Zone1 Can you find the Flaw in Atheist Speaker Christopher Hitchens' Logic Here.

[ding]

Morality is deeply intertwined with context, as ethical judgments are often shaped by specific situations, relationships, and cultural frameworks rather than just abstract, universal principles. While certain moral foundations like fairness or harm avoidance may be universal, how they are applied depends on factors like who is involved, the setting, and social norms.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) +4
Key Aspects of Morality and Context:

• Context-Dependent Judgments: Moral evaluations change based on the specific actors, motives, and circumstances involved (e.g., helping a sibling vs. a stranger).
• Social & Cultural Influence: Morality is considered the "glue" that binds society, but it is often adapted to fit local cultural, historical, or environmental settings.
• "Moral Activation": Specific contexts can "activate" certain moral values, making people behave differently depending on the social situation.
• Subjective vs. Objective: While some, like relativists, believe morality is entirely contingent on local context, others, like objectivists, argue for non-contingent, universal moral principles that exist across all contexts.
• Psychological Factors: People often prioritize their own moral duties within social relationships (e.g., family loyalty) over universal fairness, which can lead to selective moral judgments.
  National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) +4

Understanding the context—including who, what, where, when, and why—is essential for grasping how moral decisions are made and

You sound like you embrace moral relativity. Morals are absolute. Humans are subjective. That's probably why you normalize your deviance from the standards.

 

[alang1216]

No. That's not what I am saying. Israelites believed God was on their side and crafted narratives of historical events to reflect that.

Yes, ancient Israelites believed that God (Yahweh) was directly involved in their history, acting on their behalf, and they crafted narratives—often referred to as "HisStory" or theological history—to reflect this divine favor and guidance.

These narratives were not intended as modern, objective reporting, but as theological interpretations of events designed to reveal God’s character, power, and covenantal relationship with Israel.

Belief in God on Their Side

• Divine Intervention as History: The foundational events of Israel, such as the Exodus from Egypt and the covenant at Sinai, were viewed as mighty, supernatural acts of God.
• The Covenant Context: Israel’s national identity was built on the belief that they were chosen as a "treasured possession". Therefore, their history was viewed through the lens of divine blessing (when faithful) or judgment (when disobedient).
• Warrior God: The Israelites believed God fought on their behalf, enabling victories, as highlighted in accounts of the conquest of Canaan.

Crafting Narratives to Reflect Faith

• Theological Interpretation over Facticity: Biblical writers were not focused on objective historical reporting by modern standards; rather, they used stories to convey the meaning of events.
• The "Deuteronomistic" Framework: Much of the historical narrative in the Old Testament was compiled or edited to reflect a specific theology: obedience brings blessing, while disobedience leads to exile.
• "HisStory": History was considered an arena for divine revelation, meaning the narratives were crafted to show God’s guidance and intervention in the lives of leaders, kings, and the nation as a whole.
• Reshaping Memory: While based on "historical memory" (e.g., the Exodus), these accounts were often shaped over generations to emphasize theological points rather than mere chronologies.

Evidence of Perspective

• Counter-Narratives: The Bible itself sometimes contains conflicting accounts of the same event (e.g., different descriptions of the conquest in Joshua), suggesting that different, yet often faith-driven, perspectives were included.
• No Outside Verification: Many of the foundational events (like the exodus of millions) lack direct archaeological or non-biblical evidence, supporting the view that they were, in part, narratives crafted to establish identity and religious belief.
• Function of Narrative: These stories served as a "cultic" or community-defining memory, ensuring that subsequent generations understood their identity as being dependent on and protected by God.

In summary, the Israelites viewed their past not as a series of random occurrences, but as a purposeful, divine narrative, and they wrote their history to affirm that God was indeed with them.

I agree 100%. I also apply that same logic to the NT regarding things as miracles.

 

[alang1216]

Subordinate means to lower in rank or position. Your posts are intended to discredit Christianity.

Your posts are intended to discredit Judaism by claiming it needed "correction" to become Christianity.

 

[ding]

I agree 100%. I also apply that same logic to the NT regarding things as miracles.

The NT wasn't written that way. The supernatural feats performed by Jesus were written as historical events. They were not written as allegory. They were not written as myth. They were not written as legend. So your only other choice is it was a conspiracy of the apostles because if you are right they lied about them being historical events.

 

[Hafar1014]

You sound like you embrace moral relativity. Morals are absolute. Humans are subjective. That's probably why you normalize your deviance from the standards.

Context is not relativity. You seem to have vocabulary problem. Nothing is absolute.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not seeing it. God does not actively punish or reward our behaviors. That would be a polytheistic belief, not a montheistic belief. Succesful behaviors NATURALLY lead to success just as failed behaviors NATURALLY lead to failure. God isn't pushing button or pulling levels like that. That would be a polytheistic belief.

I don't believe children are actively punished by God for the sins of their father and neither do you. I do believe that bad behaviors can be learned from the father and passed down to their children, just as I believe the opposite is true.

I don't believe an entire nation is ACTIVELY punished by God because of what someone does anymore than I believe children are ACTIVELY punished by God because of what their father does.

The belief that Israel is chosen to establish laws does not absolve individuals of the consequences of their bad choices.
You are really reaching to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the God of Abraham is a personal God. They believed God is moralistic and providential.

You can believe what you will. I don't blame you for wanting to interpret the OT in light of your understanding of the NT.

 

[ding]

Your posts are intended to discredit Judaism by claiming it needed "correction" to become Christianity.

Not at all. Walk through each point and tell me how it discredits Judaism. I don't believe it does. Discrediting Judaism was not my intention. My intention was to show what the Gospels state. I don't need to attack the beliefs of others to build mine up. Which I believe is what you are doing.

Jesus corrected several deeply held religious and social beliefs, primarily targeting legalism, hypocritical leadership, and narrow interpretations of the law. He emphasized inner transformation over outward ritual, taught that love and mercy surpass traditional sacrifices, and declared himself the exclusive, necessary way to salvation rather than relying solely on ritual observance.

Key beliefs Jesus corrected include:

• Legalism vs. Mercy: Jesus corrected the Pharisees' strict, transactional adherence to law, emphasizing that mercy and love are more important than rigid, ritualistic obedience (e.g., healing on the Sabbath).
• The Nature of Leadership: He challenged religious leaders to stop pursuing status and, instead, embrace servant leadership grounded in humility and love, reversing the belief that leaders should be served.
• True Purity: Jesus corrected the belief that external rituals or avoiding certain people (lepers, sinners) made one clean, teaching that true defilement comes from within (the heart).
• Retribution ("Eye for an Eye"): He replaced the common, Old Testament-based understanding of strict retaliation with a radical, new standard of unconditional love, forgiveness, and non-retaliation.
• Exclusivity of Salvation: Jesus corrected the notion that salvation was attained solely by lineage or strict adherence to the Torah, teaching instead that he is the exclusive way to the Father.
• The Kingdom is Local/External: He countered the belief that the kingdom of God was a specific place or political entity to be awaited, teaching that it is "within you"—an internal, spiritual reality.
• The Purpose of Temple Sacrifice: He challenged the commercialization and exploitative nature of Temple sacrifices, signaling that his own sacrifice would fulfill and replace the entire system.

Furthermore, Jesus corrected misguided motives in his followers, such as seeking personal gain or using piety as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.

 

[Hafar1014]

In YOUR theology, Satan works for God. Satan is doing God's work. Why would God want us to fail? Your theology is fucked up. It's illogical. You are making God out to be a dick.

Nope. The highest standard is not to kill at all. It seems you have normalized your deviance from the standard.

You can argue killing is the lesser of two evils but you cannot argue killing is moral. That's how evil gets a toehold. Your theology is fucked up.
===========================================================================
I understand youre a concrete thinker.
It is moral to kill when serious bodily injury or death is imminent. If you do nothing you allow serious injury or death. The Bible teaches those who do nothing are as guilty as the perpetrators.

How is it not moral to save the life of your family yourself or an innocent person when deadly force is needed? Its immoral to do nothing we call that a coward.

 

[ding]

Context is not relativity. You seem to have vocabulary problem. Nothing is absolute.

What part of not killing is the highest standard do you disagree with?

You use imperfect words when you say some killing is moral. But then again, you think God is a dick because he tempts us.

 

[ding]

Nope. The highest standard is not to kill at all.

What standard is higher than that?

 

[Hafar1014]

It's an allegorical account. Man was always going to be what man is.

The meaning of the allegory. Dont tell me you actually believe Adam and Eve really existed. Man required Gods teaching of morals. Thats a class you flunked

 

[Hafar1014]

What standard is higher than that?

Making a stand against an evil act instead of doing nothing in the face of evil as you advocate.

 

[ding]

I understand youre a concrete thinker.

I really don't care what you think. I think you are a piece of shit and the world will be better without you in it.

It is moral to kill when serious bodily injury or death is imminent. If you do nothing you allow serious injury or death. The Bible teaches those who do nothing are as guilty as the perpetrators.

How is it not moral to save the life of your family yourself or an innocent person when deadly force is needed? Its immoral to do nothing we call that a coward.

What part of.... "You can argue killing is the lesser of two evils but you cannot argue killing is moral. That's how evil gets a toehold. Your theology is fucked up." .... did you not understand?

 

[Hafar1014]

What part of not killing is the highest standard do you disagree with?

You use imperfect words when you say some killing is moral. But then again, you think God is a dick because he tempts us.

I think you have no idea what morality is. If a man breaks into your home and threatens to kill you and your children and you have gun you have two choices. Pick your choice
1.Use deadly force
2. Beg

 

[ding]

Making a stand against an evil act instead of doing nothing in the face of evil as you advocate.

Nope. That's why Jews didn't act like Nazi's until you came around.

 

[ding]

The meaning of the allegory. Dont tell me you actually believe Adam and Eve really existed. Man required Gods teaching of morals. Thats a class you flunked

You're the guy telling me the tree existed, dummy. Why do you think God is such a dick that he tempts you?

 

[ding]

Making a stand against an evil act instead of doing nothing in the face of evil as you advocate.

No. It's not. Not only can I choose to do evil I can choose to do evil when it isn't a lesser evil. So I can absolutely choose doing the lesser evil. You can't see this because your theology is fucked up because you think God tempts us into doing evil.

Pieces of shit won't admit to doing evil when they do evil. Honest men will.

 

[alang1216]

Actually it's not. It's filled with how to live life and how not to live life. And God isn't actively rewarding or punishing us in this life. That all happens organically. We are free to choose between good and evil. We are not free to avoid the consequences of those decisions. Succesful behaviors NATURALLY lead to success just as failed behaviors NATURALLY lead to failure. God isn't pushing button or pulling levels like that. That would be a polytheistic belief.

I thought Catholics believed in heaven and hell?

 

[alang1216]

And your point is what?

The stories are not hard to take literally.

 

[alang1216]

I think it's telling the way we both interpret passages consistently. Your interpretations consistently paint God in the worst light possible. My interpretations consistently paint God in the best light possible.

The question is why? Why do you paint God in the worst light possible and why do I paint God in the best light possible? I can't speak for you but I can speak for myself. I paint God in the best light possible because I believe God created existence. I see existence as incredibly complicated, interconnected and wonderful. I can't imagine the creator of such beauty being a dick. Why do you do it?

I can't speak for you but I can speak for myself. I paint God in the most accurate light I can. Since I don't believe he is real I have no reason to clean up what was said about him.

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass - Jethro Tull