| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2011 08:06:53 PM · #1401 |
Discovered 100 years ago....
(you may have to scroll to the top) |
|
|
|
03/30/2011 09:36:50 PM · #1402 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I have 3 questions for DrAchoo/Christians assuming that there is a moral god.
Let's assume that god codified some moral direction through instruction to Moses etc (v1.0), then updated them through the teaching of Jesus (v2.0), but didn't update those through messages to Mohammed (v3.0), which we shall treat as made-up.
As I understand it, in order to compensate for the vast iniquity that would be served by a blanket application of those rules, your position is that god will (with complete knowledge of all people involved, their intentions, their knowledge, their circumstances and desires etc) decide on a case by case basis whether any particular act was moral or immoral.
(1) How do you reconcile this unpredictable standard with your position that there is one objective morality (god's morality)? Do we have to fall back to his "unknowable mind" and "mysterious ways"?
(2) Does god's morality change with time? For example, was flogging or stoning ever morally acceptable in the eyes of god? If god takes into account changing social attitudes when determining morality, then isn't society dictating morality to god (rather than the other way around)?
(3) Do you think that there is a moral boundary, at which immoral things suddenly become moral in the eyes of god, or at which at least a tipping point arises in terms of consequences? How can analogue, multi-dimensional actions be confined to a binary or two dimensional test?
As a bonus question, given the above, is there any difference between human-derived morality and god-given morality? |
I'm not the Doc, but I am a Christian. Let me give it a try.
God doesn't change (by definition). However, we do.
As a kid, did your parents ever reprimand you? Would they reprimand you now at your age?
Mosaic laws were pretty tough, but they were put in place for tough people.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2011 11:03:12 PM · #1403 |
They translated it:
Rome
Circa 66 AD
Dear Christian Recruit,
Thank you so much for your interest in joining the Church. Your letter was forwarded to me by the former head of the evangelization and recruiting department. Unfortunately, he met a similarly grisly fate as his predecessor. They were both beheaded and stoned (though not in that order ;)
You asked about the benefits of being a Christian; well things have been a bit dodgy for this young Church. I’m sure that in the future things will get a lot better for Christians throughout the world but for nowâ€Â¦
As you might already know Christianity is illegal. Very illegal. And the Roman Empire has beenâ€Â¦shall we sayâ€Â¦brutal. We’re persecuted so terribly that many of us are in hiding and oh yeah, we’re killed quite often. And not just killed but killed in pretty nasty and inventive ways. That’s why I’m always surprised to see letters like yours in my inbox. In the interest of full disclosure pretty much everyone affiliated with the Church from Jesus on down suffers terribly and then is killed. Somehow the recruiting office says this persecution is having the opposite effect than one would logically expect. But it just doesn’t seem like sound long term planning if you ask me.
I was very much intrigued by all the questions you posed. I wish you could read the Bible we̢۪re working on but it̢۪s still in galleys and you know how editors are. This could take centuries (lol).
You asked extensively about the leaders of the Church, known as the 12 apostles. Please don̢۪t hold their behavior at critical junctures against the Church. Yes, it̢۪s true that the apostles did seem to spend a great deal of time arguing with one another over which one Jesus liked best. And yes it̢۪s true that Peter, our fearless leader, denied Christ three times at kind of an important moment. And yes it̢۪s true that Peter, James and John kept falling asleep even though Jesus asked them to pray with Him. And finally yes, you heard right that Jesus was betrayed by one of our highest ranking members (who later resigned). Now I know that doesn̢۪t make our H.R. screening look competent but they assure me that all legal standards were met. For fear of a lawsuit they say it was a personnel matter so they can̢۪t comment further.
Our infrastructure, I admit, wasn̢۪t all that great but things got better after Jesus, our Savior, was crucified. Well, not immediately. Directly after, the apostles ran around scared and went into hiding. But a few days after that, things got a lot better. Shortly thereafter they even converted an Ethiopian eunuch. Guess they thought, what worse could happen to that guy, right? Don̢۪t ask.
Peter is now in Rome and Paul is on his way there. Now as far as I knew Paul had been trying to kill guys like us but he says he̢۪s changed and is heading out to Rome with Peter. Don̢۪t know how that will work out but my hopes aren̢۪t high. But I received a memo that things are looking up as I hear the Romans are preparing a grand reception for them.
For me, Rome is getting pretty crazy. I plan to retire to Jerusalem in 70 AD.
But in short, if you choose to join the Church you̢۪ll be joining an organization whose members argue incessantly among themselves, who betray the Lord regularly, are persecuted, and often killed just for being a member. Personally, if I were a betting man, with all these grisly deaths, weakness among our own, treachery, and downright stupidity I can̢۪t see how this church survives the month, never mind until the end of time. If it survives longer than this week it will surely be evidence of the Lord protecting His Church.
Gotta̢۪ go now. This may sound strange but I think I just heard a lion outside. I̢۪m going to go check it out. I wonder what they̢۪re going to feed it.
Love,
The Office of Recruiting and Evangelization
|
|
|
|
03/31/2011 12:25:02 AM · #1404 |
LOL. Thanks Nullix. Got a chuckle.
David, thanks for the link. That is pretty exciting. I would LOVE to know what's on them. I bet it takes a few more years before we hear about it again.
Matthew, I haven't forgotten about you. :) |
|
|
|
03/31/2011 12:49:48 AM · #1405 |
| Tom, your user profile, are you praying, or picking your nose? |
|
|
|
03/31/2011 08:43:29 AM · #1406 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Tom, your user profile, are you praying, or picking your nose? |
That is not a picture of me. That's a computer generate image from the 90's. I'll have to find out where I got it from. I'm sure there's a good story behind it. |
|
|
|
03/31/2011 12:58:19 PM · #1407 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
God doesn't change (by definition). However, we do.
As a kid, did your parents ever reprimand you? Would they reprimand you now at your age?
Mosaic laws were pretty tough, but they were put in place for tough people. |
I think that your analogy is pretty flawed. Humans have had essentially the same biology for the last few thousand years. The most recent significant evolutionary changes can be traced to about 3-4k years ago (e.g. blood vessel adaptations among high altitude Sherpa communities).
Humans haven't changed, but society has - including its technology, politics, philosophy, and degree of knowledge.
So the question is, do changes in human society demand the application of a different moral standard by god?
If human society comes up with new moral concepts (e.g. inalienable human rights, or the modern concept of equality), does god adopt them? If god adopts them, then are all people who previously could not have known those concepts suddenly become sinners for having failed to live by that new standard?
Seems a bit unfair, but I guess no more unfair than damning all people who existed before Jesus, or who lived on another continent before international travel. The worry might be that humans have not yet discovered the future moral standards against which we'll all be held responsible.
Alternatively, if god's moral standards are those of 2k years ago, the development of modern moral codes might actually persuade us to abandon the "real" ancient moral code. We should be getting those stones out after all rather than awarding child benefits.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2011 08:40:31 AM · #1408 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
God doesn't change (by definition). However, we do.
As a kid, did your parents ever reprimand you? Would they reprimand you now at your age?
Mosaic laws were pretty tough, but they were put in place for tough people. |
I think that your analogy is pretty flawed. Humans have had essentially the same biology for the last few thousand years. The most recent significant evolutionary changes can be traced to about 3-4k years ago (e.g. blood vessel adaptations among high altitude Sherpa communities).
Humans haven't changed, but society has - including its technology, politics, philosophy, and degree of knowledge.
So the question is, do changes in human society demand the application of a different moral standard by god?
If human society comes up with new moral concepts (e.g. inalienable human rights, or the modern concept of equality), does god adopt them? If god adopts them, then are all people who previously could not have known those concepts suddenly become sinners for having failed to live by that new standard?
Seems a bit unfair, but I guess no more unfair than damning all people who existed before Jesus, or who lived on another continent before international travel. The worry might be that humans have not yet discovered the future moral standards against which we'll all be held responsible.
Alternatively, if god's moral standards are those of 2k years ago, the development of modern moral codes might actually persuade us to abandon the "real" ancient moral code. We should be getting those stones out after all rather than awarding child benefits. |
I hope I can answer all of those.
I wasn't talking about biological changes, but social changes. We're not the same people we were 3,500 years ago. God had to make moral laws for his people to live by if they were to receive Christ.
All people before Jesus aren't damned. People who lived on another continent who don't know God aren't damned. That's not the way it works.
The rules changed 2,000 years ago. There isn't a need for stones anymore. Just stick with the moral natural laws.
We can abandon moral standards created 2,000 years ago and create our own. But you'll come to find God is truth and any moral laws we create will be his. It doesn't matter either way, so let's do it.
Always seek the truth! |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 09:00:40 AM · #1409 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
God doesn't change (by definition). |
Originally posted by Nullix:
God had to make moral laws for his people to live by if they were to receive Christ...
The rules changed 2,000 years ago....
We can abandon moral standards created 2,000 years ago and create our own. But you'll come to find God is truth and any moral laws we create will be his. |
God doesn't change, but he created moral laws that changed, which we can abandon to create our own and whatever we make up will be God's rules. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 03:46:24 PM · #1410 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I have 3 questions for DrAchoo/Christians assuming that there is a moral god.
Let's assume that god codified some moral direction through instruction to Moses etc (v1.0), then updated them through the teaching of Jesus (v2.0), but didn't update those through messages to Mohammed (v3.0), which we shall treat as made-up.
As I understand it, in order to compensate for the vast iniquity that would be served by a blanket application of those rules, your position is that god will (with complete knowledge of all people involved, their intentions, their knowledge, their circumstances and desires etc) decide on a case by case basis whether any particular act was moral or immoral.
(1) How do you reconcile this unpredictable standard with your position that there is one objective morality (god's morality)? Do we have to fall back to his "unknowable mind" and "mysterious ways"?
(2) Does god's morality change with time? For example, was flogging or stoning ever morally acceptable in the eyes of god? If god takes into account changing social attitudes when determining morality, then isn't society dictating morality to god (rather than the other way around)?
(3) Do you think that there is a moral boundary, at which immoral things suddenly become moral in the eyes of god, or at which at least a tipping point arises in terms of consequences? How can analogue, multi-dimensional actions be confined to a binary or two dimensional test?
As a bonus question, given the above, is there any difference between human-derived morality and god-given morality? |
Let me answer questions one at a time or I'm never going to have time to sit and do this. Here are my thoughts on your first question:
The first thing I think we should make clear is that any moral system worth talking about is going to be complex. It serves no purpose to criticize a particular system for being both too specific (rules that may not apply in all circumstances) and too general (rules that are difficult to precisely interpret in particular situations). I will echo Shutterpuppy’s adjectives of it being “messy†and “inexactâ€. I don’t think you can produce a moral framework that isn’t.
The second thing to mention is that you seem mostly concerned with God’s objective morality in light of judgement rather than in light of what we might call a “proper life†(one that is beneficial to ourselves and others). If you are worried about judgement, I can envision God judging people based on the generalized rules of his morality rather than the specific ones. These rules, such as reciprocity, are commonly understood and few, if any, people have no awareness of them. But what I think you might be worried about, but I reject, is the hypothetical case where someone just misses “getting in†because of some minor infraction (like greeting someone with their left hand). I doubt any such case exists. We screw up so often and so frequently that we can apply nearly any moral framework (including whatever we construct for ourselves) and still be found lacking.
Therefore, I do not think we need to fall back on God’s “unknowable mind†for understanding the majority of His objective morality; the portion that matters and makes the most difference. If we want to argue precise specifics, then there is room for disagreement.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2011 05:39:07 PM · #1411 |
Let's assume that I live my life according to god's moral framework, not that I intended to, but my moral framework just happens to match his very closely - but I utterly reject his existence.
So I die and to my surprise find myself at the pearly gates. Is entry compulsory? - I seriously don't want to go to heaven. When I die I want my existence to cease (which it will of course - this is a hypothetical argument)
Or do I have to live by god's moral framework and *also* accept Jesus into my heart blah blah before I end up there? - I really think us Atheists deserve some kind of choice in the matter. We spent our whole lives rejecting the idea of his existence so I think it's only fair that he snuffs out our existence in return. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 05:56:34 PM · #1412 |
Originally posted by JH:
Let's assume that I live my life according to god's moral framework, not that I intended to, but my moral framework just happens to match his very closely - but I utterly reject his existence.
So I die and to my surprise find myself at the pearly gates. Is entry compulsory? - I seriously don't want to go to heaven. When I die I want my existence to cease (which it will of course - this is a hypothetical argument)
Or do I have to live by god's moral framework and *also* accept Jesus into my heart blah blah before I end up there? - I really think us Atheists deserve some kind of choice in the matter. We spent our whole lives rejecting the idea of his existence so I think it's only fair that he snuffs out our existence in return. |
Have you read Piers Anthony's "Incarnations of Immortality" series? He probes, in the first novel, an idea that even though in that universe there IS a God/Satan analog, that true atheists' 'souls' will simply dissipate and become as nothing. In fact, the entire universe he has created in the series is intriguing. In a fun, "what if" kind of way, but it can sure open up some thought-processes. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 06:09:25 PM · #1413 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Have you read Piers Anthony's "Incarnations of Immortality" series? He probes, in the first novel, an idea that even though in that universe there IS a God/Satan analog, that true atheists' 'souls' will simply dissipate and become as nothing. In fact, the entire universe he has created in the series is intriguing. In a fun, "what if" kind of way, but it can sure open up some thought-processes. |
Seventh Day Adventists would hold something similar. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 06:14:39 PM · #1414 |
I haven't read Piers Anthony yet, but I like his thinking.
So on to my follow-up point. Isn't God supposed to judge everyone when they die? - So how come Atheists souls are allowed to dissipate without God's help? - You mean we don't get our chance to stand in front of God and let him make his own mind up about our future eternal existence? |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 06:26:35 PM · #1415 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The second thing to mention is that you seem mostly concerned with God’s objective morality in light of judgement rather than in light of what we might call a “proper life†(one that is beneficial to ourselves and others). |
Surely you aren't suggesting that only those people that believe in a God share an "objective morality" and that the rest are devoid of morals or the ability to engage in a "proper life".
Ray |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 06:45:23 PM · #1416 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The second thing to mention is that you seem mostly concerned with God’s objective morality in light of judgement rather than in light of what we might call a “proper life†(one that is beneficial to ourselves and others). |
Surely you aren't suggesting that only those people that believe in a God share an "objective morality" and that the rest are devoid of morals or the ability to engage in a "proper life".
Ray |
Are you seriously asking this Ray? It strikes me as obtuse given about five years of conversation...
You tell me. Do you have an "objective morality" in the sense of "objective" meaning both "real" and "mind-independent"?
But, that post wasn't addressing anything about your own morality. Read the question, the assumptions that came with the question, and take the answer for what it was trying to answer...
Message edited by author 2011-04-01 18:46:11. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 07:30:11 PM · #1417 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first thing I think we should make clear is that any moral system worth talking about is going to be complex... |
In other words, "This is wrong... sometimes," and that last little detail is open to interpretation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The second thing to mention is that you seem mostly concerned with God’s objective morality in light of judgement rather than in light of what we might call a “proper life†(one that is beneficial to ourselves and others). If you are worried about judgement, I can envision God judging people based on the generalized rules of his morality rather than the specific ones. |
So now we have two sets of God's morality: the specific ones listed as his actual instructions, and a second unwritten set you envision everyone should know on the grounds of common sense. This second set is the one that actually matters.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Therefore, I do not think we need to fall back on God’s “unknowable mind†for understanding the majority of His objective morality; the portion that matters and makes the most difference. |
We don't have to do what you just did— presume to know that God will judge people by a general, common sense (yet somehow objective) standard that matters more than what the Bible says matters most. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 08:06:14 PM · #1418 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first thing I think we should make clear is that any moral system worth talking about is going to be complex... |
In other words, "This is wrong... sometimes," |
Exactly. And anybody who bothers to look at morality would see this is the reality of all systems. Of course pretend, fictional systems could be whatever you want because we're all playing house anyway. Debating morality with you is like having a discussion about Punctuated Equilibrium in light of the Burgess Shale and whether Gould was correct or not and then after a lot of work your conversationalist says, "oh, by the way, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I don't believe any of that anyway." Why even waste the time?
Anyway, Matthew, I'll get to the other questions as I can. I'm open to discussion with you if you want.
Message edited by author 2011-04-01 20:15:39. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 11:16:50 PM · #1419 |
Originally posted by JH:
Let's assume that I live my life according to god's moral framework, not that I intended to, but my moral framework just happens to match his very closely - but I utterly reject his existence.
So I die and to my surprise find myself at the pearly gates. Is entry compulsory? - I seriously don't want to go to heaven. When I die I want my existence to cease (which it will of course - this is a hypothetical argument)
Or do I have to live by god's moral framework and *also* accept Jesus into my heart blah blah before I end up there? - I really think us Atheists deserve some kind of choice in the matter. We spent our whole lives rejecting the idea of his existence so I think it's only fair that he snuffs out our existence in return. |
Something like The Saga of Bjorn (some of my pagan friends sent me this one).
I'm sure God has something in mind for Atheists, but we'll never know until the end. Of course, you might find what you utterly reject isn't God, but something else. Some of the ideas I hear from others, I would reject those bad things too. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 11:40:13 PM · #1420 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm sure God has something in mind for Atheists, but we'll never know until the end. |
No, we won't. Once our brains stop functioning, we can't know anything since there would be nothing to process or hold that information. It's amazing that primitive Greek and Egyptian concepts of the heart or "soul" as the seat of knowledge and rational thought (and the brain a mostly useless organ) still persist to this day. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 12:43:03 AM · #1421 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Exactly. |
How nice of you to agree with the assessment and then edit your post to add a bizarre personal swipe and flee the conversation rather than address the implications of your posts. Again.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course pretend, fictional systems could be whatever you want because we're all playing house anyway. |
This doesn't make any sense at all. You adamantly insist that morality is both absolute and objective, and then proceed to tell us that it's always subject to interpretation (not absolute) and that you think the parts that matter most may be generalized versions of what you assume a specific god wants (totally subjective). Meanwhile you reject the idea of morality as a fictional construct of man akin to paper currency, civil laws, constellations, the state of Wisconsin, kilometers or the Gregorian calendar. You also act as if the manmade nature of such systems somehow renders them useless or that I don't believe any of these things exist. Of course they do... as fabrications of society. One paper bill isn't worth a hundred times more than another, the speed limit isn't 55 MPH, a random group of stars isn't a great bear, this isn't the year 2011, and slavery isn't wrong unless society says so. NONE of these things exist independent of mankind. They are merely useful concepts and standards (subject to change) that we agree to treat as real, and I don't see why it's so difficult to consider morality the same way since that's plainly how it works. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 01:28:15 AM · #1422 |
If you've been paying attention, I have not asserted morality is absolute, but rather universal. There is a difference.
To quote the wiki:
Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism.
If I were an absolutist, I would never have said anything like "Stealing is sometimes wrong" (which is a universal statement). Pay attention man!
Message edited by author 2011-04-02 01:31:20. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 08:56:05 AM · #1423 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The second thing to mention is that you seem mostly concerned with God’s objective morality in light of judgement rather than in light of what we might call a “proper life†(one that is beneficial to ourselves and others). |
Surely you aren't suggesting that only those people that believe in a God share an "objective morality" and that the rest are devoid of morals or the ability to engage in a "proper life".
Ray |
Are you seriously asking this Ray? It strikes me as obtuse given about five years of conversation...
You tell me. Do you have an "objective morality" in the sense of "objective" meaning both "real" and "mind-independent"?
But, that post wasn't addressing anything about your own morality. Read the question, the assumptions that came with the question, and take the answer for what it was trying to answer... |
I am absolutely serious. Considering that no one can know what God's objectives are, we are left with only our own conclusions as to what constitutes a moral decision and in a lot of cases, these may or may not meet any of the parameters you allude to.
Morals are situational and may or may not retain their initial values over time. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 01:00:45 PM · #1424 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you've been paying attention, I have not asserted morality is absolute, but rather universal. |
Unfortunately, I have been paying attention.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I actually believe in an absolute morality, but that is only theoretically possible within a religious framework... IF the universe was created and IF the creator has an interest in morality then the moral values of the creator can be looked at as the moral authority for our universe. All moral frameworks can be judged by the absolute measuring stick of the creator's moral values (like having the official meter bar in France for judging how accurate your own personal meter stick is). |
Whether you call it absolutism or universalism, you're still looking for some absolute standard by which we can determine whether a moral argument is objectively "correct" rather than opinion... and you've been clinging to that same argument for three years now:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Person A asserts that "Moral action X is wrong". Person B comes along and disagrees. "Moral action X is NOT wrong." What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect. |
It doesn't really matter how, or even IF, one can convince the other. They both hold opinions, nothing more, and both should be allowed to believe what they like as long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights. |
Morality is a construct of society with no universal, objective standard. We believe slavery is wrong and left-handedness is OK only because that is our cultural standard– our consensus of personal opinions.
Message edited by author 2011-04-02 14:44:24. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 01:42:44 PM · #1425 |
| Today's edition of Radiolab addresses the issue of altruism in non-human species ... you can stream it from KQED.org or download a podcast from the NPR/Radiolab site. |
|
