The Impact Of God's Objective Morality

[Miles]

.

In my wanderings I came across the following:

"What is Objective Morality?

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow. There are certainly some arguments for objective morality to be had. Apologists for religion will define objective morality according to the commandments of their God. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder being bad."
source

Intrigued, I looked a bit further into objective morality and its likely dependence on god and found this:


“How do you define right and wrong?” This question has never been more important than in these times of eroding morals and constantly changing values. We, as a society, have moved away from absolutes. “Moral relativism” is the rule of the day.

To know the difference between right and wrong, a person must have a base to start with. This is where God comes in. He has set clear standards for right and wrong, based upon His own perfect nature. We have already learned that these standards are worth heeding because God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. Now let’s look a bit deeper into His character.

As in ancient times, our world worships many false gods. But our Bible teaches of the one true God, the only God whose knowledge and words are true.

How can we know that we worship the true God? Is it because we feel right or have certain opinions? Certainly not, for we are flawed in our ability to know what is true or false. The final court of arbitration is God Himself. He has told us that He exists and that He is truth (Jeremiah 10:10; John 17:3; Romans 9:20).
source

Interesting, but "He has set clear standards for right and wrong, based upon His own perfect nature." raises a peculiar question. In the Bible god condones slavery:

Leviticus 25:44
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

Exodus 21:20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Exodus 21:2
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.

And even in New Testament times god continues to authorize the owning other human beings.

Titus 2:9
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,

1 Timothy 6:1
Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.

But as I recall, owning other humans was outlawed years ago in the USA and elsewhere because it was grossly immoral, which is why it was abolished.

"Slavery is one of the things that everyone agrees is unethical. In fact there is such general agreement that most people would probably say that 'slavery is wrong just because it's wrong'."
source

And everyone I've ever talked to says slavery is immoral, if not worse.

SO, did god blow it in condoning slavery? Or is it truly alright to own others as slaves?

What is your position
1) God condones the right to own slaves, so it's alright to do so. Too bad for the slaves, but that's just the way it goes.
2) God condones the right to own slaves, so it's alright to do so even though I feel it's an onerous and immoral decision.
3) God condones the right to own slaves, but it isn't alright to do so. God is simply wrong.

[DavidLeon]

First of all, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Moses wrote Genesis. Not one shred - even within the bible itself!

What evidence would you expect there to be of Moses having written something down on scrolls thousands of years ago? There are some 200 references to Moses in 27 books of the Bible spanning hundreds of years by various writers.

The key similarities with other ancient mythologies are the genre or the type of content: Anthropomorphized celestial powers, talking animals and great heroes, golden ages and tragic cataclysms, unscientific just-so stories to 'explain' natural phenomena like rainbows or legless snakes etc.

If how you look at the Bible - your preconceived notions - are more to do with your estimation of it you will never see it as it is but only what you want it to be. This is what I myself decided 27 years ago as an irreligious unbeliever beginning to study it for the first time. I continue to evaluate it on that basis and highly recommend it to believer and unbeliever as well.

We don't assume that stories of Zeus becoming a swan to woo some fair lady are true; they don't even deserve a presumptive benefit of the doubt, let alone complete devotion in the face of all scientific facts!

Unless we knew more about them. Documented, meticulously copied and preserved in countless extant manuscripts. Compared later transcripts to earlier ones, were able to trace any possible interpolations, et cetera. To investigate the possibility of there being some explanation of Zeus becoming a swan in some sense that you may not be aware of. Symbolic or practical. Like a performance in some Greek hypokrites. When you just dismiss something without really knowing it because you think you know it you might be missing something.

The special pleading of adopting that attitude when it comes to Hebrew mythology is quite obvious. If it's true that parts of the Genesis story were specifically derived from Mesopotamian myths (which I've heard proposed, but not yet investigated or been persuaded of), then that would strongly imply that the later Hebrew adaptations have even less credibility than versions closer to the purported events; but that isn't the main point I was getting at.

The fact that Genesis was compiled by Hebrew mythographers is self-evident, unless you imagine that it was written by Egyptians or descended from heaven or something. That identity of the author/s is unknown, equally obvious; again, neither Genesis itself nor the rest of the 'pentateuch' nor even the rest of the Tanakh state the identity of its author. You had earlier complained about describing these books as being "written by bronze age goat herders" so I opted for iron age instead, but if you want to insist (albeit without a shred of evidence) that the authors were even more primitive than folk from the iron age, fair enough. So Genesis was compiled by unknown bronze age Hebrew mythographers, maybe. Great! What a credible source of information! And yes, there is a wealth of evidence that it was from multiple earlier sources, but I ended up making that a parenthetical comment because it's pretty much beside the point (beyond positively disproving the unevidenced speculation/dogma of Mosaic authorship); even if the Documentary Hypothesis were incorrect and Genesis was a complete original work, that hardly justifies treating mythology from unknown primitive Hebrews as any more reliable than mythology from every other culture.

For thousands of years Moses was attributed authorship. No one questioned it until a little over a century ago and for no more reason than an aversion of the supernatural and insubstantial speculation regarding stylistic variation. Complete nonsense. Regarding the supernatural watch just the video below for just a few minutes. (It should start on it's own; listen until about 14:33. Can't find the code to make it end. They change it every 20 minutes)



You know, I've read and reread this post of yours. I've been debating this subject for a quarter of a century and - militant atheists (my definition being merely outspoken critics of the Bible) fascinate me. I've been looking all this time for reason and I can't find it. By reason I don't mean motivation, which I think more often than not has to do with sociopolitical frustration, I mean reasonableness. I look beneath the shell, the outer surface of polemic regurgitation rooted in academia or worse, wise guy emotional knee jerk reaction; I look for the thought process beneath. The logical excursions underneath the school of thought and I don't see anything. The fault is mine, I would think, for not recognizing it or something of that effect, but I'm determined.

Someone, such as yourself, who I'm terribly interested in probing for this reason, can't tell me much, if anything, about the rise and meteoric collapse of the Documentary Hypothesis and desperate revision that I don't already know and haven't heard a thousand times before. I'm looking for something that may or may not be hidden. It's hidden from me, for sure, but I don't think intentionally.

I have in mind a new thread which I would very much like to see you, Difflugia, bluegreenearth and elphidium55 to participate in.

Cultural impact might make it more interesting to some of us, and like all mythologies there's probably some insights into human nature and psychology we might tease out of the stories, but as far as telling us what actually happened their value is pretty close to zero unless proven otherwise.

Do you mean the historical events or creation? I'm really not interested in what actually happened as far as creation goes. As far as culture, it can be somewhat significant. Are you familiar with palimpsests? Often not very accurate manuscripts that were used for temple reading, but often withholding great bits and pieces where cultural aspects can be gleaned.

This is interesting, if I'm reading you right. It sounds like you're saying we should view the deity who purportedly gave biblical prescriptions as something like a scientist who'd made some above-average intelligence ants, or someone playing a strategy game like SimCity. The scientist or the player would feel no moral compunctions about killing off some ants or simulated people on a whim, for example: The rules she gives to the little civilization she's managing are for them, for their morality, rather than necessarily reflecting standards important to herself. Is that along the lines of what you're getting at?

Of course if that were the case, it could well be that God is up there saying to himself "If I give them some really silly orders, I wonder how long it'll be before they work it out and stop obeying? Are they smart and mature enough yet to start learning some of the more important stuff I've got to share?"

Only familiar with SimCity by name so can't really say much, though I get the gist of what you are getting at. As for your ants analogy, it isn't far off. "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers." - Isaiah 40:22.

[bluegreenearth]

I've been debating this subject for a quarter of a century and - militant atheists (my definition being merely outspoken critics of the Bible) fascinate me. I've been looking all this time for reason and I can't find it. By reason I don't mean motivation, which I think more often than not has to do with sociopolitical frustration, I mean reasonableness. I look beneath the shell, the outer surface of polemic regurgitation rooted in academia or worse, wise guy emotional knee jerk reaction; I look for the thought process beneath. The logical excursions underneath the school of thought and I don't see anything. The fault is mine, I would think, for not recognizing it or something of that effect, but I'm determined.

The hypothesis I have to explain your notion of missing something critical is that the epistemology you are using to justify your belief is not sufficiently reliable at helping you achieve your desired goal of finding reason in the atheist's perspective. The only way to acquire the missing information you are seeking is to first inquire into the atheist's epistemology. Don't focus so much on applying your own epistemology in the search for reasonableness in the atheist's conclusions but on the method the atheist uses to develop a functional knowledge base. You don't have to agree with or permanently adopt the atheist's epistemology to obtain the logical understanding you are seeking. So, by all means, be encouraged to explore the epistemology of one or more atheist interlocutors.

[DavidLeon]

The hypothesis I have to explain your notion of missing something critical is that the epistemology you are using to justify your belief is not sufficiently reliable at helping you achieve your desired goal of finding reason in the atheist's perspective.

That is exactly what I was trying to say. Obviously it hasn't. And, of course, as I said, that isn't the fault of the atheists, it's mine.

The only way to acquire the missing information you are seeking is to first inquire into the atheist's epistemology. Don't focus so much on applying your own epistemology in the search for reasonableness in the atheist's conclusions but on the method the atheist uses to develop a functional knowledge base.

Therein lies the difficulty. I see the epistemology well enough, I don't see the workings behind it except for education, or as the atheist criticism of me in a similar regard might be indoctrination. So what I've always done with atheists (and I prefer the term unbeliever because that is more inclusionary) is set what I believe aside and try and see things through their eyes.

You don't have to agree with or permanently adopt the atheist's epistemology to obtain the logical understanding you are seeking.

Exactly.

So, by all means, be encouraged to explore the epistemology of one or more atheist interlocutors.

I shall.

[bluegreenearth]

Therein lies the difficulty. I see the epistemology well enough, I don't see the workings behind it except for education, or as the atheist criticism of me in a similar regard might be indoctrination. So what I've always done with atheists (and I prefer the term unbeliever because that is more inclusionary) is set what I believe aside and try and see things through their eyes.

I understand that you have an impression of seeing the epistemology well enough. However, if you don't see the workings behind it, then your impression must be mistaken because the workings behind it is what describes an epistemology. So, why not begin by asking some critical thinking questions?

[Difflugia]

What evidence would you expect there to be of Moses having written something down on scrolls thousands of years ago?

Virtually none, but lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

When you just dismiss something without really knowing it because you think you know it you might be missing something.

Hear, hear!

For thousands of years Moses was attributed authorship. No one questioned it until a little over a century ago and for no more reason than an aversion of the supernatural and insubstantial speculation regarding stylistic variation. Complete nonsense.

[...]

Someone, such as yourself, who I'm terribly interested in probing for this reason, can't tell me much, if anything, about the rise and meteoric collapse of the Documentary Hypothesis and desperate revision that I don't already know and haven't heard a thousand times before. I'm looking for something that may or may not be hidden. It's hidden from me, for sure, but I don't think intentionally.

You keep saying similar things across many threads, but fail to support them. You seem unwilling to engage with anything that smacks of scholarship in any other way than sweeping generalizations, most of which are grossly inaccurate to boot.

The Documentary Hypothesis is a synthesis of far more than a simple "insubstantial speculation regarding stylistic variation." There's been no "meteoric collapse" of the theory. You claim to "already know" about it and have "heard" the evidence "a thousand times before," but if you can honestly call all that you've heard "desperate revision," then perhaps I can be forgiven for suggesting that you may have missed a few lectures.

If you wish to deny it outright and claim Mosaic authorship, you can do so, but just believing something, even if you believe it really, super hard, doesn't actually create any evidence. If you're going to present a supportable position, you should be able to offer at least one concrete point where you disagree with it and why. If you can and just haven't, then please do. If you can't, but still want to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis, then actually learn about the Documentary Hypothesis.

As a specific place to start, perhaps you'd like to discuss why Exodus 6:2-3 conflicts with several stories in Genesis.

And God spoke to Moses and said, "I am Yahweh! I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but I was not known to them by my name 'Yahweh.'"

Genesis 17:1 fits this and, according to the theory, is from the same source as Exodus 6:2-3 (the "P" source):

And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahweh appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am El Shaddai! Walk before me and be perfect."

The narrator knows that God's name is Yahweh, but Abraham doesn't. That's consistent with what the bush said to Moses. In Genesis 15, however, Abraham already knew that God's name was Yahweh. Abraham and Yahweh have a whole dialogue in which both use the name "Yahweh" in a very familiar way.

This is one of the textual oddities that planted the seeds of the hypothesis. It's not just "stylistic variation," but a straight-up contradiction. I'm sure you can find some way to harmonize the two, but the Documentary Hypothesis neatly explains it in a way that's consistent with other features of the text. Simply finding a harmonization that convinces you doesn't actually falsify (or even cast doubt upon) the scholarship that's been done. If you're going to claim that it's "complete nonsense," then you'll need to somehow show that the Documentary Hypothesis itself isn't tenable. Something that can be so easily dismissed as "nonsense" must have some readily identifiable, fatal flaw, so what is it? I mean, even being declared wrong on the balance of evidence doesn't make something "nonsense" and it's not at all obvious to me that the reasoning behind multiple sources is inconsistent with the actual text, so what makes you so confident?

I have in mind a new thread which I would very much like to see you, Difflugia, bluegreenearth and elphidium55 to participate in.

Would it finally involve you supporting your assertions?

[DavidLeon]

Virtually none, but lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

Agreed.

Hear, hear!

Understood.

You keep saying similar things across many threads, but fail to support them. You seem unwilling to engage with anything that smacks of scholarship in any other way than sweeping generalizations, most of which are grossly inaccurate to boot.

[...]

The Documentary Hypothesis is a synthesis of far more than a simple "insubstantial speculation regarding stylistic variation." There's been no "meteoric collapse" of the theory. You claim to "already know" about it and have "heard" the evidence "a thousand times before," but if you can honestly call all that you've heard "desperate revision," then perhaps I can be forgiven for suggesting that you may have missed a few lectures.

Don't care and will explain further into the response.

If you wish to deny it outright and claim Mosaic authorship, you can do so, but just believing something, even if you believe it really, super hard, doesn't actually create any evidence. If you're going to present a supportable position, you should be able to offer at least one concrete point where you disagree with it and why. If you can and just haven't, then please do. If you can't, but still want to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis, then actually learn about the Documentary Hypothesis.

You have no idea what I know about the DH and it is irrelevant to the discussion I'm looking for.

As a specific place to start, perhaps you'd like to discuss why Exodus 6:2-3 conflicts with several stories in Genesis.

Not now. Certainly some other time.

Would it finally involve you supporting your assertions?

Not in the thread I have in mind. In it I'm not interested in what I think about the Bible. Not interested in what you think of it. Not interested in what scholars think of it. Not interested in what Higher Criticism thinks of it. Not interested in what science thinks of it. Not interested in convincing you or myself of anything. Not interested in rules of a debate. Not interested in supporting verifiable evidence. Not interested in whether it's true or not, fiction or not, et cetera.

What I am interested in is seeing how you think about what a given portion of the Book aside from all that is saying.

So, for example, I say I see this and this and this and this. I'm asking you to put the pieces together and tell me why you think it is saying whatever you think it is saying. Quick easy example: Jesus resurrection. Jesus was sacrificed. He is dead and entombed. There is a trembling of the earth. An angel rolled back the stone slab enclosing the tomb. Angles, in the form of men (i.e. not in their original spirit form) are there in the morning. Jesus is mistaken for the gardener.

Many years before I became a believer, at about 8, 9, or 10 years old, I figured this out knowing absolutely nothing about any of it. A JW argued with me because at the time they didn't see it. Later they changed in line with what I had argued. I don't think I can ask you specific questions because, well, it probably wouldn't work and if it did it would be because you figured out what I was getting at. So, maybe this won't work. I've explained it elsewhere on this forum.

I guess my question would be why wasn't Jesus recognized?

[bluegreenearth]

Virtually none, but lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

Agreed.

Hear, hear!

Understood.

You keep saying similar things across many threads, but fail to support them. You seem unwilling to engage with anything that smacks of scholarship in any other way than sweeping generalizations, most of which are grossly inaccurate to boot.

[...]

The Documentary Hypothesis is a synthesis of far more than a simple "insubstantial speculation regarding stylistic variation." There's been no "meteoric collapse" of the theory. You claim to "already know" about it and have "heard" the evidence "a thousand times before," but if you can honestly call all that you've heard "desperate revision," then perhaps I can be forgiven for suggesting that you may have missed a few lectures.

Don't care and will explain further into the response.

If you wish to deny it outright and claim Mosaic authorship, you can do so, but just believing something, even if you believe it really, super hard, doesn't actually create any evidence. If you're going to present a supportable position, you should be able to offer at least one concrete point where you disagree with it and why. If you can and just haven't, then please do. If you can't, but still want to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis, then actually learn about the Documentary Hypothesis.

You have no idea what I know about the DH and it is irrelevant to the discussion I'm looking for.

As a specific place to start, perhaps you'd like to discuss why Exodus 6:2-3 conflicts with several stories in Genesis.

Not now. Certainly some other time.

Would it finally involve you supporting your assertions?

Not in the thread I have in mind. In it I'm not interested in what I think about the Bible. Not interested in what you think of it. Not interested in what scholars think of it. Not interested in what Higher Criticism thinks of it. Not interested in what science thinks of it. Not interested in convincing you or myself of anything. Not interested in rules of a debate. Not interested in supporting verifiable evidence. Not interested in whether it's true or not, fiction or not, et cetera.

What I am interested in is seeing how you think about what a given portion of the Book aside from all that is saying.

So, for example, I say I see this and this and this and this. I'm asking you to put the pieces together and tell me why you think it is saying whatever you think it is saying. Quick easy example: Jesus resurrection. Jesus was sacrificed. He is dead and entombed. There is a trembling of the earth. An angel rolled back the stone slab enclosing the tomb. Angles, in the form of men (i.e. not in their original spirit form) are there in the morning. Jesus is mistaken for the gardener.

Many years before I became a believer, at about 8, 9, or 10 years old, I figured this out knowing absolutely nothing about any of it. A JW argued with me because at the time they didn't see it. Later they changed in line with what I had argued. I don't think I can ask you specific questions because, well, it probably wouldn't work and if it did it would be because you figured out what I was getting at. So, maybe this won't work. I've explained it elsewhere on this forum.

I guess my question would be why wasn't Jesus recognized?

I didn't post those comments.

[DavidLeon]

I understand that you have an impression of seeing the epistemology well enough. However, if you don't see the workings behind it, then your impression must be mistaken because the workings behind it is what describes an epistemology. So, why not begin by asking some critical thinking questions?

The epistemology is here likened to a car that transports you from point A to point B. That is not what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is how the trip was planned, what difficulties were encountered on the way ... the trip.

[DavidLeon]

Virtually none, but lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

Agreed.

Hear, hear!

Understood.

You keep saying similar things across many threads, but fail to support them. You seem unwilling to engage with anything that smacks of scholarship in any other way than sweeping generalizations, most of which are grossly inaccurate to boot.

[...]

The Documentary Hypothesis is a synthesis of far more than a simple "insubstantial speculation regarding stylistic variation." There's been no "meteoric collapse" of the theory. You claim to "already know" about it and have "heard" the evidence "a thousand times before," but if you can honestly call all that you've heard "desperate revision," then perhaps I can be forgiven for suggesting that you may have missed a few lectures.

Don't care and will explain further into the response.

If you wish to deny it outright and claim Mosaic authorship, you can do so, but just believing something, even if you believe it really, super hard, doesn't actually create any evidence. If you're going to present a supportable position, you should be able to offer at least one concrete point where you disagree with it and why. If you can and just haven't, then please do. If you can't, but still want to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis, then actually learn about the Documentary Hypothesis.

You have no idea what I know about the DH and it is irrelevant to the discussion I'm looking for.

As a specific place to start, perhaps you'd like to discuss why Exodus 6:2-3 conflicts with several stories in Genesis.

Not now. Certainly some other time.

Would it finally involve you supporting your assertions?

Not in the thread I have in mind. In it I'm not interested in what I think about the Bible. Not interested in what you think of it. Not interested in what scholars think of it. Not interested in what Higher Criticism thinks of it. Not interested in what science thinks of it. Not interested in convincing you or myself of anything. Not interested in rules of a debate. Not interested in supporting verifiable evidence. Not interested in whether it's true or not, fiction or not, et cetera.

What I am interested in is seeing how you think about what a given portion of the Book aside from all that is saying.

So, for example, I say I see this and this and this and this. I'm asking you to put the pieces together and tell me why you think it is saying whatever you think it is saying. Quick easy example: Jesus resurrection. Jesus was sacrificed. He is dead and entombed. There is a trembling of the earth. An angel rolled back the stone slab enclosing the tomb. Angles, in the form of men (i.e. not in their original spirit form) are there in the morning. Jesus is mistaken for the gardener.

Many years before I became a believer, at about 8, 9, or 10 years old, I figured this out knowing absolutely nothing about any of it. A JW argued with me because at the time they didn't see it. Later they changed in line with what I had argued. I don't think I can ask you specific questions because, well, it probably wouldn't work and if it did it would be because you figured out what I was getting at. So, maybe this won't work. I've explained it elsewhere on this forum.

I guess my question would be why wasn't Jesus recognized?

I didn't post those comments.

Sorry. I'll fix that. Copyist error.

[bluegreenearth]

The epistemology is here likened to a car that transports you from point A to point B. That is not what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is how the trip was planned, what difficulties were encountered on the way ... the trip.

If I'm understanding your analogy correctly, how the trip was planned is equivalent to asking how the axioms of the atheist's epistemology were determined. Is that what you meant?