If you think this was a good plan, then you are not a moral person. — Banno

Moral person by what standard? God is the very standard of morality... By your standard of morality I may not be a good person, but why should I be worried about that?

Moral person by what standard? God is the very standard of morality... By your standard of morality I may not be a good person, but why should I be worried about that? — Agustino

You should be worried. That's very disconcerting. No one who permits stoning adulterers to death, whether your fictional "God" or anyone else, can rightly be called the very standard of morality. Where is your humanity, Agustino?

You should be worried. That's very disconcerting. No one who permits stoning adulterers to death, whether your fictional "God" or anyone else, can rightly be called the very standard of morality. Where is your humanity, Agustino? — Sapientia

I have no problems with such laws. If they happen to be the laws of my society, then I will follow them. I wouldn't personally advocate for such laws because I'm not used to living in such a society (and I personally find it barbaric), but I can certainly imagine living back in the day and accepting such laws as part of the way the world is. My bet is that if you too lived in Ancient Judea, you too would have accepted stoning as the just punishment for adultery too. Most people did in those days. What makes you think that you would have been different?

I have no problems with such laws. If they happen to be the laws of my society, then I will follow them. — Agustino

That's sickening.

That's sickening. — Sapientia

If you were born and lived in Ancient Judea, you reckon you would have found stoning as punishment for adultery to be unjust?

If you were born and lived in Ancient Judea, you reckon you would have found stoning as punishment for adultery to be unjust? — Agustino

That's beside the point, so I choose not to answer.

That's beside the point, so I choose not to answer. — Sapientia

No, it's not besides the point. If your answer is "no", then it shows that there is nothing intrinsically immoral with having stoning as the punishment for adultery. It may seem immoral to us, because it is very distant from the way our society is currently structured. We don't have such punishments even for mass murder.

However, just because we're not used to something, and we have a very difficult time imagining it, doesn't mean that it is therefore immoral. I think the Ancient Jews would be horrified with our modern societies too.

So if you are honest with yourself you will come to this same conclusion.

It really isn't outside the point. If one looks at the surrounding forms of punishment, one would quickly see that Judean laws were not cruel whatsoever, contrary, they were much more merciful than the pagan nations.

No, it's not besides the point. If your answer is "yes", then it shows that there is nothing intrinsically immoral with having stoning as the punishment for adultery. It may seem immoral to us, because it is very distant from the way our society is currently structured. We don't have such punishments even for mass murder.

However, just because we're not used to something, and we have a very difficult time imagining it, doesn't mean that it is therefore immoral. I think the Ancient Jews would be horrified with our modern societies too.

So if you are honest with yourself you will come to this same conclusion. — Agustino

It is beside the point, it shows no such thing, I am honest with myself, and I have reached a different conclusion. Your reasoning is clearly erroneous. Even if, counterfactually, I grew up in an environment in which, as a result of cultural conditioning, I believed that stoning or slavery or genocide or torture or what-have-you was acceptable, it doesn't follow that it is acceptable, or that that is any good reason to doubt that it's not acceptable. (And as for why these things are not acceptable, I really shouldn't have to explain that to you).

ah, so you are a moral relativist,

It really isn't outside the point. If one looks at the surrounding forms of punishment, one would quickly see that Judean laws were not cruel whatsoever, contrary, they were much more merciful than the pagan nations. — Waya

Relativist nonsense. That it might not have stood out at the time, that it might have been viewed differently, or that it might not have been as cruel as practises in other contemporaneous societies, wouldn't make the slightest difference. It's wrong. Obviously wrong.

Who says it is wrong? :naughty: The "culture" you live in today? But that would be fitting for a different thread...
It is directly tied into the perception of justice.

I say it is wrong, and I say it is wrong for good reasons. Do you disagree? Yes or no. If no, then we have nothing further to discuss. If yes, then you should examine your conscience.

You say it is wrong. They say it was right. How dare you become a moral agent! From an objective viewpoint though, what determines right from wrong?

That would seem to be his position except for where he said "God is the very standard of morality... " From this, I assume he means that stoning is the appropriate response to adulterers because God said so, although he admits it seems weird to his corrupted modern mind.

From an objective viewpoint though, what determines right from wrong? — Waya

Whatever it is, let's at least pick a sensible place to start contemplating that question by recognising that it's no more God than the Easter Bunny.

From an objective viewpoint though, what determines right from wrong? — Waya

The question of what establishes objective morality is a legitimate one and involves looking at what our intuituve conscience determines is moral and in looking at consistencies and themes in what presents as moral and arriving at logical theories to explain what is moral.

In arriving at a theory (e.g. Kantianism, utilitarianism, divine command theory, etc.), we have to see how well each theory works against what we know to be right and wrong. The Bible, if presented as a morally inerrant document, is rejected based upon it's draconian response to dishonesty in marital relationships. The Bible therefote can't be looked upon as a perfect guide, but more a source of inspiration from very primitive peoples.

It is directly tied into the perception of justice. — Waya

Yet the message of Jesus as it appears in the gospels is more about personal transformation via forgiveness.

It's about freedom from the cycle of violence that accompanies the pursuit of justice.

Agree?

Yet the measage of Jesus as it appears in the gospels is more about personal transformation via forgiveness.

It's about freedom from the cycle of violence that accompanies the pursuit of justice.

Agree? — frank

No, no, no. The message of Jesus is more about stoning people and chasing people with whips. It's about mindless submission to God and carrying out acts of cruelty and violence in his name.

A little crucifixion is helpful from time to time as well.

Moral person by what standard? God is the very standard of morality... By your standard of morality I may not be a good person, but why should I be worried about that? — Agustino

The Nuremberg defence.

You can't escape responsibility for your moral actions by being a moral coward. You decide to follow what you take to be god's commands, or not.

What you are doing here is telling the rest of us more about your capacity to make moral comment. It reaches a point where one simply ignores your posts; their basis and logic are too twisted to be helpful. I had made such a judgement long ago, from your comments in the Trump thread. You simply reinforce that here.

You are not worth listening to on questions of morality.

↪Sapientia You say it is wrong. They say it was right. How dare you become a moral agent! From an objective viewpoint though, what determines right from wrong? — Waya

Although I have only read a few of your posts, it might be that the post above, directed at Agustino, applies yo you as well.

You are a moral agent, whether you like it or not. You choose what you will do next; you choose to follow whatever you suppose to be god's laws, or not.

How dare you become a moral agent!

Nothing could show your lack of moral understanding more clearly.

...what determines right from wrong? — Waya

There's this whole field of philosophy called ethics. I suggest you look into it.

:rofl:

The question of what establishes objective morality is a legitimate one and involves looking at what our intuitive conscience determines is moral and in looking at consistencies and themes in what presents as moral and arriving at logical theories to explain what is moral.

In arriving at a theory (e.g. Kantianism, utilitarianism, divine command theory, etc.), we have to see how well each theory works against what we know to be right and wrong. The Bible, if presented as a morally inerrant document, is rejected based upon it's draconian response to dishonesty in marital relationships. The Bible therefore can't be looked upon as a perfect guide, but more a source of inspiration from very primitive peoples. — Hanover

But the problem still remains, why is a "draconian"' response wrong? The answer is that justice is intolerant, as are the laws of nature. When only justice exists, and no mercy, why do we perceive as unfair? Is it draconian when a person is struck by lightning? Rather, we see that as the result of nature. Justice is natural, but the problem is in defining justice. Hence, the death of an unfaithful spouse is a natural and just solution. However, mercy is seen as admirable, hence we value mercy over justice and do not stone the unfaithful today.

Nothing could show your lack of moral understanding more clearly. — Banno

Contrary, somehow, people are missing the point.

There's this whole field of philosophy called ethics. I suggest you look into it. — Baden

Yup, I have. But the absence of the efficient cause of ethics is missing from an atheistic view. And the "reasons" given are illogical.

Contrary, somehow, people are missing the point. — Waya

Indeed. You are a moral agent. You choose to follow a screed rather than admit that you choose for yourself. Hence you deny that you are a moral agent, and fall to inconsistency.

Hence, the death of an unfaithful spouse is a natural and just solution. — Waya

Adultery is also quite natural. You're inconsistent.

Never said I wasn't. :cool: We all adhere to some sort of moral creed, whether we acknowledge it.

Oh really?

We all adhere to some sort of moral creed, whether we acknowledge it. — Waya

And yours is an abomination.

Oh really? — Waya

Yes. I have a speculation about why you might be more drawn to the Old Testament than the New: you have a need for a strong external source of order.

Jesus was an unapologetic law breaker: recall the gleaning incident. He did profess to replace the whole Mosaic Law with two simple rules.

:lol: