Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:23:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1066 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:
> > > 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.
The most basic moral law that I can postulate would be some derivative of
selfless love. Any lesser principle would be subservient to this, and thus,
morally broken. Theft could clearly be moral, if, for example, one were
stealing guns from an aggressor army so that an innocent population could be
protected. Sometimes, the most loving thing to do is break lesser laws so that
a higher good can be preserved - such as the rights of innocents to life and
property. This could be called relative morality--as opposed to Relative
Morality. The applications of moral principles are clearly often done relative
to the situation at hand, but I do not think that a universal Best State of
Affairs would be at all relative; i.e., a universe in which all creatures may
freely enjoy their lives without fear of malice is Absolutely, inherently, in a
better state of affairs than a universe in unjust discord.
> > 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?
My answer to the "so what" is that a better state of affairs is always
preferable to a lesser one. I do not believe in hell because I do not think
that any finite sin deserves infinite punishment, nor do I believe the idea of
tormenting even the most wicked in flames for eternity to be morally-consistent
with the character of God as revealed through the person of Christ. I do
believe that God will anhilate the souls of the absolutely and irretrievably
reprobate, so in that regard, for these beings the punishment is a loss of
eternal existence (rather than a prolonged existence of torment.) (They lose
heaven--and everything else.) I don't know if anyone would like me to describe
why I came to believe this, nor how I can recocile it with my Christian faith.
My point in bringing this up is to say that I imagine that the joys of heaven
will be reward enough, and anything less will be a loss; hell-in terms of acute
suffering-shall be neither present or necessary. Anyone may indeed stay in
their present state, but that risks the loss of a Better State of Affairs (tm).
This may be relative morality, but it is not Relative Morality (tm). God gives
us our freedom, and in the end, our will shall be done.
> > > 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?
Right. *If* Crusander X had a clear handle on applied morality with a sparkling
sense of why killing the innocent infidel is Wrong (tm), then he is entirely
personally culpable, or so I'd expect. If he has been led astray by other
agents, then God will know doubt weigh that in the balance. Ok. I admit; that
judgement would be an example of relative morality, but, again, I wouldn't call
it RM because the yardstick of BSoA (tm) is anything but relative; there is no
place for gratutitous evil in BSoA. The measuring rod is long and straight.
> > 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.
I'd argue that our moral awareness derives from a universal constant; our moral
sensibilities are in fact derived from the Authoritative Standard which is as
tangibly operative as basic math principles. I doubt that moral congnizance
would be possible were there not such a moral absolute working through the
universe in analogous fashion to the most basic physical laws. We can make
decisive relative-moral decisions because our faculties are endowed by the
Absolute. Did the Absolute not exist, we would have no moral tools and any
decisions would be arbitrary and would not appeal to the standard by which good
and evil deeds are compared and judged thusly.
>
> > 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 have no problems with that. I'd just offer that Absolute Morality brought the
ball and is still the referee.
> > 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
james
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
