Join TSR now for chat about life, relationships, fashion and more…Sign up now

What a world without God means

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Let's try Paul and the normal definition of slavery, where the slave is owned by the master and has no freedom to live and work where they wish to, shall we?

    Paul sent a slave back to his owner, merely offering to pay any costs that the slave had caused his master. He is certainly endorsing slavery.

    And in Ephesians 6:5 he says Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear and sincerity of heart, just as you would show to Christ.

    If that isn't a clear endorsement of the sort of slavery we would recognise as such then I'm a Dutchman.
    Yes, but if you look at the context, it's akin to "turn the other cheek". It's about humbling yourself to do everything you do for God. I mean just look at the surrounding verses! Verse 7 says "Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people..." Indeed, we should obey our earthly masters, respect them etc. You also have to bear in mind what the word "fear" means in the context, which is not the commonest way we use the word.

    Yes, then in verse 9, Paul addresses masters, and doesn't condemn slavery. What is a slave in that context though? Well apparently they are seen as equal in the eyes of God, according to that same verse (so they can't be subhuman like slaves are in our culture). Paul also says "treat your slaves in the same way", after referring to how slaves should treat masters. This supports my point. Look at the context!

    The same kind of ideas are said in 1 Peter 2, especially verse 18. You need to read that chapter to see what I mean. The writer compares what slaves go through to what the totally innocent Jesus went through. That is high praise of slaves. The chapter is there to encourage the oppressed not encourage what they go through.

    At the end of the day, we can be really selfish. That's why we can interpret books in a particular way in order to validate our actions. It's unwise to judge God by what people do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Well apparently they are seen as equal in the eyes of God,
    That makes it all OK then. :rolleyes: I'm not too sure that many slaves would derive much consolation from being equal to the master in the eyes of a fictional being. I think the vast majority would prefer a clear statement from Paul that slavery is evil and should be abolished, don't you?

    You haven't yet answered my questions, one of which was which set of church leaders were right, the early slavery-loving ones, or the modern slavery-hating ones?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I am not shifting any goalpost, you are literally rewording one of the dilemma's horns and thus have resolved nothing.

    Well yes, that's the point of the dilemma. There can only be two options so if you are saying there is no standard independent of God then by default you are saying that things are only moral because they are done/commanded by God which makes morality arbitrary.
    Right, so I'm saying that that standard is God. You may ask again "but why is that standard moral?" but the discussion ends on God. Just as if there was a standalone standard, it would end on that standard. It's only because it exists in a being that you complain.

    1)I'm not saying that God relies on a standard outside himself. That contradicts his aseity.
    2) I'm not saying that God decided on a standard one day. That would suggest that God has not always been good.

    The eternal nature of his goodness comes from his eternal moral nature. We sense things are objectively right and wrong because that aspect of God's nature has been revealed to us all (Romans 1:20). God created us, and made us with an ability to recognise attributes of God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Right, so I'm saying that that standard is God. You may ask again "but why is that standard moral?" but the discussion ends on God. Just as if there was a standalone standard, it would end on that standard. It's only because it exists in a being that you complain.

    1)I'm not saying that God relies on a standard outside himself. That contradicts his aseity.
    2) I'm not saying that God decided on a standard one day. That would suggest that God has not always been good.

    The eternal nature of his goodness comes from his eternal moral nature. We sense things are objectively right and wrong because that aspect of God's nature has been revealed to us all (Romans 1:20). God created us, and made us with an ability to recognise attributes of God.
    If his goodness comes from his eternal moral nature and he has not ever decided on a standard then morality is independent of God, simple. There is no way of getting away from this.

    You are picking the first horn of the dilemma without admitting you are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That makes it all OK then. :rolleyes: I'm not too sure that many slaves would derive much consolation from being equal to the master in the eyes of a fictional being. I think the vast majority would prefer a clear statement from Paul that slavery is evil and should be abolished, don't you?

    You haven't yet answered my questions, one of which was which set of church leaders were right, the early slavery-loving ones, or the modern slavery-hating ones?
    I have answered your questions, but you aren't interested in the answers. I discussed the context. I pointed to other parts of the bible that further support my view. I also pointed to the reasons why you can't compare our view of slavery to what Paul was saying, like because it contradicts his instructions in the same part of the bible you are criticising.

    Then you say "in the eyes of a fictional being" which just highlights the fact that you're begging the question. You're not interested! Obviously the slaves the text was addressed to were more interested in living for God regardless of their hardship than you are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Nonsense. You are trying to get out of the dilemma by refusing to pick one of the options when it HAS to be one of them, it cannot not be.
    Of course I'm refusing to pick one of the options! Because they both contradict the bible!

    If his goodness comes from his eternal moral nature and he has not ever decided on a standard then morality is independent of God, simple. There is no way of getting away from this.
    Nope you are asserting that those are the only two options. You can't demonstrate how that is the case. And I proposed a third option. You don't have to accept it. But it works.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Right, so I'm saying that that standard is God. You may ask again "but why is that standard moral?" but the discussion ends on God. Just as if there was a standalone standard, it would end on that standard. It's only because it exists in a being that you complain.

    1)I'm not saying that God relies on a standard outside himself. That contradicts his aseity.
    2) I'm not saying that God decided on a standard one day. That would suggest that God has not always been good.

    The eternal nature of his goodness comes from his eternal moral nature. We sense things are objectively right and wrong because that aspect of God's nature has been revealed to us all (Romans 1:20). God created us, and made us with an ability to recognise attributes of God.
    Morality is not inherited in any sense of the word. Rather, it is a by-product of human empathy, which is in itself a by-product of human intelligence. Morality is recognising the effect of one's actions or attitudes, and adjusting one's actions/attitudes accordingly. This happens, in part, when one is in their infancy, and is typically based around their parent's reactions to their actions. When one is a child, they will associate any action that yields a positive reaction from their parents, as a positive action, and the opposite for a negative reaction. Another part is learnt otherwise, through media, through school, through other adults, etc. How do you propose that morality is "inherited", since one's morality is dependent on their upbringing? (that is easily observable, and thus is difficult to argue against)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Of course I'm refusing to pick one of the options! Because they both contradict the bible!



    Nope you are asserting that those are the only two options. You can't demonstrate how that is the case. And I proposed a third option. You don't have to accept it. But it works.
    There is no third option, you are trying to have it both ways by taking contradictory positions when you are in fact picking the first horn. If God has never picked moral standards like you admitted then they are independent of him by definition. Thus God is not needed for morality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Right, so I'm saying that that standard is God.
    So we come back to this deity's arbitrary and cruel propensity to visit plagues on Egyptians, flood the Middle East and destroy cities. These are all good by definition, so why was the Mongol Empire looked down on? It did similar thinks to lots of people.

    If you argue that humans following your god's example are not authorised to blindly follow the deity's example and do apparently bad things as they can't make judgements then you must accept that they also cannot do apparently nice things to people for the same reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Obviously the slaves the text was addressed to were more interested in living for God regardless of their hardship than you are.
    So Christianity condones slavery as long as the slaves are Christians?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Morality is not inherited in any sense of the word. Rather, it is a by-product of human empathy, which is in itself a by-product of human intelligence. Morality is recognising the effect of one's actions or attitudes, and adjusting one's actions/attitudes accordingly. This happens, in part, when one is in their infancy, and is typically based around their parent's reactions to their actions. When one is a child, they will associate any action that yields a positive reaction from their parents, as a positive action, and the opposite for a negative reaction. Another part is learnt otherwise, through media, through school, through other adults, etc. How do you propose that morality is "inherited", since one's morality is dependent on their upbringing? (that is easily observable, and thus is difficult to argue against)
    You're describing subjective morality, and you believe it because of your naturalistic worldview. You can believe that if you want. But I believe God exists, and that objective morality exists in him. I do agree that we often do adhere to various subjective moralities in our lives, but there's only one objective standard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    You're describing subjective morality, and you believe it because of your naturalistic worldview. You can believe that if you want. But I believe God exists, and that objective morality exists in him. I do agree that we often do adhere to various subjective moralities in our lives, but there's only one objective standard.
    How do you propose that these morals are communicated from your deity to the people? That isn't a mocking question, it's a serious one.

    What do you define as "subjective" and "objective" morality?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It struck me today just what a world without theism really and truly means. It means, simply, that what anyone does in life is intrinsically devoid of all purpose. Whether I die this very second, or live another 80 years, becoming the most successful person in the history of mankind, the net outcome is the same. I will forget everything I ever did; I will be unaware of having ever done anything; “I” won’t even remember having ever existed, and it will be as if I never did. Everyone who I ever saw or spoke to will also rot away into the soil, and when the universe grows cold or the sun expands, so will all humanity. No one will remember anything, because ‘we’ won’t even be capable of thought, let alone memory – everything any human ever did will be completely gone.

    You might think that since you only get one shot at life you have to make the most of it, or else you’ll regret all those things you never did. But once you die, you’re not capable of regret. You will feel exactly the same regardless of what you do in life. Now you might think that even if you don’t remember, you still want to be remembered by everyone else. Surely that’s worth striving for. But again, these people will all rot away into the earth, and forget about their own existence, let alone yours. Ultimately your contribution makes no difference (this extends even to the great figures of history, when humanity dies out, their achievements do too). You may also say that life is simply what you make of it: if you want your offspring to be your purpose in life, then they are. This, however, is no more than a delusion – essentially conning yourself into thinking you have a purpose. Your offspring will rot away, and so will theirs, and so will theirs, and so on, until all humanity is gone, and it’s exactly the same as if no offspring had ever existed.That’s not a purpose, that’s utterly pointless.

    Not only, then, is life purposeless if you’re unhappy or in pain (simply, why bother going on?), but equally purposeless if you’re having a great time, as, once you’re dead, you won’t ever remember that you had a great time, or even what a ‘great time’ is. Some people don’t worry about this though – they’re perfectly happy in their self-made fabrications of purpose in life. If this works for you, then fine. But I know it’s a lie, and so do you. There is only one possible escape. I can’t know for sure if there is any truth in theism, but even if there were the faintest chance, it would be worth taking a million times.


    Please post your thoughts below!
    Holy s***...
    God exists?

    What's it Address?

    Also why do people percieve god to be a male? Bants

    Dunno tbh there may be less terrorists.. Ever thought of that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So Christianity condones slavery as long as the slaves are Christians?
    This sentence just highlights the fact that you're begging the question. What's "slavery" in the context? I'm not going to make the same point again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    This sentence just highlights the fact that you're begging the question. What's "slavery" in the context? I'm not going to make the same point again.
    We've been through that prevarication, and defined it perfectly well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So we come back to this deity's arbitrary and cruel propensity to visit plagues on Egyptians, flood the Middle East and destroy cities. These are all good by definition, so why was the Mongol Empire looked down on? It did similar thinks to lots of people.

    If you argue that humans following your god's example are not authorised to blindly follow the deity's example and do apparently bad things as they can't make judgements then you must accept that they also cannot do apparently nice things to people for the same reason.
    Because the Mongol Empire was not The Judge. Only God is. I explained this already. This just highlights the fact that you aren't listening. I even gave you the illustration of an executioner earlier!

    God wiped out lots of people in a big flood. He didn't murder those people. He carried out judgement on them, where they paid with their lives. The kind of judgement we all deserve if we're honest. Thank goodness for Jesus though, we get to escape that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It struck me today just what a world without theism really and truly means. It means, simply, that what anyone does in life is intrinsically devoid of all purpose. Whether I die this very second, or live another 80 years, becoming the most successful person in the history of mankind, the net outcome is the same.
    Well that's true with or without Theism.
    In the end yes your life is inherently worthless and has no meaning because it is on you to give it meaning.
    Well if you die this second it may effect future events so the factor of you living could change future outcomes of other events, so you dying now may have a knock on effect but i will give it to you the outcome for you living or dying is the exact same, nothing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    You're describing subjective morality, and you believe it because of your naturalistic worldview. You can believe that if you want. But I believe God exists, and that objective morality exists in him. I do agree that we often do adhere to various subjective moralities in our lives, but there's only one objective standard.
    It's been demonstrated by other users in this thread, that there is no objective morality, if your morality is subjected to what God says. And continually saying "God's nature" does not save resolve the dilemma (whilst staying consistent with the attributes of the Abrahamic God), as shown in my previous and others posts to you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    How do you propose that these morals are communicated from your deity to the people? That isn't a mocking question, it's a serious one.

    What do you define as "subjective" and "objective" morality?
    Objective morality points to this idea that there is a standard of right and wrong that is "true", ie. coincides with actual reality. This is in contrast to subjective morality, which is a standard of right and wrong that originates from an opinion, feeling or conviction. With a subjective morality, one has no basis to assert it's application to someone outside of themselves. Whereas with objective morality, it does apply to all, just by nature of it being true (given that truth is not relative).

    To answer your first question, the bible teaches that God has spoken. God has revealed certain truths to mankind. So yes we have certain convictions of right and wrong, which come from God, and really, give us a conscience that tells us we've done right and wrong things at some point in our lives. But of course we are fallible, and so our perception of right and wrong can be skewed by our desires to do wrong things. Therefore God has communicated through history to mankind to reveal the standard. Through Jesus and his ministry on earth. Through the Jews and Jewish scripture before the time of Jesus. Through the New Testament writers after Jesus.

    Very briefly stated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    It's been demonstrated by other users in this thread, that there is no objective morality, if your morality is subjected to what God says. And continually saying "God's nature" does not save resolve the dilemma (whilst staying consistent with the attributes of the Abrahamic God), as shown in my previous and others posts to you.
    It's not about what God says, as though it's an arbitrary opinion. It's a revelation of God's nature. God has spoken - he has revealed truth using words: "saying". It's a revelation of who God is. He is the standard. I keep saying it, and you're acting as though I'm not answering the question.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: October 10, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.