Does a literal interpretation of the Bible require one to believe in Egyptian Gods?

[Terminotaur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#The_plagues
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=5&version=31
I found the mention of Egyptian sorcery and their ability to cause miracles to be very odd. Egyptians assumably under the power of the Egyptian gods could turn staves into snakes, turn water into blood, and magically draw hordes of frogs. Wouldn't a literal interpretation of the bible require a belief that at one point in time Egyptian deities existed due to their mention in the bible and the ability of Egyptian sorcerers to perform miracles?

Of course, an allegorical interpretation could attempt to show that these Egyptians gods never existed and that the mentioned Egyptian sorcery never transpired. One could argue that these passages were to illustrate the great superiority and power of the Jewish/Christian deity over any perceived Egyptian deity. It still seems very odd to me why the Christian deity would use such a confusing and strained allegory instead of simply saying that the Egyptian sorcerers were unable to perform miracles since their deities did not exist or were powerless.

[Troile]

The list of fake commandments amused me with not being allowed to worship false deities - one does not make rules for things that doesn't need to be enforced (ie, no gov't law against walking thru walls). So, maybe they acknowledged the egyptian gods as having that power, but the ethics of their followers and the gods themselves were questionable? (This is in the Jehovah stage of the Old Testament tho, right? Wouldn't that mean that god is still the righteous wrath/smite anything? Doesn't quite seem moralistic, oh well =/ )

[-Serialchilla-]

righteous wrath/smite anything is an oxymoron

Besides, i thought it was God himself who visited the plagues upon egypt, not the egyptian gods. What cause would they have for frightening pharoah with moses' rod/snake (giggle), killing the firstborn, turning the river to blood, etc etc...

[Zogo]

no, they are just false gods given power through satan and other powerful demons.

[SithDrummer]

no, they are just false gods given power through satan and other powerful demons.
That's how I've understood it.

[Stayne]

I think many religions teach that the preists of pharaoh were merely magicians or, more sinisterly, were aligned with the devil.

Of course, what is taught and what is real aren't necessarily the same thing. Hopefully one day humans can realize that we don't need to believe in magical stories in order to behave morally.

[stas]

I think many religions teach that the preists of pharaoh were merely magicians or, more sinisterly, were aligned with the devil.

Of course, what is taught and what is real aren't necessarily the same thing. Hopefully one day humans can realize that we don't need to believe in magical stories in order to behave morally.

ah yes, if we take away an objective source of morality (that you personally believe doesnt exist) everyone will naturally act perfectly in line with whatever "morality" really is. never heard that one before. :rolleyes:

[King_Nada]

Better yet lets claim an arbitrary set of morals are the TRUE morals with no proof and then get all pissy when someone points out the retardedness of some of them.

King

[-Serialchilla-]

Besides, i thought it was God himself who visited the plagues upon egypt, not the egyptian gods. What cause would they have for frightening pharoah with moses' rod/snake (giggle), killing the firstborn, turning the river to blood, etc etc...

Gotta quote myself for emphasis

Please tell me some of the miracles the egyptian priests worked. I don't mean that as a challenge either; I honestly can't think of anything and I don't feel like reading the bible to find out. Just opening the cover makes me yawn. I went to catholic school, that's prolly why i dislike it so much.

[FluxCapacitor]

If you want to know some of the stuff egyptian priests did I would reccomend looking away from the Bible....

[Outflow]

once againt stas comes through with his usual bluntheadedness and total arrogrance for what's "right." everytime you post, your words ooze patronization and disdain for anything you think is wrong. any opposing viewpoint, regardless of how valid and legitimate it is, you'll always be there to enforce my belief that the world will never be peaceful with clouts like you. thanks for doing me a favor; i thank god ( yes god ) that i'm not like you.

edit** King_Nada with the return.

[stas]

Better yet lets claim an arbitrary set of morals are the TRUE morals with no proof and then get all pissy when someone points out the retardedness of some of them.

King

because without religion, no one would claim their way was better than anyone elses! brilliant!

[Zogo]

Please tell me...miracles the egyptian priests worked. I don't mean that as a challenge...I honestly can't think of anything and I don't feel like reading...the cover makes me yawn. I went to catholic school, that's prolly why i got raped so much.

the evil priests turned rods into snakes..and then moses turned rods into snakes and his snakes ate the bad snakes.

[stas]

once againt stas comes through with his usual bluntheadedness and total arrogrance for what's "right." everytime you post, your words ooze patronization and disdain for anything you think is wrong. any opposing viewpoint, regardless of how valid and legitimate it is, you'll always be there to enforce my belief that the world will never be peaceful with clouts like you. thanks for doing me a favor; i thank god ( yes god ) that i'm not like you.

edit** King_Nada with the return.

i didnt claim an exclusive knowledge of truth in this thread, nor did i argue for a specific one. i merely posited that without an objective morality you have no grounds for telling other people what they are doing is wrong or right (hence the world will never be peaceful, but thats because of human nature, not religion, contrary to what you think). perhaps you should get your ducks in a row before you start slinging around accusations and ad hominem attacks (uh oh debate term!) instead of reading into everything thats posted. sorry to burst your bubble.

guess i wont retaliate to one dead horse with another, it apparently went over the heads of the people who responded to it.

[Outflow]

hey it wasn't present in that post; props to stas. yeah thanks for the debate term, but i'm pretty sure everyone who posts in the academy knows what it is. but anyways, it wasn't my intention to go off-topic with the post so continue addressing the relevant issues.

[Stayne]

... i merely posited that without an objective morality you have no grounds for telling other people what they are doing is wrong or right....

Indeed, there is always a question of who's version of morality is the correct. However, giving that responsibility to God certainly doesn't solve it. First off, not even all bible followers interpret their scripture the same way. And, with the exception of schizophrenics off thier meds, few have claimed to have had any direct discussion with God lately. So, with God not taking an active role in our current issues, we are left to listening to the loud extremist views that all claim to know what God wants and to be doing his work.

Objective morality? That's not going to happen as long as humans continue to claim to know God's will. It may not EVER happen. But if you are truly concerned with achieving an objective morality, i suggest that the first step be listening to others.

lol... how can your view of God, that differs from every other view in the world, be claimed to be an "objective morality"? That is as subjective as it gets. So, even with your God, do you have the grounds to tell if what someone is doing is right or wrong?

Granted, laying out a morale code that is separate from religion is no easy task. However, its not an impossible task. But to a great extent, isn't that what secular laws are? We can say if someone is doing right or wrong based upon whether they are breaking a law or not.

I know that isn't perfect. Our own government exemplifies its weaknesses. But it is a way to have a morale code (laws) that is updated as society changes (more or less).

Whether you meant it to be or not, your reply to my post was patronizing and added nothing to the discussion. Try, for once, putting a little thought into a post, stas. I know you can do it if you try.

[RogueCheddar]

Stas is right. If God (or any other supernatural being) doesn't exist, then objective morality doesn't exist. Being a moral athiest is really quite meaningless, as is a secular moral code.

Just for reference, I don't believe in God.

[Stayne]

I think I understand that in theory a god is the only possibilty for an objective morality... assuming he is just an onlooker and not as involved in our lives as we are... assuming he creates the laws (morales) and we are simply to follow them.

Many people don't believe in that type of a god.

Either way, we still come back to the question of knowing what god's morale code is. Who can tell us? Is it the Law of Moses? Is it the New Testament? Why must it be Christian? Maybe it was the Egyptian code (making an attempt to tie back into the topic of this thread). The so-called objectivity of god's objective morality still breaks down at the human level.

If I'm missing the big picture here, please help me out. Also, please explain why a secular code is not sufficient. Why must it be "devine"?

[RogueCheddar]

Either way, we still come back to the question of knowing what god's morale code is. Who can tell us? Is it the Law of Moses? Is it the New Testament? Why must it be Christian? Maybe it was the Egyptian code (making an attempt to tie back into the topic of this thread). The so-called objectivity of god's objective morality still breaks down at the human level.This is a religious trifle and a compelling reason to disbelieve.

If I'm missing the big picture here, please help me out. Also, please explain why a secular code is not sufficient. Why must it be "devine"?Secular morality. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. It's utter nonsense. Morality is essentially concerned with good and evil -- ideas which are defined by a divine judge. Without such a judge, such ideas are meaningless, and morality is unnecessary. Instead of morality, a secular society should be concerned with creating a code of laws/principles that are in accord with its values and just generally allow a society to function.

[Stayne]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertain to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.

Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

That definition of morality doesn't rely on or even include a divine judge (unless that is inherent in the words "good and evil", but I don't think it is.). So, do we just have different ideas of what the concept of morality is?

[RogueCheddar]

Actually, I think good and evil judgements are reserved to a divine judge. People sometimes flatter themselves in thinking they can determine good and evil without a divine authority, but ultimatley it's an exercise in futility (sup uma). I can create my own moral values and call you evil for watching porn, eating chocolate, or liking the color blue, but who gives a fuck? Any meaningful morality shared in a culture is based upon a common religion.

[Outflow]

there are certain things that are inevitably useless to discuss and explain; morality is one of them. it is very difficult to define morality; you just simply have an instinct to whether or not something is right or wrong. when you debate about killing a person in your mind (literally, killing someone) what goes through your head? what makes u decide to do it or not? think about people who have grown up in a total absence of religion and those who have been drowned in it. this is meant to provoke thought, not create argument.

[Stayne]

So, if morality is based on the unique history of every individual, then there is no common or objective morality. There may be some morale beliefs that are more common than others, but there is no basic set of morale rules that can be agreed upon by everyone. Is that correct?

And, don't get me wrong. I never said that if everyone were agnostic that we'd all behave "morally". I said that belief in a deity isn't necessary. There are plenty of examples in which belief in a deity doesn't lead to "morale" behavior. The Bible, itself, teaches that even the devils believe in god (rough quote).

My point, if I may reiterate, is that invoking a deity doesn't solve the morality problem. Every decision on morality still falls on human shoulders... on human interpretation or belief. Thus, there is no such thing as "objective morality". God only enters into it as a form of authority, eternal reward, or eternal punishement. Most people are motivated by there here-and-now (I can find research on this).

[-Serialchilla-]

the evil priests turned rods into snakes..and then moses turned rods into snakes and his snakes ate the bad snakes.

I don't remember there being any pharoah snakes, either because i have horrible memory or the catholic bible (king james maybe?) leaves that part out. I'll take your word for it, because it's highly likely that both of those circumstances apply.

So i'm still curious...was there anything besides making pharoah snakes that got eaten by moses snakes?

And to attempt an answer to the question posed in the topic: no, it doesn't. People will assume all sorts of things, even if they interpret the bible literally. For instance, they will assume that the egyptian magic was supplied by the devil. There aren't any "requirements" that go with any belief, you can believe in judaism but you're not required to be a devout jew to say that. You can believe anything you want, there are no strings attached to such a thing. Believe the boogey man exists, that doesnt require that you be scared of him.
I hope this makes sense, I'm really fackin' tired.

[Outflow]

whether you'd like to admit it or not, every human being on this planet comes encoded with certain things ( genetically ). for example, you didn't see primitive man killing for the fun of it ( for protection, yes ). they had to cooperate in order to survive. all the other morales are basically derived from that; it wasn't "beneficial" for the group, if an individual stole, murdered, etc.. now today, what with advanced knowledge, civilization, and modern technology we have totally convoluted the meaning of morales and ethics; so much so that everyone is debating the subject, even on internet video game forums. people today are so confused, so bombarded with information from hundreds of sources, that it's nearly impossible to find the core values. unless you're me that is. i have no problem knowing what's right and wrong, maybe its because i don't have TV :(

[Zogo]

I don't remember there being any pharoah snakes, either because i have horrible memory or the catholic bible (king james maybe?) leaves that part out. I'll take your word for it, because it's highly likely that both of those circumstances apply.

well the catholic bibles are different in that they have a few more books included but they don't differ heavily otherwise.

So i'm still curious...was there anything besides making pharoah snakes that got eaten by moses snakes?

demon posession is very prominent. or are you referring to more egyptian stuff?

[Terminotaur]

I listed other things that Egyptian sorcerers were able to do in the opening post. They were also able to magically draw frogs and turn water into blood. If you want to confirm, look in the relevant passages of exodus.

Does anyone know of any other attempts by the Jewish/Christian God to show the rest of the world that he is the most powerful by outshowing false/lower gods?

[Stayne]

Yes... Let me try to remember.. I'll look it up if I have time/feel like it later.

There is one time where a prophet allows the preists of baal to try to start an animal carcass by only calling on the name of thier god. When they fail, he orders the to-be-burnt-for-an-offering carcass to be soaked in water and then calls on Jehova who lights it up for him in front of the preists.

One of my favorite prophetic "miracles" in the old testament, however, is when a prophet is teased by children (they made fun of his bald head) so he called a bear to come out of the woods and rip them to bits.

23. And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

25. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

[SenSai]

LOL you don't need a God to have morality, that is just assinine to believe. The laws we have and the things in the 10 Commandments are dictated by man, never by some mystical being - people are just told that to make you think there is some special prominence about it - adult fairy tale fluff. Laws, commandments, you name it, are all rules set in place that maximize positive results for most of society (not all).

[larcain]

Interesting. Thats just what the Nazi's at Nuremburg said. And what Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot said. They were just following the laws of their own land. Whatever else, they did have their own morality.

[Zogo]

One of my favorite prophetic "miracles" in the old testament, however, is when a prophet is teased by children (they made fun of his bald head) so he called a bear to come out of the woods and rip them to bits.

heh..it's important to not that the bears didn't attack because of the bald head joke..but because they were saying "go up."

Interesting. Thats just what the Nazi's at Nuremburg said. And what Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot said. They were just following the laws of their own land. Whatever else, they did have their own morality.

we can both point to vast amounts of bad people who have used the absence of god or invoking god to do evil things.

[larcain]

You really don't understand the point, do you?
If the point is that there is no universal morality --if there is no personal God..or Gods if you will,then there is no universal morality-- then you have no right questioning theirs. EVER. Not even on utilitarian grounds as there were some benefits ---disgusting, but still there----to their societies for them exorcising their form of morality. If there is no God, or God's, there are no rules other than majority rules.

[larcain]

Incidentally, no one in history, other than those I named have slaughtered more people. So name away, those I named are worse.


I can't believe I actually responded...I really gotta stop talking to the deaf.

[King_Nada]

You really don't understand the point, do you?
If the point is that there is no universal morality --if there is no personal God..or Gods if you will,then there is no universal morality
I'm with yah so far..
Then you have no right questioning theirs. EVER. Not even on utilitarian grounds as there were some benefits ---disgusting, but still there----to their societies for them exorcising their form of morality.
Doooh you lost me. My subjective morality allows me to question theirs. Wierd ain't it? :P
If there is no God, or God's, there are no rules other than majority rules.
Pretty much (except in the case where the minority has more/better weapons - israel anyone?).

Too bad I'm one of the deaf ones. ooooooh well.

King

[larcain]

PM KN

[Zogo]

You really don't understand the point, do you?
If the point is that there is no universal morality --if there is no personal God..or Gods if you will,then there is no universal morality-- then you have no right questioning theirs. EVER. Not even on utilitarian grounds as there were some benefits ---disgusting, but still there----to their societies for them exorcising their form of morality.

I don't think you understand. do you realize that a few billion people point to a higher power as their moral authority..and from that hundreds of thousands of belief systems and moral codes exist?

If there is no God, or God's, there are no rules other than majority rules.

that's what it is now anyway..do you think the US is a theocracy or something?

Incidentally, no one in history, other than those I named have slaughtered more people. So name away, those I named are worse.

really all you've proven is that power corrupts..especially when used with nationalism and communism.

[Terminotaur]

Can any Christian make an argument in defense of Elijah's immoral action divinely aided by the Christian God? It seems unconscionable that Elijah's slaughtering of children could be construed as moral.

Larcain, you're making the fallacy that morality is subjective if there is no divine entity to define it or that morality simply becomes mob rule or might makes right. Philosophers have shown why a lack of morality is a bad thing: civilization could not function without some semblance or agreement of what is good and what is bad. Some people have contended that morality is subjective, but then that makes the concept of morality meaningless, irrelevant, and detrimental to society. Philosophers have sought to define morality and ethics ever since the Athenian philosophers. Even if there is disagreement on what morality is among philosophers, the important thing is that most philosophers do not believe morality is a subjective thing. They attempt to establish normative criteria for what actions are moral and what are not moral. Of course, there's the very important question of how one can tell which philosopher's definition is correct and is the subject of great debate. This is the same problem with religious philosophers; there's disagreement among those within the same faction.

If you attempt to claim that morality without a divine being is subjective even despite the community of global philosophers attempting to define it by normative criteria and showing why believing morality is subjective is a bad thing, then you must acquiesce that morality with a divine being is practically subjective. It is practically subjective, because how can you know what actions are moral or not with such disagreement between the religious philosophers and no clarification from the deity himself? How can you act moral in accordance with your deity's wishes if you don't know what that morality is? As an example, is sodomy or sex out of wedlock considered morally sound? Is slavery, an institution advocated by both the New Testament and Old Testament God, morally sound? Is it okay to kill another Christian enemy soldier when you're an American soldier in a warzone?

[-Serialchilla-]

demon posession is very prominent. or are you referring to more egyptian stuff?

Egyptian stuff...because i'm still thinking the whole topic is a moot point, there was no egyptian magic mentioned (unless there were pharaoh snakes)
I still must reiterate that I don't feel like reading the bible, so if anyone can post excerpts with references to prove me wrong, go ahead, and i'll just take your word for it from there.

Bah, it doesn't really matter, the arguments have shifted away from the topic anyway. It seems to be all about morality now.

[Terminotaur]

Egyptian stuff...because i'm still thinking the whole topic is a moot point, there was no egyptian magic mentioned (unless there were pharaoh snakes)
I still must reiterate that I don't feel like reading the bible, so if anyone can post excerpts with references to prove me wrong, go ahead, and i'll just take your word for it from there.
I've said it two times already in this thread. Egyptian 'sorcerers/magicians' could turn water into blood, rods into snakes, and magically draw hordes of frogs.

[SUPITSREV]

i didnt claim an exclusive knowledge of truth in this thread, nor did i argue for a specific one. i merely posited that without an objective morality you have no grounds for telling other people what they are doing is wrong or right (hence the world will never be peaceful, but thats because of human nature, not religion, contrary to what you think). perhaps you should get your ducks in a row before you start slinging around accusations and ad hominem attacks (uh oh debate term!) instead of reading into everything thats posted. sorry to burst your bubble.

sorry to jump in late

Without asking you to present your definition of objective morality, I'm still pretty positive that you do have one, and whether its founded on religion (or not) matters little if we both agree that the term morality can be loosely defined as a equably and mutually agreed upon code of ethics by any given society. However, whether you agree or not that cross cultural differences should be taken into account or deemed appropriate is irrelevant, because basic moral code is different from culture to culture and even from person to person and objectivism has extreme limits.

I don't believe conflict between social groups stems from a person or a group of people refusing to adhere to basic moral principles, but rather from a more basic difference in opinion over what criteria should be used to create such a standard. I think within your own society, where most people agree on a set code of ethics by law, its easier to judge a person based on an ethical code than it is to define all cultures by your moral standard, but even THIS is severely limited per individual. In present day terms, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and one man's murderer is another man's avenger. Where one man sees gay marriage or abortion as a gross misinterpretation of the institution of marriage or the murder of innocents, another will inevitably see it as an unrestrainable pursuit of happiness or the right to govern ones own body.

[stas]

sorry to jump in late

Without asking you to present your definition of objective morality, I'm still pretty positive that you do have one, and whether its founded on religion (or not) matters little if we both agree that the term morality can be loosely defined as a equably and mutually agreed upon code of ethics by any given society. However, whether you agree or not that cross cultural differences should be taken into account or deemed appropriate is irrelevant, because basic moral code is different from culture to culture and even from person to person and objectivism has extreme limits.

I don't believe conflict between social groups stems from a person or a group of people refusing to adhere to basic moral principles, but rather from a more basic difference in opinion over what criteria should be used to create such a standard. I think within your own society, where most people agree on a set code of ethics by law, its easier to judge a person based on an ethical code than it is to define all cultures by your moral standard, but even THIS is severely limited per individual. In present day terms, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and one man's murderer is another man's avenger. Where one man sees gay marriage or abortion as a gross misinterpretation of the institution of marriage or the murder of innocents, another will inevitably see it as an unrestrainable pursuit of happiness or the right to govern ones own body.

im glad you understand the inherent problems without some objective source of morality for all. you cant rely on social groups to define morality and if you do, youve just justified slavery, killing the jews, etc etc all of which im sure 99% of people on this board think are immoral. not only that, you no longer have the ability to tell them that what they are doing is wrong, or actually say that what they did is wrong because it was determined by society that it was ok.

term - do you honestly think they will get anywhere? if objective morality truly exists, it must be defined by something (and something outside of a human at that because everyones view of a "perfect" human is based on their own experience). thats the inherent problem you will find no matter who is looking for it. there is no source or authority on it, its a fruitless exercise.

im also fairly sure that you would argue practical subjectivity is far preferred to complete subjectivity. while some lines may be blurred the rest are infinitely more clear. would this country be better off without a constitution at all, or with one and several different readings or interpretations of it?

[SUPITSREV]

im glad you understand the inherent problems without some objective source of morality for all. you cant rely on social groups to define morality and if you do, youve just justified slavery, killing the jews, etc etc all of which im sure 99% of people on this board think are immoral. not only that, you no longer have the ability to tell them that what they are doing is wrong, or actually say that what they did is wrong because it was determined by society that it was ok.

Don't misunderstand, I am absolutely not in favor of citing one specific set of moral laws or guidelines for all people to follow. I am also largely not in favor of imposing (for my purposes, I will give the American government as my example) our moral imperative on other countries--exceptions excluded. Basically our strategy for imposing our moral imperative is to first denounce anyone we believe to be wrong, and then to sanction them in a way we feel appropriate, but mostly by strangling their international economic potential, or through military action. In the specific case of Iraq, we denounce them as immoral, and then invade their country establishing a "Might is Right" type domination. I think if you weigh things on an impartial scale, we helped ourselves more by our invasion than we did them. Yet they were doing no direct harm to us, and barely even indirectly. At most we found the governing regime to be offensive, and made it out to be threatening, and annihilated it. For years to come the civil strife in that nation will probably be much more disconcerting than the regime we sought to undo in the first place. Our first attacks on this country in the early 90s were a direct reply to their offensive action against Saudi Arabia, the same country today where rich Saudi royals fund Islamic terrorist training camps. I dont think it would be fair to take a moral highground on that decision, but I am in favor of just being honest about the reason to get in there and get something done. We need a safe area for oil to be harvested, bottom line. The truth is usually sweeter, but more dangerous, than a lie.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that inaction in the face of offense to our moral code doesnt mean that we support slavery or genocide, but that we support their right to make their own decisions for good or for ill (in our esteem) as long as they cause no harm to us. I dont think the US got into a war with Germany and Japan because of Dauchau, but rather because they were trying to take over the earth. Solving for genocide against the Jews was just a nice bonus (even as we were rounding up Japanese and installing them in prison camps in our own country).

As little as you may like it, sometimes you just have to stand aside and let events unfold naturally. Going along to get along may not always be the best policy, but its better than having half the crazies in the world trying to blow your shit up.

[-Serialchilla-]

I've said it two times already in this thread. Egyptian 'sorcerers/magicians' could turn water into blood, rods into snakes, and magically draw hordes of frogs.

and i've read it two times

so if anyone can post excerpts with references to prove me wrong, go ahead, and i'll just take your word for it from there.

book #, verse #, etc.

[SithDrummer]

and i've read it two times

book #, verse #, etc.
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake."

So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.
The LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt—over the streams and canals, over the ponds and all the reservoirs'-and they will turn to blood. Blood will be everywhere in Egypt, even in the wooden buckets and stone jars."

Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD had commanded. He raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.

But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts...
So Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the land. But the magicians did the same things by their secret arts; they also made frogs come up on the land of Egypt.

After those is the plague of gnats, and the Egyptian magicians respond to that with "this is the finger of God." In other words, they give up.

[Stayne]

stas,

since you are so set on the attainment of a moral code from God, maybe you can suggest a way that we can find out just what that moral code is. Which God do we follow? Islam? Hindu? Christian? If it is in the bible, who's intrepretation of the bible do we use? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon? Each one has a different stance on many current "moral" issues (e.g., abortion and stem cell research).

My point? God isn't the answer to the debate. Even if the idea is that god could have an objective morality, you must assume god isn't involved in human life. If god is involved, then he doesn't have an objective vantage point, and we'll have to make up some other super-supreme being that is greater than god that might have an objective vantage point.

Or, we could just give up on the idea of eternal good and evil. Perfect white and impossible black. Realize that nothing can be broken down into a simple yes/no judgement and that there are no books that hold all the answers. Then, we can use what we have learned through experience and research to form our secular laws.

[stas]

stas,

since you are so set on the attainment of a moral code from God, maybe you can suggest a way that we can find out just what that moral code is. Which God do we follow? Islam? Hindu? Christian? If it is in the bible, who's intrepretation of the bible do we use? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon? Each one has a different stance on many current "moral" issues (e.g., abortion and stem cell research).

My point? God isn't the answer to the debate. Even if the idea is that god could have an objective morality, you must assume god isn't involved in human life. If god is involved, then he doesn't have an objective vantage point, and we'll have to make up some other super-supreme being that is greater than god that might have an objective vantage point.

Or, we could just give up on the idea of eternal good and evil. Perfect white and impossible black. Realize that nothing can be broken down into a simple yes/no judgement and that there are no books that hold all the answers. Then, we can use what we have learned through experience and research to form our secular laws.

too much to address. which God is irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is objective vs subjective morality. i also fail to see how involvement negates God as a source for objective morality, sounds like an arbitrary distinction youre trying to make.

lastly, you stop referring to morality and start referring to law. does this mean that whatever the law is as decided by society is what is ok? what authority does whoever makes the law have to do such a thing?

[Zogo]

Is slavery, an institution advocated by both the New Testament and Old Testament God, morally sound?

basically, yes. I only find things affirming it and nothing denouncing it.

no longer have the ability to tell them that what they are doing is wrong, or actually say that what they did is wrong because it was determined by society that it was ok.

religion is so ingrained into societies I don't see the distinction. plenty of people have used religion (their claimed universal morality) to justify all the things you just derided. in fact, prove that the NT is against slavery and denounces it. I can point to many sections where it is mentioned and not forbidden.

[stas]

old rehashed argument thats been addressed in several other threads

im not going to touch that for reasons that have been discussed here time and time again. what people have said their religion allows them to do is not relevant to the issue at hand. youre trying to introduce something that has no bearing on the relationship. i could very well say that someone has killed in the name of democracy or freedom or libertarianism, are all things suddenly useless and discounted because of the free will of individuals? no, your point is trivial in the scope of this argument. there will always be those who interpret things as they want, you cannot simply write off ideas or concepts or beliefs because of them.

[Zogo]

im not going to touch that for reasons that have been discussed here time and time again.

didn't think you would.

what people have said their religion allows them to do is not relevant to the issue at hand.

isn't it their "objective morality?" it means the world to them.

youre trying to introduce something that has no bearing on the relationship. i could very well say that someone has killed in the name of democracy or freedom or libertarianism, are all things suddenly useless and discounted because of the free will of individuals?

the difference here is that very few hold a belief in democracy/libertarianism as the be all and end all for all topics and beliefs (objective morality.) my beliefs are most closely aligned with the libertarian party..it doesn't mean I consider the LP or any other group as infallible.

no, your point is trivial in the scope of this argument. there will always be those who interpret things as they want, you cannot simply write off ideas or concepts or beliefs because of them.

which point? and why not..what makes your beliefs any better?

[stas]

didn't think you would.

isn't it their "objective morality?" it means the world to them.

the difference here is that very few hold a belief in democracy/libertarianism as the be all and end all for all topics and beliefs (objective morality.) my beliefs are most closely aligned with the libertarian party..it doesn't mean I consider the LP or any other group as infallible.

which point? and why not..what makes your beliefs any better?

world or no, any belief can be twisted. only a fool would think otherwise and discount everything as such. of course what i presented isnt a perfect analogy, it wasnt supposed to be. analogies exist to get the point across one way or the other, not as perfect substitutes. as long as you keep treating them that way you will keep missing the point. although you seem to do that anyways (asking what makes my beliefs better lol, we're debating the merits of subjective morality, where do you get this crap?).

[-Serialchilla-]

Thank you SD

[Terminotaur]

SerialChilla, note that the wikipedia article I linked in the opening post describing the plagues listed the relevant exodus passages. I also linked to the beginning of the tale of the plagues in the opening post.

term - do you honestly think they will get anywhere? if objective morality truly exists, it must be defined by something (and something outside of a human at that because everyones view of a "perfect" human is based on their own experience). thats the inherent problem you will find no matter who is looking for it. there is no source or authority on it, its a fruitless exercise.
There is an authority and source that humans can look toward in order to find or construct (depending on your viewpoint, neither of which makes morality subjective) a code of ethics: reason. This source would be the same way that Christians philosophers have attempted to interpret and resolve ethical issues from scripture. Of course, there are obvious cases of flawed reasoning throughout history for both religious and secular moral beliefs.

im also fairly sure that you would argue practical subjectivity is far preferred to complete subjectivity. while some lines may be blurred the rest are infinitely more clear. would this country be better off without a constitution at all, or with one and several different readings or interpretations of it?
'Practical subjectivity' involving interpretation of a textual authority is not always better than subjectivity. The case in which interpretation of a textual authority is worse than subjectivity is the case in which the textual authority is flawed. It seems to me that the Bible is ethically flawed in various places. For example, if God bestowed you with divine powers and assuming you had a bald head, would it be justified for you to slaughter 40-odd youths with your divine powers if they taunt you because of your physical appearance and religious beliefs? Generally though, I would agree that using the Bible's New Testament as a moral guideline through interpretation (keeping in mind that some interpretations will ultimately be flawed and be used to justify horrible atrocities) is better than complete subjectivity.

youre trying to introduce something that has no bearing on the relationship. i could very well say that someone has killed in the name of democracy or freedom or libertarianism, are all things suddenly useless and discounted because of the free will of individuals?
There's a very important distinction here. The Bible involves a divine being who has written a text supporting the institution of a slavery and who has not denigrated the institution of slavery as long as the master-slave relation follows a certain code of conduct. Anything that this divine being decrees in his bible that we might initially believe to be immoral must either be accepted as a moral decree through justification and interpretation through reason or be accepted at face value. If one invokes democracy, freedom, or libertarianism in a fallacious way to justify a killing, then that makes their action fallacious and unethical. If one invokes the bible for the establishment of an institution of slavery that follows the law set in the Bible, then this does not make their action fallacious or unethical according to the scripture. It would actually be fallacious to believe that a biblical implementation of slavery is immoral (assuming that the commands of God are to be considered moral).

This touches on a certain thread regarding whether or not slavery is immoral. No one has replied to my refutation on the Christian defense of biblical slavery. The main argument made on the Christian side was one of understanding the historical role and widespread nature of slavery and that the Jews did not treat their slaves as bad as other slaveowners. This was a terribly flawed argument because it first of all did not address why someone should not support a modern biblical implementation of slavery. The widespread nature of slavery in older times is a horrible justification for the institution of slavery, since that means widespread adoption of any practice we would initially deem as immoral would cause that practice to be justified just because a lot of people acted immorally. An argument that Jewish slavery was justified because they did not treat their slaves as bad as others is just a terrible argument, because such an immoral action is still immoral even if it is done to a lesser degree.

[Zogo]

world or no, any belief can be twisted.

right now there is a terrorist somewhere who is pointing to allah as his objective morality..and he can't be argued with.

as long as you keep treating them that way you will keep missing the point.

the analogy wasn't right. no political party that I know of in the US claims to have infallible morality. and 99.9% of the population doesn't go to a political party for every aspect of their life.

although you seem to do that anyways (asking what makes my beliefs better lol, we're debating the merits of subjective morality, where do you get this crap?).

I'm asking why your intrepretation of what god dictates as proper morality is better and should be trusted over someone elses (be it another sect/denomination or another religion entirely.)

[-Serialchilla-]

SerialChilla, note that the wikipedia article I linked in the opening post describing the plagues listed the relevant exodus passages. I also linked to the beginning of the tale of the plagues in the opening post.

I

I uh...

I knew that! I SWEAR I DID!




















k maybe not

[Obituary]

Can any Christian make an argument in defense of Elijah's immoral action divinely aided by the Christian God? It seems unconscionable that Elijah's slaughtering of children could be construed as moral.

Sure.

First, though, it wasn't Elijah, it was Elisha. An easy oversight. For the record, Elisha was a disciple of Elijah, and once Elijah was taken up to heaven (without experiencing death first) Elisha continued on with his work.

These 'children' were not young kids that we think of when we use the term children. They are probably young teenagers, clearly able to discern from right and wrong. Now, God did not take their lives because all they did was mock Elisha. Their problem was that they were idolaters, ones who worshiped Baal.

[Terminotaur]

Now, God did not take their lives because all they did was mock Elisha. Their problem was that they were idolaters, ones who worshiped Baal.
If you were given divine powers by God, would it be morally righteous for you to use these powers to kill wicca teenagers who taunt your beliefs and physical appearance? When does it become righteous to use your divine powers to kill idolators and when isn't it righteous?

[SenSai]

Back before the Age of Reason, religion was useful in building community and laying down some laws of life that people can follow. It also helped to explain things that humans did not have the resources to explain. In today's world, religion is not needed. Science is helping us learn of the world around us and explain things that seemed to be beyond our grasp for understanding. Religion is not necessary for the human race for much longer, and I hope more people start realizing that.

Jesus was just a man (if he even was real) and ranks in the same league as Gandhi. I find it ever-more-so hard to find the stuff that makes Jesus definable as a part of God convincing. So what if Jesus was a man? Is his classification as important as the message he gives? For too long have people placed emphasis on 'Jesus,' but never enough on the message he gives. I mean really, what does it mean when people say 'you must love Jesus.' I mean, what exactly does that do for you as a person if you 'love Jesus.'

I think after everyone ends up slaughtering each other in the Middle East, the world will realize that there is no 'Savior' that's going to come down and fix the world. The world has the ability to fix the problems it creates, but everyone is so apathetic because they believe in the 'End Times,' or that some hidden figure is going to reveal himself and create peace in the world.

In the end, after all is said and done, I hope people stop placing their faith in some external force that can't be defined and start putting faith in themselves. That's one area I've always felt Western religions were troubled in - faith in yourself.

[leg]

I hope people stop placing their faith in some external force that can't be defined and start putting faith in themselves.

I guess I agree with that. You can have faith, but you shouldn't rely on it to "save you" or whatever. I'm not a big fan of organized religion (although some have meaningful practices), but I think in the future the religion of today will become more of an agreed upon understanding in the future. Ofcourse, this is pending that we are alive to do this.

Throughout the history of the world we are coming together to form communities, states, countries, and eventually a fully united world (the united nations was the first step). To fully ensure peace, which everyone wants (including the terrorists), we must come agree upon "some" moral beliefs. I personally think we will all be dead before this happens, but I don't see why this trend would cease.

By the way, I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but don't confuse religion and science as being opposites. Although most people see it that way, they are not.