excreationist

But that is what some people do, and the article is taking advantage of that.

I think in order to be very evil you need to be sadistic... at the moment I can't recall any passages where God is sadistic...

The idea is that only the guilty are killed... anyway people's eternal fate would be decided by God himself and he is omniscient.

See:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=691555

It depends if men and women should have equal status... BTW I think some people think that many animals almost have equal status as humans. As far as equal status of humans goes, we could prevent worldwide starvation but we prefer to have a higher standard of living ourselves... (I don't have much of a problem with that though)

excreationist

I'm sure that many things that Plato taught are wrong.

I'm concerned with what the Bible itself says - like typical Christians might. I think the NT was mainly authored in the 1st century.

Iskander

The daimon thread explains one of the most intelligent discoveries ever made in this forum. I have enjoyed reading it again, I congratulate you.

mountainman

By the apostles?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Angra Mainyu

Okay, but I’m explaining why the moral argument in the article fails. But when I say it fails, I’m not saying that no people will be confused by it. Rather, what I’m saying is that that moral argument provides no grounds for believing, or even suspecting, that the proper interpretation of the text is one without infinite hell (I’ve not taken a stance on all of the other parts).
In order to be very evil, a person need not derive pleasure from inflicting pain. Someone who, say, commits genocide to steal some people’s land and (for example; it’s not Yahweh’s case in particular) uses biological weapons that cause horrible suffering before death extensively not because that gives him any pleasure but because he reckons it’s the best strategy because of its lower cost compared with others (say they’re inexpensive), and because it weakens the morale of the enemy so much that it makes it considerably easier to finish them off, is very evil, even if not sadistic.

As for whether Yahweh behaves sadistically sometimes, that might be debated, but it would be beside the point I was trying to make.
I mentioned some of his commands, which would be enough to show that he is very evil. If you would like to read more passages and analysis of them (plus replies to objections), as I mentioned, it’s 2-4 clicks away from my profile.
No, what I mean is that they’re not guilty of anything that deserves punishment. For instance, even if in, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia, all men killed for gay sex are indeed ‘guilty’ of gay sex, the point is that they did not deserve to be punished for having gay sex.
Similarly, even assuming that in ancient Israelite society the only women who were killed for having sex with a man other than the man their respective fathers had chosen for them against of their wishes were those women who indeed had had sex with a man other the man their fathers had chosen, etc., the fact is that the women ‘guilty’ of that capital offense were not guilty of anything that merited any punishments.
That’s in addition to the fact that Yahweh established a method of assessing non-virginity that was clearly going to give false positives. But even with an accurate method, the punishment would be very unjust. As I said, I don’t want to write too much on that issue in this sub-forum, but I already wrote an article even considerably longer than the one you linked to in the OP, with plenty of cases, analysis, replies to objections, etc.
Thanks.
I asked because given that you said in the OP you were an atheist, I did not understand why I was getting the kind of reply I was getting from you, also in order to assess how to proceed; the most probable hypothesis was that you were seriously considering becoming a Christian, if not already halfway there (or more than halfway).

Given what you said in both this thread and the other (no offense) I think at this time in your life you probably are beyond my capability for persuasion. I will still defend my points if you challenge them (there may be readers, and I would still try to persuade them), but other than that, I think I will probably leave it at that.
It does not depend on whether men and women should have equal status (even on a number unequal statuses that could be true).

Also, on the issue of starvation, the problem is 'who is we'. I could not prevent starvation by sacrificing my standard of living. Neither can you, or any individuals. And clearly not all will work together. But in any case, that is a very different matter from the matter of treating people equally in equal situations, which would not prevent starvation in plenty of cases. However, all of that is beside the point I was trying to make.

So, back to the point, for that matter, a person depending infinite Hell may say that whether it’s just depends on whether rejection of the creator merits eternal punishment. Obviously, that’s not the case, and similarly, Yahweh is behaving immorally in the example.
In other words, I was going for obviousness. I thought that a rejection of my point would more probably be something like ‘maybe that part wasn’t inspired’, or something else, but not a claim that it may not be immoral on Yahweh’s part.

But given you do not even find that example persuasive, either, that gives me more evidence that trying with more examples won't be productive. You know where to find more examples I use if you like , but at this point it looks like you’re in free fall towards Christianity, if you’re not there already by the time you read this (still, I guess it's possible some other posters might be more effective in their replies; I hope so).

Sheshbazzar

Esau was a victim of YHWH's sadistic hatred from before he was even born.

YHWH set Esau up for failure, and used his omnipotent powers to sadistically assure that failure.
There was nothing that Esau could ever do that would remove him from being a victim of YHWH's sadistically plotted plan.
And not against the single man Esau alone, but an ongoing sadistic plot to make the lives of Esau's descendent's miserable and second class until the day that he finally wipes them off the face of the earth.
And not a damn thing that any one of them can ever do about it.
YHWH hated Esau, and all the millions of his descendent's are predestined and doomed to a life of suffering, followed by YHWH's damnation of them in the Judgment.

They cannot save themselves from all-powerful YHWH's evil intended sadistic plot against them,
If they should even think to try to please him, He will conspire against them, and bring pressures to bear upon them, and make the way impassible for them, (that he makes easy for descendent's of Jacob) and will refuse their offerings, and HE will 'harden their heart'.
And the doing of all of this is HIS doing, according to his irresistible will not theirs, not their choice, but the sadistic choice that He, 'YHWH' has made, and the sadistic plot he has long fomented against these defenseless peoples.

When there is evil and calamity in the city, YHWH is the author and cause of it. YHWH is the evil God, and the God of the evil.
The fomenter of all evil, all hatreds, all strife, all disasters, all of all wars; "I, YHWH do all these things".

Feel like bowing down, fawning to, and kissing ass to this kind of thing?



.

excreationist

If women had the status of animals it makes a difference... though animals are treated better these days than they sometimes used to be...

You could buy food for starving people! And if their government is corrupt you could buy a plane ticket to Africa or Asia and make sure people get the food.

As far as Kohlberg's stages of morality goes, some people are in the earlier stages - and it could still be considered their system of morality... morality isn't necessarily based on the highest stages. BTW what about eating meat - some people think that is immoral, etc.

I guess I don't believe that God agrees with my personal morals but I was trying to argue on behalf of a typical Christian.

I was just exploring Christianity... I don't find it convincing... though that link about hell makes it quite a bit more attractive. Part of the problem is that I don't want to commit my life to Jesus.

Angra Mainyu

Actually, if they had the status of all non-human animals, they would not be moral agents (except for a few, but you seem to be placing all other animals in the same bag), so they would behave immorally, so they would not deserve any punishment (though Yahweh sometimes fails to realize that in the OT)
But my point was that inequality alone would not help your case, or the Christian's case. Still, as I said, I was going for obviousness.

Yes, I could, and even then, I would not end starvation worldwide. I would have a minimum impact, and in any case, the question of whether one is obligated make such sacrifices is very different from the question of treating people equally in equal situations.

But I already pointed that out before, and it’s a side issue, so I’ll leave it at that.

I’m afraid that reply is not connected to the paragraph of mine you’re quoting and replying to. I do not know how to make it more clear, or why you would understand my paragraph as related to that, but I was pointing out that just as you were saying “It depends if men and women should have equal status...”, for that matter, a person depending infinite Hell may say that whether it’s just depends on whether rejection of the creator merits eternal punishment. Obviously, that’s not the case, and similarly, Yahweh is behaving immorally in the example.

When you’re arguing that it would be unjust to torture people forever, you’re not talking about your ‘personal morals’, but you’re instead using your sense of right and wrong to assess that such a behavior would be immoral.
Yet, you fail to do the same in the case of the woman forced to be raped by a man her father chose, and who is stoned to death if she has consensual sex with someone else, all according to the commands of the monstrous Yahweh.

As for what a typical Christian would argue, while most Christians would say that Yahweh did not behave immorally in the Old Testament (some would instead deny the Old Testament, or parts of it, etc.), most would say the same about infinite Hell.

Okay, but whether what they posit is attractive does not have any relation to whether, say, Yahweh exists, or generally whether their claims are true.

excreationist

Animals can receive punishments and rewards to encourage or discourage behavior... they can also be "put down" if they behave badly enough. I'm not sure if this means they are moral agents. BTW people sometimes say "that's a good dog!" or "bad dog!". Also I think dogs can sometimes look guilty when they are expecting punishment.

You could save the lives of hundreds of people. BTW what if you had the opportunity to save a couple of Jews in Nazi Germany? Would you not bother since you wouldn't save the other few million? Maybe that is getting off topic though...

I'm saying that morality is partly subjective. Lower stages of morality are still a form of morality. I guess there is some commonality in mature people's morality but there are also disagreements. BTW a few centuries ago a lot of people thought slavery was perfectly moral.

If a wife is property like a slave is then I think it is irrelevant whether it is against her will or not.

Angra Mainyu

Yes, that’s evidence that perhaps dogs are moral agents. But surely not all animals.
Regardless, one can make another argument. If women status would be the same as that of non-human animals, they couldn’t get married.

My resources are quite limited, so I do not know, but that’s not my point. I was replying to the general point you made.

If I had the chance to save two specific Jews in front of me without getting killed, etc., sure I would save them. But as you say, that’s getting off-topic.

The claim that morality is partly subjective, however, is incompatible with Christianity, at least in the usual usage of ‘subjective’ in philosophical contexts (if you mean something else, please clarify).

And yes, a few centuries ago a lot of people thought slavery [for profit, in usual cases] was perfectly moral. And a lot of centuries ago, and even today, a lot of people think that infinite torture in hell is literally perfectly moral (i.e., perfect justice). But neither of them is.


1. It’s not morally acceptable to rape a wife for fun, or a slave.
2. It’s not morally acceptable to stone a woman to death for having sex with a man other than the man chosen by her father.
3. It’s true that whether she agreed or not does not make a difference in terms of whether it’s immoral to stone her. It is.
4. You’re using your sense of right and wrong instead of saying ‘my morality’ when you assess that it would not be okay to torture people for eternity, but you fail to do so when it comes to the behavior of Yahweh in the Old Testament. You’re not applying your standards consistently.