Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:49:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
872 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
Um-- I don't think that's what I mean... The "good" deemed by God is that which
he judges upon, whatever that may be. I've been told repeatedly that there
are... I dunno... 3? aspects to God's judgement.
1. Your faith in God
2. Your love of God
3. Your adherence to morality (albeit relative morality or fixed morality)
I wouldn't put God in the class with morality since our relationship with God
isn't really a social one... at least as deemed by Xtianity (maybe almost
social by Judaism?)
> 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.)
Actually, you'll find that I'm quite agreeing to that point-- & I'd be
interested in digging deeper. I.E. what fundamentals of morality exist
necessarily? Can we ever deem that theft is moral? Or that it's morally
neutral? Is it possible for such a moral set to exist? Which morals are
necessary, and why? Etc. But yes, indeed, murky water.
> 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.
I guess the question then becomes, "so what"? Why should I be Christian and not
whatever-I-may-be? If there is no heaven/hell concept, and one is only judged
against morality according to one's own understanding of it (score 1
for relative morality!), then what does it matter whether I'm Christian or not?
Is it so that I may understand the universe better for my own sense of clarity?
What if I feel I'm already clear enough? Is there any reason for me to switch
if I'm pleased with my current state?
> > 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.
Eh, I dunno if you can pretend so much to know the individual soldier's
motivation... Again, as I said, the question leaves much to be inferred, and
much open to possibility. What if they believed that God spoke through the
Pope, and that they were doing it because the Pope said it would be good for
them to do? I'd argue that it's akin to Abraham-- perhaps this particular
soldier was doing it out of faith in God's will... What then?
> 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?
I'd argue that this is merely a further case for relative morality. We try to
the be the best we can be by using our own sense of ethics, and through
experience learn how to interpret better. But why should having an ultimate
scale to measure against matter? Why not judge our moral systems based on how
well we *feel* they work rather than against a universal morality? Are we
guaranteed that how well we *feel* they work is necessarily a universal
morality? For that matter, are you assured that such a morality is static?
That's the part I waiver on, honestly.
> 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.
Score 2 for relative morality!
> 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.
Again, agreeing! Wow, this must be some new trend :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
