Flann 5 said I'll just pick up a few points here. Landroids conclusions that belief in Yahweh without free will would have weird consequences. First of all Christians believe in Yahweh and don't understand there being a necessity to abstain from pork or shellfish. It's based on Christ's explanation in relation to these dietary and other laws. His words are "It's not that which enters into a man that defiles him but that which proceeds from within. For from within out of the hearts of men, proceed thefts,murders,adulteries,evil thoughts etc"

Jews also believe in Yahweh and do abstain from pork and shellfish. Why did Yahweh incarnate as Jesus and contradict these eternal Truths written by Himself in the Old Testament? As I asked previously, is this because Yahweh designed Eternal Truths to evolve?

Keep in mind one premise of this thread is humans are deprived of free will and therefore must follow the moral dictates of Yahweh precisely. (Unless we're up against The Vague Generic Deity.) So what is the moral requirement in this case, can humans eat shellfish and pork or not? The Bible says NO in one place and YES in another, each stated by the same Diety! If man had no choice in the matter, which one would it be?

Flann 5 said Old testament laws relating to diet,clothing mixtures or yoking a donkey and ox together for plowing had a message. In the old testament God gave as reasons for these laws the idea of separating between what is clean and unclean and of not mixing things and the idea of being distinctly and separately the people of this God. Not that these foods were intrinsically clean or unclean but it was to objectively inculcate this idea or remind them if you prefer.

I am receiving the sickening message that restrictions on diet, clothing, plowing animals and many other requirements are just metaphors for separating believers in Yahweh from all other humans. But if we lacked moral free will, ALL humans would be abiding by these restrictions without questioning whether they enforced a metaphysical apartheid.

There were old testament laws against rape and I don't understand the suggestion that God was encouraging it.

I haven't seen those laws, where are they? Rape should show up in the ten commandments, but it doesn't. Restrictions on rape would be more important than restrictions on "taking the name of the Lord your God in vain". By the way, "in vain" is a peculiar turn of phrase, check out this definition.

in vain
1. without success or a result. "they waited in vain for a response"
synonyms: unsuccessfully, without success, to no avail, to no purpose, fruitlessly. "they tried in vain to save him"

So the commandment means you should only invoke the name of Yahweh when it will be successful!

Sculpture wasn't a problem. In fact God commanded the carving of Cherubim for the temple. Carving to make an idol was the issue not carving or sculpting for other reasons. Pagans carved idols of their gods.

Sculpture is a deadly problem. Read the following commandment again carefully. Your eternity may depend on it.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

Clearly one is not allowed to make sculptures whether one bows or serves them or not. If humans were required to follow Yahweh's morals, sculptors would have to find other work as the laws of physics would prohibit them from carving images. Well at least that is comforting.

Isn't coveting and covetousness a problem? That's what some murders and other things start with.

Perhaps, but should Yahweh eliminate it completely? Wouldn't that reduce economic activity as I implied before?

Christians were commanded to Honor the king because at that time there was a king.

Since this is an Eternal Truth, aren't Christians and Jews required to honor Kings today? Why not?

Do you think violent revolution is good?

Of course, if the Government is a violent tyranny such as Assad in Syria, the American revolution, etc.

Just thinking about and exploring the wonders of the universe beyond 5 thousand years ago, or the exsistence of dinosaurs is considered amoral to many Christians. Adam and Eve were given free will to think. So what is amoral about Eve? Her ability to act or her ability to think?

Suzanne wrote:Just thinking about and exploring the wonders of the universe beyond 5 thousand years ago, or the exsistence of dinosaurs is considered amoral to many Christians. Adam and Eve were given free will to think. So what is amoral about Eve? Her ability to act or her ability to think?

Any form of critical thought is considered amoral to many Christians. Thatr's because their beliefs are never changing.

LanDroid wrote:Jews also believe in Yahweh and do abstain from pork and shellfish. Why did Yahweh incarnate as Jesus and contradict these eternal Truths written by Himself in the Old Testament? As I asked previously, is this because Yahweh designed Eternal Truths to evolve?

Hello Landroid,
Thanks for your response. You certainly raise interesting and admittedly difficult questions.
I'm not an expert and am neither a biblical scholar or trained theologian so I don't claim to have extensively studied these questions or to have the best answers that may be available.
Leaving aside the question of God making human robots to obey his laws as it doesn't ever suggest that this is what God actually did I'll just try address some of your points as they are in the biblical context itself.
I don't think dietary laws for instance are meant to be eternal.They were introduced at a particular stage in the narrative history for a number of reasons,and not at the beginning as eternal laws. The Christian new testament gives an interpretative understanding of these things in the book of Hebrews for example.
Of course orthodox Jews neither accept Christ as messiah or the Christian interpretation and continue to adhere to these dietary laws. So evolve is not exactly how I would describe it, but that Christianity and Jesus provide an interpretive understanding of the purpose and meaning of them as being ceremonial and temporal pointing to something beyond themselves.The moral law as in the ten commandments however are not temporal essentially though we could argue about the sabbath.
So the sacrificial system and temple are not for their own sake but are representative of God providing atonement for sins in Christ's sacrificial death for example.
I think you will agree that apartheid is a loaded expression.The primary separation is from moral evil.They were to treat strangers in their midst with respect. There's an understanding that there is a true God and many false Gods which were worshiped some of which practiced child sacrifice and other activities deemed reprehensible.So they were told not to intermarry with the pagan practitioners because it would lead them to do them same and in fact this happened with their king Mannaseh for instance worshipping the pagan gods and sacrificing his own children to Molech.
I'll have to look up the laws on rape and get back to you on it.
I suppose if you don't think this God exists the command not take his name in vain seems frivolous.Again I think it's interpretative as to what "in vain" means. My understanding is different but may be wrong.
Sorry if this is turning into a bible study but I'm just trying to address your questions.
So when Jacob conspired with his mother to deceive his blind father Isaac by pretending to be Esau and bringing some cooked goat meat to him as venison he had supposedly hunted as Esau,Isaac was suspicious. When Isaac questioned him he said something to the effect that The Lord had providentially brought the animal to him and thus his rapid success.I think it's that kind of misuse of God's name that is meant and not necessarily glib profanity though that does show a thoughtless lack of respect.
On graven images; As well as the Cherubim example there is also the command to Moses to make a bronze image of a snake at one point. Pagan religions did make graven images of animals as idols representing their Gods.I think that is the key distinction though you are free to interpret it as you see it. That's my understanding of it.
The new testament directs submission to governments even that of the Roman imperial rulers.Whether it's a king or a democracy is not central I don't think.
Revolution; I would agree that cases can be made for a just war such as that against the Nazis.These are decisions primarily made by governments who are accountable as elected in modern history.
I think history itself cautions against ideologicaL revolution such as Marxism with it's end justifying the means ethic.I don't think either war or revolution are good things in themselves though it may be necessary in extreme situations.
It's not something Christians decide exclusively and some are conscientious objectors and others not.

Interbane wrote:How did Adam and Eve have free will? Wasn't the influening desire to eat the apple stronger than the influencing desire to obey god? Their behavior was determined by the comparative strength of various influences. They did not have free will in the story. We do not have libertarian free will. If god exists, he's an evil control freak.

What do you mean by the influencing desire Interbane?
If behaviour is determined by the comparative strength of various influences there can be no moral culpability. If the influences to murder outweigh those not to,then the murderer can not be responsible,rather the influences are.I think your view of man and reality is too mechanistic.There's a real moral self in there making moral choices.
From a biblical perspective we are fallen with an inclination towards evil but Adam and Eve's nature was not fallen and to this extent were actually freer than we are.

ManofEcstasy wrote:What's strange in Adam and Eve's case is that they didn't know they would be punished and didn't think it was bad to eat the apple after the new info from the snake. Their decision was based purely on the consequences of eating it (death), not morality. Furthermore, they didn't even know what morality was after eating the apple. God didn't say it was morally wrong to eat the apple. If he had, it would've been incomprehensible nonsense to them.

I don't know where you read this in the account Man of Ecstasy? Didn't know they would be punished? God said "You shall not eat of it for in the day you eat of it you will surely die."
The moral issue was obedience or disobedience. The text itself says the fruit was good for food.Not the issue.
Should a created being obey or disobey his creator? If you obey human laws how would you justify disobeying a simple command of God? It's not as if there was a lack of food in the garden.

LanDroid wrote:Jews also believe in Yahweh and do abstain from pork and shellfish. Why did Yahweh incarnate as Jesus and contradict these eternal Truths written by Himself in the Old Testament? As I asked previously, is this because Yahweh designed Eternal Truths to evolve?

That's an excellent point, and also helps add another dynamic to the unchangeablitiy of religion.

The God of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, seems to either contradict himself or change/amend/do away with his laws all the time. From the kosher laws, to killing, to how to treat disobedient children. And of course the mixing of fabrics; never forget the mixing of fabrics!

Having been brought up in Christianity, this issue has always bothered me, and I could never quite answer my suspicions. I don't know if I'd ever be satisfied.

Flann wrote:If behaviour is determined by the comparative strength of various influences there can be no moral culpability. If the influences to murder outweigh those not to,then the murderer can not be responsible,rather the influences are.

Behavior is determined by the aggregate of all influences, and there is still moral culpability. We may be more or less inclined to relent or reject certain influences, depending on our goals and our experiences. For example, if I desperately want to lose weight the influence of the smell of pizza will not be strong enough to overcome my desire to lose weight. Navigating real life is a million times as complicated, of course, but categorically the same.

If a man is influenced to commit murder, and the jury hears his case, the influence is always considered. There are influences that are culpable. For example, if the man commits murder when he kills someone intruding into his house. There are other times when the influences are not worthy, such as when a couple breaks up and the man kills the woman.. Yes, the emotional trauma is what caused the man to commit murder. But it was not the only cause. In some way, the man was lacking the experience to develop the appropriate restraint. Perhaps his parents let him get away with anything, and so he lived his life in the same manner.

Moral culpability is not only about "punishment" of moral misdeeds. It is also(and I would argue primarily) about behavioral modification. It is also to placate the person who was wronged. When you consider the fact that punishment is to modify behavior, you must admit that moral behavior can be(and is) influenced. If a man thinks he can get away with wrongdoing, it may be that he lacked the appropriate punishments to change his behavior.

There's a real moral self in there making moral choices.

I challenge you to give me an example that isn't the end result of competing hosts of influences. The "real moral self" is human agency, acting fully within the web of causation.

Interbane wrote:The "real moral self" is human agency, acting fully within the web of causation.

So we are moral agents and agents who can do things or not?
You were trying to make it all influence and no real agency. They had no choice but to go with the strongest influence is what you were saying.
I think when we make moral choices we know they are moral, and so we contravene our own conscience when we make wrong choices. We know it's right or wrong and that's why we are responsible for our actions.
Otherwise you are in Sam Harris' moral La La Landscape.
We need to distinguish between causation and influence.If external influence is causation then indeed the strongest influence prevails. Nevertheless we ourselves are active participants in the events weighing things and having consciences knowing what is right or wrong.In other words we ourselves are a very significant influencing factor.We are ourselves moral agents.

That is why we are responsible for our actions. If a thief sees a car with a window open and the key in the ignition and steals it he can say he was tempted or influenced but this does not excuse him of moral responsibiilty. The owner may have had to work hard to earn the money to buy the car.
The law says it's wrong and he most likely knows the law too.
Maybe try it Interbane and see if the judge buys the "I couldn't help it, I was influenced/tempted" line and pronounces you "not guilty."

Flann wrote:You were trying to make it all influence and no real agency. They had no choice but to go with the strongest influence is what you were saying.

It is all influence upon our agency. Our agency is real as well. It's not that we had "no choice" but to go with the strongest influence. It's that in every decision we make, by definition we choose in the direction of the strongest influence.

I think when we make moral choices we know they are moral, and so we contravene our own conscience when we make wrong choices.

When we make a choice with moral consequences, all the things we've learned in our life influence our decision. Including whether or not we think we'll go to hell for committing the deed. Including the tug and pull of our moral emotions, such as empathy and pride and guilt.

If we "contravene" on our choices, an act which would be weighing a choice before it's finalized, we necessarily do this with the consideration of other influences. How strongly we feel empathy, or how well our moral/ethical education was. These positive influences are what keeps us from constantly making the bad choice. But in the end, it is the aggregate of all influences.

We need to distinguish between causation and influence.If external influence is causation then indeed the strongest influence prevails.

Causation also includes reasoning. It includes education from earlier in life, where we were told stories of characters acting in moral ways, and we admired those characters and desired to act like them. Causation includes our emotions, our impulses, and external influences.

Maybe try it Interbane and see if the judge buys the "I couldn't help it, I was influenced/tempted" line and pronounces you "not guilty."

Why would I steal a car? Stealing a car is wrong because I don't want my car to be stolen. Unless we live an altruistic life, each and every one of us, then society degrades. The influence of my reasoning is far greater than that of a desire to have a car. My reasoning also includes the reasonable probability of being caught and punished.

Interbane wrote:

Flann wrote:You were trying to make it all influence and no real agency. They had no choice but to go with the strongest influence is what you were saying.

It is all influence upon our agency. Our agency is real as well. It's not that we had "no choice" but to go with the strongest influence. It's that in every decision we make, by definition we choose in the direction of the strongest influence.

I think when we make moral choices we know they are moral, and so we contravene our own conscience when we make wrong choices.

When we make a choice with moral consequences, all the things we've learned in our life influence our decision. Including whether or not we think we'll go to hell for committing the deed. Including the tug and pull of our moral emotions, such as empathy and pride and guilt.

If we "contravene" on our choices, an act which would be weighing a choice before it's finalized, we necessarily do this with the consideration of other influences. How strongly we feel empathy, or how well our moral/ethical education was. These positive influences are what keeps us from constantly making the bad choice. But in the end, it is the aggregate of all influences.

We need to distinguish between causation and influence.If external influence is causation then indeed the strongest influence prevails.

Causation also includes reasoning. It includes education from earlier in life, where we were told stories of characters acting in moral ways, and we admired those characters and desired to act like them. Causation includes our emotions, our impulses, and external influences.

Maybe try it Interbane and see if the judge buys the "I couldn't help it, I was influenced/tempted" line and pronounces you "not guilty."

Why would I steal a car? Stealing a car is wrong because I don't want my car to be stolen. Unless we live an altruistic life, each and every one of us, then society degrades. The influence of my reasoning is far greater than that of a desire to have a car. My reasoning also includes the reasonable probability of being caught and punished.

Firstly, I noticed the word agency coming up throughout this post. May I ask what it means in this context. Please forgive me my ignorance; I try to be smart, but sometimes my dumbness shows through.

Secondly, I personally have come to believe in altruism as the chief mode of morality, and it is the pinnacle of Christ's message. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. That's a major issue with the Christian religion; you have several common sense playground rules buried deep within the sandbox of mystic stuff that to me personally doesn't make much sense.