[Terez]

Powder, on 07 February 2010 - 03:36 AM, said:

@ Terez - The ideas I am referencing are general grace and Imageo Dei. Essentially saying that everyone is created in the image of God and will inherently want to do well to other beings. IE we all agree that dismembering a child is wrong. General grace is responsible for things such as platonism, confucianism, morally upstanding athiests etc. God reveals himself to everyone (whether they acknowledge him or not) and he provides all humans with reason etc by which they can find out which ways are best. Does that sate your curiosity or like that movie would you like to know more?

Do you then reject the counterexample in the scripture that emphasized the fact that men are flawed, because of what ostensibly happened right after Creation? I think not - it's a fine balance, of course...the sort of balance that most sharp and relatively open minds will reach, whether religious or not. If non-Christians can be morally equal to Christians, and Christians can be equally flawed as non-Christians, then why do you believe that a faith in a higher power (specifically your higher power) is necessary to keep society from abandoning moral clarity? It seems to me that you simply favor the glass-half-full approach to the nature of humankind. I see that as being far more relevant to your character than relevant to your philosophy.

Pascal's Wager does indeed suffer from the flaw of emphasizing the least noble motives of Christianity (not that any of them are pure, as has been mentioned several times in this thread), but my main problem with the Wager is that it assumes that it is possible for all persons to believe in something simply because its truth would, in some ways, be a desirable outcome. Admittedly, it is enough for all of us when it comes to one thing or another, but this sort of self-deception has to happen below the conscious level to be successful most of the time. When we are faced with the truth our motivations, our casual illusions will often evaporate on the instant, but the illusions that we are emotionally invested in will hang on long after the self-deception is made clear. So, I don't find the Wager to be all that logical, because I can't believe in something, in cold blood, when my logic is screaming at me that the notion is ridiculous. If God gave all of us minds to reason, then why did he feel the need to bury his message in flawed writings? Why does he require that we have faith, when faith is contrary to reason?

Powder said:

Given this, it makes sense that disbelief in God need not necessarily lead to raping/plundering etc. What I am trying to figure out and get a handle on is what it looks like from your end. When I put myself in that frame of mind my decisions change some, they need not go haywire, but they do change. Further without an easily identifiable value placed upon each human individual I find that my motivations to do things like help the poor/needy/etc change as well.

I'm not so sure that you have managed to accurately put yourself in the frame of mind of an atheist, not only because I believe you have some inaccurate associations that are ingrained, but also because we can't be pinned down so easily as that. As to an easily-identifiable value for humans...the entire point of the Humanist movement was to establish that human value transcends religion. In other words, in cases where religion seems to tell us that one human has less value than another, we must question it. This led to a good number of people coming to the conclusion that God, if he did indeed exist, was nothing like humans had always perceived him. This is a point that was harped upon in my indoctrination, that the conscionable Christian must resist the temptation to 'put God in a box'. It is wise advice, since most of our attempts to imagine exactly what the nature of God is are inherently doomed to fail quite miserably. However, Christianity requires that you make a number of assumptions about God, because though there several Biblical indications of what sort of thing God might be, there are just as many interpretations as there are believers, hence the ever-increasing number of denominations within the religion. Again, I find that the purity of your motivations is more indicative of your character than indicative of the worth of your philosophy, and the alteration in your hypothetical mindframe-changing is quite understandable, given that you believe God is the source of all things good.

This might possibly help you understand better the atheist, and it is a point that has been touched on a number of times in the thread, by several posters, but I'm not sure you have really responded to it (I could be wrong, but I don't have time to re-read the thread to make sure...I do know we have beat around the bush on quite a few points so far, but I am not keeping score). We have a tendency to believe that all humans are susceptible to selfish motivation, whether religious or not. Furthermore, we believe that a religious belief system has a particular danger that a humanist belief system does not: that is, the emotional power that resides in the belief that one's actions are sanctioned by the divine.

Powder said:

As to some of the slavery comments. When you read slavery in the Bible it is inappropriate and anachronistic to read American slavery into that world. Chattel slavery as such is not an issue at this time. In Judaism slaves were released every 7 years, their children were not born into slavery, and they could realistically buy their way free. Slavery in the Greek world is also very different, they would be taught how to read, write, manage affairs etc. Were there abuses certainly, but not the type of racial ridiculousness practiced in recent times.

So you believe that ancient slavery was humane? Or only relatively humane? I sense a bit of moral relativity coming from your general direction. It was either wrong or it was not, and if it was not, then how do you justify it? You cannot blame culture for these things because religion is supposed to be our source of morality. God could have made it clear to Abraham that slavery was wrong. Why didn't he?

Powder said:

As to Paul. His views on women are debatable. He often acknowledges women in his letters, acknowledges woman apostles, and said things like 'In Christ there is no male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek' (an egalitarian set up).

Yes, I am aware of the passage, but it does nothing to vindicate him, because it does nothing to backtrack on his comments about female inferiority. Because, after all, is not the enslaved man in a less desirable position than the free man? We still have Paul's misogynist comments to contend with. Also, Paul's letters were addressed to factions of Christianity that he sought to convert to his way of thinking. That he addressed his letters to women only shows that he acknowledged that they were leaders among their respective factions, not that they had a right to be. Since he is trying to convert them to his way of thinking, he could hardly piss them off by leaving out, as in the case of the Romans, a third of their leaders, could he? Because he chose not to make that stupid marketing move, he did eventually convert them to his way of thinking, and thus Paul's misogynistic views were eventually accepted and passed down as doctrine, and are observed today even by a majority of Protestants, at least insofar as not allowing women to become ministers.

Powder said:

Are there other areas where he says women should be submissive to their husbands, yes. However just one verse prior it talks about husbands submitting to their wives, and treating their wives as Christ treats the church.

Well, actually the prior verse says nothing about wives and husbands, and the full verse says nothing about husbands submitting to wives:

Ephesians 5 said:

²²Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶to make her holy, cleansing^[b] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ²⁸In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰for we are members of his body. ³¹"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."^{[c] 32}This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ³³However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Unless there is some matter of translation that is not clear here, it says the wife should 'respect' and 'submit' to her husband 'in everything', but the husband must 'love' his wife. There is also a great deal of innuendo here about the unclean nature of woman.

Powder said:

When looking at the cultural context of which women should not be leaders one finds that the church in question was in an area whose main goddess was Diana, in a city which was ruled by 2000 temple prostitutes.

Then what, exactly, was keeping Paul from being specific in this instance?

Powder said:

The statement he makes in that book is counter-cultural to the city he is writing to, and is not a carte blanche against women in general.

I think that is what you want it to say, rather than what it actually says.

Powder said:

On women/slavery, both of the cultural revolutions (empowerment of women, abolishment of slavery) are in thrust with where scripture is headed, and with the greater part of christian morality. They naturally evolve out of the practice of Christian doctrine.

I don't believe this is demonstrably true at all. I think they have evolved out of human compassion in spite of religion.

Powder said:

If I was insulting, my bust, not my intention. Yet I do not think Nietzsche would have found it insulting, instead he would have made up his own morality and the rest of humanity could go elsewhere for all he cared. I read/discussed any and all of my Nietzsche comments in a secular state institution, which gave me a great appreciation for the man even if I do not agree with his premises/conclusions.

I don't really care much about Nietzsche. I wanted to name a cat Nietzsche once, when I was a kid, because my dad had gotten a degree in philosophy and had various books hanging around the house, and we had already had a cat named Soren, after Kierkegaard. Poor Soren died, so I asked dad if we could name our new cat Nietzsche. He didn't like that idea. At the time, I had no idea why. He ended up naming the new cat Asher...

Powder said:

Oh and as to the KJV that version is lackluster when talking in today's terms. The English is outdated and the translation style and original manuscripts can be a bit questionable. It had a good run (of several hundred years) but it is time to put that pony to rest.

Yes, I think that was rather Stone Monkey's point.

[Powder]

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

I take this to mean everyone submits to everyone else including husbands to wives. You make the text say what you want it to say too, you are not a detached observer, nor are you objective. Your presuppositions are leading you to say that Paul is a misogynist. Mine lead me to different conclusions. Frankly given the way the church has acted/continues to act your presuppositions are justified, up until recently I would have agreed with you. However I feel that my interpretation is truer to the text and the heart of the gospel than the misogynistic one. Jesus treats women with high regard, there are very positive examples of women in the OT, and the church itself is represented as a woman, wisdom is personified as a woman, and etc. Therefore in light of all scripture(which I have only brought but a piece here) I reject any misogynist interpretations of the text.

As to Abraham/Isaac. It is a puzzling story and if taken in a vacuum it would be just as stone monkey describes. Thankfully it is not in a vacuum and there is a great deal of nuance to the text. Foremost in my mind is the blessing God gives to Abraham that he will be given many descendants for Isaac. Within the passage in question, Abraham says to Isaac that God will provide the sacrifice--even here you see the expectation of a substitute. Some scholars feel that Abraham expected God to raise Isaac from the dead after the sacrifice occurred. In my mind, it seems that Abraham knew things were more complicated than they appeared to be. In light of the New Testament God sacrifices his own son for human kind, thereby reconciling mankind with himself. All that to say that the story is not as simple as you make it.

Ultimate rightness/wrongness applies to the spiritual, there are still physical ramifications which make things more or less wrong. For instance in my mind it is more wrong to lie to and deceive a nation and lead it to war, than it is to tell someone that they do not actually look fat in that outfit. Both are morally wrong, yet one is less so in its consequences. Slavery, in my mind, is a cultural piece. It can be practiced in a hostile and brutal way, and that hostility/brutality are what is wrong. Treating someone like property is wrong. Specifically holding down a people group based on the color of their sin is wrong. Choosing to be a slave (which was done) or becoming one based on your own foolish actions (like running into debt) is another story. Slavery in that time and in that place was quantifiably different (not for a life time, there were ways out, etc), is like comparing apples to oranges. From my understanding it is more like indentured servitude than say US slavery. Were there abuses sure, and those abuses were wrong.

They are demonstrably true, both of those movements were headed up by people of Faith. Christianity brought low slavery in England, spear-headed the civil rights movements, and been the source of general human rights since its inception. Has it been abused, yes! Have there been mistakes, YES! Do flawed adherents to a system disqualify the system? No. Everyone can point fingers at mistakes the other parties have made, instead let us focus on what Good has been done and work from there.

As to original sin. I like the Jewish interpretation of the 'fall'. Their interpretation, briefly summarized is this. The fall story roughly goes like this in its resolution. God looks for Adam, Adam calls out blames Eve and God for his problems, Eve blames the snake, the snake gets owned. Now we all look back on this story and in our turn blame Adam and Eve. But are we supposed to? The moral of the story is supposed to be not blaming other people for your issues, and yet that is exactly what we do! We blame Adam and Eve for 'The Fall' when we all suffer our own 'falls' without their help. Granted theologically speaking Adam introduced sin/death but that does not mean they are to blame for my sin. I am.

Now, as to the reason that I see a need for a higher power. I see a need because of the change evidenced in my life through said higher power. I would love to jump into what kinds of changes, but they would be irrelevant to you because you do not know me, and may think that I am just a charlatan making things up for the benefit of my own argument. Suffice to say that I know without a doubt, that Christ caused a positive change in me, I know what it is to be 'dead' and then made 'alive'. I have found myself in Christ, where I was once lost, listless, and depressed. In Christ I am finally free to be me. Looking back I cannot believe how far the transformation has come. My character that you refer to, has come with Christianity, has developed, flourished, and expanded. I would not be the man I am today if not for 'my higher power'. I see the potential, and the improvement it offers, and I wonder why society would ever want to go without it. Can it be abused, surely. Can it be exploited, it has been. Yet Love is more than a word, it is more than a feeling, it is tangible. There is Hope! (got preachy, going to stop myself mid thought)

Terez my respect for you as a poster growz.

-Powder

EDIT: I think part of my problem comes from every Atheist being different, and post moderns in general being hard to nail down on any specific thing.
EDIT: Also I think I like stormy's thought because it is most akin to my own as I ponder what it would be like to not have a higher power. I find it honest reflective and consistent.

This post has been edited by Powder: 07 February 2010 - 08:29 PM

[stone monkey]

Whilst it is true that Christians were active in both the Abolition and Civil Rights movements, it's also true that many Christians were equally active in opposing both those movements. Both sides invoking arguments as to why this was the Christian thing to do. You don't get to claim the good without taking acknowledging the bad. History is written by the winners, which is why those movements are seen by some as a triumph of Christian values. Had those movements failed, the victors would also have implied that this was due to a triumph of Christian values...

There were ways out, but those who were not able to take them still had to settle for being another person's property. And yes, there were legal rules for how that property was treated, but there are also legal rules for how you treat your car... One is a sentient being, one is not. The "it was okay for them at the time" argument is specious in the extreme, if it was okay for them at the time what's to stop it also being okay at some other time in the future? Human beings should not now be, or ever have been, owned by other human beings.

Something is only moral if others agree with you that it is so. Invoking God as the highest authority on morals fails because people naturally tend to make the assumption that God agrees with them on everything.

Atheists are all different, but so are Christians and Muslims and Hindus and Jews and anyone else. The only thing Atheists all agree on is that there is no God. I suspect that the only thing all Christians all agree on is that Christ was the son of God; try having a chat with a Catholic about theology, I'll bet they'll disagree with you on a number of things.

And postmodernism is an interesting one to throw at atheism as it has been knocking around for thousands of years; wherever there is religion, you'll find atheists. We tend to be slightly louder these days now that social ignomony or even execution isn't generally the result of telling people that you don't believe as they do, but we've pretty much always been there...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 07 February 2010 - 11:19 PM

[maro]

Ethics and Morals intertwine with each other. Most Atheist's will have very strong ethical ideas that colour their morals.

Christian's don't have a monopoly on Morals

This post has been edited by maro: 07 February 2010 - 11:51 PM

[Cougar]

If you look back through SM's posts I think that postmodernism is a total non-starter. His arguments are both high in modern scientific rationalism and meaty structuralist goodness, it would be hard to ever argue that atheism had anything to do with postmodern thought.

[Terez]

I noticed that most people avoid breaking up posts into quotes, and I understand why because it does seem to be a little aggressive. I just have a hard time posting without doing that. It helps me to keep everything organized and address points directly and, most importantly, in context.

Powder, on 07 February 2010 - 08:26 PM, said:

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

I take this to mean everyone submits to everyone else including husbands to wives.

I took it to mean essentially the same. But obviously, there are degrees of this, since the chapter immediately goes on to give rather specific instructions about the relationship between man and wife. If it was as simple as everyone submitting to everybody, then why were the detailed man/wife instructions necessary? Why must a man be 'head' of his wife, if they are to have an equal relationship? The two passages must be seen either as a rule with an exception, or as contradictory.

Powder said:

You make the text say what you want it to say too, you are not a detached observer, nor are you objective. Your presuppositions are leading you to say that Paul is a misogynist.

I don't believe this is true. I had problems with being objective about Bible passages when I was a Christian, and it was things like this, things that cause so much cognitive dissonance, that led to my loss of faith in the first place. You are ignoring what the text says in favor of an interpretation that fits your idea of what Christianity should be. I think you have good motives for doing so, but the fact remains that the text says differently from what you want it to say (not verse 21, but the following verses).

Powder said:

Frankly given the way the church has acted/continues to act your presuppositions are justified, up until recently I would have agreed with you. However I feel that my interpretation is truer to the text and the heart of the gospel than the misogynistic one. Jesus treats women with high regard, there are very positive examples of women in the OT, and the church itself is represented as a woman, wisdom is personified as a woman, and etc. Therefore in light of all scripture(which I have only brought but a piece here) I reject any misogynist interpretations of the text.

I approve of your cherry-picking, but it is still cherry-picking, every bit as much as it is cherry-picking when the homophobes favor verses that condemn homosexuality over the Golden Rule. There are a number of options that are, I think, more intellectually honest than simply pretending that the verse doesn't say what it actually says, but all of those options (rejecting Paul altogether, joining the 'Ephesians is pseudoepigraphical' camp, acknowledging that Paul's teachings aren't perfect) require that you confess that you have made a moral decision in spite of a religious text that encourages you to do otherwise. Of course, the pseudoepigraphical route doesn't really cut it for this purpose, since the source of the thought is in 1st Corinthians.

Incidentally, I understand the dangers of those other options to the believer, and why they are avoided; I think most seminaries would teach that Ephesians is pseudoepigraphical, but I know that the Southern Baptists would never teach that, for instance, because they fear the slippery slope of questioning Biblical canon to any degree, and it seems that your denomination shares that fear. Just out of curiosity, do you know anything about the division in the Southern Baptist Convention that happened in the 1980s?

I think that probably the most honest approach to passages like these, from the perspective of a believer, would be to acknowledge that Paul was not a perfect man, and his teachings aren't perfect. It makes more sense, to put more weight on things that ostensibly come directly from God, or directly from Jesus. It also narrows down the range of the cognitive dissonance considerably.

Powder said:

As to original sin. I like the Jewish interpretation of the 'fall'. Their interpretation, briefly summarized is this. The fall story roughly goes like this in its resolution. God looks for Adam, Adam calls out blames Eve and God for his problems, Eve blames the snake, the snake gets owned. Now we all look back on this story and in our turn blame Adam and Eve. But are we supposed to? The moral of the story is supposed to be not blaming other people for your issues, and yet that is exactly what we do! We blame Adam and Eve for 'The Fall' when we all suffer our own 'falls' without their help. Granted theologically speaking Adam introduced sin/death but that does not mean they are to blame for my sin. I am.

Okay, but that sort of dodges the point that I was getting at, which is that (Paul again) all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The only difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is faith, because both have the same inherent value (via being created in God's image) and both have the same inherent tendency to sin (via the Fall or not).

Powder said:

I have found myself in Christ, where I was once lost, listless, and depressed. In Christ I am finally free to be me. Looking back I cannot believe how far the transformation has come. My character that you refer to, has come with Christianity, has developed, flourished, and expanded. I would not be the man I am today if not for 'my higher power'. I see the potential, and the improvement it offers, and I wonder why society would ever want to go without it.

Do you really wonder? I could only wish that even half of Christians had received the same benefit. The US might be a nicer place to live.

And fortunately, Christianity has no more of a monopoly on love than on morality.

Powder said:

EDIT: Also I think I like stormy's thought because it is most akin to my own as I ponder what it would be like to not have a higher power. I find it honest reflective and consistent.

I hate to speak for him, but I'm not so sure he would approve of how you find it, since you seem to think that you and your brethren are immune to what is a simple fact of human motivation.

As an aside, have you read any Peretti? I was thinking about Christiandom, and how it represents itself to the world in general, and how some churches are very strict about membership, and not allowing overly sinful Christians to sully the image of the church, and it made me think of Peretti's This Present Darkness. I enjoyed his books when I was younger, and though I was never quite under the impression that they were anything close to doctrinally sound, I did like the idea that the angels were dependent on prayer for strength.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Well you don't have to speak for me, I think the idea of a bit of determinism in the universe is contrary, even insulting, to many of the ideas that are so often implicated with the existence of God. Choice, even morality. I'd go into it, but it seems fairly plain to me.

However- I do feel like the beauty of the universe is that it can be measured and known, and it approaches the clockwork structure (yes, probabilistic clockwork, but clockwork) the more we learn about it. The universe becomes more beautiful with time - and it is more inspiring IMHO to think that it made itself, rather than giving anyone credit.

And I think that the anabaptists had a bit of the right idea on Christianity - that the choice to be baptised and to accept Christ is something to be made by a well-informed, mature person. Being raised into the framework of the Bible perhaps makes it less impactful.

[Powder]

I am on break in class and so I do not have an overabundance of time. So Let me throw 2 points out there now so I will not forget them to be expounded upon later.

1st: No one is objective.
2nd: I do not break up my posts with quotes because I do not know how, it is an issue of ignorance more than anything .

[Terez]

Powder, on 08 February 2010 - 08:28 PM, said:

1st: No one is objective.

Have you been talking to Gem?

I am done with class for the day but I need to practice. Have to play some Bach for a masterclass on Thursday, which is a fairly frequent occurrence, but I just found out that the pianist has been nominated for Grammy Awards, so now I'm nervous. And I have been wasting away the weekend practicing organ stuff instead (I don't even play organ, much less get any credit for it in school). I also have a chemistry test tomorrow but I have been deemed ready for that by a real chemistry professor (as opposed to my adjunct instructor who would probably make a better junior high science teacher).

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

As to determinism. Nothing about us is chosen, we are born where we are, given the lives that we are given, and these causes produce an effect in us (our personality, choices, etc). We have no control over our causes, ergo we have no control over the effects we produce. We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world (love that movie), and we have no say in the matter. Everything has been determined before we were even born, and without the 'Soul' we have no ability to override nature. Hope that clears that up some.

Let me try to be more specific on this for you then, Powder.

Quote

Nothing about us is chosen.

Agreed, although cherry-picking baby DNA is going to alter this, fundamentally.

Quote

We are born where we are and given the lives that we are, with no choice in our own prior to birth.

Yes, I'd agree we have no control over this.

Quote

These causes produce an effect in us.

Yes, a cause does produce an effect, I agree. But what causes? DNA, socioeconomic status, where we are born? These things do effect our lives, I'd agree. So, we are still okay, but are on shaky ground as "causes" is pretty broad.

Quote

(Our personality, choices, etc.).

Are determined by the lives we are given? Starting to lose me. Any given personality is ever evolving, and choice is random. I'd disagree with choice being anything other than random once a person is born.

Quote

We have no control over our causes....

Stated strangely, but I would say we have no control to anything prior to birth, sure.

Quote

Ergo we have no control over the effects we produce.

No, no, and no. This goes back to choice. Once you've determined that choice (we're dancing around free will here, without saying it, so I will go ahead and pull the rabbit out of the hat) is out of individual control nothing else matters. We have become robots. You obviously agree that choice exists as stated below.

Quote

[W]e have no say in the matter. Everything has been determined before we were even born, and without the 'soul' we have no ability to override nature.

Where does the soul enter the picture? We've been discussing cause and effect and choice and suddenly out pops the word "soul." I don't think people have souls, Powder. Just because we aren't robots, slaved to our instincts, and have evolved into animals with analytic and critical thinking abilities doesn't mean we are set above any other animal. We are just smarter.

You didn't like my response earlier, but it remains the same. The quoted train of thought is nonsensical to me. Do only humans have "choice?" It's kind of what that reads like to me because of the sudden and random inclusion of the word "soul" into the end. It reads as though everything before is stated just to get the answer at the end, but makes no sense in doing so.

I'm seriously bewildered because I can't wrap my head around this statement. I've broken it down in such a way that I can tell you where I agree, and where it stops making sense to me. I'm assuming this was a quick and dirty statement to probe thought. I'm sorry if my earlier statement was quick and dirty in response. Perhaps a more thorough statement on the subject would create more thorough responses.

[Powder]

Thank you HD that was very helpful.

I think I see where the breakdown is coming into play. You see choices as random, which is a view held by some. Others hold the view that choices are not as free as we like to think they are. I am pulling on old information and so there is an element of dirtiness to it as you mentioned, yet to say that all choices are totally random seems like a stretch. In sourcing purely secular sources I feel as though I could pretty thoroughly argue against this point. Interesting research has been done with twins both fraternal and identical that have been separated at birth. They are placed in different settings, with different parents, and they end up liking the same things. Like both becoming firemen, driving the same color make and model of truck, favorite color, favorite foods, etc so on and so forth. So there seems to be a genetic component to 'choice'.

Also anthropology tells us that people from the same culture have similar habits, character traits, and expectations. For most Americans freedom is one of the highest virtues of man. For people living in the jungles of Indonesia it might be treachery. For individuals from China family loyalty may be tops. So given that these people from the same areas have similar views and answers to questions one can assume that there is a cultural piece involved in 'choice', so again it is not random.

As to soul. It would seem to me that in any discussion we have there are some ideas that seem interchangeable. Where I say soul, you say intellect. Where I say God you say Chance and Time. We each answer the question in similar ways, we each provide proofs which are acceptable to ourselves, and others. And we each come to conclusions about how life should be lived based on these observations. Both are seemingly valid, seemingly internally consistent, and followed by droves of people. They are mutually exclusive by their very natures, and someday one or both will be proven wrong by our own experiences (by this I mean for you and I).

A reminder: you have a PHD and I assume you are a practicing lawyer. I do not even have a Masters degree (though I am in process), there are times when my arguments are not going to stand up to your level, you will probably have to stoop down and raise my argument up (as you did above) many times throughout a discussion with me, because I am not your equal in argumentation. I would submit the actual cases from above but I am a student, and as such do not have time to track down all the research above. If you think it is wrong or you do not trust me, go ahead and find contrary research. If you do not have more time than me (which you probably don't seeings as how you are a professional) then just state the main points of contradiction and leave it at that.

@ slavery issues - We still practice slavery today, in the US, legally. Prison was one of the reasons for slavery in the NT, and it is still practiced in the US today--we still strip people of their rights, put them in a cell, do not allow them to leave, family to visit, do what they want, go where they want to go, nothing. Do we not then own that person? Who is 'truly' free? Can you drive down whatever side of the road you want? Can you do whatever you please, go where you want? To an extent yes, but not completely. Even people in power are not truly free, how many times in epic fantasy do you see someone trapped in their own power (take the gods in MBotF). The question of slavery is just what level of this is acceptable and what level is not? There is always going to be some level of limitation placed upon people by other groups of people--which at its base level is all slavery is. The question then is how much--and can a master and a slave have right relationship.

My answer is yes, they can. Here are a few hypotheticals:
1.)I am well off. You come and smash some nice thing of mine, and are unable to pay for it. I can either A: forgive you the debt, or B: hold you accountable for your actions. If I hold you accountable and uphold justice, then say you are to work for me for a time. I feed you, clothe you, and have you work for me until that work meets the debt you incurred. This is 'technically' slavery, but in my eyes is not wrong.

2.) You want a better life for you and your family. You take your family and move onto the land of some rich land owner. You sell your body in service to this land owner for a period of time. During which your family is well fed, clothed, and educated. At the end of your tenure your 'owner' offers you a choice to remain in his service or to go about being a freedman. You can A) Choose to stay on for life (they called these bond servants) or go your own way and try and make it on your own (freedman). Is this still slavery? Yes, but in this case it would seem ok to me too.

3.) Someone commits a horrible crime and is sentenced to hard labor for a term of years. Again is this wrong? Is it wrong for the state to work people who break its laws? I do not think so.

My point: All three of these examples are common reasons for slavery in the NT. Notice they are not the same reasons for later periods of slavery. Slavery, as a word, has a great deal of meaning packed into it that was not present at the time of these writings. This is why they are often translated to something akin to 'servant' because 'servant' more accurately represents the idea behind the text than does chattel slavery of the 1800's. This type of slavery is blatantly wrong for the following non-exclusive list: It was racially motivated, brutal, multi-generational, based off kidnapping, repressed the minds of the individuals, created a 'slave-culture' which had a negative impact on society, caused one of the largest forced migrations in history, often led to rape, and the list goes on. Yet that is 1500 years removed from the context of scripture and is therefore not applicable (whether or not men have used it as such)

Onto marriage: Eph 5

It would not be anything new to state that wives should be subjected to their husbands. This was the common practice of the day in that place. However there is something counter cultural to what is said here in. At issue here is the word 'love'. We have 1 word in English for 'love', there are several in Greek. The word used here is transliterated 'agape' which is a self-sacrificing all consuming love. Like Christ's love for the church. A love to the point of sacrificing your very life for the other party. This is unheard of in Greek culture! From what I understand the wife was in a very subordinate role, often mistrusted by the husband, and kept at arms length. To tell men to have 'agape' for their wives elevates the status of women. Has this text been used the other way, absolutely. Was that its intent-never. In that very passage husbands are told to love their wives as their own bodies.

A bit on the incarnation and its importance. God meets people where they are. Christ came as God's son as a first century Jew. He met the people right where they were at. Scripture is similar, it is God's attempt to meet people where they are. If they are Jews he writes to them as Jews! It would do them no good to write to them as if they were 21st century Americans with the intranets. Therefore as interpreters of the text, we must make every effort to remember that we are not objective observers. Neither you or I are capable of reading the text (or any text) and understanding the only way it can be interpreted. Instead we must look at the larger body of text, and see where the gist of the text is going. That way the text itself can critique our interpretation of it.

For instance if there are two verses saying that women should not be in ministry in the NT, it is up to the interpreter to figure out why that is there. If the general sense of the text elevates women (which I think it does), why would it place a glass ceiling over them? Does it in fact do this? Then we see that the first witness to the resurrected Christ is a woman. The first one to call him Messiah is a woman. We have an instance of a woman at a well who is to be stoned, yet Christ readily forgives (which some argue he does by exposing the sins of the men accusing her, but this will just get me side tracked). Even the other NT writers acknowledge powerful women leaders in the church, even to the point of woman apostleship. This is groundbreaking for a paternalistic society! The fact that they are mentioned at all is amazing, but that they are mentioned in such high regard (for that time if not for now) is astounding.

As to the practical implications of a marriage. Wives are told to do to their husbands as the Church does to Christ. In some translations {be subject} appears like this because it is added in to fill out the meaning a bit. They grab these words from verse 24 and fill in the meaning above. I have only studied Hebrew up to this point and so I cannot delve into the subject further, but it might be interesting to ask a Greek student what other options might be available.

That was way longer than intended, but lots of issues are raised and I am hardly able to keep up at times.

-Powder

Edit: Didn't see Terez's response. No, I am just post-modern. Objectivity is dead, everyone has presuppositions, bias', and leanings. I do my best to state mine so that you know where I am coming from, and you can better understand what it is that I am trying to convey.
Editorial thought: I definitely deconstructed the meaning of slavery there proof of the above statement (my being a bit post-modern).

This post has been edited by Powder: 08 February 2010 - 11:12 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

As for genetic free will, I'm an identical twin - and I'll just say that for every twin study that shows something correlative, there's another that is inconclusive. There are certainly some interesting effects of having the same genome, but (partially) divorcing oneself from choice that way is to oversimplify the choice-making process. The choices you make impact future choice, and at some point you make random ones.

Not to offend, Powder, but to say that all of those ideas are interchangeable is, IMHO, a bit cheap. We would hardly be having this discussion if they were. To one side, the Soul doesn't exist- it fulfills an otherwise non-existent role in the ideology. Same thing with God.

[anakronisM]

Maybe this has already been adressed but i post this anyway.

I believe there's some confusion about what the moral argument for God is. The question is about an subjective or objective ground for morality. It isn't that Christians have monopoly over morality. Morality is something that can be universally recognized as a reality, independent of opinion by anybody. The question is what the ground or the origin for the moral values we have is? The question is about an objective origin. Morality can't come from humans, beacuse this would be a subjective origin. Depending on different opinions people could find other things in which their best interests lie. We can't come up with morality in society, we could make up any moral values we want if we just agreed upon it. It's truly elusive.

We have morality for the most part built in by nature, i would agree with that most certainly, but it still raises the question where it comes from and if an objective basis can be established. It can't cover for an objective ground for morality it just says that there is morality to be found in the world.

Without an objective grounding for the origin of morality then there can't be anything objectively good or evil. Yet if you are a moral realist you recognize somethings to be morally evil and good objectively. Without an objective ground for morality there can't be any good or evil actions.

In short: All have access to morality, there is somethings that are good and evil. But where does it come from or what objective grounds can it be established upon?

A God that is eternal in nature does not only possess these moral values, he is Good, and he is Love. His eternal nature would in theory have developed these attributes until perfection. So we can compare our subjective morals with his objective morals to know what these objective moral values are.

That Christians and people in general sometimes distort or misinterpret the objective morals of God is another discussion.

[Shinrei]

anakronisM, on 09 February 2010 - 10:09 AM, said:

Maybe this has already been adressed but i post this anyway.

I believe there's some confusion about what the moral argument for God is. The question is about an subjective or objective ground for morality. It isn't that Christians have monopoly over morality. Morality is something that can be universally recognized as a reality, independent of opinion by anybody. The question is what the ground or the origin for the moral values we have is? The question is about an objective origin. Morality can't come from humans, beacuse this would be a subjective origin. Depending on different opinions people could find other things in which their best interests lie. We can't come up with morality in society, we could make up any moral values we want if we just agreed upon it. It's truly elusive.

We have morality for the most part built in by nature, i would agree with that most certainly, but it still raises the question where it comes from and if an objective basis can be established. It can't cover for an objective ground for morality it just says that there is morality to be found in the world.

Without an objective grounding for the origin of morality then there can't be anything objectively good or evil. Yet if you are a moral realist you recognize somethings to be morally evil and good objectively. Without an objective ground for morality there can't be any good or evil actions.

In short: All have access to morality, there is somethings that are good and evil. But where does it come from or what objective grounds can it be established upon?

A God that is eternal in nature does not only possess these moral values, he is Good, and he is Love. His eternal nature would in theory have developed these attributes until perfection. So we can compare our subjective morals with his objective morals to know what these objective moral values are.

That Christians and people in general sometimes distort or misinterpret the objective morals of God is another discussion.

One question. Why are you convinced morality has to be objective? I mean, as a Christian you must believe in a universal truth, for Christians-God, but for those who don't believe in God, what's to say that morals can't simply be subjective based on society?

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your post.

[Gothos]

Shinrei, on 09 February 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

One question. Why are you convinced morality has to be objective? I mean, as a Christian you must believe in a universal truth, for Christians-God, but for those who don't believe in God, what's to say that morals can't simply be subjective based on society?

Aren't they? It's society that creates and enforces such norms. It may usually be hypocrytical about them, but see how different cultures have different moral standards. What comes as natural in one place can be unthinkable in another (like, say, a woman disagreeing with her husband, compare Sweden and Afghanistan). There's plenty of moral export these days when there's so much more information available around the globe compared to ages past, and, quite frankly, most people try to import western morals mainly because it benefits their position in society - either in their individual rights, or to gain popularity, to "ascend" as a modern, open-minded person, in other words - to elevate one's self in the eyes of their surroundings and their own selves.
Moral rules are suspectible to change and it's occuring all the time, not coming out of a changing religious doctrine, but being the basis for that change. Religious movements face changes too powerful to control and they have to adapt to survive.
Morals are, in my eyes, what people agree them to be. They may be fairly consistent within a cultural zone, but personal moral rules differ from person to person, and can differ greatly. In the end, God or not, everyone judges potential actions themselves or according to their view of the world, and that's one of the major factors that bring people together in groups tighter and more sensible than race, nation, gender or birth.
So yes. I think morals are subjective in that they were shaped by human history.

[Shinrei]

Well that's what I'm saying, but anakronisM seems to be saying differently.

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 09 February 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

Well that's what I'm saying, but anakronisM seems to be saying differently.

He's saying that morals are objective only for Christians. Or perhaps for all those who get their morals from religion, but I have a feeling he meant only Christians. Of course, we've been discussing that already - obviously Christian morality is just as subjective as anyone else's morality, or we wouldn't have thousands of different denominations with different ideas about morality.

[Powder]

When I said they were interchangeable I meant that they answer the same questions. How did we get here? (Chance/Time or God). What separates us from other creatures/animals? (Intellect or Soul) What is our reason for existence? (Procreation/ there isn't one/ whatever people come up with or bringing heaven to Earth) It is in this sense that they are interchangeable.

When I say that they are interchangeable remember I make the same sacrifice you state. From an atheist point of view God/soul are irrelevant. For Christians time and chance are in Gods hand, and mans intellect also comes from God--to suggest otherwise is just as absurd as telling the atheist that there is a god(s).

Does it still seem cheap? It seems mostly accurate to me.

-Powder

[Terez]

Just saw this article today, and it seemed relevant. Interesting way of approaching the question:

http://www.physorg.c...s184857515.html

physorg said:

Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion

February 8, 2010

The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link between morality and religion.

There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with humans, are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution.

"Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre-existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Although there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have been difficult to investigate.

Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, used a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to review these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of this perspective because religion is linked to morality in different ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing one's moral intuitions."

Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."

Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser.


More information: Pyysiainen, Hauser et al.: "The origins of religion Q1 : evolved adaptation or by-product?'", Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

This post has been edited by Terez: 09 February 2010 - 07:26 PM

[stone monkey]

Getting back to the slavery issue, although I do seem to be harping on and on about it. If there's a choice involved, it's not slavery... It's an arrangement between parties; an entirely different prospect. Okay, so your examples:

The first is an arrangement between parties or it's a judicial matter (if the party doing the injury doesn't agree to it), not slavery. The second is indentured servitude, again not slavery (not pretty either btw; there's a lot to be said for there being serious ethical issues with it, why not simply hire the person and pay a living wage?). The third is a judicial matter, also not slavery (using prisoners as forced labour has some pretty thorny ethical issues involved with it too - there's a reason that the UN Convention on Human Rights has some problems with it and that's because it's massively open to abuse).

In the first example, it only becomes slavery if you, as an individual, choose to seize the person against their will and force them to work for you - in which case there's plenty wrong with it, whether you choose to free them at the end of their term or not. The second only becomes slavery if the bondholder reneges on their contract - again, plenty wrong with that. The third, opinions differ; I for one am not that convinced by arguments that prisoners should be forced to work. The state has already confined them and taken away many of their rights, forcing them to work strikes me as over egging the pudding somewhat.

And yes, I am one of those Liberals you've heard stories about.

There were many reasons that slavery was a fact of life in NT times, sometimes it was simply good old fashioned slavery. Chattel slavery was also common, it wasn't invented for the triangular trade. The NT is not specific about which form it's approving of and thus provides implicit approval of all the forms...