- 14 Jun 2018 19:09
#14924478
Stuff that is owned by someone.
No. I was not asking about you, your opinion, your beliefs, your life, or anything about you. I was asking you about how the idea of possessing women and kids affects and influences society and morality.
The Bibilical idea that a child and wife is the possession of the father or husband is significant in the Bible and in the history of Abrahamic religious communities.
To this day, we still have conflicts between this Biblical morality and modern morality, such as honour killings. In the Bible, honour killings are moral because the women and children have ruined their own value snd so the oener has the right to get rid of them. In modern society, honor killings are not moral because we believe in not owning people.
This theme of possession also explains the issue of rape in Deuteronomy. Those verses we looked at were not about rape. Or to put it more correctly, the crime being discussed was not about sex without the woman’s consent. It was about sex without the father or husband’s consent.
This is why the last verse used the word that could mean rape or seduction: because it did not matter if the sex was consensual or not from the woman’s persepctive. The crime was that the possession of the father was ruined, and could no longer be sold, i.e. married off for a price.
To bring this back to the actual topic, we would have to conclude that owning women and children is part of god’s objective morality.
And we would also then conclude that this morality is no longer followed and we are all following some other morlaity that is subjective and changing.
Yes, it is a red herring, which makes me wonder why you keep bringing this up.
I am not going to argue about the fact that this story is often brought up by Christian moralists intent on condemning homosexuality, where Lot is described as a paragon of virtue.
And the reason he is seen as such, despite the fact that he has no problem having his daughters gang raped, is because it is completely fine to give your daughters away as sex objects if you own them.
Again, Lot did nothing wrong according to Biblical morality. Offering your possessions to be used (instead of real human beings, i.e. men) is a good thing.
We just do not see it that way because we do not see women and children as possessions.
Ancient Jews back in the day felt it was part of God’s objective morality that we be allowed to dispose of people we owned as we saw fit.
Now, modern Christians and Jews feel it is part of God’s objective morality to defend our spouses and children from gang rape.
Obviously, only one of those can be correct. Or we can agree that morality changes over time.
Exactly! Jewish audiences at the time would have also seen women and children as posessions, which is why they would have seen Lot as the good guy. Not despite his behaviour towards his daughters, but because of it.
Literary analysis is an objective science that is not influenced by culture?
Just, no.
While I agree that some people’s interpretations will be better and more accurate than another person’s (because of knowledge and other factors), this idea that interpretation follows clear, objective rules with a level of verifiability and certainty like science is ridiculous.
I do not watch any of these people. I know the middle one is a TV show, and the last one is some outspoken atheist, but whatever. I find it amusing that you are so certain about me, and then you end up being wrong. Like the time you thought I was pro gun control.
You are confusing “ought” with “is” here.
No one is claiming that people ought to follow their parents’ morality. I am simply pointing out that they do.
That is because you keep incorrectly assuming that moral relativists are trying to justify their moral condemnation with their moral relativity.
We are not.
We look to other things, such as verifiable harm. Child abuse hurts kids and we know this and can act on it regardless if morality is objective and universal or not.
No, it is not a contradiction.
Moral decisions can be based on verifiable objective facts and subjective beliefs.
I have given examples of this already.
Self-interest may or may not be objective, but that does not change the fact that it is a reason why many people decide to follow moral rules, and it does not change the fact that these moral rules are subjective.
The belief that harming others and causing suffering is wrong is a subjective belief.
Observing how behaviour impacts other people and then modifying that behaviour in order to reflect said impacts is not an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
If I could prove that harming kids by raping them is wrong, then that would require that there is some objective morality that states that. You are asking me to prove my argument by proving yours.
I do not know what that fallacy is called, but it is one.
And I do not have to prove that harm is bad if I want to avoid it or ask others to avoid causing harm to others. I can, instead, assume that since I do not like to be harmed and because we all have instincts to avoid harm, that it would be good to avoid causing harm to others.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Define possessions.
Stuff that is owned by someone.
Otherwise, I am Patriarchal based on my biblical beliefs.
I don't believe in birth control and I affirm that men have absolute authority over their own lands and home so long as they do so in a manner consistent with the Law of God.
I don't believe women are to get an inheritance (except in extreme cases), their primarily role is to care for the home, bear children, and submit to the authority of their husbands. They cannot pursue the ministry and are never to have authority over men unless God intervenes to make it otherwise. I also affirm that women must wear a head covering in the public worship. Children are to obey their parents, the oldest son gets a double portion of the inheritance in return for caring for his parents in old age and will eventually replace his father as the family head or patriarch( i don't believe in social-security type retirements), men are also obligated to protect and provide for their families even if it means sacrificing their own lives and are responsible to God for ensuring that his family and all under his authority worship the One True God. I believe that marriages are to be arranged, and wealth and land are to be kept in the family inasmuch as possible.
Scripture teaches this and I believe it.
Does that answer your question?
No. I was not asking about you, your opinion, your beliefs, your life, or anything about you. I was asking you about how the idea of possessing women and kids affects and influences society and morality.
The Bibilical idea that a child and wife is the possession of the father or husband is significant in the Bible and in the history of Abrahamic religious communities.
To this day, we still have conflicts between this Biblical morality and modern morality, such as honour killings. In the Bible, honour killings are moral because the women and children have ruined their own value snd so the oener has the right to get rid of them. In modern society, honor killings are not moral because we believe in not owning people.
This theme of possession also explains the issue of rape in Deuteronomy. Those verses we looked at were not about rape. Or to put it more correctly, the crime being discussed was not about sex without the woman’s consent. It was about sex without the father or husband’s consent.
This is why the last verse used the word that could mean rape or seduction: because it did not matter if the sex was consensual or not from the woman’s persepctive. The crime was that the possession of the father was ruined, and could no longer be sold, i.e. married off for a price.
To bring this back to the actual topic, we would have to conclude that owning women and children is part of god’s objective morality.
And we would also then conclude that this morality is no longer followed and we are all following some other morlaity that is subjective and changing.
Red Herring. Not relevant to the conversation.
Besides, if you knew so much about the story you wouldn't being such a piss poor job in analyzing the text. You don't even seem to know the order of events or any of the relevant details other than "God destroyed, Lot offered daughters, Lot was saved from city."
Yes, it is a red herring, which makes me wonder why you keep bringing this up.
I am not going to argue about the fact that this story is often brought up by Christian moralists intent on condemning homosexuality, where Lot is described as a paragon of virtue.
And the reason he is seen as such, despite the fact that he has no problem having his daughters gang raped, is because it is completely fine to give your daughters away as sex objects if you own them.
He was the only "Christian" in town is a better expression. "Good" is poor expression in Christian theology. Scripture teaches that none are righteous and that all are sinners. Those who are believers are no exceptions and though they are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit (albeit progressively) in this life, they still struggle with their own sin nature. Lot was no exception.
Lot was righteous in terms of his beliefs and his overall morality, but he was still a flawed sinner whose errors were only propounded by his bad decision to leave the plains with Abraham and move to Sodom to begin with.
Again, Lot did nothing wrong according to Biblical morality. Offering your possessions to be used (instead of real human beings, i.e. men) is a good thing.
We just do not see it that way because we do not see women and children as possessions.
Ancient Jews back in the day felt it was part of God’s objective morality that we be allowed to dispose of people we owned as we saw fit.
Now, modern Christians and Jews feel it is part of God’s objective morality to defend our spouses and children from gang rape.
Obviously, only one of those can be correct. Or we can agree that morality changes over time.
Scripture does not teach that his actions were just (nor have you given textual or rational support to this absurd claim) or that all of his actions were just, the fact that his incestuous offspring would become enemies of the people of God is itself telling as a narrative description.
Your failure to understand narrative is extreme, when Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent do flawed things in narratives regarding them, no one says what are clearly bad decisions on their part were not bad decisions, but at the same no one would say they can't be the heroes anymore either. Narratives are meant to give realistic descriptions of events from a third-person perspective (primarily) and typically assume moral presuppositions. Genesis was penned by Moses and his audience presumed the authority of the Ten Commandments and the Law as revealed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, thus they knew what parts of the story regarding Lot revealed flaws in Lot's character and justness in Lot's character.
Once again, your attempt to find a contradiction between moral prescript and narrative is grounded in a failure to understand genre, reveals a failure in understanding biblical languages, an ignorance of theology, and an ignorance of historical context, and a basic ignorance of apologetics in general.
Repeating yourself will not make it otherwise. You are just trolling at this point and embarrassing yourself.
Exactly! Jewish audiences at the time would have also seen women and children as posessions, which is why they would have seen Lot as the good guy. Not despite his behaviour towards his daughters, but because of it.
Red Herring.
Likewise, interpretation is not relative, its based on rules regarding language.
Indeed, literary analysis, historical studies, exegesis, etymology, and hermeneutics are all sciences with specific rules.
Thus, when I make an argument, my arguments is to be judged by those standards and the laws of logic.
Literary analysis is an objective science that is not influenced by culture?
Just, no.
Your claim here is as absurd as if I said that your explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity can be dismissed because "that is just your interpretation."
No, thats not how it works. If your explanation is accurate it will comport to the details of the theory in an honest and accurate way given the rules governing the sciences. Its not different with textual analysis. Scripture is no exception in that regard.
While I agree that some people’s interpretations will be better and more accurate than another person’s (because of knowledge and other factors), this idea that interpretation follows clear, objective rules with a level of verifiability and certainty like science is ridiculous.
Sure, because he wanted to destroy the city for their wickedness and their oppression of others.
When God gave his reasons for wanting to destroy the cities to Abraham, Lot was not mentioned, rather he only mentioned their evil ways as his reasoning for doing so.
Your attempt at a silly critique ignores the literary context and shows an ignorance of the actual story.
Here are the facts, from the text, that you are refusing to analyze that utterly refutes your claim:
1. God declared, without consideration of Lot, to destroy those cities because He would not tolerate their evil any longer.
2. God warned Lot's family (which were relatives of Abraham, the chosen one) to get out prior to the sins of Lot you mentioned.
3. Lot sinned in offering his daughters to the vagrants, but did not follow through with it because of the intervention of the angels in blinding the vagrants.
4. Lot's family was punished for their sins in going to Sodom (and his own offering of his daughters) in the following ways:
First, he lost his homes and wealth in the city, none was spared.
Second, he lost his son-in-laws which were his de-facto heirs because they lingered in the city (they didn't believe the warning of God and thought Lot was joking).
Third, his daughters faithlessly slept with him when he was intoxicated which not only was a grievous sin (on his daughters part as well since it was the equivalent of drugging and raping their own dad), but it also shamed his reputation and resulted in an accursed offspring that would live in conflict against the heirs of Abraham.
Fourth, Lot lost his own wife who, due to her longing for that cursed city, was turned to a pillar of salt.
(these aren't in order of events per se)
The man was punished for his sins and he suffered for them; however, unlike his wife, he did not turn back to the city when the messengers of the Lord told him to leave and thus he, by faith, obeyed the Word of Lord and trusted that the city would in fact be destroyed (a pretty remarkable claim by the messengers who came to his home that fateful night).
Lot was punished, he lost any real heirs, his wife, his possessions, etc., and for two main sins: faithlessly moving towards Sodom to begin with, and offering his daughters to vagrants.
He didn't murder anyone, nor were his daughters actually violated by the mob, and yet Lot suffered dearly for his errors nonetheless. I really don't see what your complaint is given the facts in the matter, Lot was punished for what he deserved and his being spared was nothing short of the grace of God.
This is the whole point of the Gospel my friend, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Lot did not deserve to be saved, neither do we.
It seems to be a bit of salty bitterness against religion on your part that is quite uninformed. Too much Bill Mahrer, South Park, and Christopher Hitchens no doubt.
I do not watch any of these people. I know the middle one is a TV show, and the last one is some outspoken atheist, but whatever. I find it amusing that you are so certain about me, and then you end up being wrong. Like the time you thought I was pro gun control.
Except people don't believe everything their parents believe, thus the transmission is not absolute (the decline in Christianity in the west is a case-in-point), and furthermore, this is just descriptive and not prescriptive.
I see no reason why people ought to follow the morality of their parents or be bound to what they learned from them, especially if morality is relative and subjective as you claim.
You are confusing “ought” with “is” here.
No one is claiming that people ought to follow their parents’ morality. I am simply pointing out that they do.
Ah, but that doesn't matter. It does not matter if you "invoked" your presuppositions or not, the issue is whether you have any rational right to make any moral condemnations at all GIVEN the presuppositions you in fact have.
I am asking how you, as a moral relativist, can have any rational basis for critiquing child sex abuse if your operative presupposition (As stated) is that of a relative and subjective morality?
How does moral relativity justify a moral condemnation of someone else's practices? That seems to be a contradiction.
That is because you keep incorrectly assuming that moral relativists are trying to justify their moral condemnation with their moral relativity.
We are not.
We look to other things, such as verifiable harm. Child abuse hurts kids and we know this and can act on it regardless if morality is objective and universal or not.
This is a contradiction.
Rational justification is an objective criteria for evaluation and is thus antithetical to the subjective.
If you morality is "rationally justified" then it is not subjective.
You can't have it both ways.
No, it is not a contradiction.
Moral decisions can be based on verifiable objective facts and subjective beliefs.
I have given examples of this already.
Egoism (self-interest) is not a subjective ethic, it holds that self-interest is an objective criteria for morality. It argues such on the basis that because people act on the basis of their own interest (the objective-observed criteria), therefore people ought to do so (an empirical ethic much like utilitarianism, except egoism emphasizes the individual (and is usually libertarian politically); whereas, utilitarianism emphasizes pleasure-and-pain experience based on the greatest good for the greatest number and in emphasizing the collective (unlike egoism) utilitarians tend to be socialists politically. Both are empirical ethics however, not subjective-relative ethics.
Your ignorance of moral philosophy is also showing.
Self-interest may or may not be objective, but that does not change the fact that it is a reason why many people decide to follow moral rules, and it does not change the fact that these moral rules are subjective.
If you do that then morality is not relative, but based on the belief that harming or causing suffering is wrong.
First, if you claim that because you can empirically observe that sexual abuse causes harm that people ought not to engage in sexual abuse, you have committed a fallacy.
For in that case you have inferred obligation (your moral condemnation) from observation (the empirical analysis of harm). This is the is-ought or naturalistic fallacy.
Second, you have yet to explain why harming or suffering is morally wrong and thus worthy of condemnation. On what basis do you make this claim?
Even if it can be seen by analysis that sexual abuses causes harm that does not mean its wrong. You are assuming that.
Not only is this inconsistent with your claim that morality is relative and subjective (besides being fallacious), it also fails to explain why "harm" is wrong. You must defend this claim and not merely assume it.
If you cannot prove to me that harm is morally wrong, you have no rational justification (right) to make moral condemnations against such activity based on your own presuppositions.
That is, you moral condemnations contradict your own worldview presuppositions every time you make them as far as what you have expressed.
The belief that harming others and causing suffering is wrong is a subjective belief.
Observing how behaviour impacts other people and then modifying that behaviour in order to reflect said impacts is not an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
If I could prove that harming kids by raping them is wrong, then that would require that there is some objective morality that states that. You are asking me to prove my argument by proving yours.
I do not know what that fallacy is called, but it is one.
And I do not have to prove that harm is bad if I want to avoid it or ask others to avoid causing harm to others. I can, instead, assume that since I do not like to be harmed and because we all have instincts to avoid harm, that it would be good to avoid causing harm to others.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...