Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:42:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
933 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
I kinda agree-- I think I'd chew down all morals to "respect others" (justice),
and "want best for others" (charity). And the one that people forget because
it's generally so assumed: "want best for yourself" (selfishness). The rest is
all balance of the three, and that's where the technical questions come into
play.
> 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.
First off, disagree, but mainly because I don't subscribe to a possible
"universal" moral set. I don't think malice is really the issue, but
perhaps... I think conflicting moral values may be the issue. Let's say Bob
loves to be tortured. He's into S&M or something. Bob wants others to be happy,
and as a result, tortures Jane, thinking that Jane will love it and be happy.
Jane hates to be tortured. She is miserable. Is such a world the best of all
possible? Is it merely the abscence of malice & blame that makes it the best?
If that's the case, is it not the best of all worlds to bereft humans of their
ability to judge morally and live in innocent bliss? Or is the ability to
judge, yet the restraint from it more perfect?
So, alright, I think I'm talking myself into the universal morality more and
more, by stripping away examples as subsets of morality rather than as separate
entities being applications of morality rather than instances of moral sets.
Hmm... Basically that "thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not commit
adultery", etc, are not actually parts of a particular morality, but the
general applications of a moral balance between justice, charity, and
selfishness.
So I'll posit that the perfect morality (actually, I've thought this before,
just not quite in this way) is to balance selfishness, justice, and charity as
though you were not the subject of selfishness. IE don't treat yourself any
better, but at the same time, don't treat yourself any worse, with respect to
justice and charity. And borrowing from science, don't breed malice from failed
expectations when others do not do similarly to you. How we doing now?
> My answer to the "so what" is that a better state of affairs is always
> preferable to a lesser one.
No, the question really becomes, why Christianity? Why believe that Christ laid
it out correctly? Why buy into the New Testament and Old Testament? If I've
just laid down the "perfect" world (no matter if it's attainable or not)
insofar as how we act towards each other morally, (and without the presence of
God, nonetheless), why be Christian?
> 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.
Ah yes. I must agree. Although I will *also* say that I don't think any finite
*good* action deserves infinite *reward*. :)
> 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 was always under the impression from Christians that *that* is what God
judged upon, not upon our actual actions in life. That God kinda "looked into
our soul" and saw whether we were ultimately good or ultimately evil. So that
the ultimate reward of heaven or the ultimate punishment of hell was not
dependant on our finite acts, but our soul. Earth was just a chance for *us* to
change to get it right, not a test in which to be judged. More like a training
ground.
> 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.
Do you feel it conflicts?
> > 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.
What's BSoA?
As for the moral issue, see above. I think I'm changing my definition of
morality.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
