You claim that "divine command theory is the moral theory of choice among theists." This is NOT correct. The most popular moral theory by far among theists is Natural Law theory.
@ProfMTH I'm not sure what you mean by the "whole of morality". My point is only that Divine Command theory, which pretty much amounts to "because gawd sez so", is very incomplete (to put it very nicely) to most theists, or at least to the ones I know.
@thereitisthen "I'm not sure what you mean by the 'whole of morality'."
Precisely what I said. Natural law theory is not regarded by any theist as explaining the entire theistic moral framework -- not even in Catholicism, for which natural law is an extremely significant plank of its moral theology.
@ProfMTH I think I understand your question now. I would say that it is not appropriate for a person who accepts a specific religious position to claim that any of its "internal divine commands" would apply to someone who does not hold that religious position. For example, Jews are commanded to "observe the sabbath", but they would not see that as part of the natural law. Same would go for Catholics.
@ProfMTH So I would say: YES, natural law comprises the whole of morality, unless an individual binds himself to further religious commitments involving "Divine Commands" which he accepts. Further, if these contradict Natural Law, they are not valid.
@thereitisthen "I would say that it is not appropriate for a person who accepts a specific religious position to claim that any of its 'internal divine commands' would apply to someone who does not hold that religious position."
Yet that's precisely what a vast number of believers do when it comes to the SUPERnatural commands they believe are at least part of their moral code. It's not clear to me what your objection is to what I said. I'm not certain it's entirely clear to you.
@ProfMTH If you live in the United States, you are probably exposed to large nests of those "gawd sez" types. I feel for you. Regardless of how many there are, you and I can agree that they are wrong when they claim that anything beyond the natural law "written on all persons' hearts" applies to anyone outside their sect. Catholics, Jews, and many Protestants hold this view, and to me it seems reasonable.
I find Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to be the best guide to "objective morals" so far, but I do not stop seeking ideas on the concept of morality.
This vid presents some very good points and provides a very good overview of morality, thank you!
Thank *you*. My views have changed somewhat since I made this series -- *not* my views about the flaws of divine command theory though. One of these days when I feel I've gotten my views sorted out to the point that I can articulate them concisely and coherently, I'm going to do a follow-up to this.
Not all theists believe that the DCT is an adequate moral theory. I myself am a Christian theist, for instance, and I do not believe that the laws of ancient Israel are applicable in any way outside their theocretic context. Moreover I find it doubtful that any divine command could be unambiguously applied to our contemporary moral issues.
The Euthryphro dilemma you allude to against the DCT, however, can be easily refuted by assuming that God, being essentially morally perfect, would not - in fact, could not - command just any act whatsoever. If you understand God this way, then the Euthryphro dilemma has no force.
Nonetheless, the DCT theory is inadequate for various other reasons. I also agree with you that you do not need God or religion to discover objective moral values. They are true and knowable for all of mankind. However, in order to explain or justify objective moral values, you need an objective non-human legislator or estimator. So far atheists have made good attempts that I applaud, but they are still failing in respect to God as the best explanation for objective moral values.
"The Euthyphro dilemma you allude to against DCT, however, can be easily refuted by assuming that God, being essentially morally perfect, would not - in fact, could not - command just any act whatsoever. If you understand God this way, then the Euthyphro dilemma has no force."
Alas, the assumption you articulate is just that: an assumption. It assumes the very ground in controversy and merely asserts the truth of its foundational premises. You say God is "essentially morally perfect." ...
... The obvious questions are, "How can you know that? By that measure have you made the determination that your god is morally perfect?" Of course, this places you right at the intersection of Euthyphro and Dilemma.
Morality is a purely conceptual and subjectve notion, lacking basis in external definitive reality. It only exists within the mind, wich makes it meningless to "seek ideas on the concept".
I disagree. There are core components of morality that are objective, with their base rooted in the objective existence of life. It does, however, require a conscious mind capable of reason to properly identify these concepts- without such a mind the concept of morality could EXIST, it simply would not be recognized. Have you read the works of Ayn Rand, particular her essays contained in "The Virtue of Selfishness"? Worth a look, should you be further interested.
What I'm trying to say is that morality is completely relative to ones personal subjective values. Ergo, There is nothing such as definitive objective morality.
I wonder what gives you the right to share your opinion here and impose moral relativism on us. If I believe that moral relativism drivel is wrong and no-one has the right to share this with anyone, how would you be able to reprimand or condemn me? You couldn't! Because it's just a matter of taste and there is no accounting for tastes. Without obj. moral values, nobody has the right to condemn anyone's behaviour, e.g. the Nazis' crimes, anymore than their hair-style or clothing.
Yes, I understand your meaning. I find much of human morality is indeed subjective. But I firmly believe there is a core of morality that IS objective.
I exist. That is an objective fact. I can cease to exist, this too is an objective fact.
My standard of morality is my life. That which continues and enhances my life is "the good", that which diminishes it or ends it the "the evil".
My mind recognizes that you are an entity like me, with the same objective existence and right to sustain it.
My core of morality was explained in my last post.
Do you really need definitions for things that enhance or diminish life? Food, water, air enhance and sustain the body. The human mind is enhanced by being productive. The lack of these things diminishes life.
Have a look at XCowboy2's videos. They explain the Objectivist philosophy. I feel no need to repeat explanations that have adequately been provided by the work of others.
An addendum to your last post: Consider a person having completely different values than you have (thus beeing e.g. masochistic or suicidal.) Would he therefore automatically be immoral?
"My core of morality (note the 'my') was explained in my last post."
So you now mean that you have your own moral, only relevant to you personally? If so, it would mean that it's relative, hence lacking objective basis and origin.
I find the core of my morality to be based on objective facts.
I have stated why I believe my morality to be objective. Look at the work of Ayn Rand for the arguments- she has stated the case clearly. I do not care to convince you. If you disagree, so be it.
One generally discusses such things when they wish to convince another of a point. I have no such wish. There are other Objectivists that may wish to discuss the topic with you- I am not one of them.
That's by far the shittiest "refutation" of divine dommand theory I've ever seen.
Seriously, you didn't adress, for example Alson or Adams, you played a shell game with bible-verses, not even the standard-objections to DCT were given!
Since I am a nihilist, I do not believe in morals. I do not believe in good and evil, or right and wrong. I only believe that there are actions that can be regarded as good and bad depending on personal values. However, I have principles of how to behave, avoiding destructive and offensive behaviour, striving for constructive and defensive behaviour.
On the one hand you claim "Since I am a nihilist, I do not believe in morals." and then you contradict yourself by saying: "However, I have principles of how to behave."
This is the problem of the moral nihilist or subjectivist: his assumptions are self-contradictory. Someone who denies all absolute moral values, rights and principles attaches value to his right to deny moral principles.
scientists are all aware that there being a god is a fact of the universe , however philosophers deny this the same way they deny that all people see colors in the same way although science has proved this that we see colors the same way, (unless ur color blind) if we didn't art and color psychology wouldn't exist! its a matter of fact no matter what u do or say u cant deny it. playing with words and basing arguments on non objective arguments doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
the Quran says if we made it clear and immediate gain in sight (for the submitted life) then everyone would be submitted, however we wanted2 divide those sincere from those in it for immediate gain.
besides i don't believe in intuitive morality by proof of the scriptures it is so obvious we forget it, why r children innocent despite bad teachings from parents? its obvious we see it all the time, moral people blossoming out of bad communities and parents, however each of us even children have free will &our free will & our surroundings may effect our intuitive morality. before we do wrong we are always aware of it being morally wrong.
but everyone knows that the Bible isn't Gods true message anymore it was changed by the church to benefit them, so using slavery to prove against God's commands is not an objective argument, the real message of God is placed intuitively within all of us but society and our surroundings and our own free will trains itself to turn a blind eye towards the intuitive morality however it always remains in our subconscious and you can train yourself to retrieve the intuitive morality God placed in u
I think whether it's objective or relative changes from case to case. There are fuzzy edges to the definitions. For instance, the morality of eating meat may depend on your opinion of other animals' ability to suffer, or whether it's even ethical to kill them for food without suffering (eg. free-range, killed with a magnum bullet through the brain). It is objective, however, that morality aims to minimize suffering, so there is an objective overarching purpose.
I am not sure which John you are talking about. Slavery was limited in the Bible, the abolition movement was based on Christian theology. All the major leaders of the abolition movement were Christians. Slavery was tolerated in the bible but it is a simple lie to say it was commanded,even if it was tolerated.
It was definetly not abolihsed based on Christian docterine. In fact there are many examples of it being demanded, in particualr case that of the Amonites, where it was not just a mere recomendation it was a command to enslave them, even to rapre their virgins.
I found no reference anywhere in the bible that proposes the abolishment of slavery. It's an even bigger lie to claim otherwise
Every major leader of the Abolitionist movement was a Christian and Christian doctrine "Christ died to make men holy let us die to make men free" were the bases of the movement.
As for commands to rape or enslave they are not part of the Bible and if they were you would have quoted them.
I have done. If you condier kidnapping of women to make babies is not rape then you have a twwisted sense of pologitics. Also in respect to the anomites, as already pointed out you, it was forbidden to marry an Anomite under pain of death, so what did you think they were going to do with them when they claimed "those who have been untouched for your own?"
After watching these men kille their mothers, fathers, brothers and siisters they're harldy likely condiates for a date now are they?
They could marry young women who had not been raised completely in the pagan culture. Your concept of dating is messed up in the bronze age you married for protection. The young women were allowed to morn and were made part of the Israelite culture. Look, you need to read what the actual historical commentaries have to say instead of just reading the skeptics annotated Bible.
"Your concept of dating is messed up in the bronze age you married for protection."
Where in that concept does it either make it right? Becasue it was of the times? If your God is against abortion, murder, rape, etc, etc, etc, what you're claiming is he was not at the time becasue of the time.
Ergo, God evolved with society not the otherway around. Subject morality, Relative Morality.
Really? What were the limits, other than the limit on where the Israelites could procure their slaves, i.e., their god said they couldn't enslave one another, so he sent them off to the surrounding "pagan nations" to go slave shopping (Leviticus 25:44). Once acquired, a slave could be permanently held as such -- the slave had become a "possession", after all (Leviticus 25:45) -- and one could bequeath one's slaves to one's heirs (Leviticus 25:46). ...
"Slavery was tolerated in the bible but it is a simple lie to say it was commanded,even if it was tolerated."
When one's god is giving one directions as to where one can go slave shopping -- i.e., not within Israel, but everywhere else -- it's a lot more than mere toleration. No, the god of Leviticus is portrayed telling his people that it's OK for them to have slaves, telling them where they may acquire slaves, and instructing them on how they might will their slaves to future generations.
"...the abolition movement was based on Christian theology."
In fact, religious abolitionists had to reject the biblical texts that actually talk about slavery -- all of which are favorable to it, none of which even hints at a moral condemnation of slavery -- in order to build a case against slavery that believering slave holders of the day would listen to. And even then, it took a civil war to finally rid the nation of this moral outrage. Stop making excuses for your holy book on this.
The Bible does not promote it at all though it is tolerated in some parts of the Old testament.
The fact that the United States had to come to a civil war after religiously motivated moral outrage over slavery exasperated sectional tensions does not make the religously motivated outrage any less religious.
Saying the Bible is not enough against slavery is like saying the Bible is not enough against abortion, who but us Christians is (was) really standing up to the practice.
"The Bible does not promote it at all though it is tolerated in some parts of the Old testament."
You may keep repeating this in mantra-like fashion, Poetsonghotmail, but that won't make it true. As I've shown you, Leviticus 25 has Yahweh telling the Israelites that they may have slaves, instructing them as to where they may go to acquire the slaves, telling them that they may hold these human beings as slaves permanently and even will them as property to their successors. It's not as...
...Leviticus 25 has Yahweh saying, "Well, I don't like it and it's morally wrong, but if you guys must have slaves I guess I'll put up with it." Quite the opposite. You need to come to terms with this.
You also need to come to terms with the fact that there is not a word in any biblical text in which slavery is morally condemned. There's nothing that even hints at this. In fact, the 10 Commandments, hailed by many Christian theists as the greatest expression of morality, assumes...
Your right when you say it assumes the existence of slavery, it does. It does not command them to have slaves, it puts limits on slavery. But it is true it does not explicitly forbid it. What I find interesting though is that while Christians dominated to movement to abolish slavery there was no secular voice against the practice at all.
Why would it be that the people who held these scriptures as sacred so this a limitations on a practice that the secular world felt was acceptable.
"Your right when you say it assumes the existence of slavery, it does. It does not command them to have slaves...."
I never said the 10 Commandments command slavery. Avoid red herrings.
"...it puts limits on slavery."
I asked you about this and you failed to answer. Perhaps you'll answer now. What are these purported "limits on slavery" that you claim appear in the Bible? Where can I find them? Thanks.
"But it is true it does not explicitly forbid it."
"...there was no secular voice against the practice at all."
You're wrong. There were plenty of secular voices against slavery. The abolitionist movement was not exclusively made up of Christians. Good grief, Poetsonghotmail, where *did* you learn history?
Moreover, the vast majority of believers regarded slavery as perfectly acceptable. Why? Because, they said, the Bible told them so.
I have to wonder where *you* learned history if the abolitionist movement does not involve figures like Charles G. Finney, William Wilborforce, Paley, and though I don't condone his violence John Brown. The movement dripped theology while science and economics were used to show how the less evolved races were better off as slaves.
School, colleg, university, the actual places through arecholoy, biblical studies, the church (actually a better source of history than you might think, if need questions go there then loo for the answers elsewhere)
Thats the same question I get over and over and over again. It's lie mantra to you guys
Do you know of any secular figures of equal importance to those I sited. Not just people who felt slavery was wrong but people who actually took risks to fight it? This movements main leaders were Christians.
Buh was a Christian, Reagan, in fact nearly every damn member of congress. Your point is mute becasue of mere claims.
Also it is wrong, in the whole no matter how many times we have told you otherwise, your claims land in the realms of "bullshit" (not lies, just bullshit)
Of course, the movement was not "exclusively" made up of Christians but the movement was organized through Churches and conducted based Christian thought and feeling. Certainly, you can find atheists who did not approve of slavery but foot soldiers and major leaders, and certainly those who lost much and had nothing to gain, a fair reading of history shows these people were Christians.
The 10 Commandments don't deal with slavery but the greater commandments of the OT put restrictions on the practice such as a slave who lost a tooth or an eye they must be set free on account of the abuse. Exodus 21:26
Theological writers after careful reading of the Bible (I believe with the prompting of the Holy Spirit) decided it was implicitly forbidden. You should answer Paley's work on the subject if you disagree.
"The 10 Commandments don't deal with slavery but the greater commandments of the OT put restrictions on the practice such as a slave who lost a tooth or an eye they must be set free on account of the abuse. Exodus 21:26"
And do you consider this a morally significant "limit", Poetsonghotmail? If so, why? I'd love to hear an explanation for how stopping the beating of a slave at the point that one knocks out one or more of the slave's teeth or takes out one of the slave's eyes constitues...
It is important to note that in the American South this rule was not followed. If slaves had been freed after cases of abuse slavery would not have been profitable.
Yes, of course forbidding the abuse of a slave is a major limitation of slavery. No slavery is not acceptable now but we are not living in the bronze age either. As I said Paley wrote on why Slavery is unacceptable in Christian doctrine but I wonder why you believe it is problematic right now.
I meant to say why you don't believe it is problematic right now.
Also, I think it interesting that you are picking on an issue which was a prime example of religion in politics. There were some atheists and deists opposed to slavery just as some atheist oppose abortion. However, like the anti-abortion movement today the energy and anger is coming from the churches.
It is not moral relativist to suggest that rules should grow stricter as humans develop morally. Also the ancient practice of the slavery was not the practice we knew here in the New World. In the book of Philemon it shows that the stasis of the slave is elevated to that of a brother. Also, Gal. 3:28 says there is no more slave or free.
If you were really interested in what Christianity had to say about the subject you would read the theology that caused Christians to fight slavery.
"It is not moral relativist to suggest that rules should grow stricter as humans develop morally."
Is the institution of slavery inherently immoral?
"Also the ancient practice of the slavery was not the practice we knew here in the New World."
Slavery is slavery.
"Also, Gal. 3:28 says there is no more slave or free."
It also says there are no males or females. Looking around, I'm not sure that passage came as particularly good news for the slaves who might have read or heard it.
"Slavery is slavery." No, it is not. Some slaves were considered family members other were abused.
"Also, Gal. 3:28 says there is no more slave or free." The differentiation of a persons value based on stasis are dead. A person being loved by God makes these stasis reliant.
"Is the institution of slavery inherently immoral?" All human institutions are immoral and unjust. It is the relationship between people that must change before institutions change. As it did in this case.
I'll remember that of both the Red Cross and Crescent the next time I see them in the middle of a warzzone. I remember that of the Civil rights movement
When Christianity formed it was the Christians who were most commonly the slaves not the masters. Masters were not only forbidden to beat their slaves but even threaten them. Ephesians 6:5-9
Deeper reading of the texts gave understanding that the practice itself was problomatic.
But we did not see in the secular world any similar sort of outrage against the practice. To condemn the very group of people who worked to end the practice as promoting it is not logical.
Yes, how about a not motivated reading. The writing of Paley and other theologins talked extensively about why it was not acceptable but you don't want to deal with that.
Nor will you answer why there was so little apposition in the secular world or why it really is wrong now at all from your stand point.
The ability to perceive moral truths is an evolved trait like our ability to perceive light and sound. These moral truths are as objective as anything we hear or see. Theists don't tend to say that our eyes and ears have nothing to do with seeing or hearing, and it's only god's direct magical influence that allows us to see. So why do they think we need a special magical influence to see the difference between something good and something bad? It's just another sense.
"Do you believe slavery and slaughter are morally OK, Realingintheyears?"
We can talk theology if you like. I can define Gods attributes biblically. We have to go back and do a word study and get the MEANING in the text not your opinion of it.But thats not really where we have been going I thought.
My point has been you don't know whats right or wrong
I can tell you my position word for word
The 10 commandments for example.
But you have one of millions of different views on morals.
"We can talk theology if you like. I can define Gods attributes biblically. We have to go back and do a word study and get the MEANING in the text not your opinion of it.But thats not really where we have been going I thought."
Well, I can certainly understand that you'd prefer not to deal with the many negative implications of a divine command theory of morality. However, that is very much where I saw this discussion going precisely because you have asserted the superiority of said theory.
Basically, Realingintheyears, your response ignores the substance of what I said in favor of presenting what boils down to a "might makes right" argument, i.e., God may do as he pleases because God is "sovereign" and "omnipotent" and "doesn't owe me or you anything." So you equate morality with power -- a troublesome equation indeed. Basic moral intuitions make it clear that just because someone has the power to do X doesn't mean X is the right thing to do.
"Well when you say basic I think you should be at least able to define it."
I did define it. As for defining 'moral', it is not I who has the issue, Realingintheyears, but you. You are bound to say that morality is whatever God declares. As I show in the series, that forces believers to argue "might makes right" and to make outrageous claims like slavery and slaughter are moral. If you view that as the stronger position in this discussion, well, that's very much your problem.
My point of course was the reason we began this conversation to start with imo. And that was that atheits have different definitions of morals it depends who you talk to.
So really all I can honestly ask an atheist is his opinion on it.
For christians we have the same.From God who never changes.
But still how do get away from slavery being moral in the past because even slaves began to believe they were animal like.
Slavery slaughter? Well if I was stranded on an island and had to fight to survive. I could envision a scenerio where I capture someone and have to keep them so they don't give me away.
I guess keeping them locked up could be considered slavery.
Depends on your definition of slavery and slaughter.
God alone can judge and carry out punishment as he sees fit.
Is it fair children get cancer? This is a fallen world we live in.
Sin caused these issues to come up. God is absolutely holy.
I changed my name,never did like the previous one!
"But still how do get away from slavery being moral in the past because even slaves began to believe they were animal like.
Was it moral then?"
With this question I assumed you think morals evolved. Basically are things we know to be wrong today like slavery (america's history) were they wrong when most thought it was moral? Was it moral then is my question?
If not then how do you know what you think is moral today actually moral?
"With this question I assumed you think morals evolved. Basically are things we know to be wrong today like slavery (america's history) were they wrong when most thought it was moral? Was it moral then is my question?"
No, slavery is, has been, and always will be immoral. Human beings have a moral faculty akin, e.g., to our linguistic faculty, which assists us to make moral judgments. We also have the ability to reason, which assists in discerning what is and is not moral.
What I show quite clearly in this video series is that neither Divine Command Theory in particular nor the Bible in general provides anything approaching a consistent moral framework. Christians reject much of what the Bible claims God has no moral problem with, e.g., slavery, slaughtering people because they happen to be living where one wants to live. Apologists can talk around it all they want. The truth is the truth.
To continue on the Divine Command Theory, it is an unsound theory. The right thing to do is the one that has the best reasons on its side. Whether God exists or not, torture is still morally wrong because of the reasons against it, not because God commanded it. As a Theist, morality and religion must be separate and independent of one another.
The Divine Command theory states that morality is based only on what God commands, nothing more. However, as explained in Plato's Euthyprho, did "God command torture to be wrong, therefore it is wrong, or is torture already wrong and God commanded it so?" Also is the problem of moral relativism - which religion truly interprets God's commands? If it's Christianity, than moral religious commands by God are "perfect" and always true. The reasons that influenced God's command are also unknown.
You can prove the Bible worng a million times and they don't come off it because they learnt that Faith is stronger than reason.
Moreover the fact they have the nerve to state without fear of punishment that i or you must be a bad person. I mean claiming that they know the word of god is arrogance in and of itself but....Faith is Stronger than reason??????????????
Awesome! In Exodus 21:7-9 Yahweh regulates the selling of daughters as sex-slaves, and a few verses later dictates that it's okay for a slave to be beaten unconscious, as long as he doesn't die, and after days of lying nearly dead, is to get up and get back to work because "he's still his master's property." It's disgusting!
Nice/Interesting Video ProfMTH, you seem to have a good understanding of objective morality , where I would challenge you on is the contexts, backgrounds, and possibly what the greek says in the Bible about the few bible verses consisting of your argument against divine command theory. I cannot cite specifically but your translation sounds like KJV , since it said abraham asked God if he was sorry.
On Jesus's "birthday," I shall commend you for your views and wonderful video. I love finding people on youtube that continue to show the ignorance of religion. Happy holidays in the most secular sense of the phrase =]
If the only response someone offers, Utubephilosopher, is to call me an asshole, it pretty muh demonstrates that my point has prevailed. Nothing to get angry about there. ;-) Happy New Year.
Um the term "full of it" sort of implies that you're saying ProfMTH is making something up. Could you be so kind as the point out the part where he is factually incorrect for the rest of us so that we might be as enlightened as you? Might I also suggest that if you cannot then making such statements means you're the one that's "full of it" as you make random statements based not in fact but small minded opinion.
By whoms standard? Yours? You see the Athiest are assigning a standard to something due to its source, it being religious, and without know the elements behind the choice. In short your offended by Hell because you this it is excessive with out knowing the level of the crime commited. How many criminals think they are punished more then needed?
Thanks for your comment, Hunterkirk. I must confess, however, I'm not sure I understand your criticism. It strikes me that you didn't fully get what I said about Divine Command Theory.
Not really. If you think of human nature as sinners to a group of criminals.. like the mob. How would one mob person judge another? and how would a mob person feel about a judges punishment? If you place God as the judge and us as the mob members, you would see my point.
are you a fan of democracy or republicanism hunterkirk(and i mean the form of government, not the political parties)? Because essentially that is what both of those forms of government are. The "mob" either judges people and choices, or allows other to do it for them. Id recommend you read some Jefferson, he has interesting views on this.
I was talking to Hunterkirk, he condemns mobs making decisions like judgement and punishment. I was merely pointing out that our system of government is a complicated form of "mob people" making judgements and punishment. The comment was made to show him that all "mob rule" isn't all bad, if controlled by checks and balances as Jefferson advocated.
not sure what i think about all of this yet. but it looks like you're making a mistake when you say that the view that good is grounded in the nature of God is a self-contradiction. if God's nature determines what is good, then there is no need to have an outside standard to apply to to see if God is good. his character/nature is, in a way, the definition of good. God's nature = good. (continued)
2009hoya, I don't recall saying at any point in the video that the view of good as grounded in the nature of God is self-contradictory. The argument was that there is no way to assess the nature of God as good if there isn't an independent standard of morality/justice/good to which the nature of God could be compared.
(continued) to me what you're argument is saying something like this: [a triangle is a polygon with three corners and three sides. so how do you know that this "triangle" has three corners and three sides? ]
it's a actually the question that is nonsensical and self-contradictory. you said that according to this view God's character determines what is good, and then your question implicitly asserts that good exists as a standard apart from God's character.
I don't speak Hebrew or Greek or Latin, but I wonder whether the contradictions and many other things in the bible are a problem of all the changes and modifications the bible has undergone. It seems to me that the statue thing could be such a thing. Not like that changes anything; the people base their religion on this translation, anyway.
hey profmth, i tought that i posted about 5 responses totally clarifying these scriptures for you and your viewers.was i dreaming or am i being sensored. well at least you haven't blocked me, as the other insecure, fearful atheist's have.
I don't know what you're blathering on about, Ruddermanspeaks. But consider yourself blocked now. Your comments are rude and idiotic. I'm tired of wasting my time reading them, much more responding to them. Have a nice life.
bond slaves are those who sold themselves into indentured slavitude( through poverty or debt). not the brutal kidnapping of dehumanizing of an indivisual as what we know as slavery. there were clear moral guidelines in to the humane treatment of these people
god is full of morals the flood sodom and gomora stoneing people..yup he is just oozing with morals.
johndebbra 1 year ago
The religious mind is truly a wonder to behold. That theists can, with a straight face, claim to have the monopoly on morality is astounding.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
STRAW MAN STRAW MAN.. GOD.. REPORTED
part2themovie 1 year ago
@part2themovie LOL! What?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH wow god looks perfect in that picture.
rightwingHateSpeech 1 year ago
natural law is pretty sucky.
ChipChipBreak 1 year ago
@ChipChipBreak Indeed it is.
BTW, you have a great voice. Enjoyed your singing.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
wow. flattered! thanks man.
ChipChipBreak 1 year ago
@ChipChipBreak You're welcome.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
You claim that "divine command theory is the moral theory of choice among theists." This is NOT correct. The most popular moral theory by far among theists is Natural Law theory.
thereitisthen 1 year ago
@thereitisthen Certainly you're not contending that theists believe that "natural law" comprises the whole of morality, are you?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I'm not sure what you mean by the "whole of morality". My point is only that Divine Command theory, which pretty much amounts to "because gawd sez so", is very incomplete (to put it very nicely) to most theists, or at least to the ones I know.
thereitisthen 1 year ago
@thereitisthen "I'm not sure what you mean by the 'whole of morality'."
Precisely what I said. Natural law theory is not regarded by any theist as explaining the entire theistic moral framework -- not even in Catholicism, for which natural law is an extremely significant plank of its moral theology.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I think I understand your question now. I would say that it is not appropriate for a person who accepts a specific religious position to claim that any of its "internal divine commands" would apply to someone who does not hold that religious position. For example, Jews are commanded to "observe the sabbath", but they would not see that as part of the natural law. Same would go for Catholics.
thereitisthen 1 year ago
@ProfMTH So I would say: YES, natural law comprises the whole of morality, unless an individual binds himself to further religious commitments involving "Divine Commands" which he accepts. Further, if these contradict Natural Law, they are not valid.
thereitisthen 1 year ago
@thereitisthen "I would say that it is not appropriate for a person who accepts a specific religious position to claim that any of its 'internal divine commands' would apply to someone who does not hold that religious position."
Yet that's precisely what a vast number of believers do when it comes to the SUPERnatural commands they believe are at least part of their moral code. It's not clear to me what your objection is to what I said. I'm not certain it's entirely clear to you.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH If you live in the United States, you are probably exposed to large nests of those "gawd sez" types. I feel for you. Regardless of how many there are, you and I can agree that they are wrong when they claim that anything beyond the natural law "written on all persons' hearts" applies to anyone outside their sect. Catholics, Jews, and many Protestants hold this view, and to me it seems reasonable.
thereitisthen 1 year ago
quick and dirty, just like i like it
PartVIII 2 years ago
I find Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to be the best guide to "objective morals" so far, but I do not stop seeking ideas on the concept of morality.
This vid presents some very good points and provides a very good overview of morality, thank you!
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Thank *you*. My views have changed somewhat since I made this series -- *not* my views about the flaws of divine command theory though. One of these days when I feel I've gotten my views sorted out to the point that I can articulate them concisely and coherently, I'm going to do a follow-up to this.
Thanks again.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You're welcome. It is often difficult to put all of one's thoughts on morality down to a 10 min. vid or a few 500 character posts!
I look forward to the follow-up!
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Not all theists believe that the DCT is an adequate moral theory. I myself am a Christian theist, for instance, and I do not believe that the laws of ancient Israel are applicable in any way outside their theocretic context. Moreover I find it doubtful that any divine command could be unambiguously applied to our contemporary moral issues.
Bucklehairy 2 years ago
The Euthryphro dilemma you allude to against the DCT, however, can be easily refuted by assuming that God, being essentially morally perfect, would not - in fact, could not - command just any act whatsoever. If you understand God this way, then the Euthryphro dilemma has no force.
Bucklehairy 2 years ago
Nonetheless, the DCT theory is inadequate for various other reasons. I also agree with you that you do not need God or religion to discover objective moral values. They are true and knowable for all of mankind. However, in order to explain or justify objective moral values, you need an objective non-human legislator or estimator. So far atheists have made good attempts that I applaud, but they are still failing in respect to God as the best explanation for objective moral values.
Bucklehairy 2 years ago
"The Euthyphro dilemma you allude to against DCT, however, can be easily refuted by assuming that God, being essentially morally perfect, would not - in fact, could not - command just any act whatsoever. If you understand God this way, then the Euthyphro dilemma has no force."
Alas, the assumption you articulate is just that: an assumption. It assumes the very ground in controversy and merely asserts the truth of its foundational premises. You say God is "essentially morally perfect." ...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
... The obvious questions are, "How can you know that? By that measure have you made the determination that your god is morally perfect?" Of course, this places you right at the intersection of Euthyphro and Dilemma.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
True. DCT-defender would have to defend this assumption without alluding to his own moral theory.
Bucklehairy 2 years ago
Morality is a purely conceptual and subjectve notion, lacking basis in external definitive reality. It only exists within the mind, wich makes it meningless to "seek ideas on the concept".
fingtyin 2 years ago
I disagree. There are core components of morality that are objective, with their base rooted in the objective existence of life. It does, however, require a conscious mind capable of reason to properly identify these concepts- without such a mind the concept of morality could EXIST, it simply would not be recognized. Have you read the works of Ayn Rand, particular her essays contained in "The Virtue of Selfishness"? Worth a look, should you be further interested.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
If morality is indeed objective, as you propose, how can it be be observed objectively? How can one differentiate true morality with false?
"There are core components of morality that are objective, with their base rooted in the objective existence of life."
I've heard that argument before, and it's rather easy to debunk. Let's say a person truly wishes to commit suicide, how is this wrong or immoral?
fingtyin 2 years ago
Debunk it within your own mind if you wish, I have no concern there. Here is the argument is you wish to hear it.
watch?v=nfgFd9MJYg8&feature=channel_page
1RationalMind 2 years ago
What I'm trying to say is that morality is completely relative to ones personal subjective values. Ergo, There is nothing such as definitive objective morality.
fingtyin 2 years ago
I wonder what gives you the right to share your opinion here and impose moral relativism on us. If I believe that moral relativism drivel is wrong and no-one has the right to share this with anyone, how would you be able to reprimand or condemn me? You couldn't! Because it's just a matter of taste and there is no accounting for tastes. Without obj. moral values, nobody has the right to condemn anyone's behaviour, e.g. the Nazis' crimes, anymore than their hair-style or clothing.
Bucklehairy 2 years ago
Yes, I understand your meaning. I find much of human morality is indeed subjective. But I firmly believe there is a core of morality that IS objective.
I exist. That is an objective fact. I can cease to exist, this too is an objective fact.
My standard of morality is my life. That which continues and enhances my life is "the good", that which diminishes it or ends it the "the evil".
My mind recognizes that you are an entity like me, with the same objective existence and right to sustain it.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
"But I firmly believe there is a core of morality that IS objective."
Tell me what you mean by "core of morality", and what evidence there is for its existence (or if it's merely based on faith.)
fingtyin 2 years ago
My core of morality was explained in my last post.
Do you really need definitions for things that enhance or diminish life? Food, water, air enhance and sustain the body. The human mind is enhanced by being productive. The lack of these things diminishes life.
Have a look at XCowboy2's videos. They explain the Objectivist philosophy. I feel no need to repeat explanations that have adequately been provided by the work of others.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
An addendum to your last post: Consider a person having completely different values than you have (thus beeing e.g. masochistic or suicidal.) Would he therefore automatically be immoral?
fingtyin 2 years ago
"My core of morality (note the 'my') was explained in my last post."
So you now mean that you have your own moral, only relevant to you personally? If so, it would mean that it's relative, hence lacking objective basis and origin.
fingtyin 2 years ago
I find the core of my morality to be based on objective facts.
I have stated why I believe my morality to be objective. Look at the work of Ayn Rand for the arguments- she has stated the case clearly. I do not care to convince you. If you disagree, so be it.
One generally discusses such things when they wish to convince another of a point. I have no such wish. There are other Objectivists that may wish to discuss the topic with you- I am not one of them.
Good day to you.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
"I find the core of my morality to be based on objective facts."
No, your 'morality' is based on your own values and preferences wich are entirely subjective. Ergo, you have no objective morality.
fingtyin 2 years ago
Whatever. Discussion over.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
"My standard of morality is my life. That which continues and enhances my life is "the good", that which diminishes it or ends it the "the evil"."
Define "enhance" and "diminsish" in objective terminology.
fingtyin 2 years ago
That's by far the shittiest "refutation" of divine dommand theory I've ever seen.
Seriously, you didn't adress, for example Alson or Adams, you played a shell game with bible-verses, not even the standard-objections to DCT were given!
Seriously, remake this series.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
LOL.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hoobastank....ugh, come on, prof. I have my limits.
Redfingers 2 years ago
your "flaming anger" gurl
tellthetruth811 2 years ago
Since I am a nihilist, I do not believe in morals. I do not believe in good and evil, or right and wrong. I only believe that there are actions that can be regarded as good and bad depending on personal values. However, I have principles of how to behave, avoiding destructive and offensive behaviour, striving for constructive and defensive behaviour.
fingtyin 2 years ago
On the one hand you claim "Since I am a nihilist, I do not believe in morals." and then you contradict yourself by saying: "However, I have principles of how to behave."
This is the problem of the moral nihilist or subjectivist: his assumptions are self-contradictory. Someone who denies all absolute moral values, rights and principles attaches value to his right to deny moral principles.
Bucklehairy 2 years ago
"However, I have principles of how to behave."
And these principles are based on personal subjective value.
fingtyin 2 years ago
scientists are all aware that there being a god is a fact of the universe , however philosophers deny this the same way they deny that all people see colors in the same way although science has proved this that we see colors the same way, (unless ur color blind) if we didn't art and color psychology wouldn't exist! its a matter of fact no matter what u do or say u cant deny it. playing with words and basing arguments on non objective arguments doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
masoomsaddat 2 years ago
the Quran says if we made it clear and immediate gain in sight (for the submitted life) then everyone would be submitted, however we wanted2 divide those sincere from those in it for immediate gain.
masoomsaddat 2 years ago
besides i don't believe in intuitive morality by proof of the scriptures it is so obvious we forget it, why r children innocent despite bad teachings from parents? its obvious we see it all the time, moral people blossoming out of bad communities and parents, however each of us even children have free will &our free will & our surroundings may effect our intuitive morality. before we do wrong we are always aware of it being morally wrong.
masoomsaddat 2 years ago
Quran is the only untouched scripture which none of you have ever read in detail, bible is changed by man
masoomsaddat 2 years ago
but everyone knows that the Bible isn't Gods true message anymore it was changed by the church to benefit them, so using slavery to prove against God's commands is not an objective argument, the real message of God is placed intuitively within all of us but society and our surroundings and our own free will trains itself to turn a blind eye towards the intuitive morality however it always remains in our subconscious and you can train yourself to retrieve the intuitive morality God placed in u
masoomsaddat 2 years ago
if scripture isn't the true message, how do you conclude intuitive morality is placed by god?
burnhippiesforfuel 2 years ago
I think whether it's objective or relative changes from case to case. There are fuzzy edges to the definitions. For instance, the morality of eating meat may depend on your opinion of other animals' ability to suffer, or whether it's even ethical to kill them for food without suffering (eg. free-range, killed with a magnum bullet through the brain). It is objective, however, that morality aims to minimize suffering, so there is an objective overarching purpose.
GBart 2 years ago
God did not decree slavery.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Leviticus 25:44.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Lets not forget Jesus condoned it, Paul condoned it, John condoned it
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
I am not sure which John you are talking about. Slavery was limited in the Bible, the abolition movement was based on Christian theology. All the major leaders of the abolition movement were Christians. Slavery was tolerated in the bible but it is a simple lie to say it was commanded,even if it was tolerated.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
It was definetly not abolihsed based on Christian docterine. In fact there are many examples of it being demanded, in particualr case that of the Amonites, where it was not just a mere recomendation it was a command to enslave them, even to rapre their virgins.
I found no reference anywhere in the bible that proposes the abolishment of slavery. It's an even bigger lie to claim otherwise
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
Every major leader of the Abolitionist movement was a Christian and Christian doctrine "Christ died to make men holy let us die to make men free" were the bases of the movement.
As for commands to rape or enslave they are not part of the Bible and if they were you would have quoted them.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"Every major leader of the Abolitionist movement was a Christian"
Really? I suippose we Athiests had nothing to do with freedom.
You fail to see that every Christian Church approved of slavery as well. QED your comment is kinda mute
"Christ died to make men holy let us die to make men free"
You also know in what context that verse was meant and a good example of interpration
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
"As for commands to rape or enslave they are not part of the Bible and if they were you would have quoted them."
Okay, you asked for it again:
(Rape)
Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Zechariah 14:1-2
Slavery
Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
Not one of those verses are a command to rape or enslave. Please address this issue honestly.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
I have done. If you condier kidnapping of women to make babies is not rape then you have a twwisted sense of pologitics. Also in respect to the anomites, as already pointed out you, it was forbidden to marry an Anomite under pain of death, so what did you think they were going to do with them when they claimed "those who have been untouched for your own?"
After watching these men kille their mothers, fathers, brothers and siisters they're harldy likely condiates for a date now are they?
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
They could marry young women who had not been raised completely in the pagan culture. Your concept of dating is messed up in the bronze age you married for protection. The young women were allowed to morn and were made part of the Israelite culture. Look, you need to read what the actual historical commentaries have to say instead of just reading the skeptics annotated Bible.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"Your concept of dating is messed up in the bronze age you married for protection."
Where in that concept does it either make it right? Becasue it was of the times? If your God is against abortion, murder, rape, etc, etc, etc, what you're claiming is he was not at the time becasue of the time.
Ergo, God evolved with society not the otherway around. Subject morality, Relative Morality.
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
"Slavery was limited in the Bible...."
Really? What were the limits, other than the limit on where the Israelites could procure their slaves, i.e., their god said they couldn't enslave one another, so he sent them off to the surrounding "pagan nations" to go slave shopping (Leviticus 25:44). Once acquired, a slave could be permanently held as such -- the slave had become a "possession", after all (Leviticus 25:45) -- and one could bequeath one's slaves to one's heirs (Leviticus 25:46). ...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
... So, precisely what is the limitation of which you speak and why, if at all, is it morally significant, Poetsonghotmail?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Slavery was tolerated in the bible but it is a simple lie to say it was commanded,even if it was tolerated."
When one's god is giving one directions as to where one can go slave shopping -- i.e., not within Israel, but everywhere else -- it's a lot more than mere toleration. No, the god of Leviticus is portrayed telling his people that it's OK for them to have slaves, telling them where they may acquire slaves, and instructing them on how they might will their slaves to future generations.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"...the abolition movement was based on Christian theology."
In fact, religious abolitionists had to reject the biblical texts that actually talk about slavery -- all of which are favorable to it, none of which even hints at a moral condemnation of slavery -- in order to build a case against slavery that believering slave holders of the day would listen to. And even then, it took a civil war to finally rid the nation of this moral outrage. Stop making excuses for your holy book on this.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
The Bible does not promote it at all though it is tolerated in some parts of the Old testament.
The fact that the United States had to come to a civil war after religiously motivated moral outrage over slavery exasperated sectional tensions does not make the religously motivated outrage any less religious.
Saying the Bible is not enough against slavery is like saying the Bible is not enough against abortion, who but us Christians is (was) really standing up to the practice.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"The Bible does not promote it at all though it is tolerated in some parts of the Old testament."
You may keep repeating this in mantra-like fashion, Poetsonghotmail, but that won't make it true. As I've shown you, Leviticus 25 has Yahweh telling the Israelites that they may have slaves, instructing them as to where they may go to acquire the slaves, telling them that they may hold these human beings as slaves permanently and even will them as property to their successors. It's not as...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...Leviticus 25 has Yahweh saying, "Well, I don't like it and it's morally wrong, but if you guys must have slaves I guess I'll put up with it." Quite the opposite. You need to come to terms with this.
You also need to come to terms with the fact that there is not a word in any biblical text in which slavery is morally condemned. There's nothing that even hints at this. In fact, the 10 Commandments, hailed by many Christian theists as the greatest expression of morality, assumes...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...the existence of slavery (see, e.g., Exodus 20:17).
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Your right when you say it assumes the existence of slavery, it does. It does not command them to have slaves, it puts limits on slavery. But it is true it does not explicitly forbid it. What I find interesting though is that while Christians dominated to movement to abolish slavery there was no secular voice against the practice at all.
Why would it be that the people who held these scriptures as sacred so this a limitations on a practice that the secular world felt was acceptable.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"Your right when you say it assumes the existence of slavery, it does. It does not command them to have slaves...."
I never said the 10 Commandments command slavery. Avoid red herrings.
"...it puts limits on slavery."
I asked you about this and you failed to answer. Perhaps you'll answer now. What are these purported "limits on slavery" that you claim appear in the Bible? Where can I find them? Thanks.
"But it is true it does not explicitly forbid it."
Nor implicitly.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"...there was no secular voice against the practice at all."
You're wrong. There were plenty of secular voices against slavery. The abolitionist movement was not exclusively made up of Christians. Good grief, Poetsonghotmail, where *did* you learn history?
Moreover, the vast majority of believers regarded slavery as perfectly acceptable. Why? Because, they said, the Bible told them so.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I have to wonder where *you* learned history if the abolitionist movement does not involve figures like Charles G. Finney, William Wilborforce, Paley, and though I don't condone his violence John Brown. The movement dripped theology while science and economics were used to show how the less evolved races were better off as slaves.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"I have to wonder where *you* learned history"
School, colleg, university, the actual places through arecholoy, biblical studies, the church (actually a better source of history than you might think, if need questions go there then loo for the answers elsewhere)
Thats the same question I get over and over and over again. It's lie mantra to you guys
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
Do you know of any secular figures of equal importance to those I sited. Not just people who felt slavery was wrong but people who actually took risks to fight it? This movements main leaders were Christians.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"This movements main leaders were Christians."
Buh was a Christian, Reagan, in fact nearly every damn member of congress. Your point is mute becasue of mere claims.
Also it is wrong, in the whole no matter how many times we have told you otherwise, your claims land in the realms of "bullshit" (not lies, just bullshit)
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
Give me a break, the abolition movement was organized by Churches just like the anti-abortion movement of today.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
I'm not disputing that, what I am dsputing is your claim to it being a wholey Christian organised movement. It was not.
Also I answered your question on progressive seculurists on a simple level. You have yet to answer my point on eveolotinary God
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
"Your point is mute"
hahahahahaha that's a coot typo.
GBart 2 years ago
No it's deliberate
Mute, silent, no voice
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
oh ok
GBart 2 years ago
Yup
The founding fathers.
Wait, wait wait...
Okay now begin... let's hear the same old bullshit story from you about the founding fathers
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
Of course, the movement was not "exclusively" made up of Christians but the movement was organized through Churches and conducted based Christian thought and feeling. Certainly, you can find atheists who did not approve of slavery but foot soldiers and major leaders, and certainly those who lost much and had nothing to gain, a fair reading of history shows these people were Christians.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
The 10 Commandments don't deal with slavery but the greater commandments of the OT put restrictions on the practice such as a slave who lost a tooth or an eye they must be set free on account of the abuse. Exodus 21:26
Theological writers after careful reading of the Bible (I believe with the prompting of the Holy Spirit) decided it was implicitly forbidden. You should answer Paley's work on the subject if you disagree.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"The 10 Commandments don't deal with slavery but the greater commandments of the OT put restrictions on the practice such as a slave who lost a tooth or an eye they must be set free on account of the abuse. Exodus 21:26"
And do you consider this a morally significant "limit", Poetsonghotmail? If so, why? I'd love to hear an explanation for how stopping the beating of a slave at the point that one knocks out one or more of the slave's teeth or takes out one of the slave's eyes constitues...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...a defensible moral rule. Please enlighten me. Would you find slavery to be morally acceptable if this rule obtained?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
It is important to note that in the American South this rule was not followed. If slaves had been freed after cases of abuse slavery would not have been profitable.
Yes, of course forbidding the abuse of a slave is a major limitation of slavery. No slavery is not acceptable now but we are not living in the bronze age either. As I said Paley wrote on why Slavery is unacceptable in Christian doctrine but I wonder why you believe it is problematic right now.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
I meant to say why you don't believe it is problematic right now.
Also, I think it interesting that you are picking on an issue which was a prime example of religion in politics. There were some atheists and deists opposed to slavery just as some atheist oppose abortion. However, like the anti-abortion movement today the energy and anger is coming from the churches.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"Yes, of course forbidding the abuse of a slave is a major limitation of slavery."
But it's not a prohibition. It doesn't say, "Don't beat your slaves."
"No slavery is not acceptable now but we are not living in the bronze age either."
Moral relativist, are you?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
It is not moral relativist to suggest that rules should grow stricter as humans develop morally. Also the ancient practice of the slavery was not the practice we knew here in the New World. In the book of Philemon it shows that the stasis of the slave is elevated to that of a brother. Also, Gal. 3:28 says there is no more slave or free.
If you were really interested in what Christianity had to say about the subject you would read the theology that caused Christians to fight slavery.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"It is not moral relativist to suggest that rules should grow stricter as humans develop morally."
Is the institution of slavery inherently immoral?
"Also the ancient practice of the slavery was not the practice we knew here in the New World."
Slavery is slavery.
"Also, Gal. 3:28 says there is no more slave or free."
It also says there are no males or females. Looking around, I'm not sure that passage came as particularly good news for the slaves who might have read or heard it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Slavery is slavery." No, it is not. Some slaves were considered family members other were abused.
"Also, Gal. 3:28 says there is no more slave or free." The differentiation of a persons value based on stasis are dead. A person being loved by God makes these stasis reliant.
"Is the institution of slavery inherently immoral?" All human institutions are immoral and unjust. It is the relationship between people that must change before institutions change. As it did in this case.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"All human institutions are immoral and unjust."
I'll remember that of both the Red Cross and Crescent the next time I see them in the middle of a warzzone. I remember that of the Civil rights movement
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
When Christianity formed it was the Christians who were most commonly the slaves not the masters. Masters were not only forbidden to beat their slaves but even threaten them. Ephesians 6:5-9
Deeper reading of the texts gave understanding that the practice itself was problomatic.
But we did not see in the secular world any similar sort of outrage against the practice. To condemn the very group of people who worked to end the practice as promoting it is not logical.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"Deeper reading of the texts gave understanding that the practice itself was problomatic."
Ah, "deeper reading." I see.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yes, how about a not motivated reading. The writing of Paley and other theologins talked extensively about why it was not acceptable but you don't want to deal with that.
Nor will you answer why there was so little apposition in the secular world or why it really is wrong now at all from your stand point.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
"It is important to note that in the American South this rule was not followed"
This is often a common misconception made up by those people who would liek to tthink that the Civil War was about slavery
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
The Ten Commandments is not believed to be the greatest expression of morality the great commandment is.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Ad the great commandment is?
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
Im not even a theist, and even I believe in an objective morality
CogitoErgoCogitoSum 3 years ago
The ability to perceive moral truths is an evolved trait like our ability to perceive light and sound. These moral truths are as objective as anything we hear or see. Theists don't tend to say that our eyes and ears have nothing to do with seeing or hearing, and it's only god's direct magical influence that allows us to see. So why do they think we need a special magical influence to see the difference between something good and something bad? It's just another sense.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
awesome explanation sir.....
NECROPHYTE 3 years ago
God grabbing the book looks a lot like L from Death Note to me; I'm not sure why, but this is immediately what I thought.
cyxgun 3 years ago
I can see that :)
Death Note....what an awesome show.
buzzausa 3 years ago
Just wondering, do you teach Philosophy / religion ? Though, nice critique.
SaraCares 3 years ago
I don't teach either.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Do you believe slavery and slaughter are morally OK, Realingintheyears?"
We can talk theology if you like. I can define Gods attributes biblically. We have to go back and do a word study and get the MEANING in the text not your opinion of it.But thats not really where we have been going I thought.
My point has been you don't know whats right or wrong
I can tell you my position word for word
The 10 commandments for example.
But you have one of millions of different views on morals.
BigEmytube 4 years ago
"We can talk theology if you like. I can define Gods attributes biblically. We have to go back and do a word study and get the MEANING in the text not your opinion of it.But thats not really where we have been going I thought."
Well, I can certainly understand that you'd prefer not to deal with the many negative implications of a divine command theory of morality. However, that is very much where I saw this discussion going precisely because you have asserted the superiority of said theory.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
On a completely different feeling here I have a question.
Isn't it funny when your talking to the opposition.
And you know already about what their response will be.
Because after awhile you hear the same things just a different slant on it LOL!
Good day,gotta run.
realingintheyears 4 years ago
God is sovereign.
You and I have transgressed his laws.
He doesn't owe me or you anything.
If God punishes someone or a group like he has in the past for group sins.
Who are you and me to say the omnipotent,sovereing God is immoral to do so?
Thats what your tiptoeing around.
You don't want the bibles meaning. You want your own meaning of morals "which you,not like I cannot account for its origin" to be used here.
And then you misrepresent the scriptures meaning.
realingintheyears 4 years ago
Basically, Realingintheyears, your response ignores the substance of what I said in favor of presenting what boils down to a "might makes right" argument, i.e., God may do as he pleases because God is "sovereign" and "omnipotent" and "doesn't owe me or you anything." So you equate morality with power -- a troublesome equation indeed. Basic moral intuitions make it clear that just because someone has the power to do X doesn't mean X is the right thing to do.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
MTH,"Basic moral intuitions?"
Define please this "basic" lol that your talking about.
Define moral that your refering to?
Your going in circles.Again you have no source just your opinions.
You have every right to your opinion!
realingintheyears 4 years ago
"Define please this 'basic' lol that your talking about."
OK, but I must note that if you truly need a definition of 'basic', things must be pretty bad on your end. 'Basic' means primary, fundamental.
"Define moral that your refering to?"
No wonder you're in such a muddle: you don't even know what 'moral' means. Go take a basic moral philosophy course. After that, we'll be able to talk.
"Your going in circles."
Hello, Kettle. This is the Pot. You're black.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Well when you say basic I think you should be at least able to define it.
Again I will point out you don't have a definition of morals.Nor do you want to go there and I don't blame you.
If I couldn't tell you how I know right from wrong I wouldn't like talking about it either.
The condescention stuff I am so ammune to it.Its really the best chance at winning a debate for the atheist.
But I don't blame you for using all you have at your disposal!
realingintheyears 4 years ago
"Well when you say basic I think you should be at least able to define it."
I did define it. As for defining 'moral', it is not I who has the issue, Realingintheyears, but you. You are bound to say that morality is whatever God declares. As I show in the series, that forces believers to argue "might makes right" and to make outrageous claims like slavery and slaughter are moral. If you view that as the stronger position in this discussion, well, that's very much your problem.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
My mistake you did define basic I misspoke.
My point of course was the reason we began this conversation to start with imo. And that was that atheits have different definitions of morals it depends who you talk to.
So really all I can honestly ask an atheist is his opinion on it.
For christians we have the same.From God who never changes.
But still how do get away from slavery being moral in the past because even slaves began to believe they were animal like.
Was it moral then?
realingintheyears 4 years ago
"From God who never changes."
Do you believe slavery and slaughter are morally OK, Realingintheyears?
"But still how do get away from slavery being moral in the past because even slaves began to believe they were animal like.
Was it moral then?"
I don't understand your question. Would you please rephrase? Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Slavery slaughter? Well if I was stranded on an island and had to fight to survive. I could envision a scenerio where I capture someone and have to keep them so they don't give me away.
I guess keeping them locked up could be considered slavery.
Depends on your definition of slavery and slaughter.
God alone can judge and carry out punishment as he sees fit.
Is it fair children get cancer? This is a fallen world we live in.
Sin caused these issues to come up. God is absolutely holy.
BigEmytube 4 years ago
I changed my name,never did like the previous one!
"But still how do get away from slavery being moral in the past because even slaves began to believe they were animal like.
Was it moral then?"
With this question I assumed you think morals evolved. Basically are things we know to be wrong today like slavery (america's history) were they wrong when most thought it was moral? Was it moral then is my question?
If not then how do you know what you think is moral today actually moral?
BigEmytube 4 years ago
"With this question I assumed you think morals evolved. Basically are things we know to be wrong today like slavery (america's history) were they wrong when most thought it was moral? Was it moral then is my question?"
No, slavery is, has been, and always will be immoral. Human beings have a moral faculty akin, e.g., to our linguistic faculty, which assists us to make moral judgments. We also have the ability to reason, which assists in discerning what is and is not moral.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
"Depends on your definition of slavery and slaughter."
Perhaps you might share definitions of the two that would cause you to say they're morally fine. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Matt Slick can more easily than I show you where your off the meaning of the scriptures.
You yourself claim to know whats moral and not.
The whole idea is ON WHAT SCIENTIFIC BASES do you as an atheist know and how do you know whats right and wrong.
THATS THE POINT!
You don't know. You can't see morals under a magnification.
Read up on it with lee Strobel or matt slick or lots others that can help you.
realingintheyears 4 years ago
What I show quite clearly in this video series is that neither Divine Command Theory in particular nor the Bible in general provides anything approaching a consistent moral framework. Christians reject much of what the Bible claims God has no moral problem with, e.g., slavery, slaughtering people because they happen to be living where one wants to live. Apologists can talk around it all they want. The truth is the truth.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
To continue on the Divine Command Theory, it is an unsound theory. The right thing to do is the one that has the best reasons on its side. Whether God exists or not, torture is still morally wrong because of the reasons against it, not because God commanded it. As a Theist, morality and religion must be separate and independent of one another.
Cypherus21 4 years ago
The Divine Command theory states that morality is based only on what God commands, nothing more. However, as explained in Plato's Euthyprho, did "God command torture to be wrong, therefore it is wrong, or is torture already wrong and God commanded it so?" Also is the problem of moral relativism - which religion truly interprets God's commands? If it's Christianity, than moral religious commands by God are "perfect" and always true. The reasons that influenced God's command are also unknown.
Cypherus21 4 years ago
sorry that should have read you or i not i or you
4AthiestEvolutionary 4 years ago
Those Bible People just refuse logic.
Religion has lured them into willful enslavement.
You can prove the Bible worng a million times and they don't come off it because they learnt that Faith is stronger than reason.
Moreover the fact they have the nerve to state without fear of punishment that i or you must be a bad person. I mean claiming that they know the word of god is arrogance in and of itself but....Faith is Stronger than reason??????????????
4AthiestEvolutionary 4 years ago
Awesome! In Exodus 21:7-9 Yahweh regulates the selling of daughters as sex-slaves, and a few verses later dictates that it's okay for a slave to be beaten unconscious, as long as he doesn't die, and after days of lying nearly dead, is to get up and get back to work because "he's still his master's property." It's disgusting!
Antichrist4Life 4 years ago
It's astounding stuff, isn't it, Antichrist4Life?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Nice/Interesting Video ProfMTH, you seem to have a good understanding of objective morality , where I would challenge you on is the contexts, backgrounds, and possibly what the greek says in the Bible about the few bible verses consisting of your argument against divine command theory. I cannot cite specifically but your translation sounds like KJV , since it said abraham asked God if he was sorry.
Buluen 4 years ago
I almost never use the KJV and didn't use it in this video. Thanks for your comment, Buluen.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
On Jesus's "birthday," I shall commend you for your views and wonderful video. I love finding people on youtube that continue to show the ignorance of religion. Happy holidays in the most secular sense of the phrase =]
mzzjiggles 4 years ago
Happy Holidays to you, too, Mzzjiggles. Appreciate your taking the time to comment.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
you're so full of it!!!
laughable !!!
You'd better start thanking the shoulders that allow you to be such an ASSHOLE !
cullbrap 4 years ago
Wow, Cullbrap, what a high-quality, substantive response you offered. Mother Theresa would be proud.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
How do you do it Professor. I want to murder him on your behalf. How do you take it in stride?
utubephilosopher 4 years ago
If the only response someone offers, Utubephilosopher, is to call me an asshole, it pretty muh demonstrates that my point has prevailed. Nothing to get angry about there. ;-) Happy New Year.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Um the term "full of it" sort of implies that you're saying ProfMTH is making something up. Could you be so kind as the point out the part where he is factually incorrect for the rest of us so that we might be as enlightened as you? Might I also suggest that if you cannot then making such statements means you're the one that's "full of it" as you make random statements based not in fact but small minded opinion.
spoogevac 4 years ago
Morally outragous results?
By whoms standard? Yours? You see the Athiest are assigning a standard to something due to its source, it being religious, and without know the elements behind the choice. In short your offended by Hell because you this it is excessive with out knowing the level of the crime commited. How many criminals think they are punished more then needed?
Hunterkirk 4 years ago
Thanks for your comment, Hunterkirk. I must confess, however, I'm not sure I understand your criticism. It strikes me that you didn't fully get what I said about Divine Command Theory.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Not really. If you think of human nature as sinners to a group of criminals.. like the mob. How would one mob person judge another? and how would a mob person feel about a judges punishment? If you place God as the judge and us as the mob members, you would see my point.
Hunterkirk 4 years ago
are you a fan of democracy or republicanism hunterkirk(and i mean the form of government, not the political parties)? Because essentially that is what both of those forms of government are. The "mob" either judges people and choices, or allows other to do it for them. Id recommend you read some Jefferson, he has interesting views on this.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
I've read Jefferson. I'm a fan of democratic republicanism. I'm not at all sure what your comment has to do with what I said in this video. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I was talking to Hunterkirk, he condemns mobs making decisions like judgement and punishment. I was merely pointing out that our system of government is a complicated form of "mob people" making judgements and punishment. The comment was made to show him that all "mob rule" isn't all bad, if controlled by checks and balances as Jefferson advocated.
ajsharkmaniac07 4 years ago
not sure what i think about all of this yet. but it looks like you're making a mistake when you say that the view that good is grounded in the nature of God is a self-contradiction. if God's nature determines what is good, then there is no need to have an outside standard to apply to to see if God is good. his character/nature is, in a way, the definition of good. God's nature = good. (continued)
2009hoya 4 years ago
2009hoya, I don't recall saying at any point in the video that the view of good as grounded in the nature of God is self-contradictory. The argument was that there is no way to assess the nature of God as good if there isn't an independent standard of morality/justice/good to which the nature of God could be compared.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
(continued) to me what you're argument is saying something like this: [a triangle is a polygon with three corners and three sides. so how do you know that this "triangle" has three corners and three sides? ]
it's a actually the question that is nonsensical and self-contradictory. you said that according to this view God's character determines what is good, and then your question implicitly asserts that good exists as a standard apart from God's character.
hope i said that right.
2009hoya 4 years ago
It's like being in my Ethics class all over again. And that is awesome.
utubephilosopher 4 years ago
Excellent. Glad you're liking it. :-)
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Pretty nice.
I don't speak Hebrew or Greek or Latin, but I wonder whether the contradictions and many other things in the bible are a problem of all the changes and modifications the bible has undergone. It seems to me that the statue thing could be such a thing. Not like that changes anything; the people base their religion on this translation, anyway.
mistoline 4 years ago
Thanks, more good work!
templarart 4 years ago
You're welcome. Thank YOU.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
hey profmth, i tought that i posted about 5 responses totally clarifying these scriptures for you and your viewers.was i dreaming or am i being sensored. well at least you haven't blocked me, as the other insecure, fearful atheist's have.
Ruddermanspeaks 4 years ago
I don't know what you're blathering on about, Ruddermanspeaks. But consider yourself blocked now. Your comments are rude and idiotic. I'm tired of wasting my time reading them, much more responding to them. Have a nice life.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
bond slaves are those who sold themselves into indentured slavitude( through poverty or debt). not the brutal kidnapping of dehumanizing of an indivisual as what we know as slavery. there were clear moral guidelines in to the humane treatment of these people
Ruddermanspeaks 4 years ago
Yes or no: is slavery inherently immoral?
ProfMTH 4 years ago
slavery, as we know it to be, is. yet, this is not the same as the indentured servitude we find here.
Ruddermanspeaks 4 years ago
Well, you're wrong and making excuses for an inherently immoral institution that is never condemned even once by the Bible.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I am so SICK of the "indentured servitude" lie!
Deut