Odd morality

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Odd morality

Post #1

Post by Willum »

You know I find it odd.

The Ancient Greeks recognized the immorality of Zeus; who sent floods, plagues, enacted cruel transformations, etc., and the Greeks responded by labeling Zeus and the other gods immoral.
They further responded by creating a code of morality for people that did not involve deities.

The Greeks saw their gods without morals, and so created their own.

Whereas the Ancient Hebrew and modern day Judaists and Christians see identical or similar acts by their god, and rather then decry these acts as malevolent, defend them as being benevolent.

For debate: The Ancient Greeks were more mature and moral than modern Judaists and Christians.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #11

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:40 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:36 am
The Nice Centurion wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 7:56 am
Willum wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:56 pm You know I find it odd.

The Ancient Greeks recognized the immorality of Zeus; who sent floods, plagues, enacted cruel transformations, etc., and the Greeks responded by labeling Zeus and the other gods immoral.
They further responded by creating a code of morality for people that did not involve deities.

The Greeks saw their gods without morals, and so created their own.

Whereas the Ancient Hebrew and modern day Judaists and Christians see identical or similar acts by their god, and rather then decry these acts as malevolent, defend them as being benevolent.

For debate: The Ancient Greeks were more mature and moral than modern Judaists and Christians.
1) Can you prove that the ancient greeks generally recogniced the immorality of Zeus? I never heard of that!

2) Can you prove zhat the ancient hebrews recogniced the perfect morality of Jehovah? Or are you confusing them with todays christians?

3) What was the word for perfect and the word for morality back then? Did the hebrews even have words for that?
I had a quick look but there was nothing that anyone here would have to accept as an authority. Yet I know from reading from Homer to Aristophanes that the Greeks were well aware that their gods were supposed to be perfect yet showed all human foibles, except that they could do whatever they liked and anyone who dared to disrespect then could find themselves looking into a cup of Hemlock. I see the cognitive disassociation no different then from what we found with OT apologists, at least.

To tell the truth, one could argue one way or another whether the Greeks were more enlightened than (say) the Persians. I just know that we seem to have a more reasonable view of rights, ethics and social elbow -room than any of those old societies did, even back in the supposedly Roaring 1920's.

I don't know the word anyone used for Perfect or Morality, but I'm sure the concept was known (Harmony with the Han Chinese, Righteousness with the Hebrews, Decens with the Romans, and Instinct and social education had passed down a common idea of the right way to live and the concept of the ideal life, even if nobody knew what that was, let alone how to do it, and how far short humans fell and the idea that a perfect being would do it all right and a god (and goddesses) would of course be perfect in that way...And yet the stories they came up with, based on course on what Humans do, fell far short of perfect morality, and all I could see was just not talking about it, or at least, not repeating it with any hint of criticism, and stomping an anyone who 'blasphemed' the gods.

I find it only too easy to catch that mindset, because it is the same as we get with religion (at least) today.
Exactly what I see as the handycap of this topic; We today have clear understanding of christianitys mindset and project this into ancient religion.

But I highly doubt the hebrews even had words for specifyng perfect morality. Not sure about the greeks.
But even if they had, it doesnt mean they attributed it to their gods.

The Ilias has warring greek gods on both sides. Greek and trojan. So which of them had perfect morality on their side, hmm?

On the other hand I highly doubt that priests of a greek deity would have officially claimed said deity to be immoral.

Todays christians have to defend their gods genocides, slavery, rape et cetera by claiming it still served perfect morality. Ancient hebrews were not drowning in that problem.

So you found some words that in your opinion would on a long stretch substitute for perfect morality?

Sorry, but thats poor.
I don't know whether you mean my post was poor or your argument was a bit vulnerable. In any case, given that the Preachers of various religions have a genius for closing their eyes to problems, the more thoughtful (whether philosophers or the smarter laity) can see the cognitive dissonance in the actions and personality of a god who is supposed to represent the ideal perfection that humans can think of if not quantify, falling far short of those ideals. And even the slick evasions of theological apologetics or simply threatening anyone who speaks of it can't alter that. It has never been the majority who even bothered about such things but rolled with religion claiming to be the safeguard of the people and their morals and religion chumming up with temporal authority to keep the populace under control (one can sympathise when you see what happens when the populace gets out of control). But from Lucian, who guyed religion, philosophy (the frauds and fakers that we still have today) and cults (1) to the Wisdom literature, like ecclesiastes, which could have been written by an atheist, and even Moliere poking fun at religious fakers (and didn't religion, instead of applauding him for pointing up their bad apples, complain loudly about it and demanded he be banned - how things have not changed). But thankfully (though we have teetered on the edge), we are still allowed to express doubts and criticism freely and the skepticaL case is winning, I think. The only problem being getting people to just get out of easy Rote -thinking and exercise a bit of discrimination..oh, and for the love of Mike, let them stop thinking that we need religion to stop civilisation collapsing.

Rant over, let's try to relate that to what you posted :D Yes, Greek thought tended to move away from the very human failings of the Myths to an ideal of perfect gods that were more a perfect spiritual sphere of Bliss - as Claudius supposedly said 'Like a Pumpkin' - and a single 'God' encompassing all the rest, which is not unlike Christian and even Hindu thought; humans trying to imagine divine perfection. But still fighting and dying (if need be - voting if not) for these myths that shouldn't be treated as anything but fairy tales. But like I say, who says this stuff has to make sense? All that is needed is that people be forbidden from saying it doesn't.

If today's Hebrews are not 'drowning' in defending the horrors of their Pentateuch, Christians are because we have our critics and we will not be silenced. I am no more a Jew than Pilate was, but I have heard that atheism is more a basis of Israel (if not Judaism) than we might think, and it is more a racial social glue that keep Jewish identity separate than anything to do with truth, morals or science, but that is what it always was, I reckon.

Finally I don't see the need for words for the perfect anything. My rule (and I venture to say THE rule) should be 'concepts before words'. Putting words as the definer of ideas is a fallacy that causes many a epistemological car crash from the fallacy of equivocation to the Humpty fallacy. It doesn't matter what you call it, provided one explains what that means. It saves a lot of trouble with people using the same word to mean different things.

(1) his exposure of the Glycon classic is considered a classic.


Not unfamiliar and the fakers, prophets, and frauds are still ripping of a willingly gullible public. It hasn't changed from Roman times, and if you try to enlighten people, they get any and hurt. "Why can't you let people beleive what they like?" they ask while persistently recommending their beliefs to anyone who will listen.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 869
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #12

Post by The Nice Centurion »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:40 am So you found some words that in your opinion would on a long stretch substitute for perfect morality?

Sorry, but thats poor.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:43 am I don't know whether you mean my post was poor or your argument was a bit vulnerable.
I attacked your argument here, because if these people had not even words for perfect morality, that makes the OP a fail or at the very least extremely doubtable.

Not sure what you mean about a vulnerable argument from me. Which one? Why?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:43 am In any case, given that the Preachers of various religions have a genius for closing their eyes to problems, the more thoughtful (whether philosophers or the smarter laity) can see the cognitive dissonance in the actions and personality of a god who is supposed to represent the ideal perfection that humans can think of if not quantify, falling far short of those ideals. And even the slick evasions of theological apologetics or simply threatening anyone who speaks of it can't alter that. It has never been the majority who even bothered about such things but rolled with religion claiming to be the safeguard of the people and their morals and religion chumming up with temporal authority to keep the populace under control (one can sympathise when you see what happens when the populace gets out of control). But from Lucian, who guyed religion, philosophy (the frauds and fakers that we still have today) and cults (1) to the Wisdom literature, like ecclesiastes, which could have been written by an atheist, and even Moliere poking fun at religious fakers (and didn't religion, instead of applauding him for pointing up their bad apples, complain loudly about it and demanded he be banned - how things have not changed). But thankfully (though we have teetered on the edge), we are still allowed to express doubts and criticism freely and the skepticaL case is winning, I think. The only problem being getting people to just get out of easy Rote -thinking and exercise a bit of discrimination..oh, and for the love of Mike, let them stop thinking that we need religion to stop civilisation collapsing.

Rant over, let's try to relate that to what you posted :D Yes, Greek thought tended to move away from the very human failings of the Myths to an ideal of perfect gods that were more a perfect spiritual sphere of Bliss - as Claudius supposedly said 'Like a Pumpkin' - and a single 'God' encompassing all the rest, which is not unlike Christian and even Hindu thought; humans trying to imagine divine perfection. But still fighting and dying (if need be - voting if not) for these myths that shouldn't be treated as anything but fairy tales. But like I say, who says this stuff has to make sense? All that is needed is that people be forbidden from saying it doesn't.
Roman Emperor Claudius?

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:43 am If today's Hebrews are not 'drowning' in defending the horrors of their Pentateuch, Christians are because we have our critics and we will not be silenced. I am no more a Jew than Pilate was, but I have heard that atheism is more a basis of Israel (if not Judaism) than we might think, and it is more a racial social glue that keep Jewish identity separate than anything to do with truth, morals or science, but that is what it always was, I reckon.
Dont know about todays hebrews. I was talking about ancient hebrews.
There were no christians back then in the B.C. years. You can fact check that, if you dont believe me.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:43 am Finally I don't see the need for words for the perfect anything. My rule (and I venture to say THE rule) should be 'concepts before words'. Putting words as the definer of ideas is a fallacy that causes many a epistemological car crash from the fallacy of equivocation to the Humpty fallacy. It doesn't matter what you call it, provided one explains what that means. It saves a lot of trouble with people using the same word to mean different things.
I highly disagree with that disturbed view.
Besides:
Perfect morality is a word construction that cant be existent for real. Both single words only describe a subjective view. Together they are an abomination.

Today they are needed by christians to dodge its critics.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:43 am (1) his exposure of the Glycon classic is considered a classic.


Not unfamiliar and the fakers, prophets, and frauds are still ripping of a willingly gullible public. It hasn't changed from Roman times, and if you try to enlighten people, they get any and hurt. "Why can't you let people beleive what they like?" they ask while persistently recommending their beliefs to anyone who will listen.
Whats familiar is that even in this forum there a OPs that cry out with the question: Why do gods not show themselves?
Perhaps that is because each time a god lets himself seen, like this Glycon, he is called a hoax.
That could very well be the reason why gods are fed up with showing themselves.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #13

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #12]

It's easy to say that, but a really convincing god appearance, or a regular appearance on a weekly chat show is going to make the case. I don't think it washes that they have appeared many times in the past but nobody believed them. It's different in real time communication. It isn't anecdotal anymore. Excuses aside, it has to be Doubt, until there is evidence. Excuses as to why they aren't providing any evidence now isn't going to cut it, even if it can't be proven that (for whatever reason) they are all sulking and refusing to put in appearances.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 869
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #14

Post by The Nice Centurion »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #13]
I failed to put my argument clearly as meant.
Glycon seems to have made regular appearances for some time, even though some people even back then called hoax on him.

Of course today almost everyone calls him hoax, and that could well be a reason for him no longer to visit todays humans.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #15

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I thought you stated your case quite clearly. Yes Lucan could have come up with suggestions (or accusations) that Glycon was a fraud. After all we don't know that he had inside information. But the point is that - without Faith in Glycon, the explanations make more sense than the claim that Glycon is real. Even without all the extra Glyconical arguments against it being true, like the Serapean Statue at Saqqara never saying 'Glycon is a true prophet'. Never mind the Buddhists scriptures being told about a true God in the Roman Empire. None of these religions really validate the others, only their own claims.

Bottom line, if there is an equally valid natural explanation, that puts the ball back into the claimant court; they need better evidence than 'you can't disprove it'. But religions work on Faith and not logic. Which is why the battle is not about the evidence - that's done, but whether people will think Faith is a good reason or realise that it isn't.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #16

Post by 1213 »

Willum wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:56 pm ...
For debate: The Ancient Greeks were more mature and moral than modern Judaists and Christians.
Did Greeks have any judgment for murderers or thieves?

How it is more moral to allow evil to continue forever?

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #17

Post by Willum »

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #10]

You were provided with three. If those are insufficient for you to intelligently comment, go elsewhere. Or you may provide evidence which overwhelms what was presented preferably by starting your own topic.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #18

Post by Willum »

as it was foretold in the book of William: the nice centurion claimed, because he was uneducated in Greek wisdom, that I needed to prove it. Then as was further foretold, he stated his wisdom was sufficient to dismiss what was provided as evidence, while implying that his judgement and authority were sufficient, rather than himself providing counter evidence.

This is an opinion that any ignorant person can hold, with any subject.

UNTIL counter evidence is presented, that person is wrong.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #19

Post by Purple Knight »

Willum wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:49 am I can't say anything of the kind, neither can you.
For you or I to disparage the Ancient Greek philosophers would be nothing but childish hubris. They weren't thinking about their gods when they observed they were immoral? Of course they were.
There is still less thought in defining the abhorrent acts of Yahweh as moral.
Think of it this way: Who has more say over the definition of abhorrent? You, or a god?

A god can snap his fingers and change the dictionary if it wants to. Also if it wants to, it can change the dictionary, then change your memory to make you remember the incorrect dictionary.
Willum wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:49 amWe have exact examples to compare and contrast Yahweh with Zeus, and to call one moral and the other not, is hypocritical.

As for gods violating overarching principles, that can't be demonstrated nor agreed upon, at any level.
The Greeks have demonstrated that fallacy of "godly power" defining morality, when they disagreed with Zeus and created the for runner to Humanism.
I disagree that godly power is a fallacy. If there's really an omnipotent being, you can disagree with it, you're just wrong. Even if that being simply failed to use its omniscience to be right, it can alter the fabric of the universe and make itself right. It can even plant ideas in our heads about morality that are simply wrong. There are a lot of parallels with this and a child torturing an anthill. If there was no one above the child to declare his actions immoral, they wouldn't be.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Odd morality

Post #20

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:52 pm
Willum wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:49 am I can't say anything of the kind, neither can you.
For you or I to disparage the Ancient Greek philosophers would be nothing but childish hubris. They weren't thinking about their gods when they observed they were immoral? Of course they were.
There is still less thought in defining the abhorrent acts of Yahweh as moral.
Think of it this way: Who has more say over the definition of abhorrent? You, or a god?

A god can snap his fingers and change the dictionary if it wants to. Also if it wants to, it can change the dictionary, then change your memory to make you remember the incorrect dictionary.
Willum wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:49 amWe have exact examples to compare and contrast Yahweh with Zeus, and to call one moral and the other not, is hypocritical.

As for gods violating overarching principles, that can't be demonstrated nor agreed upon, at any level.
The Greeks have demonstrated that fallacy of "godly power" defining morality, when they disagreed with Zeus and created the for runner to Humanism.
I disagree that godly power is a fallacy. If there's really an omnipotent being, you can disagree with it, you're just wrong. Even if that being simply failed to use its omniscience to be right, it can alter the fabric of the universe and make itself right. It can even plant ideas in our heads about morality that are simply wrong. There are a lot of parallels with this and a child torturing an anthill. If there was no one above the child to declare his actions immoral, they wouldn't be.
That is of course the alternative to an apologist trying to argue that an unjust and immoral god is somehow just and moral, just because His Book says so. That fact that it is powerful and can break us all and so we had better refrain from pointing out that it is unjust an immoral or else, is a not unfamiliar argument, but isn't going to convince those who can see that such a claim simply isn't true. Even if they though the god was real.

But since the evidence does not persuade the doubter (even the irreligious Theist) that a personal god exists (name your own religion) then the IF is a big If and threatening us with God's wrath if we dare to criticise what a vile, beastly and immoral creature it is, according to the Bible, when it isn't praising and flattering this creature (who is going to transfer His support to the Gentiles anyway) just makes us laugh.

Post Reply