Open Discussion With Lnc

[Abiyoyo]

Sure, inspiration is a Christian doctrine that says that the authors of the OT and NT were given Divine inspiration to write what they did. They didn't just make it up out of their heads. The Bible speaks of the Scripture as "God breathed" in that God didn't literally speak the words into their heads, nor was he moving their pens as if they were robots; however, he was giving them the wisdom and understanding to write what they did, while still allowing the authors to put their personality into the text.

 

I know everybody thinks it crazy when I reply to another Christian , but sometimes we repeat history on these forums and I put in wherever.

 

LNC,

 

God inspired writings, Yes. God breathed, No. Unless you want to degrade the capacity of knowledge, and omni everything usually attached to God. There are contradictions from one verse to another all throughout the Bible, and shows by the number of denominations. Everybody sees it different, unless one person belongs to a certain sect; then has conversation with those of the same belief of the same sect. OSAS doctrine is a good example. People could show many verses to strengthen that doctrine, whereas another could give many verses to make that doctrine seem wrong.

 

What denomination are you with? If any.

[LNC]

Morality is subjective in nature. Therefore, I understand that you are not interested in a battle of opinions. I am not interested in such a discussion either. So, I will do my best to refrain from making charges. If I slip, I'd welcome a gentle pointing out of my actions.

 

I am interested in the process by which you came to your belief in and identification of an objective morality. Are you willing to share that?

 

Phanta

 

I appreciate your response to this. Yes, I am willing to share my story.

 

I grew up in a family that went to church (Roman Catholic) on a weekly basis and I would say that in my youth I never doubted God's existence. I did wonder about things like eternity and infinity from a young age. We used to have a three way mirror in a bathroom and it always fascinated me to look into it and see how far back I could see the reflections going and that would make me think about concepts like infinity. I did reach a point in grade school where I started to wonder how a person could ever be good enough to get into heaven. I didn't consider myself to be a bad person, but all the same, I knew that when I was honest with myself and my life, I wasn't good enough (my good deeds didn't outweigh my bad deeds, which I believed to be the standard.) In high school I got into the party scene like by brothers before me and started using alcohol and drugs and hanging around others who did the same. I wasn't popular until I got into this scene and then, because one of my friends had parents who would leave the house for the weekend leaving us a place to have parties, we became very popular. As I mentioned, all three of my brothers were partyers as well and two of them had criminal records by that time, with the third well on his way. When I was a junior I remember that we hadn't heard from one of my brothers for months and I feared that he might be dead (a fate that he escaped a few times by that time in his life) and it was one night thinking about him that I decided that I was going to give up the party scene and not follow his footsteps. I thought that if his life amounted to nothing else, it would serve as an example that I wouldn't follow. So, I gave it all up, the parties and my friends, and had a very lonely summer that summer.

 

A couple of years later I went off to college at one of the most liberal universities in the country - a known party school. I resisted the urge to get back into that scene, however, and tried to apply myself to school. After my first year, I took a job doing door-to-door sales and ended up in Alabama, the Bible belt. I had a lot of people witnessing to me, but I wasn't interested since I was a Catholic, I thought that I was OK. One night, however, a couple invited me in and asked if they could share some things from the Bible with me, I agreed. They read me the story of Nicodemus and his encounter with Jesus from John 3. Nicodemus said that he knew that Jesus came from God because he was doing great miracles before their eyes (he had empirical verification of the miracles), and Jesus answered back "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Now, I had always connected the term "born again" to the pew jumpers and so it intrigued me that this term was in the Bible, so I asked what it meant to be "born again."

 

They explained to me that the Bible tells us that we are dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1), which means that we are separated from God by our rebellion against him. However, later in that chapter of Ephesians it says "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved". In Romans it even make it clearer when it says, "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:10) So, we made ourselves enemies to God through our rebellion and God sent his son as a sacrifice for our sins to bring us back into relationship. Jesus final words on the cross were, "It is finished!", which is the Greek word, Tetelestai, which literally translated means, "paid in full." Jesus lived a sinless life according to the Bible, but it says of him, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (1 Corinthians 5:21) So, Christ took our sins upon himself and paid for them and declared that it was finished on the cross. John tells us, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," (John 1:12). By transferring our trust for eternal life and goodness from ourselves to Jesus we can have eternal life. Jesus made that clear when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24) It is not based upon our works since we are dead in sin in God's site, but on the free gift that he offers.

 

Now, to the second part of your question as to how I come to believe that moral values are objective. I would say that I come to that conclusion a couple of different ways. I believe intuitively, the way that we know much of what we know, that certain things are objectively wrong for all people at all times. For example, I believe that it is alway wrong for people to torture babies, or to murder, or to be racist. These are things that people would commonly agree are wrong. So, the question is whether that is true or just a false impression on my brain and everyone else's. Are we under some sort of mass delusion. Well, if all we are is matter in motion, then yes, this would be a useful fiction conjured up by our brains. That would mean that it is really not better to not murder than to murder. There is no true moral distinction between Mother Teresa and Jeffrey Dahmer, the best we could say is that I don't prefer one's behaviors, or I do prefer another's. I believe that the only way that we can arrive at objective morality is to ground it in a source that transcends our reality, a source that is eternal and unchanging which are necessary attributes for objective grounding, and who is personal to convey what those moral values are, and who can enforce those moral values by punishing moral failure, thereby giving an oughtness to them. Each of these attributes, I believe, are necessary for objective grounding of morality and those attributes sound a lot like God to me. That is a somewhat simplistic explanation, but it is the best I can do without writing a book here.

 

Now, I want to be sensitive to the rules of this site and I believe that there may be rules against proselytizing, so I want to make it clear that this is my story, which you asked me to share, and I in no way am going to try to cram this down someone's throat. I cannot convince anyone to be a Christian, nor would I if I could. I believe that it is God who does the work in the human heart and mind, not me. So, if anyone is offended that I shared this story, I want to apologize. But I was asked an honest question and I wanted to provide an honest answer.

[LNC]

Blah, blah, blah. You're full of shit and you know it. You've refused to answer any question in a straightforward manner. Instead you've just talked in circles, answered questions with questions, demanded absolute precision of every term, nitpicked definitions, and used every delaying tactic to avoid the truth: you're scared to admit that God ordered genocide and genocide is immoral.

 

I can't force you to answer. All I can do is point out that you haven't debated honestly. You're going to win this debate, because I'm not going to waste my time with you. I just point out that you've won a hollow victory. Enjoy it if you can.

 

Then I will point out the same for you as you have refused to tell me on what grounding you base your accusation. What you are telling me is that you have no standing to make your accusation, and I can accept that.

[LNC]

But I am here to discuss your opinions, but you won't express them. Would you have followed the order in 1 Samuel 5:3 or not? It's a simple question. My opinion and "standing" has naught to do with the question. Just give me a simple yes or no. If you can't do that, then I won't waste my time talking to you because you will have proved yourself to be a coward.

 

I already said that it is meaningless to debate opinions. Are you asking whether I would have put Dagon back in his place? The answer is no. But then, I am assuming that you mean 1 Samuel 15:3. What you want me to do is speculate as to what I would have done if I were there and I wasn't. So, we are back into the realm of opinion not fact. So, do you want my opinion? That will lead us down the same road, just from a different direction. Do you think it was objectively wrong for God to issue that command? If so, on what basis? I have asked you to establish this and for you to try to sneak in the back door this way won't work. If you want to accuse God, which you seem to want to do, you must have standing to do so. Please tell me what that is before we launch into this conversation.

[LNC]

As to the bolded line above, no shit dude. You specialize in confusion and delay. I wish you were in court with me. I'd have you sanctioned for this type of bullshit. But since we're not in court, I can't make you answer. I can't make you be clear. I can't make you be a man. All I can do is point out your failings and how you are an embarrassment to thinking Christians everywhere. I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and I've been repaid with much of my valuable time wasted.

 

Sorry, if you were in court the judge would throw out the case for lack of merit as you have no standing on which to make the accusation. So, we would end up in the same place. In any court in the land you must show that you have standing to make an accusation. It would be a waste of the time of the court to hear every person who wants to sue or bring charges against another person, they must have a pre-trial to find out if the case has merit, and in your case, you have not met the burden of proof. You have, in that sense, wasted your time, as does every other person who brings groundless accusations.

[LNC]

I think if LNC thinks our country is 'ruined' then he should try a missionary trip to Iraq. See how much better it is. Yes, the USA is only couple hundred years old, I was referring to it as a Democracy, under God, keeping civil rights, and established freedom of all people as a government.

 

Funny, I don't believe that I have ever said that. I, in fact, am very glad to be living in this country as it provides freedoms that many countries do not have. I don't know who has put these words in my mouth, but they don't represent my attitudes or beliefs whatsoever.

[LNC]

I wouldn't know where to begin to even have an opinion on this. I'll have to say "not applicable."

 

Fair enough, I will take your word on this one.

 

So the terms you chose weren't largely neutral? I chose to disagree. But if you like we can remove them from the neutral column and make them an issue. I don't feel this will actually make your case stronger but I don't wish to build a straw man.

I am saying that by parsing my definition and attacking a part of it, you destroy the intent of the whole. That is where you built your straw man.

 

You throw a lot of words together and assume you're defining something of value. At least that I should value. But you're not saying as much as you think you are.

 

So let us look at the word "perfect" and try to find where we're going wrong (I'll expedite just by stealing the summary from wikipedia on "perfect"):

 

 

One term, many concepts

 

The foregoing discussion shows that the term "perfection" has been used to designate a variety of concepts:

 

* The word "perfection" has a special meaning in mathematics, where it gives a proper name to certain numbers that demonstrate uncommon properties.

 

* In physics and chemistry, "perfection" designates a model — a conceptual construct for bodies that in reality do not precisely correspond to the model.

 

* Elsewhere the term "perfection" is used consistently with the word's etymology ("perfect" = "finished"). That is perfect which lacks nothing. This is how the term has been used in ontology (a perfect being), ethics (a perfect life) and medicine (perfect health). In these fields, the concept is understood variously as ideal model or as actual approximation to the model.

 

* Also called "perfect" is that which completely achieves its purpose. Christian Wolff gave examples from biology (perfect vision) and technology (a clock that runs neither slow nor fast). Here "perfection" is less fictitious model than actual approximation to the model.

 

* That is "perfect," which completely fulfills its functions. In social discourse, one speaks of a perfect artist, engineer or carpenter. The term is used similarly in art criticism, when speaking of perfect technique or of the perfect likeness of a portrait. Here again, "perfection" is either ideal model or approximate realization of the model.

 

* In aesthetics and art theory, perfection is ascribed to what is fully harmonious — to what is constructed in accordance with a single principle (e.g., the Parthenon, the Odyssey).[115]

 

Except for the first, mathematical sense, all these concepts of "perfection" show a kinship and oscillate between ideal and approximation.[116]

 

However, the expression "perfect" is also used colloquially as a superlative ("perfect idiot," "perfect scoundrel," "perfect storm"). Here perfectum is confused with excellens of an approving, admiring or condemnatory kind.[117]

 

Perfection has also been construed as that which is the best. In theology, when Descartes and Leibniz termed God "perfect," they had in mind something other than model; than that which lacks nothing; than that achieves its purpose; than that fulfills its functions; or than that is harmonious.[118]

 

And there we go. You seem to be only capable of speaking theology...and very old theology at that. As I pointed out. Perfection is related to an ideal (I use "ideal" but perhaps I should say "finish?"). You can have "perfection" in many ways and "evil" could very well be one of those ways. Open your eyes, and your mind, and you'll understand that you're the one limiting the scope of things here. Not me.

 

As far as I can tell when you use the word "perfect" you actually mean "omnibenevolent" which would indicate that your version of god is perfectly good and/or perfectly moral. The terms you used prior to this indicated no such thing.

 

Are you still trying to argue through this long explanation that somehow Descarte and Leibniz understood God's perfection to include evil? Do you really want to go there? Are you going to tell me that great thinkers like Augustine just overlooked this in the explanation of God as a supremely perfect being? You, my friend, are creative in your attempts at logic, but not precise. To use colloquialisms like "perfect idiot", or "perfect scoundral" and then try to back in through equivocation to God having evil as an attribute of supreme perfection not only doesn't follow, but is really weak. Now, when someone refers to a perfect idiot, do they literally mean that the person is perfect in idiocy? What would it look like for someone to be literally perfect in idiocy? How about a perfect storm, can you describe that to me? These are colloquialisms, not literal descriptions and to use that to get to the conclusion that evil is somehow a part of God's perfection is "perfectly rediculous." Now, again, I am using a colloquialism and I don't mean that there is a literal state of perfect rediculousness. Again, a very creative and entertaining attempt, but a non-sequitur nonetheless.

 

How is the term "greatest" relative? Is this a serious question? It is, by its very nature, relative. Maybe this will help:

"In grammar the superlative of an adjective or adverb is the greatest form of adjective or adverb which indicates that something has some feature to a greater degree than anything it is being compared to in a given context."

You see? The suffix "est" is a superlative making the word "great" into a comparative. The "greatest" being now becomes relative by way of comparison. You did this. Now to what shall we compare this being with? There must be something so that we can know, for certain, that this being is the greatest of all beings. Until such a comparison can be made we cannot know. This statement is merely a baseless assertion. Perhaps, as you state, there is an even greater being. A more benevolent being waiting to be discovered or to reveal itself. If you wish to take comfort by stating that your book tells of a very powerful being. Perhaps the most powerful being TO DATE. Then that may be but we're discussing its morals and it seems to be lacking greatly in that area.

 

OK, I see what you mean in that sense of the word. And you are right in that sense that relative to everything else that exists, God is still greater. So, what does that do to make your case?

 

Oh, I've read many definitions of god(s) by many people. There isn't just one. There never has been. It would be nice if there was because then we wouldn't have to hash one out here.

 

Let's just add a little bit. A very little bit to this. It goes way back to Epicurus:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.

2. There is evil in the world.

3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

This is such a problem that theologians have redefined all those nifty parameters that you supplied for your god to mean, not what they really mean, but to mean "what is possible." So, for example, omnipotence? Well, yeah, but within the realm of possibility. A god is omnipotent but it cannot do the illogical or the contradictory. And who defines "illogical?" Well, humans do of course. We must have a handle on logic then because we can understand why a god can't do the logically impossible. The lay-person still misuses the words but theologians sure don't. They stick to it. You can't have the type of god you wish to define. All gods must be limited.

 

The only way to "explain" this with the type of god you describe is simply "it is part of a mysterious and unexplainable plan" as per Calvin. A total cop-out and is utterly pathetic.

 

mwc

 

That arexcellencegument by EpicDescartesscoundrelridiculousridiculousnessurus was answered definitively by a philosopher at Notre Dame by the name of Alvin Plantinga. In fact, it is an argument that philosophers no longer bring up since Plantinga came up with his free will defense. It goes like this. Here is how he defines it. God cannot do the logically impossible as logic is part of his nature. Therefore, God cannot make a square circle, a married bachelor, or make 2+2=5. He argues that there are no possible worlds where God could make free creatures and make them choose what is right. It is possible that a world would exist in which God made free creatures and they all chose to do right; however, it is not possible for God to necessarily make that world, he cannot make free creatures do what is right. Since man's free will is the greater good, God cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will. In other words, he would eliminate evil by eliminating a greater good. Now, this is an overly simplistic rendering of the argument; however, you can easily find it in Wikipedia or other websites and, as I mentioned, philosophers have given up this argument against God since Plantinga came up with his argument as it logically follows and is logically possible, which is all that is necessary to eliminate the logical problem of evil argument that Epicurus presented.

[Abiyoyo]

Yoyo,

 

Would you be willing to explain to me your understanding of what it means that the Bible is "inspired"? I read that your view differs from LNC, but I am not clear how. I would be interested to hear your view.

 

Best Regards,

Phanta

 

When I say inspired I mean it was inspired by a culture, group of people, that wrote about their God. Breathed to me would mean, He basically wrote it. If thats the case then, the errors, and obvious writers agendas would not be there.

[Abiyoyo]

Since man's free will is the greater good, God cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will. In other words, he would eliminate evil by eliminating a greater good.

 

Hey LNC. I have never heard of the philosopher you mentioned as I am not much into philosophy, well until recent. Anyway, I have always thought the same thing, and even though I can't get old posts, topics; I have expressed this notion of thought through debates at this site.

 

Does that mean I am a great philosopher? No. Seriously

[Abiyoyo]

Do you think it was objectively wrong for God to issue that command? If so, on what basis? I have asked you to establish this and for you to try to sneak in the back door this way won't work. If you want to accuse God, which you seem to want to do, you must have standing to do so. Please tell me what that is before we launch into this conversation.

 

Hey shantou I'm going take this one.

 

LNC, in your realm of thought with objective/subjective morality; No, it was not wrong. I will explain. Death to God is not the same as to people. We are all one substance to God, God is eternal. We are not. So, an order to kill, in this view, would be an objective order as death is just a passing through to God. That is obvious. God is spirit. Right? We are flesh. Right? Death comes upon us and we cease to function. God is eternal.

 

Here's the but though. Why would God 'breathe' this particular scripture to influence His objective morality to mankind, as a God who would kill the innocent? Doesn't that contradict the rest of the Bible, and Jesus, and Paul's Christ philosophy? Think about it. That's really not a good example of scripture to apply your logic. There is no justification in the 'subjective' world for killing innocent, as killing the innocent would be murder. As you described earlier, murder was an example. Thus, making the objective moral view a bit off.

[Ouroboros]

I know everybody thinks it crazy when I reply to another Christian

I think you're crazy even if you don't reply to another Christian.

[Abiyoyo]

I know everybody thinks it crazy when I reply to another Christian

I think you're crazy even if you don't reply to another Christian.

 

[Ouroboros]

Would you have a suggestion as to a quality place for a beginner to start exploring the concept of ethical subjectivism? I'd like to learn more, and could like to begin somewhere quality.

Actually I don't have any good suggestions at the moment. Most of the material I've read or the lectured I've listened to, bring up all major views first and then, more like an afterthought or to wrap it up, they bring up other newer and still not so common views. If you're interested in philosophy and many of these questions and get a quick and easy insight in the complexity of it, then I recommend this book: 50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Should Know. Start with that one, and I will try to find one which could be a good sequel and more in-depth of newer views. Usually these books are frigging huge.

 

And to explain another thing, I'm not really fixed to one or the other particular method or view, I kind of made up my own mind based on the different existing ones. Because I'm a bit disappointed that many philosophers completely disregard what science do know about nature, and just go on and try to think "logically" and "rationally" about thoughts and ideas only, and completely misses the vast knowledge which explains reality. There must be a combination, where all views are taken into account. That's why I see myself as a practically oriented thinker, rather than the traditional thinking-for-the-sake-of-thinking only.

[Antlerman]

Yoyo,

 

Would you be willing to explain to me your understanding of what it means that the Bible is "inspired"? I read that your view differs from LNC, but I am not clear how. I would be interested to hear your view.

 

Best Regards,

Phanta

 

When I say inspired I mean it was inspired by a culture, group of people, that wrote about their God. Breathed to me would mean, He basically wrote it. If thats the case then, the errors, and obvious writers agendas would not be there.

I actually agree with you. It was "inspired by a culture, group of people, that wrote about their God." But what follows in your statement doesn't really follow. "He basically wrote it". If it was inspired by a society writing their inspired thoughts about a god, then it's their thoughts. Yes, inspired by their beliefs in that god, however it is a long, long, long, way from those being the actual words written BY that god. It's their inspiration you hear, and that inspiration is expressed through humans all the time in music, poetry, song, dance, art, literature, and myth. There's no way you can limit "inspiration" to that one set of collected writings put together to support a set of religious doctrines.

[Abiyoyo]

But what follows in your statement doesn't really follow. "He basically wrote it". If it was inspired by a society writing their inspired thoughts about a god, then it's their thoughts. Yes, inspired by their beliefs in that god, however it is a long, long, long, way from those being the actual words written BY that god. It's their inspiration you hear, and that inspiration is expressed through humans all the time in music, poetry, song, dance, art, literature, and myth. There's no way you can limit "inspiration" to that one set of collected writings put together to support a set of religious doctrines.

 

I think LNC was trying to say that God's word was literally 'breathed' into the mind of the writers, and they wrote. Whereas, I say it wasn't. Why would God 'breathe' His words, making them unclear to many and contradictory. Also, Antlerman. A thought. In Acts, the people received the Holy Spirit, then spoke in unknown languages, until someone foreign said, Hey that's my language. He's not from my land etc. Right? God put different language into a humans mind to speak via the Holy Spirit. Right?

 

So why didn't the same Holy Spirit put the pen on the paper in 30 different languages? Because it was just writings by people that wrote about their God at their time of civilization.

[chefranden]

1. Science is exercised by subjective beings, would you say that it is subjective as well? Can we not understand science objectively since we are subjective? I guess that would go for truth as a whole, that we would never be able to understand truth since we are subjective beings, yet that concept would be self-refuting since that understanding would either be true (meaning that objective truth could be known) or false (meaning that either we are not subjective beings or that we can still know truth even though we are subjective beings). In any case it reveals the false nature of your statement and shows that we can know objective things even though we are subjective beings.[

 

Science is an attempt by subjective beings to find the objective. It is an objective fact that morals are relative, and subjective.

 

But you are semi right, you as a subjective being will never know "The Absolute Truth" if there is such a thing. The very fact of this discussion shows this. You don't know what it is, because you can't write it down. You may write God is "The Absolute Truth". That says nothing, because every believer can say the same about their god, or version of god.

 

You are semi wrong because objective things can be known. My computer is an object so it can be known, but my relationship to it is subjective. The objective thing about morals is that they are relational behaviors between subjective beings that need to be flexible to accommodate the flux of life.

 

What your statement here reveals is your inability to think outside of dogma.

 

Now, when you say morality is relative, is that always true or just true sometimes? When you say that you have a moral obligation I ask, to whom? And, why?

 

Yes is relative to what I've been trained to believe is right, and to what I have discovered is right via my subjective experiences in life. And it is relative to many other things. For example any concern I have for your well being is relatively abstract because I don't know you. If you were hungry, I probably wouldn't feed you. If my neighbor was hungry and if she told me I would feed here for she is not relatively abstract. I am in relation to her. But my behavior towards her is subject to my relations to my family. If my family is hungry, I will not feed her until my family has been fed.

 

I have no obligation to feed you. I have a sometimes obligation to feed my neighbor. I have an always obligation to feed my family. My ultimate obligation is to myself. If I want to be able to live with myself peacefully, I must feed my family. This feeling of obligation is a innate instinct.

 

2. I bring charges against God, based on what he has supposed to have said is moral. Take for example the charges brought against the goats in the depiction of the judgment day. (mt 25) For one thing the goats were charged with not feeding the hungry. There are lots of hungry people around today that God does not feed. God condemned the goats for not feeding the hungry, therefore God stands condemned for not feeding the hungry. I would expect a moral God to be at least as moral as he expects his creatures to be.

 

Now, since you have claimed that morality is absolute and objective, you need to tell us what these absolute and objective morals are. I don't know of any, but I imagine you must. Give us a list, or even just one if you will.

 

However, you need to have a higher standard than God's by which to judge him. If you say that he has violated his own standard, then one of two things is true: 1) God's nature is not the source of morality in the Bible as it is grounded in his nature and if his nature is corrupt, then so is the moral standard. Therefore, you are judging him by an invalid standard. 2) God's nature is the grounding of morality in the Bible and you have simply not understood the reasoning of the judgment and by that standard your judgment would be invalid as well. So, either way, your judgment of God ends up being invalidated. That is unless you can prove a higher objective moral standard by which God can be judged, and that you must prove.

 

Fuck you, I do not have or need a higher standard. I judge God the same way I would judge you, by your fruits as I can know them.

 

Before I go on here I'm just going to say that you are a bit of a know it all prick. It is not an argument to say that your opponent has simply not understood. I say you have simply not understood. You continually bitch that others are not making arguments, therefore you ought to be making arguments instead of your "subjective" judgments based on your self-rightiousness.

 

I am judging God by his own standards. He said that certain acts are required to be moral. He does not perform these certain acts. It does not require a higher standard to see that God does not do the acts. If you tell your spouse not to cheat on you and then you cheat on her, you are judged by your own standards. If you don't get that then "you have simply not understood the reasoning of judgment.

 

Regarding the goats, let me ask you a question - have you fed any of the hungry? How do you know that God hasn't chosen to feed the hungry through us, but we rebel and disobey him? That is why it says in Romans, "who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

 

Oh yes I have fed the hungry. I used to work at the food shelf too before I got too decrepit to lug the boxes around anymore. I haven't fed all the hungry because I don't have those sorts of resources, you know like God does.*

 

What a cockamamie piece of shit reasoning this is. Everyone can pass the buck. Well Sammy was supposed to do it. God says, "Sorry folks, I expected these Christians to feed you all, but they don't and I don't have a plan b. Therefore y'all have to suffer. Just remember if you starve before hearing about my son, you go to hell. And if you don't hear about my son, that is the Christian's fault too. I don't have a plan b for that either. I'm an idiot, but you'd better not say so, because I'll put you in hell for that too. Now go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed."

 

Absolute and objective moral values are true whether or not I, or anyone else in the world believe them to be valid. Here are a few examples, and you tell me if you find any exceptions to these standards: 1) Don't murder; 2) Don't rape; 3) Don't be a racist. If you can tell me of any situation where those actions, in and of themselves, would be OK morally to commit, I would like to hear about those situations.

 

Where does God say don't be a racist? Sorry, but that is one people made up.

 

What is murder? It is killing not sanctioned by the state. I have killed many people, but I'm not in jail because my killing was sanctioned by the US. In fact they gave me a couple of medals for it. If I had been captured by the NVA I would have been a murderer and in jail, because my killing wasn't sanctioned by the state of Vietnam. So whether or not I'm a murderer is relative to the circumstance in which I find myself. The same goes for rape, what constitutes rape here may not constitute rape elsewhere or elsewhen. For example a 16 year old couple madly in love make love with lots of consent, yet in most states these days they have both committed rape. When I was a kid they may have made us get married, but they wouldn't have considered us rapists.

 

If you read your old Testament, you will find that none of these things you listed is absolute there either.

 

By the way why didn't you mention don't be a slaver as an absolute?

 

*Edit: By the way. According to the judgment as described by Matthew's Jesus and Ezekiel I will be a sheep. Of course according to Paul I will be a goat, and every knows that Paul is the final Judge.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for clarifying. I still find it problematic to say that you have these primitive morals that derive from nature. Nature is not personal and cannot pass along oughts to us in a moral sense.

Yes and no.

 

It can not pass on "oughts" in the sense of words, language, describing concept, thoughts, meaning, etc without using those same tools or devices to do so.

 

It can however pass on oughts through encoded feelings based on how the brain is. The DNA code makes the brain a certain basic way. The amygdala gives pleasure signals if you do something good for another person (this is a recent discovery). So basic altruistic behavior (note: basic, simple, primitive) is controlled by an inborn, from birth apparatus in our brain. Same with the disgust for killing our own. The ability to control and not-to-kill-unnecessary-unless-we're-in-danger is inborn as well. It's part of the frontal lobe. We're talking about physics and biology here. Pure facts, discovered by science, and... also discovered in animals. That's what you could call Level 1 Codes of Conduct.

 

Level 2 is when you start having a form social behavior in a group. This has been discovered and recorded by scientists in packs of monkeys, wolfs, and dogs. There is a social behavior, and even systems of punishments.

 

Level 3 is when you add language and the ability to reason and build abstract thoughts. Now you are entering the meaning of the word "morality." Morality is a word that only apply to humans, because you have to be able to talk and reason to understand it. But, it is an extension of the first two levels of code of conduct. So it's not just created out of thin air or based on a magical book.

 

Sure, we can learn that if I don't eat I will starve, so I ought to eat, but that is a different kind of oughtness that is often falsely conflated with moral oughtness. Now, I am not saying that this is to what you are referring, but I have had naturalist use this false analogy. You would have to show me how nature can convey moral oughts to us.

See above.

 

Here is a second problem that I have in that naturalists automatically assume that survival is some kind of moral good, and that is an assumption for which they never give reasoning. Now, many will ask, "don't you want to survive?" as if that is proof for their point, and it is not. So, I would like to hear you defend that position. If survival, the fulfillment of needs, and the fulfillment of pleasure are the highest goods, shouldn't I do whatever I can to achieve those "goods?" For example, if I need money and I see someone getting money out of an ATM, shouldn't I just hit them over the head and take their money? If pleasure is my pursuit, I could justify the same action for that end and in essence fulfill two needs in the same act. If we are moving up the pyramid toward pure subjectivism, I can think of all sorts of acts that I could do. However, truth be told, I don't see any objective reason to believe that Maslow had it right.

 

I think that you may be confused a bit by the definition of objective vs. subjective. Let me give you my take. Objective morality is morality that is true whether I or anyone else believes it to be true. Now, there is a difference between the ontology, the epistemology, and the application of these morals. There will always be a subjective element that comes in in the application of moral values and that is clearly seen in the Bible. However, the confusion of most people is when they see a subjective element enter in in the application of morals, they will deny that objective moral values even exist, which is a fallacious assumption. For example, God said that the promise would come through the line of Jacob. Jacob was the younger son and younger sons in that culture didn't receive the first blessing of their fathers as that was always reserved for the oldest son. Jacob, with the help of his mother, set out to deceive his father and steal the blessing from his brother, which he did. Now, if Esau would have beaten Jacob to see his father and gotten the blessing, would it have thwarted God's plans? No, but God used Jacob's (which means deceiver) deceptive nature.

The problem I see with your view, and you can correct me on this, is when you have situations with very complex combination of conflicting moral codes. I think what we need to do is to look at practical examples and try to resolve them with your method and with my method, and we'll see if we end at the same place, and if we don't, then look at why. Okay?

 

God used many deceptive people to accomplish his ends. These people were morally guilty for their sin, but God still used them as they were. Sometimes I hear the story of the person who is forced to rape someone in order to save his family. The fact that the person committed the rape to save his family doesn't make the rape right, even if it accomplished an ends of saving his family. That is a lot of rambling; however, I hope that sheds some light as well.

The problem is that morality is so much more complex than you think it is. Rape is more intricate to explain why it's wrong than for instance murder, and yet murder is extremely hard to get right too. To answer that morality must be absolutely objective from the external view just because you throw that worst case scenario on the fire before you even figure out the complexity of the smaller fires first, just doesn't work. Lets start simple.

 

BTW, I wouldn't put myself in the camp of DCT as I believe that moral values derive from God's nature rather than from God's commands. DCT leaves open the possiblity that God's commands could be arbitrary, a position which I don't hold.

From what I read, you place yourself in the modified DCT camp, which states that morality is made by God, but it's made based on God's love. God loves us and nature, and hence he creates moral code fitting for that purpose. So morality is then in that view both absolute (for human kind only) and yet relative, since God then apply different codes depending on context. And it also frees God from being a moral agent, and yet through his love he will still act according to a certain level of moral code. In other words, it's the answer to give God a different kind of moral conduct. It separates God and humans, and we have two different sets of codes, and God's code is based on his love for his creation. See, I gave this one to you. I can be a nice guy sometimes.

[Antlerman]

But what follows in your statement doesn't really follow. "He basically wrote it". If it was inspired by a society writing their inspired thoughts about a god, then it's their thoughts. Yes, inspired by their beliefs in that god, however it is a long, long, long, way from those being the actual words written BY that god. It's their inspiration you hear, and that inspiration is expressed through humans all the time in music, poetry, song, dance, art, literature, and myth. There's no way you can limit "inspiration" to that one set of collected writings put together to support a set of religious doctrines.

 

I think LNC was trying to say that God's word was literally 'breathed' into the mind of the writers, and they wrote. Whereas, I say it wasn't. Why would God 'breathe' His words, making them unclear to many and contradictory.

True. A thing of note to consider also in this whole doctrine of "inspiration" is that it comes from 2 Tim 3:16, is that that book is widely recognized by scholars to not be written by Paul, so that kind of makes the whole argument moot, doesn't it?

 

However I recognize the spirit of inspiration and where it comes from. So I don't discount what it offers. I just don't take it to the extreme and say its the infallible words, or works, or an actual god.

 

More later...

[Ouroboros]

So why didn't the same Holy Spirit put the pen on the paper in 30 different languages? Because it was just writings by people that wrote about their God at their time of civilization.

That's a very good questions. I'm impressed.

 

Heck, it would have been very impressive by God if he had made one copy for each language existing at that time, but also one book/translation for each future language. Lets say we could find a Bible with modern, American English, or maybe even one in ebonics. All written 2,000 years ago, and stored in a vault. THAT would have been a miracle and most likely made us all think twice about the source.

[Abiyoyo]

True. A thing of note to consider also in this whole doctrine of "inspiration" is that it comes from 2 Tim 3:16, is that that book is widely recognized by scholars to not be written by Paul, so that kind of makes the whole argument moot, doesn't it?

 

However I recognize the spirit of inspiration and where it comes from. So I don't discount what it offers. I just don't take it to the extreme and say its the infallible words, or works, or an actual god.

 

More later...

 

Many scholars believe Tim 2 is wrote by a later follower of Paul. But, it was included in the canon, because of good ole' Paul. I can't figure that out for the life of me. Why leave out the other pseudepigraphic writings, but include Paul, Hebrews etc.? It fit the bill I guess.

[agnosticator]

Thanks for killing 2 birds with 1 stone in post #251, Hans. Now I understand where you're coming fromin regards to your usage of "morality".

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for killing 2 birds with 1 stone in post #251, Hans. Now I understand where you're coming fromin regards to your usage of "morality".

You're welcome. Wittgenstein and Reid influenced me in the sense of how language rose from the simple body-language signals. We say: "It's hurting" as a replacement of "buah-buah-buah..."

 

The same with morality, it is a progression from natural order and need, up to logical conclusions, reason, thoughts, and concepts. From material to metaphysical, in multiple small steps. Religious people wants it all to be explained in metaphysical terms, and even supernatural (yes, there is a difference between those two), but it doesn't explain the order in nature or why animals do make decisions. Yes, they do have intents, they are not robots.

 

So basically, from animal behavior evolved to not kill (too much) of their own kind, because that behavior would mean: death of species. Survival of species required, in an early phase, to have a protection/barrier against same-species-killing. Dogs don't kill other dogs, even if they can. Why? Because they evolved to not to. If they had evolved to kill each other. That's absolute conduct. Nature require this conduct for a species to exist.

 

The secondly you start having animals with body language, and you get the "boo - hooray" behavior. Primates, dogs, and other higher animals communicate with sounds, body-stance, and much more. A dog can tell if another dog is about to attack or is about to run away. They modify behavior accordingly. They make decisions based on size, strength, speed, behavior, and so on. This is a bridge from natural/biological/physical requirement of "ought" to do, into the sphere of social constructs. Now the code of conduct is an agreement and somewhere between learned and innate. The basic understanding of body posture is innate, but the response might be learned based on the individuals own strength etc. Here we have more of need level. The behavior and code of conduct is driven by need and desires.

 

Then it comes to our level where we make very complex structures and explanations to behavior, but we totally forget and remove the first two. This is the reason to the confusion and the question: "where did morality come from?" We can't exclude nature in search of the abstract concept. They co-exist, and the abstract is dependent on the natural. Hence, it is subjective, but yet a naturally objective base.

 

My real position in many of these questions is: straight in the middle of it. I'm not a pure atheist, not a pure theist, not a pure anything-ist. I believe consciousness is part of nature, or we couldn't have it. This makes nature sort of our "Creator" (but not necessarily nature is in itself conscious, only that it carries the ability of things in nature to become conscious). But I don't believe consciousness was created by an external force, because that doesn't explain anything, but rather just add unnecessary "black-box-magic" to it all.

[centauri]

The purpose for the Law was mainly to show us that we need God, because we can't keep the law completely, which is what God expects.

 

The Bible indicates that some people were able to keep the law completely.

 

Paul said that the law is a tutor to show us that we are sinners in need of a savior.

 

Paul wanted to replace the law as a vehicle for salvation.

 

Paul's speaking to food restrictions was to Jews, as Gentiles didn't have these restrictions, therefore, it wouldn't make sense that it applied to them. That is why we must take the Scriptures at face value and interpret them in light of the context, audience, history, etc.

 

Is it objectively moral to consume pork?

[mwc]

I think what you're describing is more of a God concept rising up from social setting. The Nature "God" is more like... the Universe, and whatever could exist beyond that, like Multiverse, etc. The forces of nature.

Yes, exactly. Along with everything else you said. The word "god" is problematic. I suppose the easiest solution would be to go track down the guy who coined the term/idea and ask him what he meant. It would probably be a lot easier. Work on my time machine continues.

 

mwc

[centauri]

However, you need to have a higher standard than God's by which to judge him.

 

Who are the official interpreters of what the highest standard is?

 

If you say that he has violated his own standard, then one of two things is true: 1) God's nature is not the source of morality in the Bible as it is grounded in his nature and if his nature is corrupt, then so is the moral standard.

Therefore, you are judging him by an invalid standard.

 

This is sophistry.

The Book of Objective Highest Moral Standards is grounded in the nature of God.

It states the following:

* It is always wrong to sit in chairs with no padding.

* It is always acceptable to sit in chairs with no padding.

 

These objective moral instructions are in contradiction, which would indicate a flawed absolute standard.

However, according to your reasoning, because there is a flawed standard in evidence, there is no standard that can be used to evaluate the standard being claimed as highest and absolute.

 

2) God's nature is the grounding of morality in the Bible and you have simply not understood the reasoning of the judgment and by that standard your judgment would be invalid as well.

 

But I’d wager you understand it, and I’ll bet your opinion lines up perfectly with God every time.

 

So, either way, your judgment of God ends up being invalidated.

 

In other words, your interpretations are absolute and objective because certain humans have a superior understanding of objective reality, which is the result of being attuned to “God”, which cannot be evaluated by any standard other than the highest standard, which by definition is exclusive, irrefutable, and found in your opinions.