yguy

Not only was it a crime then, it is now - even though it is not codified in US law.

I think the Israelites of the time had the moral authority to mete out such punishment, though by the time of Christ's ministry they had lost it, as He demonstrated when He saved the adulterous woman from stoning.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Which brings me to my next point. Are "humanistic" values (the golden rule and others) morally superior to "antihumanistic values",

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "antihumanistic values". However I'd say that humanistic values are preferable for most people in the world, wouldn't you?

and if so, why,

That should be obvious.

and who's idea of what is/isn't "humanistic" ought to be accepted as the standard?

Consensus, Keith, consensus. Working together, we can hammer out a humanistic ethical system that can bring the most benefit to the most people.

BTW, the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights is one example of such a consensus ethical system, IMO.

You keep getting back to the "who's (sic) idea" thing. I'd note that it appears to be you that would favor such a top-down ethical system, with God specifying what's right and wrong for everyone.

And you've been asking a lot of questions, but not answering many. I'll ask you now to describe what you would propose, what is your idea of a moral/ethical system, based upon this supposed "objective" standard of your God? How would you propose to put such a system in place? How would it work? What exactly would these morals be? How would God communicate them to us? Would he hand down some more stone tablets? What human or humans would be in charge of communicating these morals to the rest of us? How would they be enforced?

You've done a lot of attacking, but not much defense. It's time for you to propose your alternative to what I and others have described.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Great point, yguy. And this value neutrality seems to be the logical place for a great many atheists to go with their moral relativism. Is that not scary?

It does? Why?

What's scary is following "If God says it's right, it's right." As I've pointed out, that thinking is what gave us the 9/11 terrorists, abortion clinic bombers, the Inquisition, the OT atrocities, and countless other religion-inspired tragedies.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
I want a reason that can actually be defended...as opposed to a reason which some accept by faith only because they think it sounds good.

Where is faith involved or necessary in the consensus ethical system that I and others have described? If you'd think about it, you'd see that what's been described has been implemented many times in the world (The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is one example). Does it take faith to believe in and support the U.S. Constitution? No, to support such a consensus ethical system based on humanitarian concerts takes reason, not faith; reason telling me that my life and the lives of others will be better under such a system.

Further, your system, apparently based on "If God says it is right, it is right", wherein if God says to kill your rebellious child, it is right for you to do so and wrong for you not to, even if you personally feel it's wrong to kill your child, must be accepted by faith even if you think it sounds bad. Thus Abraham was compelled to sacrifice Isaac to satisfy God's command, though Isaac was his beloved son. (I know; when God saw Abraham was willing to do what he commanded, do what Abraham no doubt thought was wrong because he thought it was more right to obey God, God gave him an out.)

Treacle Worshipper

yguy, do you really think that saying "damn you!" to your parents is deserving of death?

TW

Mageth

Well, heck, yguy is giving an excellent example of where religious morality leads us - defending as moral the stoning to death of a child that curses his parents.

yguy, would you kill your child if he cursed you and was rebellious? If not, why not?

Biff the unclean

:banghead:

Biff the unclean

Please read Mark 7:9-13 in which Jesus takes the Jews to task for not killing their own children and ignoring god's laws in Lev. but fails to mention his own ignoring of the same set of laws when it came to the adulterous woman. Guess he like whores more than kids

yguy

No, because I don't have that authority. Taking the OT at face value, it appears the Israelites at the time of Moses did, not yet having descended to such hypocrisy as the pharisees demonstrated.

yguy

If the child doesn't repent, that would be a yes. Lots of kids did that in 60's america, and lots of them ended up dead from drug abuse and the like. Go figure.