Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Some immoral quotes from the bible i'd like to ask about...

24

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How is subjective morality based on a whim? Subjective morality is based on values and consequences. Consequences are not subject to whim, they probable or improbable. What about values? Can I rationally decide to value the life of my neighbour positively? Can I love on a whim? Hate because I fancy a bit of negative today? Nonsense Jakkass.

    You can declare things to be right or wrong on a whim if you have no objective morality on which to rely on.
    The majority. As they already do. Humans are very social, and social norms have a significant influence on our morals. That's probably why the various moralities seem to share so many traits.

    So if the majority want to allow assassination of a particular demographic in society that is moral, merely because people think so? That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard. You cannot declare something universally right or wrong unless you appeal to objective morality. Just because a majority do something doesn't make it right. This system seems to be nothing more than herding sheep.
    On the subjective level, we each have to judge right and wrong for ourselves. Morality is complex and ever changing based on circumstances and information. To subscribe to a rule book may seem much easier, but in my view even one that didn't advocate genocide would be inadequate and actually complicate the issue further.

    So? You have to also concede that what people judge to be right for themselves is right for them, and that you cannot criticise them for what they do unless you believe that what you believe should be an objective moral law. Seriously check out Immanuel Kant on this one. I'll cite the bit I'm thinking about later if you want.

    The Rwandan Genocide may have been very moral in the eyes of the perpetrators, however objective morality tells me that no human has the right to take the life of another.
    To get anywhere in a discourse with a Believer, perhaps. I'm sure I'd have more luck with someone less in the habit of thinking in terms of abstract absolutes.

    Moral relativity is forced to failure on basically any contentious issue. Those who advocate it are likely to be the ones who are also trying to appeal to others when they are wronged saying that they should know better. However why should they know better if there is nothing binding upon them objectively?

    You said that bit already, and it was just as unconvincing the last time.

    A lot more convincing than a "whatever floats your boat" type morality for dealing with real world moral dillemmas.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You can declare things to be right or wrong on a whim if you have no objective morality on which to rely on.

    Seriously, did you just blink and delete what I wrote from your mind? You could sure label a thing right or wrong against your own feelings at a whim, but whether you believe it to be so or act in line with that is surely the point. You can't chose your values, you can only inform them with knowledge. So morals cannot be whimsical.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So if the majority want to allow assassination of a particular demographic in society that is moral, merely because people think so? That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

    But calling genocide moral because a book says it is, that's not absurd? In the case you're talking about, it may be moral from the perspective of the society. It is not moral in an absolute sense.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You cannot declare something universally right or wrong unless you appeal to objective morality. Just because a majority do something doesn't make it right. This system seems to be nothing more than herding sheep.

    But I'm not suggesting that a thing can be called universally moral under any circumstances. That's part of the problem, you seem unable to stop thinking in terms of absolutes.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So? You have to also concede that what people judge to be right for themselves is right for them, and that you cannot criticise them for what they do unless you believe that what you believe should be an objective moral law.

    I have the right to criticise them for contravening what I subjectively hold to be moral or for contravening what the agreed morals of a society with which I subjectively hold to be moral.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Seriously check out Immanuel Kant on this one. I'll cite the bit I'm thinking about later if you want.

    The Rwandan Genocide may have been very moral in the eyes of the perpetrators, however objective morality tells me that no human has the right to take the life of another.

    Honestly? Does some objective moral axis have to tell you that the Rwandan Genocide was wrong or is that your subjective assessment? Or do they just happen to be in agreement by some accident?

    I think you prefer to put the rational justification for moral positions off onto some objective thing because the reality of having to rationalise it yourself is understandably scary. And, more to the point, that means you have to own the moral position. You are responsible for it. By your logic, you're not really morally responsible for considering the Rwandan Genocide immoral. You belittle yourself with that. But you're also claiming no responsibility for finding other, older genocides to be somehow "good", moral, just. Now that's absurd.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Moral relativity is forced to failure on basically any contentious issue. Those who advocate it are likely to be the ones who are also trying to appeal to others when they are wronged saying that they should know better. However why should they know better if there is nothing binding upon them objectively?

    What do you call society?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Overblood wrote: »
    If I read it cover to cover (which I plan to do if I can just get it to stop burning my hand every time I touch it....) I'm sure my opinion would be confirmed.

    I hear ya man. I'd go to church more if I could get my skin to stop itching every time I cross the threshold. I cry at weddings, and it's nothing to do with being emotional (I'm actually dead inside).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You can't chose your values, you can only inform them with knowledge. So morals cannot be whimsical.

    I see people do it on a daily basis. Following the herd.
    But calling genocide moral because a book says it is, that's not absurd? In the case you're talking about, it may be moral from the perspective of the society. It is not moral in an absolute sense.

    It's rather simple, if God created the world, if we are His creation, we are subject to Him and Him alone. He ordained a covenant relationship with His people, and if people disobeyed God's law, God as the creator has the right to put an end to His creation, just as much as I have the right to destroy a faulty pot that I am making with clay (see Jeremiah 18).

    I don't think it's absurd that God has authority over me, anymore than it isn't absurd that the State has authority over me should I violate the law. If you violate God's law, there will be consequences. I don't consider it ridiculous at all.
    But I'm not suggesting that a thing can be called universally moral under any circumstances. That's part of the problem, you seem unable to stop thinking in terms of absolutes.

    What's the point in even appealing to your own morality to judge others at all. It's in no way binding. Likewise if the law was relative it would be chaos.
    I have the right to criticise them for contravening what I subjectively hold to be moral or for contravening what the agreed morals of a society with which I subjectively hold to be moral.

    Why should what you hold to be moral have any effect on anyone elses. It doesn't pertain to anyone else. It's not binding on them. You may as well be yabbering in an incomprehensible language. Subjective morality cannot in anyway hold weight on what people do.
    Honestly? Does some objective moral axis have to tell you that the Rwandan Genocide was wrong or is that your subjective assessment? Or do they just happen to be in agreement by some accident?

    Objectively so.
    I think you prefer to put the rational justification for moral positions off onto some objective thing because the reality of having to rationalise it yourself is understandably scary.

    Relative morality isn't rational, nor does it work in reality.
    And, more to the point, that means you have to own the moral position. You are responsible for it. By your logic, you're not really morally responsible for considering the Rwandan Genocide immoral. You belittle yourself with that. But you're also claiming no responsibility for finding other, older genocides to be somehow "good", moral, just. Now that's absurd.

    Why should I be responsible in dictating what is moral or immoral? There has to be a standard external from myself by which I can appeal to others that the situation is so. Discussing morals is fruitless otherwise, unless you are discussing what people think is right, however what people think is right is not the same thing as morality.
    What do you call society?
    Our counterparts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Eh... could ye do this via PM please?

    I'm trying to talk about evil bible passages here.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Overblood wrote: »
    I'm trying to talk about evil bible passages here.

    How do you determine what is evil if you do not have a standard for what is evil that can account for all people and all things?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How do you determine what is evil if you do not have a standard for what is evil that can account for all people and all things?

    Ever heard of The Law?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ... however objective morality tells me that no human has the right to take the life of another.

    Unless commanded to do so?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Overblood wrote: »
    Ever heard of The Law?

    Should The law not be informed by morality not the other way round?.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Overblood wrote: »
    Hold on a sec. Whose side are you on?! Let me get this straight, I'm an atheist.

    Have you ever considered that some people might actually argue cases on their own merits and by logic rather than simply by what side they should be on?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I see people do it on a daily basis. Following the herd.

    No, that's what you're doing. You're correct that most people tend to do that, though of course there are limits for most people.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's rather simple, if God created the world, if we are His creation, we are subject to Him and Him alone. He ordained a covenant relationship with His people, and if people disobeyed God's law, God as the creator has the right to put an end to His creation, just as much as I have the right to destroy a faulty pot that I am making with clay (see Jeremiah 18).

    I don't think it's absurd that God has authority over me, anymore than it isn't absurd that the State has authority over me should I violate the law. If you violate God's law, there will be consequences. I don't consider it ridiculous at all.

    If God created you, it does not follow that he has any authority over you at all. Your analogy with the state is false. If the state is immoral, you may judge it so and act in defiance of it or move elsewhere. If your father is immoral, you may judge that also.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What's the point in even appealing to your own morality to judge others at all. It's in no way binding.

    Why not? Is your judgement not binding?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Likewise if the law was relative it would be chaos.

    But the law is not an objective absolute! Laws differ between states. It's the product of the will of the people. There's no chaos because of the normalising effect of society. The law is constructed in a manner I would view as ideal for morality, and indeed this is exactly how collective morality is formed.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why should what you hold to be moral have any effect on anyone elses. It doesn't pertain to anyone else. It's not binding on them. You may as well be yabbering in an incomprehensible language. Subjective morality cannot in anyway hold weight on what people do.

    That assumes that people have no common values. The evidence says that they do have common values.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Honestly? Does some objective moral axis have to tell you that the Rwandan Genocide was wrong or is that your subjective assessment? Or do they just happen to be in agreement by some accident?
    Objectively so.

    I don't understand what you mean by that.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Relative morality isn't rational, nor does it work in reality.

    What is your evidence for either assertion?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why should I be responsible in dictating what is moral or immoral? There has to be a standard external from myself by which I can appeal to others that the situation is so.

    That's the Kant talking. It would certainly be convenient for categorical imperatives to exist, but that does not mean that they do exist.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Discussing morals is fruitless otherwise, unless you are discussing what people think is right, however what people think is right is not the same thing as morality.

    That's the whole argument we're having here. You're unable to conceive of morals as anything other than objective rules. In my view they are nothing of the sort and never have been.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What do you call society?
    Our counterparts.

    It's also a set of agreed rules, social contracts, laws. We even agree upon some core values, in as much as that is possible.

    We've gone way off topic though. My original point is that we see morality very differently and that those differences are not reconcilable. I think between us we've illustrated my point neatly. If we're going to talk morality further I think a new thread would be in order.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Overblood wrote: »
    Ever heard of The Law?

    The law is a reflection of our collective morality. Not all that is immoral is illegal. Less so the other way around though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    How about the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Or even ones internal moral compass? Anything but the literally bloody bible ffs! What are we even arguing about?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Overblood wrote: »
    How about the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Or even ones internal moral compass? Anything but the literally bloody bible ffs! What are we even arguing about?

    The devout Christians consider all of that to be subject to the Word. Even if your moral compass is screaming "NO NO NO NO", if the Word says it's moral, it is moral. I'm not sure if that makes immorality and sin exactly equivalent, but it sure looks like it. So that guilt you feel when you tell a monogamous homosexual couple that their love is an abomination which will damn them to hell if they don't obliterate it and repent... well, at best that's a misplaced feeling of guilt, and at worst you can probably assume it is the influence of Satan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    No, that's what you're doing. You're correct that most people tend to do that, though of course there are limits for most people.

    Really? Reading the Bible to find inspiration for how to lead my life is following a crowd? I see it as adopting a moral viewpoint for my life.
    If God created you, it does not follow that he has any authority over you at all. Your analogy with the state is false. If the state is immoral, you may judge it so and act in defiance of it or move elsewhere. If your father is immoral, you may judge that also.

    It does follow however, that if God created the world, it is His. If it is His, we should indeed follow by his rules and regulations while we dwell in it. If you were in my house, I'd expect you to respect my authority while you were there. If you are drunk and disorderly on the street you can expect to be arrested by the State authorities. Likewise, we can expect to be judged by the Almighty at the Final Judgement for our violations of His laws after we have dwelt upon the earth.

    Why not? Is your judgement not binding?

    Of course it isn't. I'm a mere individual. My words are just that, my words. Nobody else is obliged to accept them. However people are obliged to follow the laws of the State due to the fact they have the power to punish offenders. We have yet to see, but we are obliged to follow the laws of God, because God has the authority and the power to punish us.

    It follows that if:
    1) God created the world.
    Then:
    2) God knows the attributes of His creation.
    3) God knows what is best for us while living in His creation as He is indeed the architect of it.
    But the law is not an objective absolute! Laws differ between states. It's the product of the will of the people. There's no chaos because of the normalising effect of society. The law is constructed in a manner I would view as ideal for morality, and indeed this is exactly how collective morality is formed.

    Laws do differ slightly between states, there is an affinity between what is generally punished, but there are differences in how they are punished. It seems to me that morality is relatively consistent, but the penalties are different. I'm not a Calvinist, but in his Institutes of Religion Calvin deals with this quite extensively from what I've flicked through of it.
    That assumes that people have no common values. The evidence says that they do have common values.

    This is kinda shooting yourself in the foot though. Common values indicate that there is a common source, or a common indicator for while we should live that way.

    To me it is as follows:
    1) There exists a Moral Law which is by and large consistent between groupings in society.
    2) Every law has a law giver.
    3) The Moral Law has a Moral Law giver (God).
    I don't understand what you mean by that.

    The reason for condemning the Rwandan Genocide can only happen if you believe that your moral maxims should indeed be the objective norm. That's the only way you can condemn another. You think that they and all others should follow the norm that you have set. As such you are arguing that if there were such a God's eye view, that it would be objectively wrong to do what they are doing. (Thank God for Moral Philosophy lectures :D)
    What is your evidence for either assertion?

    Relative morality is too tolerant to work in practice. In it's strictest form you have to concede that even if you deem something to be horrible, it is only your opinion and it could be right for them. I've explained the understanding of condemnation in response to your previous quote. That can't work unless you think that something should be wrong across the board. There is no point in condemning someone if it only applies to you.
    That's the Kant talking. It would certainly be convenient for categorical imperatives to exist, but that does not mean that they do exist.

    In fairness, the chap is a legend. Morality doesn't make sense without moral absolutes.
    That's the whole argument we're having here. You're unable to conceive of morals as anything other than objective rules. In my view they are nothing of the sort and never have been.

    You're right. They don't make sense apart from if they are binding on everyone. Relative morality means that people should actually keep their gob shut because they well could be wrong about morality. I personally don't think that I am wrong to condemn rape. Under relative morality though you would have to concede, well for him, it could have been great craic, and it could be very pleasurable.

    You can have no definitive definition of what is good, or what is evil if they are only your own. How can you be sure if you know what good or evil even are, or if you are mistaken?
    It's also a set of agreed rules, social contracts, laws. We even agree upon some core values, in as much as that is possible.

    Gilbert Harman argues the same. I've explained the affinity with the laws. It's interesting, Paul the Apostle deals with the same subject in Romans chapter 2.
    For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
    We've gone way off topic though. My original point is that we see morality very differently and that those differences are not reconcilable. I think between us we've illustrated my point neatly. If we're going to talk morality further I think a new thread would be in order.

    Don't you know every thread on Boards goes off topic. It's nothing new :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭Carpo


    I am confused about these stories in the bible where God kills a bunch of people. If these actions were carried out by a person we would instantly renounce them for being 'evil' acts, but because God is so much more powerful than us / so far beyond our understanding, these acts cannot be called evil. Who are we to understand Gods will? I am correct in that understanding?

    But, the flip side of the coin (and what confuses me) is when God does something we would consider to be 'good'. If we cannot renounce God for doing 'evil', can we really praise him for doing 'good'?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Really? Reading the Bible to find inspiration for how to lead my life is following a crowd? I see it as adopting a moral viewpoint for my life.

    Are you selective about that adoption at all?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It does follow however, that if God created the world, it is His. If it is His, we should indeed follow by his rules and regulations while we dwell in it. If you were in my house, I'd expect you to respect my authority while you were there.

    That analogy is no good. Even if I had no choice to enter your house, I'd be able to leave you house if I found your rules unacceptable. Where can I go if I disagree with God? He's left me no option. Obey or be damned.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course it isn't. I'm a mere individual. My words are just that, my words. Nobody else is obliged to accept them. However people are obliged to follow the laws of the State due to the fact they have the power to punish offenders.

    Yes but those laws are the product of our collective morality, crossing faiths and moral philosophies. So thats one way that our judgement is binding. The other, for lesser immoralities, is social condemnation, exclusion, etc.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Laws do differ slightly between states, there is an affinity between what is generally punished, but there are differences in how they are punished. It seems to me that morality is relatively consistent, but the penalties are different. I'm not a Calvinist, but in his Institutes of Religion Calvin deals with this quite extensively from what I've flicked through of it.

    Yes, but we disagree on why this is so. You maintain that the source of common morality, and the laws of man which follow those, is God. Since nothing seems to change regardless of how religious a society is, I tend to see it as simply the reflection of common values intrinsic to humans. Those wont be universally consistent but would be subject to some sort of distribution about a mean, which is sufficient.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is kinda shooting yourself in the foot though. Common values indicate that there is a common source, or a common indicator for while we should live that way.

    The common source is that we're all biologically, psychologically and emotionally quite similar. Or at least generally situated around various means. It would be shooting myself in the foot to suggest that there were no such common values, because then we'd really need an authority-based morality system to keep society in one piece.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    To me it is as follows:
    1) There exists a Moral Law which is by and large consistent between groupings in society.
    2) Every law has a law giver.
    3) The Moral Law has a Moral Law giver (God).

    We don't need need a "height giver" to give humans an average height of about 5'8" feet distributed around that mean in a Gaussian curve. Or the the same for intelligence distributed around a mean IQ of 100. So why does there need to be an intelligent giver of morals?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The reason for condemning the Rwandan Genocide can only happen if you believe that your moral maxims should indeed be the objective norm. That's the only way you can condemn another. You think that they and all others should follow the norm that you have set. As such you are arguing that if there were such a God's eye view, that it would be objectively wrong to do what they are doing. (Thank God for Moral Philosophy lectures :D)

    I get that making a moral argument against genocide requires common ground between myself and the audience. I think that moral norms exist and that norms are objective, albeit subject to distribution. I just don't think they have anything to do with God and that they are the product of many subjective moralities. So in a way, I guess you've argued me around to accepting the requirement for some objective morality there, but I maintain it is the product of collective subjective morals rather than being a real absolute.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Relative morality is too tolerant to work in practice. In it's strictest form you have to concede that even if you deem something to be horrible, it is only your opinion and it could be right for them. I've explained the understanding of condemnation in response to your previous quote. That can't work unless you think that something should be wrong across the board. There is no point in condemning someone if it only applies to you.

    Setting aside my concession that some objective construct is needed, where's the evidence that Godless morality, based upon our (broadly) shared values and acceptance of them as being also subjective, (inhale) does not work?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In fairness, the chap is a legend. Morality doesn't make sense without moral absolutes.

    You mean, it doesn't make sense to you? I get that you hold Kant in high regard, but I can't say I really agree with much of what he says. Didn't Kant assert that to lie to a murderer about the location of his intended victim would be immoral as it entailed treating the murderer as if he lacked moral agency? Sociopathic people don't have values that conform to our shared norms (they fall into the tails of a normal distribution), and so although their moral agency may be the same as ours, they're not at mentally similar to us. I think Kant's moral philosophy is a product of a time before we understood things like the origin of values. I mean, this is a moral philosophy that predates Darwin, Freud... and which was conceived at a time when psychology that considered biology was brand new and not well accepted.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're right. They don't make sense apart from if they are binding on everyone. Relative morality means that people should actually keep their gob shut because they well could be wrong about morality. I personally don't think that I am wrong to condemn rape. Under relative morality though you would have to concede, well for him, it could have been great craic, and it could be very pleasurable.

    I'm not sure what I'm talking about could really be called "relative morality". More "agreed morality", which means that it's fluid depending on the subjective moralities of the collective of people that adopts it. The way you put it sorta suggests no feedback to us from the social norm too, which I think is a very significant influence on subjective morals.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Carpo wrote: »
    If these actions were carried out by a person we would instantly renounce them for being 'evil' acts, but because God is so much more powerful than us / so far beyond our understanding, these acts cannot be called evil. Who are we to understand Gods will? I am correct in that understanding?
    Yes, when presented with a deity performing some act which is self-evidently wrong, most religious people will say that the deity's will cannot be understood. On the other hand, when presented with an act which is self-evidently right, most religious will say that the deity's act can be understood. In this way, religious people implicitly judge the acts of their deities according to one set of human standards or another, while denying that they do so.
    Carpo wrote: »
    when God does something we would consider to be 'good'. If we cannot renounce God for doing 'evil', can we really praise him for doing 'good'?
    If one is willing to judge the actions of the deity as above, then yes you can praise it or condemn it as much as you like. However, again as above, this requires you to judge the actions of the deity and to assign moral values to them before you can know whether to praise or condemn.

    This, btw, assumes that the Euthyphro dilemma has been resolved in favour of an moral system which exists independent to any deity.

    Most religious people, however, appear to assume the opposite resolution of the Euthyphro -- that what the deity does is "moral" by definition. In which case the deity can do anything at all that it likes, and if the deity is so inclined, can legitimately demand praise for whatever acts of violence it wants and humanity has no choice but to approve.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Don't you know every thread on Boards goes off topic. It's nothing new :)

    Yeah, I know- just a bit worried we've sorta dominated the thread with these monolithic posts of ours!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Are you selective about that adoption at all?

    I believe certain Torah laws to be fulfilled:

    1) Legal laws - the Torah bound State of Israel no longer exists. The Sanhedrin is no longer in practice. Jesus is the High Priest and the Judge of the Torah. Christians are also encouraged to be subservient to the states where they live in. This was a result of Christianity being a faith for both Gentiles and Jews alike.

    2) Ceremonial laws - like animal sacrifice has been fulfilled by Christ's role in atoning for the sins of mankind.

    3) Torah judgements that Jesus speaks of in the Gospels and their effect on previous laws in the Torah. Such as Jesus extending the laws concerning murder to anger, or extending the laws of adultery to lust amongst others.

    I personally hold that Moral Torah is binding on all Christian men. I think it is reasonable to say that there is a difference between Christian and Jewish understandings of the Torah and the Tanakh in several respects.
    That analogy is no good. Even if I had no choice to enter your house, I'd be able to leave you house if I found your rules unacceptable. Where can I go if I disagree with God? He's left me no option. Obey or be damned.

    It's like laws though. If I lived in Saudi Arabia and I stole I could expect to lose a hand, if I did the same here I could expect to be in jail. Either way it seems to be obey or be damned, or obey or something will happen to your detriment.
    Yes but those laws are the product of our collective morality, crossing faiths and moral philosophies. So thats one way that our judgement is binding. The other, for lesser immoralities, is social condemnation, exclusion, etc.

    Yes, that's all well and good, you go on about collective morality, but all morality must have some form of source. It's not as if it is by magic that we have the moral inclintations that we do. I believe it is because humans have a sense of morality written on their hearts and in their consciences, however in some cases people can mute them out after time which leads people to carry out crimes, or perform grossly immoral deeds. I feel personally that my natural conscience was reawoken when I personally accepted Jesus into my life.
    Yes, but we disagree on why this is so. You maintain that the source of common morality, and the laws of man which follow those, is God. Since nothing seems to change regardless of how religious a society is, I tend to see it as simply the reflection of common values intrinsic to humans. Those wont be universally consistent but would be subject to some sort of distribution about a mean, which is sufficient.

    How does nothing seem to change though? Many people who I have known as Christians have reported to me that people have seen a profound change in the way that they live and the way that they operate. People have also told me the same thing. What am I to put this down to though? It seems coincidental that these comments seemed to come after my choice to adopt Christianity as my own.

    You say that these reflect the common values intrinsic to humans, but you are stopping short here. What is the source, how did we get these laws, why do we have consciences responsive to these things?
    The common source is that we're all biologically, psychologically and emotionally quite similar. Or at least generally situated around various means. It would be shooting myself in the foot to suggest that there were no such common values, because then we'd really need an authority-based morality system to keep society in one piece.

    Sounds like stuff I've heard from Jurgen Habermas, and Edith Stein. Value theory tends to start from the common source of humanity. However this doesn't explain why moral systems have been rather similar in the world since their emergence. People could surely come to very different conclusions from merely the understanding of our humanity. I think the most crucial thing in all of this is that we understand that there is some external responsibility to our fellow man and that we have an ordained duty to eachother.
    We don't need need a "height giver" to give humans an average height of about 5'8" feet distributed around that mean in a Gaussian curve. Or the the same for intelligence distributed around a mean IQ of 100. So why does there need to be an intelligent giver of morals?

    Height is rather different to morality in fairness to you. There needs to be an intelligent giver of morals just like there needs to be a programmer for a computer program, or there needs to be a writer for a page to be written upon. We must have a source if we are appealing to eachother that you should know better, what is telling the other that they should know better? It certainly can't be you because that would be a failed appeal to authority, as who are you to say that your subjective morality applies to another person as well as you, surely they have the right to form their own subjective morality.
    I get that making a moral argument against genocide requires common ground between myself and the audience. I think that moral norms exist and that norms are objective, albeit subject to distribution. I just don't think they have anything to do with God and that they are the product of many subjective moralities. So in a way, I guess you've argued me around to accepting the requirement for some objective morality there, but I maintain it is the product of collective subjective morals rather than being a real absolute.

    You're getting so close to my understanding now. We have this common ground, however we have to ask why is this common understanding there. As for collective subjective morals, you hold a very similar view to Gilbert Harman whose view is basically that morals are a form of contract with another people. It doesn't explain though that groups of people that have been separated due to racial divisions in the past often had notable similarities in their morality systems. What caused them to form these similarities if they weren't in direct communication with eachother? We would have to assume another source wouldn't we?
    Setting aside my concession that some objective construct is needed, where's the evidence that Godless morality, based upon our (broadly) shared values and acceptance of them as being also subjective, (inhale) does not work?

    Wheres the evidence that it does? (Can't prove a negative! hah :D)

    In seriousness however, the removal and separation of cultures doesn't make it likely that it came merely from humans. This intuition was at the very least a law similar to the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and through experimentation and revelation the Moral laws of the universe became known to us. Problem is, what caused these laws to exist in the first place. I'd be the first to say I believe it was certainly God.
    You mean, it doesn't make sense to you? I get that you hold Kant in high regard, but I can't say I really agree with much of what he says. Didn't Kant assert that to lie to a murderer about the location of his intended victim would be immoral as it entailed treating the murderer as if he lacked moral agency? Sociopathic people don't have values that conform to our shared norms (they fall into the tails of a normal distribution), and so although their moral agency may be the same as ours, they're not at mentally similar to us. I think Kant's moral philosophy is a product of a time before we understood things like the origin of values. I mean, this is a moral philosophy that predates Darwin, Freud... and which was conceived at a time when psychology that considered biology was brand new and not well accepted.

    Well relative morality has failed, quite profoundly too, and it can be dangerous if it is accepted widely.
    I'm not sure what I'm talking about could really be called "relative morality". More "agreed morality", which means that it's fluid depending on the subjective moralities of the collective of people that adopts it. The way you put it sorta suggests no feedback to us from the social norm too, which I think is a very significant influence on subjective morals.

    You mean kind of contractual based morality, I've dealt with this above.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Overblood wrote: »
    Well of course they're immoral for me, but what, is there a difference between our standards? Do you not find them immoral or something? I'm afraid I don't really get your question!

    I don't see how an atheist can't be a moral relativist. So unless you are saying that these things are absolutely wrong, you are in fact merely saying that you don't like them.

    Never mind what my views are.
    Overblood wrote: »
    I really really don't get this christianity thing. How can you worship such an evil God?

    Your moral standards come from God. If you deny this, where do they come from?

    Unless you have some justification that I have not thought of, you should not be declaring things to be evil. It should be a meaningless concept to you.
    That's the core issue really, isn't it? For some of you guys, the morality of God supersedes your own morals and even your values in all circumstances.

    I don't feel like a moral authority. Do you?
    On the subjective level, we each have to judge right and wrong for ourselves. Morality is complex and ever changing based on circumstances and information.

    Then it is pointless to condemn things done thousands of years ago if you admit that your standard of judgement is essentially contemporary.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    The common source is that we're all biologically, psychologically and emotionally quite similar. Or at least generally situated around various means. It would be shooting myself in the foot to suggest that there were no such common values, because then we'd really need an authority-based morality system to keep society in one piece.

    But that is not morality. Morality is prescriptive. Biology is a description of history. Nobody ever needs or wants to tell someone else to obey gravity, but people appeal to each other to obey morality. Thus, descriptive explanations of its origins demolish this prescriptive power.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Húrin wrote: »
    But that is not morality. Morality is prescriptive. Biology is a description of history. Nobody ever needs or wants to tell someone else to obey gravity, but people appeal to each other to obey morality. Thus, descriptive explanations of its origins demolish this prescriptive power.

    I would love to be able to live in your head for a while and see what the world looks like when the above appears to make sense.

    Biology does explain morality. Due to our genetics we are almost identical in so many ways. That's why we have the same shaped bodies, why medicine is broadly applicable, why we experience similar emotions in similar situations, why we follow similar lines of thought about our lives, the future and the problems we face.

    In the exact same way, we all tend to share a moral basis, because our brains follow the same design.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Húrin wrote: »


    Your moral standards come from God. If you deny this, where do they come from?

    Do we really have to get into another argument about where morals come from? Do you have evidence to back up your claim that my morals come from god? How do you know this?

    And by the way, I do deny that my morals are from god. If I was ignorant of biology & evolution then sure, why not, god blessed me with a sense morality, and he also created the Earth in 7 days.

    But the sciences offer me a much more satisfying explanation than: "God did it."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Húrin wrote: »
    But that is not morality. Morality is prescriptive. Biology is a description of history. Nobody ever needs or wants to tell someone else to obey gravity, but people appeal to each other to obey morality. Thus, descriptive explanations of its origins demolish this prescriptive power.

    Eh?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    PDN wrote: »
    I do believe that God is the only correct God. I also believe that Christianity is the only correct faith. I do not believe that my variety of Christianity, my denomination, or my individual Church are the only correct ones.

    I also believe that all who know the Gospel of Christ and reject it will go to hell

    By that you are saying all those who believe in Christ differently to your beliefs are wrong. They will be sent to hell specifically. You may not think yours is the only correct one but it certainly leaves you with vast room to say some are not truly understanding (knowing) the gospel of Christ and going to hell.

    You seem sure that some of this stuff has been taught incorrectly if that is all the person hears and rejects it they aren't actually rejecting the the gospel just a distortion of it.

    What happens to people who never hear of Christ?Hell for them too?
    PDN wrote: »
    How about you try to address the points raised in posts instead of just getting personal?
    It think you should be fully aware that you often get personal and make snide remarks. In this post you have and I have seen you do it numerous times. My remarks were made about the method of your arguments which I see as evasive and intentionally drawn out.
    PDN wrote: »
    You mean by prophecy etc? I don't think He has stopped communicating in that way.
    I mean by actual gifts, actual words and direct action. I understand Moses received the ten commandments directly from God. God actually killed the first born,he turned a rod/staff into a snake etc... These action appear to have ceased. Can you give me a modern day example of such actions. Now try to resist quoting the bible (use reference) and jumping on God didn't do it he ordered an angel to do it. Magical events and actions seemed to have stopped unless you go along the views of Pam111. I consider your answer evasive thus far
    PDN wrote: »
    That's why you need to study Scripture properly and determine its meaning and context. Some teachings are not relevant today - at least not to any situation I'm ever likely to encounter. Some of them are solely of historical value.
    It seems to many people that such picking and choosing doesn't appear to be following the text just using it. There are obviously scholars that reject your notions and substitute their own. It seems pretty rough that if you are exposed to the wrong view you end up in hell. You have stated quite firmly that will happen.
    PDN wrote: »
    Again, you begin with a position that I, and millions of others, would not agree with. Therefore it is hardly surprising that you end up with an erroneous conclusion.

    So are you saying there is no discernible difference how God behaves between the OT and NT? He certainly seems less involved or at least changed tactics. Does the OT not refer to his "chosen people" in reference to the Yiddish people exclude all other until the NT?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    So are you saying there is no discernible difference how God behaves between the OT and NT? He certainly seems less involved or at least changed tactics. Does the OT not refer to his "chosen people" in reference to the Yiddish people exclude all other until the NT?

    No, you could convert to Judaism and many Gentiles did when living in Israel.

    Anyhow, as for "chosen people". Paul wrote in the book of Romans that Gentile Christians are attached to the tree of Israel through faith, and that they are descendants of Abraham through adoption (also in Galatians). Likewise we are told that we have been chosen by grace in Jesus Christ in the book of Ephesians. I may edit my post to put in citations later.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zillah wrote: »
    In the exact same way, we all tend to share a moral basis, because our brains follow the same design.

    :eek::eek::eek: Zillah, is that really you?:eek::)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, you could convert to Judaism and many Gentiles did when living in Israel.

    Anyhow, as for "chosen people". Paul wrote in the book of Romans that Gentile Christians are attached to the tree of Israel through faith, and that they are descendants of Abraham through adoption (also in Galatians). Likewise we are told that we have been chosen by grace in Jesus Christ in the book of Ephesians. I may edit my post to put in citations later.

    Thanks nice clear answer.

    But God not changing character? He seems different to me from my understanding


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    By the way Hurin, on a sidenote, the quote in your signature:
    "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
    Sam Harris, atheist writer, in The End of Faith (2004), p52

    is out of context. But it's probably fun for you to use it as a sig. Have you even read that book?


Advertisement