Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Primal · 11-25-2002, 07:54 PM

I've noticed a major contradiction in Xian morality. On the one hand Xians claim to be absolutists; adhering to a moral code that is universal,unchanging and allows for no exceptions.

For example if one claims killing is wrong, stealing is wrong,hitting is wrong and torture is wrong then these things must be wrong in an absolutist system no matter what.

To say that these are ok to do if another person is immoral (kill them in revenge of self-defense) is to make the code s itutational. i.e. the action will only be wrong IF one is dealing with moral people. Hence then the morals are dependent on someone else's actions. Hence moral absolutism by definition does not allow for these things no matter what.

If these things are allowed under certain conditions then the morality is situational and not absolute.

In any case then the contradiction lies in the fact that the God of the Bible does many things theists say are absolutely immoral, yet is said to be moral:

murder/kill:the flood/sadam and gamorah/first borns of egypt

commit genocide: Land of Cainaan

Condone rape: After the fall of Jericho, God lets certain men take virgin/young women as sex slaves.

Condone slavery: See above.

Allow multiple wives/spouses: See above.

Torture: Hellfire.

Infanticide: His son, the flood and feeding 42 children to a bear.

Now the Christian has to either admit here one of many options: 1) These things are not immoral 2) Morality is not absolute. 3) God is immoral. 4) There is no such thing as morality.

You cannot get out of this by saying "they deserved it" or "God changed what morality is" or "God created the rules....so he's above them(again changed what morality is)" Because all that makes the morality situational and not absolute. If a moral code can change in regards to situation or an immoral act can become moral in a certain context...then it varies with the situation;is situational and not absolute.

winstonjen · 11-25-2002, 08:26 PM

Agreed. God is a hypocrite, according to his own admission, and has made mistakes - he punishes children for what their parents do - as if that'd be a deterrent - and then decides not to do that anymore.

Maybe God had silly ideas about bending the rules, like here - <a href="http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/amendments.html" target="_blank">http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/amendments.html</a>

Gamaliel · 11-26-2002, 06:59 AM

Here goes...

I think you have a well formed argument. You try to assume Christian presuppostions, and then find problems with the actions of God. But I am thinking you have missed a major presuppostion in Biblical thinking...which is that all have rebelled against God and are therefore deserving of death and "hellfire"...it is only through His mercy that any receive anything but death...God's moral code does not change, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

If we assume Biblical Ideas about God, can we not also assume He is entitled to judge that which He has created?

I would also like to respond to the City of Jericho/sex slaves...(Joshua 6)...Rahab the prostitute was not taken as a slave, but rather saved from the burning of the city by Joshua. She is later honored in the Book of Hebrews for her faith (Hebrews 11: 30-31).

I am interested to find out how you define Evil/Good...because without an absolute standard, any ideas of Evil ultimately become an illusion...G

ImGod · 11-26-2002, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I am interested to find out how you define Evil/Good...because without an absolute standard, any ideas of Evil ultimately become an illusion...G

Evil is an illusion in the concept that it is too abstract to effectively define immoral acts. Plus, the word is overused in our society in order to demonize opposing views. That alone cheapens it as a moral qualifier. Defining what is evil can be difficult. Most of us agree to the "kill puppies for fun" type of evil. However, the gray areas are tougher to define. The US has no absolute standards for killing in that self-defense, capital punishment, war, etc., are allowed as alluded to above.

An absolute standard may define certain acts as evil that I may hold dear, such as drinking alcohol. I propose that absolute standards exist within the group that defines them and subjective standards exist between the different groups (or individuals for that matter). None of the many gods man has created have provided an absolute standard that all humankind can agree upon to use as the basis for our moral systems.

Philosoft · 11-26-2002, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Here goes...

I think you have a well formed argument. You try to assume Christian presuppostions, and then find problems with the actions of God. But I am thinking you have missed a major presuppostion in Biblical thinking...which is that all have rebelled against God and are therefore deserving of death and "hellfire"...it is only through His mercy that any receive anything but death...God's moral code does not change, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

If we assume Biblical Ideas about God, can we not also assume He is entitled to judge that which He has created?

How does this address Primal's argument? Either Christian morality is absolute or it is not. Either it applies universally or it does not. God cannot be both "entitled to judge that which He created," by which you presumably mean cause the deaths of his creations as portrayed in the Bible, and the creator of an absolute, universal moral code that precludes killing.

Primal · 11-26-2002, 10:13 AM

I'd have to agree with Philosoft all objections raised so far are either irrelevant(evil is an illusions otherwise is a different subject entirely) or have already been adressed (if God can simply change/bend the rules then it's situational not absolute.)

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

winstonjen · 11-26-2002, 08:04 PM

From <a href="http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/sevensins.html" target="_blank">http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/sevensins.html</a>

"We are lucky to have been provided with a list of sins that can apparently lead to all sorts of trouble - the Seven Deadly Sins. These should not be confused with the Seven Samurai (who could also cause lots of trouble and be deadly), the Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, or the Seven Sinful Ice-cream Flavours (chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, pistachio, anchovy, mint-choc-chip and pumpkin). Obviously, it would be bad to commit any of these sins (they`re deadly, remember), and as such it seems reasonable to suppose that our Lord and Creator would carefully avoid them too.
Let`s see how well He does.

PRIDE
After creating various bits and bobs in Genesis, we are told "And God saw that it was good". So, He takes pride in His work, apparently.
Also, when John baptised Jesus (good job he did, because we all know what happens to un-baptised people when they die...) God said, and I quote, "You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased". God, who is Jesus, loves and is pleased with Jesus, who is God. If you knew someone who claimed to love and be pleased with himself, wouldn't that hint at a self-proud person?

WRATH
Well, according to the Old Testament, God was a genocidal maniac of Biblical proportions (naturally). However, it could be argued that many of the mass-slaughters described therein were not done out of anger, but for some other Godly motives. Fair enough, but are there any specific examples of wrath?
Samuel (24:1) tells us :"Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah'". Burning anger? Sounds like Wrath to me.

Also from Samuel (6:6) "When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the Ark of God." Presumably God would have preferred the Ark to fall into the mud, but Uzzah paid the price here...

ENVY
From the Ten Commandments : "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." Says it all, really. We don't even need to look for the evidence here, as we get it straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak).

LUST
Your school Nativity Play is a good example : the Holy Spirit impregnating virgins... Naughty, naughty - randy old God.

GLUTTONY
Why are we here? Many theologians would say "To love and worship God". Apparently, God just can't be content unless He creates five billion souls for the specific purpose of telling him how great he is. That's lot of people. That's just plain gluttonous.

AVARICE
Okay, he's let off this one - God has no need of money. Unfortunately his spokespeople, the televangelists, more than make up for this. Send me money and get to heaven! Either they're lying and just trying to get rich, or God actually does need money. Either way, it doesn't look good.

SLOTH
Back to Genesis again: "By the seventh day God finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work."
Being omnipotent, god cannot get tired. If He has access to an infinite supply of energy (as we are led to believe), He could create a billion galaxies without so much as breaking into a sweat. It looks like He was just slobbing around...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Score : 6.5 out of seven. Not so hot, is it?
Now, we are told that Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat the Fruit in Eden, as this would make them more like God (having knowledge of Good and Evil, etc.). Could it be that the Seven Deadly Sins are a similar thing? After all, if you commit all seven, you will indeed be more like God (who, as we have seen, is guilty of all seven). Maybe this is just a bit of reverse psychology. If the churches tell us all about the Seven Deadly Sins, some of us are more likely to actually go out and commit them. From the church's point of view this would be a good thing. After all, they can't have us mere mortals subscribing to a higher moral code than God, now can they?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
� Adrian Barnett 1998"

I think that just about says it all!

Davo · 11-26-2002, 08:37 PM

Primal,

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal:
if one claims killing is wrong, stealing is wrong,hitting is wrong and torture is wrong then these things must be wrong in an absolutist system no matter what... To say that these are ok to do if another person is immoral (kill them in revenge of self-defense) is to make the code situtational.

It makes the code situational if the code is "Killing is wrong," but it doesn't say anything against a more subtle absolutist morality. Here's a quote from Peter Singer:

casual sexual intercourse may be wrong when it leads to the existence of children who cannot be adequately cared for, and not wrong when, because of the existence of effective contraception, it does not lead to reproduction at all. But this is only a superficial form of relativism. While it suggests that the applicability of a specific principle like 'Casual sex is wrong' may be relative to time and place, it says nothing against such a principle being objectively valid in specific circumstances, or against the universal applicability of a more general principle like 'Do what increases happiness and reduces suffering.'

This is the point I'm trying to make. Your identification of circumstances in which the maxim "Killing is wrong" doesn't apply doesn't rule out absolutist morality; it simply rules out a very naive conception of absolutism with very imprecise and sweeping deontological ethics like "Killing is wrong" and "Lying is wrong".

Using the same line of reasoning Peter Singer uses in the above quote, while the morality of killing in self-defence suggests that the applicability of a specific principle like 'Killing is wrong' may be relative to time and place, it says nothing against such a principle being objectively valid in specific circumstances, or against the universal applicability of a more general principle like 'Do what brings us closer to God'.

While this idea may not be absolutist in a strict sense, your argument still doesn't rule out Christian objective morality. And I think it is attacking a straw man to insist that "Xians claim to be absolutists; adhering to a moral code that is universal,unchanging and allows for no exceptions."

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Davo ]

Primal · 11-26-2002, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Using the same line of reasoning Peter Singer uses in the above quote, while the morality of killing in self-defence suggests that the applicability of a specific principle like 'Killing is wrong' may be relative to time and place, it says nothing against such a principle being objectively valid in specific circumstances, or against the universal applicability of a more general principle like 'Do what brings us closer to God'.

While this idea may not be absolutist in a strict sense, your argument still doesn't rule out Christian objective morality. And I think it is attacking a straw man to insist that "Xians claim to be absolutists; adhering to a moral code that is universal,unchanging and allows for no exceptions."

I am not attacking a straw man; I am attacking absolutism that many claim to be universal and allow for no exceptions. If this is not your moral code then you are not an absolutist and your argument does not even apply. Red Herring on the menu?

Primal · 11-26-2002, 09:44 PM

Quote:

casual sexual intercourse may be wrong when it leads to the existence of children who cannot be adequately cared for, and not wrong when, because of the existence of effective contraception, it does not lead to reproduction at all. But this is only a superficial form of relativism. While it suggests that the applicability of a specific principle like 'Casual sex is wrong' may be relative to time and place, it says nothing against such a principle being objectively valid in specific circumstances, or against the universal applicability of a more general principle like 'Do what increases happiness and reduces suffering.'

This is the point I'm trying to make. Your identification of circumstances in which the maxim "Killing is wrong" doesn't apply doesn't rule out absolutist morality; it simply rules out a very naive conception of absolutism with very imprecise and sweeping deontological ethics like "Killing is wrong" and "Lying is wrong".

This morality would be consequential/situational...not absolutist/deontological. If consequences are involved then the morals change with subject and situation.

11-25-2002, 07:54 PM	#1
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Absolutism and a problem with Christian "Morality" I've noticed a major contradiction in Xian morality. On the one hand Xians claim to be absolutists; adhering to a moral code that is universal,unchanging and allows for no exceptions. For example if one claims killing is wrong, stealing is wrong,hitting is wrong and torture is wrong then these things must be wrong in an absolutist system no matter what. To say that these are ok to do if another person is immoral (kill them in revenge of self-defense) is to make the code s itutational. i.e. the action will only be wrong IF one is dealing with moral people. Hence then the morals are dependent on someone else's actions. Hence moral absolutism by definition does not allow for these things no matter what. If these things are allowed under certain conditions then the morality is situational and not absolute. In any case then the contradiction lies in the fact that the God of the Bible does many things theists say are absolutely immoral, yet is said to be moral: murder/kill:the flood/sadam and gamorah/first borns of egypt commit genocide: Land of Cainaan Condone rape: After the fall of Jericho, God lets certain men take virgin/young women as sex slaves. Condone slavery: See above. Allow multiple wives/spouses: See above. Torture: Hellfire. Infanticide: His son, the flood and feeding 42 children to a bear. Now the Christian has to either admit here one of many options: 1) These things are not immoral 2) Morality is not absolute. 3) God is immoral. 4) There is no such thing as morality. You cannot get out of this by saying "they deserved it" or "God changed what morality is" or "God created the rules....so he's above them(again changed what morality is)" Because all that makes the morality situational and not absolute. If a moral code can change in regards to situation or an immoral act can become moral in a certain context...then it varies with the situation;is situational and not absolute.

11-26-2002, 10:13 AM	#6
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	I'd have to agree with Philosoft all objections raised so far are either irrelevant(evil is an illusions otherwise is a different subject entirely) or have already been adressed (if God can simply change/bend the rules then it's situational not absolute.) [ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-25-2002, 08:26 PM	#2
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Agreed. God is a hypocrite, according to his own admission, and has made mistakes - he punishes children for what their parents do - as if that'd be a deterrent - and then decides not to do that anymore. Maybe God had silly ideas about bending the rules, like here - <a href="http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/amendments.html" target="_blank">http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/amendments.html</a>

11-26-2002, 06:59 AM	#3
Gamaliel Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: FL Posts: 13	Here goes... I think you have a well formed argument. You try to assume Christian presuppostions, and then find problems with the actions of God. But I am thinking you have missed a major presuppostion in Biblical thinking...which is that all have rebelled against God and are therefore deserving of death and "hellfire"...it is only through His mercy that any receive anything but death...God's moral code does not change, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. If we assume Biblical Ideas about God, can we not also assume He is entitled to judge that which He has created? I would also like to respond to the City of Jericho/sex slaves...(Joshua 6)...Rahab the prostitute was not taken as a slave, but rather saved from the burning of the city by Joshua. She is later honored in the Book of Hebrews for her faith (Hebrews 11: 30-31). I am interested to find out how you define Evil/Good...because without an absolute standard, any ideas of Evil ultimately become an illusion...G

11-26-2002, 08:04 PM	#7
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	From <a href="http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/sevensins.html" target="_blank">http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/sevensins.html</a> "We are lucky to have been provided with a list of sins that can apparently lead to all sorts of trouble - the Seven Deadly Sins. These should not be confused with the Seven Samurai (who could also cause lots of trouble and be deadly), the Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, or the Seven Sinful Ice-cream Flavours (chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, pistachio, anchovy, mint-choc-chip and pumpkin). Obviously, it would be bad to commit any of these sins (they`re deadly, remember), and as such it seems reasonable to suppose that our Lord and Creator would carefully avoid them too. Let`s see how well He does. PRIDE After creating various bits and bobs in Genesis, we are told "And God saw that it was good". So, He takes pride in His work, apparently. Also, when John baptised Jesus (good job he did, because we all know what happens to un-baptised people when they die...) God said, and I quote, "You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased". God, who is Jesus, loves and is pleased with Jesus, who is God. If you knew someone who claimed to love and be pleased with himself, wouldn't that hint at a self-proud person? WRATH Well, according to the Old Testament, God was a genocidal maniac of Biblical proportions (naturally). However, it could be argued that many of the mass-slaughters described therein were not done out of anger, but for some other Godly motives. Fair enough, but are there any specific examples of wrath? Samuel (24:1) tells us :"Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah'". Burning anger? Sounds like Wrath to me. Also from Samuel (6:6) "When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the Ark of God." Presumably God would have preferred the Ark to fall into the mud, but Uzzah paid the price here... ENVY From the Ten Commandments : "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." Says it all, really. We don't even need to look for the evidence here, as we get it straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak). LUST Your school Nativity Play is a good example : the Holy Spirit impregnating virgins... Naughty, naughty - randy old God. GLUTTONY Why are we here? Many theologians would say "To love and worship God". Apparently, God just can't be content unless He creates five billion souls for the specific purpose of telling him how great he is. That's lot of people. That's just plain gluttonous. AVARICE Okay, he's let off this one - God has no need of money. Unfortunately his spokespeople, the televangelists, more than make up for this. Send me money and get to heaven! Either they're lying and just trying to get rich, or God actually does need money. Either way, it doesn't look good. SLOTH Back to Genesis again: "By the seventh day God finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work." Being omnipotent, god cannot get tired. If He has access to an infinite supply of energy (as we are led to believe), He could create a billion galaxies without so much as breaking into a sweat. It looks like He was just slobbing around... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Score : 6.5 out of seven. Not so hot, is it? Now, we are told that Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat the Fruit in Eden, as this would make them more like God (having knowledge of Good and Evil, etc.). Could it be that the Seven Deadly Sins are a similar thing? After all, if you commit all seven, you will indeed be more like God (who, as we have seen, is guilty of all seven). Maybe this is just a bit of reverse psychology. If the churches tell us all about the Seven Deadly Sins, some of us are more likely to actually go out and commit them. From the church's point of view this would be a good thing. After all, they can't have us mere mortals subscribing to a higher moral code than God, now can they? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � Adrian Barnett 1998" I think that just about says it all!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.