Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 20:53:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
959 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > Indeed. I do not posit Christianity as an unchanging Thing.
>
> Let me see if I can phrase it better. I expect that you posit Truth (moral,
> judicial, 'heavenly') and God as unchanging; while Christianity (human
> understanding of Truth) changes as time goes on. Is that correct?
>
> > > If the Christian Truth doesn't ever change, just our understanding:
> > > - How wrong are we now? Are we wrong enough such that we'll be punished?
> >
> > What punishment would you expect God to exact if we are in error on some point
> > of applied morality or ethics?
>
> Not necessarily morality or ethics. If I understand the Christian belief of
> Truth correctly, humans are judged by God against certain criterion. The
> result being ultimately desireable to be judged "good" by God, and undesirable
> to be judged "bad".
Judged by the same criterion that he is beholden to, yes.
> And I've been told in the past that the "good" and "bad"
> deemed by God aren't simply on a moral scale but on a scale of faith, etc.
I'm not sure that I understand this, but on face value, I'd say that I have to
disagree. I believe the Sermon on the Mount teachings because they strike a
chord within me of all great moral truths perfected and refined. I don't
believe that they are true *just because* Jesus said them (whom I believe to be
the Son of God). Jesus' demonstration of his mastery of moral ethics is only
further proof that he was a remarkable man, a great teacher. I don't hold the
moral teaching to be proof of His divinity (which I wish to make clear that I do
indeed hold, though it be fruit for a different discussion.) When examined, I'm
not entirely sure that ethics are faith-based; they seem to be something more
intuitive than that; more closely fused to our biology (but I'm here wading into
deep and murky water.)
> The"wrong" above doesn't just apply to morality, unless you deem it so. Whatever
> criterion God is said to judge upon, *that*'s what I mean. And
> punishment/reward is likewise up to you, unless you posit that there is no
> reward or punishment. But I don't find that option to be Christian. At least
> I've never seen an example of such. I'm open to a new interpretation if you'd
> like.
I'm not sure that reward/punishment is the crux of the matter. I don't believe
in eternal conscious punishment, nor do I believe that it is morally consistent;
thus, I cannot hold that God practices it. I'll address my opinions on this
matter further, if you think that it is important.
> > > - If not, how about Christians living in the time of the Crusades? If I
> > > understand the Truth equally as them, am I still entitled to a lack of
> > > punishment?
> >
> > If Crusader X really understood Truth (as opposed to the less rigorous
> > "truth"), then he would understand that jihads are Bad (as opposed to the less
> > rigorous "bad"),
>
> Do you claim to know so much about Truth as to make that judgement?
Yes. I have absolutely no qualms in asserting that I know without a shadow of a
doubt that killing a man simply because he will not convert to your belief
system (and nothing more) is absolutely wrong. I didn't discover that truth on
my own. Time and learning have sharpened the moral sensibilities of
contemporary humanity, of which I am a part.
> Clearly at one point in time, it was thought to be good... Is that Crusader held
> accountable for not understanding morality to the extent that you do?
Insofar as I can posit, my answer is that no, God does not hold an individual
responsible for breaking a moral truth which he has never reasonably been able/
had the opportunity to know.
> I think you say that he's not. Here's the zinger, though (the one question I was hoping
> for a response on!):
> > > - If so, then what does morality matter? Why can't I just go be moral
> > > to the level of my understanding? Isn't that just relative morality?
> If we're only judged (only the moral side of judgement, I'm ignoring the faith
> judgement side for the moment) on our understanding of morality and not on an
> "ultimate" morality, how does that differ from relative morality? In this case,
> why does having an ulitmate morality matter, if it's never used?
Whose to say that ultimate morality is never hit upon by human action? But that
asise, why should we not endeavor to create the most just and equatable state of
affairs that we can? It seems to me that having at least an inkling of ultimate
goodness, having a sense and confidence in Truth, and having its authority (or
the best approximation of its incarnation that can be discovered) is necessary
if we are to adequately address moral dilemmas. How can we adquately address
the gray areas of moral ethics if we have no sense of the parameters which
should frame our decisions?
>
> > Now, perhaps I have not answered the real question: Will an honest Crusader be
> > punished by God? I don't know that I can answer this.
>
> The example is highly open to interpretation. Let's try Forrest Gump. Let's say
> he was told that it was God's will to go out and fight. And being of limited
> understanding as he is, says ok. He's incapable of understanding morality on
> the level that you might be, but shouldn't God be equally fair based on
> Forrest's ability to understand? If he truly meant well, isn't that what
> matters in God's eyes, regardless of its disposition against "ultimate"
> morality?
Clearly, someone of his intelligence couldn't be held as morally culpable by
either God or us. I have no doubt that God would be completely fair to him in
the afterlife. That doesn't mean that God likes either what he did or the state
of affairs that led up to it. It simply means that God is just and fair, and
will only hold us culpable for what we are in fact culpable of.
>
> > Do I comfort the man dying of malaria (If I cannot cure him) with the words
> > "Tough. You die."? Of course not. I do not particularly expect "science,"--
> > i.e. the universe arranged in certain molecular patterns and processes--to be
> > fair to me, because the universe can do nothing but simply Be; inanimate
> > matter simply exists, and I can offer no reasonable protest that a cloud of
> > hydrogen gas isn't fair to me.
>
> Exactly. Going back to what you said before:
>
> > From my perspective, it seems that you find the idea of experiential
> > developments in Christianity peculiarly unpalatable (or perhaps
> > untrustworthy), though no doubt accepting change and refinements in the other
> > humanities as quite ordinary and respectable. What would you prefer? (And
> > indeed, you *can* legitimately have the better of the two.)
>
> That's why it's unpalatable towards other things. They aren't expected to be
> "fair". They're just expected to "be".
>
> DaveE
I'd like to give some thoughts on your last statement, but I really need to get
back to something here at work. I'll just offer that impersonal laws of nature,
if they are the only plane of reality that truly exists, will never answer to,
amend, or soothe human suffering. At best, they can turn a blank face to us
which, though consistent, are nothing more.
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
