Why does God need the Blood ?

Originally posted by Coletti
You still need to find a way to independently judge what God does as good and evil. In other words, you need a standard with the authority to let you judge God. And you must show it is not arbitrary. Otherwise, all your accusations have no basis - and may be disregarded.

My standard comes from reason. It is much like logic (and based upon it). Even you have admitted that logic is not created by God. According to this I judge God. Now back to Euthryphro's Dilemma and my criticisms of your position. How do you show that your standard is at all superior to mine?

Originally posted by telerion
My standard comes from reason. It is much like logic (and based upon it). Even you have admitted that logic is not created by God. According to this I judge God. Now back to Euthryphro's Dilemma and my criticisms of your position. How do you show that your standard is at all superior to mine?

What is "reason" and how is it a standard? (Personally - I think reason and logic are the same thing - forms of correct thinking. One is more technically described than the other.)

Logic is the mechanism by which I justify my conclusions - by logical deduction from first principles. But reason itself has no content - so how can it be a standard? If you can tell me your first principles (your axioms, your presuppositions), then we can compare who's standard superior. We can not compare anything yet.

Originally posted by Coletti
What is "reason" and how is it a standard? (Personally - I think reason and logic are the same thing - forms of correct thinking. One is more technically described than the other.)

Logic is the mechanism by which I justify my conclusions - by logical deduction from first principles. But [b]reason itself has no content - so how can it be a standa ...[text shortened]... resuppositions), then we can compare who's standard superior. We can not compare anything yet.[/b]

True. I need to demonstrate my logic. You need to justify your position given my questions. I suppose my post does need to come first though.

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm not sure I understand your last sentense.

I do not define "good and evil" as God's will - God defines "good" and "evil" by verbal revelation. He has told us what is good - to obey his commands - and what is evil - to disobey ...[text shortened]... ommands.

So how do you define good and evil? How do you know?

If there is a definition in the Bible or elsewhere of the word 'good', and if that definition is as you say, then it is impossible to label God good or evil, since he cannot command himself (can he? Maybe if he's schitzophrenic or something). Or maybe God is by definition good, because he always acts in accordance with his own will.

In this case you are not judging God I suppose.

So how do you define good and evil? How do you know?

What do you mean "how do I know?" That implies there is some inherent meaning to the written letter combinations and the sounds associated with them such that a particular definition might be fundamentally wrong. I do not agree that this is the case. One can define words any way one wants. You accept the definitions you read in the Bible or whatever, and I choose different definitions.

I think there are some generally accepted though vague definitions of these words when they are used by most people. I do not think these definitions are based on what the Bible says that God said. It's generally accepted that raping six year old girls is wrong and evil. You don't need to believe in the Judeo-Christian god in order to be able to use the word 'evil' to judge this action in this way. The definitions I go by are based on these vague and generally accepted definitions. I asked myself, 'what makes raping little girls evil? Why do I think that this act is evil?' and the obvious answer (to me) was that the little girl suffers, and this is what makes the act wrong.

To say that 'good' means to obey God seems counterintuitive, because many people agree that murdering your infant son for example is wrong - yet in the Bible, a guy is commanded by God to murder his infant son (right?). I feel the definitions I use fit as closely to the vague implied consensus definitions of the word as is possible while being much more precise.

What exactly does it mean 'to judge something' and 'to judge something arbritrarily'?

Taking this one bit at a time:

Originally posted by no1marauder
Although Christians apparently think that the Bible is the first and only written history of the ancient world, in fact many cultures have historical texts which pre-date the Bible by hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

Actually, I believe the books of the Bible (particularly the Pentateuch and 1-4 Kgs) are somewhat unique in that, unlike other contemporary historical texts, they are the history of an entire nation (as opposed to royal biography). But I could be wrong.

Try finding a people who exterminated entire populations of their defeated enemies in Egyptian, Sumerian, Indian, Chinese, etc. etc. records.

There is a problem of timing here - all these civilisations (and their written records) pre-date the books mentioned above by about a millenium or more. We have very few records that might be called "documents" in the normal sense. With the Egyptians, for instance, much of our understanding of the politics of the time comes from the heiroglyphics on/in monuments.

And, interestingly, you will find virtually no record of the Indus Valley civilisation (the first real Indian civilisation). Most historians believe that this civilisation was wiped out by the Aryans who came later. The Aryans themselves do not mention destroying any such civilisation, of course, but the rigidity of the varna (caste) system that came up later, and the fact that the untouchables of India (still a sensitive topic!) existed outside the four varnas, lends credence to the idea that, if the IVC was not wiped out entirely, the survivors were the forefathers of modern-day untouchables.

EDIT: Of course, you wouldn't call the enslaving of entire nations by the Spartans isolated, would you?

Originally posted by Coletti
A thoughtful response. Thank you.

I looked up Euthyphro's Dilemma (always good to learn something new 🙂 ). The arguments are not new to me - but I like knowing who made them also.

It seems his question is which is prior, God or good. Russel seems to think this puts the Christian between the rock and a hard place. Clearly I would say God defines ...[text shortened]... ense. But since God is immutable, there is no dilemma. God is prior to good, God defines good.

I espouse a slightly different notion of good and evil.

To me, good and evil are defined in terms of the impact it has on the human soul. Actions that bring the soul of the actor into communion with God, or even closer communion than before, are defined as "good" and actions that separate, or tend to separate, the human soul from God are defined as "evil".

Because the human soul derives its existence from God, and is made in His image, it has its own internal sense of right and wrong (or good and evil) - but that sense correlates back (though not always perfectly) to its relationship with God.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think there are some generally accepted though vague definitions of these words when they are used by most people. I do not think these definitions are based on what the Bible says that God said. It's generally accepted that raping six year old girls is wrong and evil. You don't need to believe in the Judeo-Christian god in order to be able to use the word 'evil' to judge this action in this way. The definitions I go by are based on these vague and generally accepted definitions.

Do morals boil down to a majority vote, then?

I asked myself, 'what makes raping little girls evil? Why do I think that this act is evil?' and the obvious answer (to me) was that the little girl suffers, and this is what makes the act wrong.

Is suffering always wrong?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Taking this one bit at a time:

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]Although Christians apparently think that the Bible is the first and only written history of the ancient world, in fact many cultures have historical texts which pre-date the Bible by hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

Actually, I believe the books of the ...[text shortened]... course, you wouldn't call the enslaving of entire nations by the Spartans isolated, would you?[/b]

EDIT: Of course, you wouldn't call the enslaving of entire nations by the Spartans isolated, would you?[/

No and I wouldn't call it "extermination" which is what the Israelites did in many places in the Bible and which I was discussing. Your post fails to refute a single point I have raised. And the OT is generally a history of the Israelites told through the exploits of its kings and high priests, very similar to other ancient histories (and modern ones for that matter).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If there is a definition in the Bible or elsewhere of the word 'good', and if that definition is as you say, then it is impossible to label God good or evil, since he cannot command himself (can he? Maybe if he's schitzophrenic or something). Or maybe God is by definition good, because he always acts in accordance with his own will.

In this cas ...[text shortened]... se.

What exactly does it mean 'to judge something' and 'to judge something arbritrarily'?

What do you mean "how do I know?" That implies there is some inherent meaning to the written letter combinations and the sounds associated with them such that a particular definition might be fundamentally wrong.

This is correct. For the purposes of logic and language - one must assume that any word are term must mean something, and (just as important) not mean something. If any term can mean anything, it means nothing. One may not not absolutely what it means but it is not necessary. What is important is that the term retain that meaning thought any chain of reason. This is basic to logical reasoning. It is the idea of the Law of Non-contradiction.

I think there are some generally accepted though vague definitions of these words when they are used by most people. .... The definitions I go by are based on these vague and generally accepted definitions...I feel the definitions I use fit as closely to the vague implied consensus definitions of the word as is possible while being much more precise..

So you are a member of the "Moral Majority." 😉

What exactly does it mean 'to judge something' and 'to judge something arbritrarily'

By this I mean to make judgments based on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions - but not on objective principles or facts. Without reliable objective principles to base them on, moral judgments are arbitrary. I agree that people have an innate sense of right and wrong, but it is unreliable. If it were reliable, you'd expect there would be little crime and war. Clearly the innate sense of right and wrong false short of giving a justified basis for making moral judgments.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I think there are some generally accepted though vague definitions of these words when they are used by most people. I do not think these definitions are based on what the Bible says th ...[text shortened]... his is what makes the act wrong.

Is suffering always wrong?[/b]

Do morals boil down to a majority vote, then?

'Morals' is a pattern of pixels on my computer screen. Associated with this pattern of pixels are patterns of other materials, like ink particles, as well as a certain sound.

Now humans use these patterns and sounds (the combination of which are called 'words'😉 to communicate something among ourselves. What is it that we are communicating? Is it something that is fundamentally tied to these words independent of humanity, or is the definition arbritrarily assigned to the words by humans? I say it's the latter.

To facilitate communication, people tend to accept the same or similar definitions for these words as other people are using. Thus the words attain a certain associated definition among most people who use the word.

I think that when you and I refer to 'morals' we have some idea of what that means which is not in conflict. Morals are something that has to do with how people act which is desireable in some way. That might not be the best definition, but it's something like that. That definition does 'boil down to majority vote' as you put it.

Now which actions are moral and which are not shows more variability, though there is generally a thread of similarity between different peoples determinations of what is moral and what is not.

Does that answer the question?

Is suffering always wrong?

I believe that suffering in and of itself is always wrong and evil. Now often there is associated with suffering some other good such that the combination of the two is not a net evil. However that part of the combination which is the suffering is evil. If the exact same good could be generated without any suffering, this would be a morally superior situation in my estimation.

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]What do you mean "how do I know?" That implies there is some inherent meaning to the written letter combinations and the sounds associated with them such that a particular definition might be fundamentally wrong.

This is corr ...[text shortened]... e short of giving a justified basis for making moral judgments.
[/b]

This is correct. For the purposes of logic and language - one must assume that any word are term must mean something, and (just as important) not mean something. If any term can mean anything, it means nothing.

So if I were to say the following:

For the purpose of the following statement I define the word 'moral' to mean 'gray with black stripes'.

My cat is moral.

Are you telling me that you think I am saying that my cat obeys the commands of God?

What is important is that the term retain that meaning thought any chain of reason

Sure. But what that meaning is originally is abritrary. For example, if we were verbally discussing a sick person, and I were to say that she was 'more ill', you wouldn't necessarily think I was saying she obeyed the word of God would you? There is no fundamental meaning associated with a word which is divorced from human arbritriness. Now, that arbritrary assignation of definition to word may have taken place millenia ago when language was developing, but it was still arbritrary. The same word may have utterly different meanings in different languages.

So you are a member of the "Moral Majority."

Cute. I am only in that I accept the consensus definition of the word in it's most general sense in the English language. Which actions I feel are moral and which are not may not put me in the majority because I have chosen a systematic and consistent way to determine what is moral and what is not. The majority often do not do this, and when they do they often choose a different system.

By this I mean to make judgments based on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions - but not on objective principles or facts.

But what is a 'judgement' to you?

Do you feel I am arbritrary and do you think I judge when I base morality on suffering and pleasure?

I agree that people have an innate sense of right and wrong, but it is unreliable. If it were reliable, you'd expect there would be little crime and war.

So does that mean that you feel divorcing morality from peoples' sense of right and wrong is a good idea?

Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: Of course, you wouldn't call the enslaving of entire nations by the Spartans isolated, would you?[/

No and I wouldn't call it "extermination" which is what the Israelites did in many places in the Bible and which I was discussing. Your post fails to refute a single point I have raised. And the OT is generally a history of the Israelite ...[text shortened]... ngs and high priests, very similar to other ancient histories (and modern ones for that matter).

Alright, let me spell it out:

1. You cannot make an apples to apples comparison between the surviving documents of these civilisations and those in the Bible from Exodus to 2 Kings:

a) Because the time periods of composition are different - these civilisations existed a 1000 years or more before the Bible books were written. The fact that you may not find instances of slaughter in what has survived over 3000+ years since does not mean it didn't happen. With the Sumerian civilization, for instance, we have virtually no information as to their origins (http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/SUMERIA.html) - a very different situation from the Israelites (where we have both mythological and archaeological versions of their origins).

b) Because the types of documents are different. For instance, take a look at http://www.touregypt.net/literature.htm - nearly all surviving documents from that civilisation are written in praise of one Pharaoh or another. While the Bible does focus on kings and prophets, it does so to use them as a prism to reflect on the Israelite nation/people itself/themselves.

2. As a matter of fact, these civilisations do have similar instances of large-scale genocide:

a) The ode to The Victorious King Tuthmosis III talks of several nations being annihilated.
b) Even though we do not have documentary evidence for the Aryan destruction of the Indus Valley Civilisation of India, the archaeological and sociological evidence is overwhelming.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Alright, let me spell it out:

1. You cannot make an apples to apples comparison between the surviving documents of these civilisations and those in the Bible from Exodus to 2 Kings:

a) Because the time periods of composition are different - these civilisations existed a 1000 years or more before the Bible books were written. The fact that you ma ...[text shortened]... ndus Valley Civilisation of India, the archaeological and sociological evidence is overwhelming.

The point is that we do have many historical cases where conquerors did not exterminate entire populations like the Israelites routinely did. They may have been enslaved, but they weren't butchered to the last person like the people in Jericho. Israelite warfare was unusually savage in comparison to other examples in history and legend that we have. You've given no reason why the fact that earlier peoples didn't exterminate whole peoples and later peoples didn't either support the view that somehow it was common practice circa 1200 BC. In other words, you have no evidence at all to support your claim and the existing evidence refutes it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The point is that we do have many historical cases where conquerors did not exterminate entire populations like the Israelites routinely did. They may have been enslaved, but they weren't butchered to the last person like the people in Jericho. Israelite warfare was unusually savage in comparison to other examples in history and legend that we ...[text shortened]... words, you have no evidence at all to support your claim and the existing evidence refutes it.

here's a bit more about Joshua :

Jericho, Ai ,massacred everybody
left Gibeon, and Chephirah, and
Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim. just enslaved them

Makkedah,Libnah, Lachish and Eglon massacred everybody then Joshua was tired of writing down the cities he and when to Hebron and Debir "and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein;

10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,
and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none
remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of
Israel commanded.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The point is that we do have many historical cases where conquerors did not exterminate entire populations like the Israelites routinely did. They may have been enslaved, but they weren't butchered to the last person like the people in Jericho. Israelite warfare was unusually savage in comparison to other examples in history and legend that we ...[text shortened]... words, you have no evidence at all to support your claim and the existing evidence refutes it.

For one thing, it is extremely debatable whether the Israelites actually (forget routinely) did exterminate entire populations. Take Jericho, for instance:

1. It is very likely that Jericho was actually an uninhabited city at the time of Joshua.
http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-joshua.htm

2. The practice of the "ban" (Hebr. herem) was a theoretical component of holy war at the time according to which all spoils of war (including people) were the effective property of the deity and hence sacrificed. However, the institution of the ban (like the jubilee year) was an ideal that was rarely, if ever, practised by the Israelites (Coogan. "Joshua". 1988).

However, even if the Israelites did actually implement the ban, it was not an unheard of practice for its time:

3. Mesha, king of Moab, claims to have banned the entire population of Israelite Nebo to the deity Chemosh (Pritchard. "Ancient Near Eastern Texts". 1978)

Examples of real or legendary genocide from other cultures at the time:

4. The various conquests of Tuthmosis III (see link earlier provided)
5. The destruction of the Indus Valley civilization with the Aryan invasion
6. (a little later) Alexander the Great - who massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children.

And we don't even want to get started on the Romans.

Hence, the real or legendary antics of the Israelites were not out of place for its time.