricious stuff that tyrants rely on. Certainly not a basis for a 'moral code' that might have any credibility in terms of having a "universal" application. It's the arbitrary and ludicrous nonsense of Hebrew folklore.
Arbitrary and ludicrous?
17 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFShell fish, like shrimp, are the roaches of the sea. In fact, most everything that hovered close to the ground, the garbage disposals of nature, was shunned from their diet. Probably not bad advice in general.
Don't "murder or steal" is not obtuse and capricious nonsense, whodey. Stuff about "eating of certain foods [like shell fish] or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out" certainly is.
There was also a ceremonial aspect to how they did things since he dwelt among them. I don't pretend to have insight as to why, just like Adam and Eve being clueless about not eating from the tree of good and evil.
At least you conceed that not all of their laws are viewed by you as nonsense.