Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The flaws of NT-based morality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Aractus View Post
    Right, again there's only one human race. If you ever bother to read scientific literature, or peer review publications, you will see that when "race" is mentioned it's in inverted commas just as I have done in this thread, because it is not an objective reality in biology, sociology, or anything else. It's an old primitive belief that people different to you are fundamentally different somehow, and that's simply not true.

    There are different languages, different cultures, different ethnicities, different beliefs and world-views, etc, but we're all the same human race.
    Great! There is only one race, the human race, so that means there is no such thing as racism. problem solved! Great way to get rid of a problem that has been plaguing us for so long, just deny it exists!




    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Please don't disingenuously pretend to others that I'm not 100% consistent on this. As I've said dozens of times here, I believe the important thing is level of mental function. Thus the point at which having an abortion is worse than killing an animal is the point at which the mental function of the fetus is higher than the animal. Cows have more mental function, more sense of self, more memories, more intelligence, than a human fetus, hence killing a cow is morally worse than abortion. Clear?
      Does this mean that killing stupid people is less morally wrong than killing intelligent people? Is there a way to quantify how much less the life of my brother with Down Syndrome (for example) is worth than, say, my life?
      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        There were 12 tribes of Israel. They were all the same ethnic group.
        They were the same ethnic group in the sense that they were all descendants of Abraham. They were distinct ethnic groups in the sense that each tribe was a descendant of a DIFFERENT son of Jacob. The world is scalable and is used that way, just like race used to be before its definition changed from "biologically distinct group of organisms" to "Voldemort".

        There are many nations in the middle east that are all the same ethnic group and race.
        Not according to them. The "nations" of the middle east aren't nations in the same sense as Europeans are, where the nations correlate with ethnic groups, they are geographic areas carved out by Europeans after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          It's always fascinating to watch you bury yourself in these little exchanges of ours.
          You live in a bubble that's gonna pop in our lifetime. We'll see how fascinated you are when you find out you've been digging your way to China all along.

          Or, better yet, I'm simply citing a familiar Bible passage.
          Mine appears to have beaten yours up.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
            Does this mean that killing stupid people is less morally wrong than killing intelligent people? Is there a way to quantify how much less the life of my brother with Down Syndrome (for example) is worth than, say, my life?
            Can he give milk?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Can he give milk?
              If he did, would it morally outweigh his taste for meat? He's a meat-eater for sure.
              I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                If he did, would it morally outweigh his taste for meat? He's a meat-eater for sure.
                If he could give milk then he could be categorized as a cow and his life would be spared by Starlight.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  If he could give milk then he could be categorized as a cow and his life would be spared by Starlight.
                  Well no, if he could self-identify as a cow he would be safe. Teach him to moo and feed him grass...
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
                    Indeed, and NorrinRadd seems unaware of the historical impact of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and other similar passages on Christian societies.

                    1 Cor 7:3-5
                    The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

                    It was only relatively recently (~1970-1990s) that the UK and US legally recognized marital rape as a crime. Even today there are Christians who are convinced the idea of 'marital rape' is nonsensical.
                    I like how you explicitly bold one verse and quietly ignore the one which immediately follows, and which undercuts your argument. The Bible explicitly commands mutual respect, honor, and love in marriage. Elsewhere the Bible commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which exemplifies a selfless, sacrificial love. That is at odds with any notion that husbands are permitted to rape their wives.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Christians are not limited to the NT. I thought you knew that?
                      Indeed. A central part of Jesus' teaching was affirming the moral laws of the Old Testament.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Last edited by hedrick; 08-06-2017, 08:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          I like how you explicitly bold one verse and quietly ignore the one which immediately follows, and which undercuts your argument. The Bible explicitly commands mutual respect, honor, and love in marriage. Elsewhere the Bible commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which exemplifies a selfless, sacrificial love. That is at odds with any notion that husbands are permitted to rape their wives.
                          This doesn't alter the fact that the husband is given authority over the wife and for much of history the wife has been legally deemed to be her man's chattel.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            This doesn't alter the fact that the husband is given authority over the wife and for much of history the wife has been legally deemed to be her man's chattel.
                            I don't think you'll find NT support for chattel.

                            While the NT doesn't take the modern egalitarian view, still most of the problem is how Christians carried out what is in the Bible. Women were told they had to submit to abusive husbands, using passages that weren't intended to teach that. I'm guessing the author of Ephesians thought he was guarding "submit to your husband" with a section on the husband's duty to love and care for his wife, and making the overall topic be "submit to each other." But no wording is safe in the hands of abusers, or a Church unwilling to face the issue. In retrospect, language involving submission is inherently dangerous, a danger that I don't think the NT authors realized.

                            Some historians have noted that the Christian cult of virginity (not something that I think is explicitly Biblical) was freeing for women. In the traditional culture, there was no honorable alternative for a woman other than marriage. Christianity provided an alternative, for those that didn't want to be bound to husbands.
                            Last edited by hedrick; 08-07-2017, 07:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                              This doesn't alter the fact that the husband is given authority over the wife and for much of history the wife has been legally deemed to be her man's chattel.
                              I see you have the same problem with selective reading as Dimbulb.

                              According to your reasoning, the man is also the woman's chattel since the passage goes on to say that "likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." Why, it's almost like God was commanding mutual love, respect, and authority within the marital relationship! What a concept!
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                                I don't think you'll find NT support for chattel.

                                While the NT doesn't take the modern egalitarian view, still most of the problem is how Christians carried out what is in the Bible. Women were told they had to submit to abusive husbands, using passages that weren't intended to teach that. I'm guessing the author of Ephesians thought he was guarding "submit to your husband" with a section on the husband's duty to love and care for his wife, and making the overall topic be "submit to each other." But no wording is safe in the hands of abusers, or a Church unwilling to face the issue. In retrospect, language involving submission is inherently dangerous, a danger that I don't think the NT authors realized.

                                Some historians have noted that the Christian cult of virginity (not something that I think is explicitly Biblical) was freeing for women. In the traditional culture, there was no honorable alternative for a woman other than marriage. Christianity provided an alternative, for those that didn't want to be bound to husbands.
                                It all rests with the interpretation. The NT has been selectively interpreted to reflect the values of society throughout its history...from slavery to racial discrimination, the submission of women and to discrimination against LGBT folk. But, sooner or later, the Church is dragged kicking and screaming into the acceptance of the changing social mores.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
                                17 responses
                                98 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
                                70 responses
                                388 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
                                25 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
                                126 responses
                                675 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
                                39 responses
                                252 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X