1 of 2
1
Scriptural justification for gay prejudice?
Posted: 17 June 2012 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2012-02-02

I have been exploring whether several of the Christian Bibles actually justify intolerance against homosexuals.  In short, I concluded that Biblical scripture has been a major justification of anti-gay sentiment around the world, and this problem has been largely swept under the philosophical rug by gay-tolerant Christians.  My entire article was published here:


http://www.ology.com/post/93072/roots-of-prejudice-part-2-the-justification-for-intolerance


It turns out that New Testament scripture pretty clearly preaches intolerance for homosexual behavior.  I do agree in some cases that the original meaning of certain words from these passages have been mistranslated, but most view the Bible as the word of god and mistranslated or not, it makes those who believe in the Biblical scripture a major obstacle for gay rights supporters in the US.  Anyways, am I wrong in thinking that biblical scripture has been a major philosophical justification of anti-gay sentiment around the world? 


I’d love to get feedback on this.  Thanks!


Brian
@writesofmurph

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2012 04:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
btmurphy - 17 June 2012 06:13 PM

I have been exploring whether several of the Christian Bibles actually justify intolerance against homosexuals.  In short, I concluded that Biblical scripture has been a major justification of anti-gay sentiment around the world, and this problem has been largely swept under the philosophical rug by gay-tolerant Christians.  My entire article was published here:


http://www.ology.com/post/93072/roots-of-prejudice-part-2-the-justification-for-intolerance


It turns out that New Testament scripture pretty clearly preaches intolerance for homosexual behavior.  I do agree in some cases that the original meaning of certain words from these passages have been mistranslated, but most view the Bible as the word of god and mistranslated or not, it makes those who believe in the Biblical scripture a major obstacle for gay rights supporters in the US.  Anyways, am I wrong in thinking that biblical scripture has been a major philosophical justification of anti-gay sentiment around the world? 


I’d love to get feedback on this.  Thanks!

There is no logical reason to harbor anti-gay sentiments.
Any attempt to find answers to anything in the Bible is an exercise in delusion.
Here is something I read concerning American Indians and gays:
“The term “gay” is a product of our modern culture. Cherokee people believed in another gender which can be translated as “two-spirit” or a person who fulfilled both male and female paths. They were more of a link between all members and typically served as spiritual leaders within the community. If you are referring to sex, the Cherokee did not necessarily label themselves by whom they chose to have sex with. Sharing sex with another was viewed as a very emotional and loving gesture not restricted by gender. Our western dogmatic view of sex and the “family unit” is a great hindrance in true understanding of communal people such as the Cherokee who believed everyone they knew was both a friend and a family member. Partiality was not as present. Much of my information comes from a close friend of mine who is the descendant of a full blooded Cherokee. Her grandmother told her stories of her grandfather who was two-spirited because she was dealing with issues of being attracted to the same sex. Her grandmother’s answer was that it was natural, and one of the signs that she was meant to be a spiritual leader in the community. Overall there does tend to be a high percentage of “gay” people in today’s society who are very spiritual, artistic, contemplative, and imaginative. This may be because we are forced to think outside of the box within our culture, or it may be because one out of every ten people are destined to be two-spirited.

Brian
@writesofmurph

Any search for logic in the Bible is an exercise on futility.
The American Indians had a far more enlightened view of their gay members.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Were_there_gay_Cherokee_Indians_and_if_so_how_were_they_treated#ixzz1yBtrrlbe”

This seems to be a much more humane and logical approach to the issue.
Wouldn’t it be grand to live in a culture where everyone was appreciated for their unique pre-disposition…....as long as their behavior did no harm to another?

 

[ Edited: 18 June 2012 04:44 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2012 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11

The Fundies are correct.  God hates fags.  Moderate Christians ignore massive amounts of the bible.  It’s part of the collective dishonesty of believers.

Disliking fags is easy for Christians.  Stoning them, not so much.

Just another blatant example of how the bible does not reflect morality today.  Not even close.  Yet people are still stupid enough to suggest that god is our source of morality.  Nope.  We are the source of his, from a time when we were crude and primitive.  We evolved (mostly).  He did not.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 08:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11

I rarely post on this forum, spending most of my time on Project Reason.  However, I offer the following:

1. All of the anti-gay statements in the Old Testament no longer apply to Christianity.  In the New Testament, it is made abundantly clear that Christians are not under the “law” (Torah).  So those things don’t apply anymore.  Preachers that go there really don’t understand the idea that Christianity is based on a new covenant that is separate and apart from the Old Testament rules and regulations.  It’s based simply on faith in Jesus, and nothing more.

2.  Jesus never mentioned gays or homosexuality.

3.  Paul has some statements that can be construed as anti-gay.  However, he was mainly focusing on the licentiousness that he observed in Corinth, a notoriously immoral city.  The idea of “gay marriage” didn’t even exist in those days, for the most part.  While Paul would have been against the “gay bar” scene, there is really no discussion of the concept of a monogamous relationship between homosexual couples in the NT. 

4. In the New Testament, it is made abundantly clear that faith in Jesus Christ justifies a person before God, with no other requirements.  Even if homosexuality is considered a “sin,” that sin is covered by faith in Jesus. It’s no different than if a fat glutton professes Jesus (there are lots of fat gluttons in churches today).  The sin is forgiven if there is faith.  And technically, in the absence of law, there is no sin.  The only commandment in the new covenant is to love one another as Jesus loved us. So, in my opinion, monogamous gay relations are not a “sin.”

See you in about a year.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2012 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
Ecurb Noselrub - 02 September 2012 08:32 PM

I rarely post on this forum, spending most of my time on Project Reason.  However, I offer the following:

1. All of the anti-gay statements in the Old Testament no longer apply to Christianity.  In the New Testament, it is made abundantly clear that Christians are not under the “law” (Torah).  So those things don’t apply anymore.  Preachers that go there really don’t understand the idea that Christianity is based on a new covenant that is separate and apart from the Old Testament rules and regulations.  It’s based simply on faith in Jesus, and nothing more.

2.  Jesus never mentioned gays or homosexuality.

3.  Paul has some statements that can be construed as anti-gay.  However, he was mainly focusing on the licentiousness that he observed in Corinth, a notoriously immoral city.  The idea of “gay marriage” didn’t even exist in those days, for the most part.  While Paul would have been against the “gay bar” scene, there is really no discussion of the concept of a monogamous relationship between homosexual couples in the NT. 

4. In the New Testament, it is made abundantly clear that faith in Jesus Christ justifies a person before God, with no other requirements.  Even if homosexuality is considered a “sin,” that sin is covered by faith in Jesus. It’s no different than if a fat glutton professes Jesus (there are lots of fat gluttons in churches today).  The sin is forgiven if there is faith.  And technically, in the absence of law, there is no sin.  The only commandment in the new covenant is to love one another as Jesus loved us. So, in my opinion, monogamous gay relations are not a “sin.”

See you in about a year.


I’m wondering how relevant bronze age opinions on anything are to the twenty first century.
We would be insane to use the Bible as a reference for political, medical, or social issues.
Why do we as a culture continue to value its moral edicts?
Why do we continue to try to make sense out of the entangled, myth filled, fear based fantasies of an ancient tribe of barbaric people?

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
toombaru - 03 September 2012 10:40 AM

I’m wondering how relevant bronze age opinions on anything are to the twenty first century.
We would be insane to use the Bible as a reference for political, medical, or social issues.
Why do we as a culture continue to value its moral edicts?
Why do we continue to try to make sense out of the entangled, myth filled, fear based fantasies of an ancient tribe of barbaric people?

The New Testament was written during the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age.  The apostle Paul was not a barbarian.  He was born and raised in a civilized world, was literate and educated, spoke at least 3 languages (how many do you speak?), and was well-versed in Greek poetry.  His faith was based on his personal experience, not fear.  The idea of “love one another,” a prominent NT theme, is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago.  We would do well to abide by that wisdom.

[ Edited: 05 September 2012 05:42 PM by Ecurb Noselrub]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2012 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
Ecurb Noselrub - 04 September 2012 06:29 PM
toombaru - 03 September 2012 10:40 AM
Ecurb Noselrub - 02 September 2012 08:32 PM

I’m wondering how relevant bronze age opinions on anything are to the twenty first century.
We would be insane to use the Bible as a reference for political, medical, or social issues.
Why do we as a culture continue to value its moral edicts?
Why do we continue to try to make sense out of the entangled, myth filled, fear based fantasies of an ancient tribe of barbaric people?

The New Testament was written during the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age.  The apostle Paul was not a barbarian.  He was born and raised in a civilized world, was literate and educated, spoke at least 3 languages (how many do you speak?), and was well-versed in Greek poetry.  His faith was based on his personal experience, not fear.  The idea of “love one another,” a prominent NT theme, is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago.  We would do well to abide by that wisdom.

The thinking in the NT is not dissimilar from that of the Bronze Age.
Being able to speak three languages does not add to one’s ability to think logically.
Personal experience is not a reliable instrument when it comes to accessing reality.
“Love one another” is another meaningless pie in the sky idea.
Jesus and most people of his time believed in demons, witches, slavery, and the inferiority of women.
If you must follow someone, I would suggest that you find someone less ignorant .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2012 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
toombaru - 05 September 2012 01:43 PM

The thinking in the NT is not dissimilar from that of the Bronze Age.

Sure it is.  Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles ever advised that we should slaughter other groups of people, such as we find in the OT and other bronze age writings.

toombaru - 05 September 2012 01:43 PM

“Love one another” is another meaningless pie in the sky idea.
If you must follow someone, I would suggest that you find someone less ignorant .

Well, that won’t be you.  “Love one another” has never been superseded as a moral axiom.  I’ll stick with that. Ciao.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2012 05:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11

Not one jot/tittle of the old law was changed by Jebus.  Great opportunity to expand on the ideas and address the grevious errors of the ot, but nope.  Didnt get around to it.  Maybe next time.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2012 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
Ecurb Noselrub - 05 September 2012 05:47 PM
toombaru - 05 September 2012 01:43 PM

The thinking in the NT is not dissimilar from that of the Bronze Age.

Sure it is.  Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles ever advised that we should slaughter other groups of people, such as we find in the OT and other bronze age writings.

toombaru - 05 September 2012 01:43 PM

“Love one another” is another meaningless pie in the sky idea.
If you must follow someone, I would suggest that you find someone less ignorant .

Well, that won’t be you.  “Love one another” has never been superseded as a moral axiom.  I’ll stick with that. Ciao.


You may be too far gone save.
But if you can try to read the comments below.
You, like all Christians, cherry pick those ideas from the Bible that please them and stir up the feel good chemicals.
Jesus, if he ever existed, (not one of the contemporary historians even mention his name) was a product of the mythology that preceded him.

The Not so Nice Jesus

Why Jesus?

Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in history, or whether he was divine, many have asserted that the New Testament Christ character was the highest example of moral living. Many believe that his teachings, if truly understood and followed, would make this a better world.

Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he has received? Let’s look at what he said and did.
Was Jesus Peaceable And Compassionate?

The birth of Jesus was heralded with “Peace on Earth,” yet Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)

The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:6)

Jesus looked at his critics “with anger” (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).

The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. “The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42) “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)

Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceful idea?
Did Jesus Promote “Family Values”?

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

“I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:35-36)

When one of his disciples requested time off for his father’s funeral, Jesus rebuked him: “Let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:22)

Jesus never used the word “family.” He never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4)
What Were His Views On Equality And Social Justice?

Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: “And that servant [slave], which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.

He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, “Ye have the poor with you always.” (Mark 14:3-7)

No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.
What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?

“There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.

  If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
  Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
  Don’t plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
  Don’t save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
  Don’t become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
  Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
  Don’t work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
  Don’t have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
  Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
  Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
  Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
  If someone steals from you, don’t try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
  If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
  If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
  If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
  If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
Was Jesus Reliable?

Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). “Behold, I come quickly.” (Revelation 3:11) It’s been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his “quick” return.

He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is “the least of all seeds” (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could “lose its savour” (Matthew 5:13).

Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a “fool” shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people “fools” himself (Matthew 23:17).

Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:31), and “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true” (John 8:14).
Was Jesus A Good Example?

He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21).

The “humble” Jesus said that he was “greater than the temple” (Matt 12:6), “greater than Jonah” (Matthew 12:41), and “greater than Solomon” (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator’s “paranoia” when he said, “He that is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30).
Why Jesus?

Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of his character. The conflicting passages, however, prove that the New Testament is contradictory.

The “Golden Rule” had been said many times by earlier religious leaders. (Confucius: “Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.”) “Turn the other cheek” encourages victims to invite further violence. “Love thy neighbor” applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) are acceptable, but they are all conditions of future reward, not based on respect for human life or values.

On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being “omniscient,” he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century).

Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, “The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma.” No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The New Testament is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from pagan religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same fabric as all other myths and fables.

Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity—mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice—than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.

Published by Freedom from Religion Inc.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.html


Well…..my guess is that you didn’t make it this far.
My guess that you want to keep your fantasy so much that that little door spammed shut about the third paragraph.
If you did read this, what do you have to say about those poor innocent pigs who committed suicide because Jesus filled them full of demons?

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

Two Points

The OT was written in the early Iron Age not the Bronze Age - The early Iron Age in the Med and Near East was a time of poverty, decline and brutality following on from the collapse of the great civilizations of the Bronze Age. The OT was written in that context.
Contrary to a previous comment I would suggest that we could learn a lot from some of the civilizationsof the Bronze Age - I would recommend the Morale code of the Egyptians (Instructions of Ptahotep, Eloquent peasant etc) which wasn’t improved on until the 19th century and in some areas the 20th. And we didn’t improve on the labour laws of the Hittites until the 20th C either. I would however give the Assyrians and Babylonians a miss.

It is not true to say that the NT says that you only need to follow Jesus - that’s only what Paul says. Mathew emphasizes the keeping of the law and has Jesus saying “do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets..”.  So according to Mathew Jesus endorsed all the laws of the OT.  Paul and Mathew have very different views as to what Chritianity is and you can make your choice about which type of Chritian you want to be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 15 September 2012 05:54 PM

Two Points

The OT was written in the early Iron Age not the Bronze Age - The early Iron Age in the Med and Near East was a time of poverty, decline and brutality following on from the collapse of the great civilizations of the Bronze Age. The OT was written in that context.
Contrary to a previous comment I would suggest that we could learn a lot from some of the civilizationsof the Bronze Age - I would recommend the Morale code of the Egyptians (Instructions of Ptahotep, Eloquent peasant etc) which wasn’t improved on until the 19th century and in some areas the 20th. And we didn’t improve on the labour laws of the Hittites until the 20th C either. I would however give the Assyrians and Babylonians a miss.

It is not true to say that the NT says that you only need to follow Jesus - that’s only what Paul says. Mathew emphasizes the keeping of the law and has Jesus saying “do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets..”.  So according to Mathew Jesus endorsed all the laws of the OT.  Paul and Mathew have very different views as to what Chritianity is and you can make your choice about which type of Chritian you want to be.

 

Are you suggesting that the Bible can or should be used as a reference on how to behave?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 12:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10
toombaru - 15 September 2012 06:46 PM
agerweb - 15 September 2012 05:54 PM

Two Points

Are you suggesting that the Bible can or should be used as a reference on how to behave?

Er no - I was suggesting there is nothing of morale value that was written in the early Iron Age (like the OT) that improved on the values established by some previous civilizations in the Bronze Age. Nor would you expect it as civilization in the Near East was effectively reset to zero after the Bronze Age collapse and you would not wish to take morale lessons from those that lived at a time when civilization was at such a low ebb.

I also pointed out one of the contradictions in the NT with one author, Mathew suggesting the law of Leviticus was to be obeyed and another, Paul suggesting it was not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 16 September 2012 12:58 AM
toombaru - 15 September 2012 06:46 PM
agerweb - 15 September 2012 05:54 PM

Two Points

Are you suggesting that the Bible can or should be used as a reference on how to behave?

Er no - I was suggesting there is nothing of morale value that was written in the early Iron Age (like the OT) that improved on the values established by some previous civilizations in the Bronze Age. Nor would you expect it as civilization in the Near East was effectively reset to zero after the Bronze Age collapse and you would not wish to take morale lessons from those that lived at a time when civilization was at such a low ebb.

I also pointed out one of the contradictions in the NT with one author, Mathew suggesting the law of Leviticus was to be obeyed and another, Paul suggesting it was not.


What would happen to your argument if there were no such thing as morals?
The conceptual mind labels its perceptions and mistakes the names for things.
“Moral behavior” is merely a name for a cultural value judgement,.
The mind conceptually isolates one of its observations and them colors them in as if they has their own actual reality.
It tries to study something that doesn’t even exist.
It tries to find the source of an imaginary river.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

What would happen to your argument if there were no such thing as morals?

I used the conventional term for some aspects of behaviour; but we should get rid of it when discussing this period as it didn’t exist as a concept then. Most civilizations of the period had ideas of how humans should behave towards each other and they wrote them down as a set of rules/laws we can compare these and make a judgement about which seem to us to be better. So for example the ideal of behaviour of the Bronze Age Egyptians was far superior in my opinion to that of the Iron Age Hebrews (as described in the OT) or the Greeks and Romans for that matter.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 16 September 2012 11:39 AM

What would happen to your argument if there were no such thing as morals?

I used the conventional term for some aspects of behaviour; but we should get rid of it when discussing this period as it didn’t exist as a concept then. Most civilizations of the period had ideas of how humans should behave towards each other and they wrote them down as a set of rules/laws we can compare these and make a judgement about which seem to us to be better. So for example the ideal of behaviour of the Bronze Age Egyptians was far superior in my opinion to that of the Iron Age Hebrews (as described in the OT) or the Greeks and Romans for that matter.

Looking through the eyes of a Bronze Age man, what you define as good and proper would appear outrageous.
And from the Bronze Age point of view, he would be right.
“Morals” are relative to the culture in which they occur.
The custom of killing one of twin babies prevailed all over much of West Africa simply because it was almost impossible to raise two babies.
I’m sure that they would have concluded killing babies was the moral thing to do.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed