Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Some immoral quotes from the bible i'd like to ask about...
-
07-04-2009 7:54pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »No, that's what you're doing. You're correct that most people tend to do that, though of course there are limits for most people.
Really? Reading the Bible to find inspiration for how to lead my life is following a crowd? I see it as adopting a moral viewpoint for my life.AtomicHorror wrote: »If God created you, it does not follow that he has any authority over you at all. Your analogy with the state is false. If the state is immoral, you may judge it so and act in defiance of it or move elsewhere. If your father is immoral, you may judge that also.
It does follow however, that if God created the world, it is His. If it is His, we should indeed follow by his rules and regulations while we dwell in it. If you were in my house, I'd expect you to respect my authority while you were there. If you are drunk and disorderly on the street you can expect to be arrested by the State authorities. Likewise, we can expect to be judged by the Almighty at the Final Judgement for our violations of His laws after we have dwelt upon the earth.AtomicHorror wrote: »Why not? Is your judgement not binding?
Of course it isn't. I'm a mere individual. My words are just that, my words. Nobody else is obliged to accept them. However people are obliged to follow the laws of the State due to the fact they have the power to punish offenders. We have yet to see, but we are obliged to follow the laws of God, because God has the authority and the power to punish us.
It follows that if:
1) God created the world.
Then:
2) God knows the attributes of His creation.
3) God knows what is best for us while living in His creation as He is indeed the architect of it.AtomicHorror wrote: »But the law is not an objective absolute! Laws differ between states. It's the product of the will of the people. There's no chaos because of the normalising effect of society. The law is constructed in a manner I would view as ideal for morality, and indeed this is exactly how collective morality is formed.
Laws do differ slightly between states, there is an affinity between what is generally punished, but there are differences in how they are punished. It seems to me that morality is relatively consistent, but the penalties are different. I'm not a Calvinist, but in his Institutes of Religion Calvin deals with this quite extensively from what I've flicked through of it.AtomicHorror wrote: »That assumes that people have no common values. The evidence says that they do have common values.
This is kinda shooting yourself in the foot though. Common values indicate that there is a common source, or a common indicator for while we should live that way.
To me it is as follows:
1) There exists a Moral Law which is by and large consistent between groupings in society.
2) Every law has a law giver.
3) The Moral Law has a Moral Law giver (God).AtomicHorror wrote: »I don't understand what you mean by that.
The reason for condemning the Rwandan Genocide can only happen if you believe that your moral maxims should indeed be the objective norm. That's the only way you can condemn another. You think that they and all others should follow the norm that you have set. As such you are arguing that if there were such a God's eye view, that it would be objectively wrong to do what they are doing. (Thank God for Moral Philosophy lectures
)AtomicHorror wrote: »What is your evidence for either assertion?
Relative morality is too tolerant to work in practice. In it's strictest form you have to concede that even if you deem something to be horrible, it is only your opinion and it could be right for them. I've explained the understanding of condemnation in response to your previous quote. That can't work unless you think that something should be wrong across the board. There is no point in condemning someone if it only applies to you.AtomicHorror wrote: »That's the Kant talking. It would certainly be convenient for categorical imperatives to exist, but that does not mean that they do exist.
In fairness, the chap is a legend. Morality doesn't make sense without moral absolutes.AtomicHorror wrote: »That's the whole argument we're having here. You're unable to conceive of morals as anything other than objective rules. In my view they are nothing of the sort and never have been.
You're right. They don't make sense apart from if they are binding on everyone. Relative morality means that people should actually keep their gob shut because they well could be wrong about morality. I personally don't think that I am wrong to condemn rape. Under relative morality though you would have to concede, well for him, it could have been great craic, and it could be very pleasurable.
You can have no definitive definition of what is good, or what is evil if they are only your own. How can you be sure if you know what good or evil even are, or if you are mistaken?AtomicHorror wrote: »It's also a set of agreed rules, social contracts, laws. We even agree upon some core values, in as much as that is possible.
Gilbert Harman argues the same. I've explained the affinity with the laws. It's interesting, Paul the Apostle deals with the same subject in Romans chapter 2.Romans 2:13-16 wrote:For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.AtomicHorror wrote: »We've gone way off topic though. My original point is that we see morality very differently and that those differences are not reconcilable. I think between us we've illustrated my point neatly. If we're going to talk morality further I think a new thread would be in order.
Don't you know every thread on Boards goes off topic. It's nothing new
0 -
-
Really? Reading the Bible to find inspiration for how to lead my life is following a crowd? I see it as adopting a moral viewpoint for my life.
Are you selective about that adoption at all?It does follow however, that if God created the world, it is His. If it is His, we should indeed follow by his rules and regulations while we dwell in it. If you were in my house, I'd expect you to respect my authority while you were there.
That analogy is no good. Even if I had no choice to enter your house, I'd be able to leave you house if I found your rules unacceptable. Where can I go if I disagree with God? He's left me no option. Obey or be damned.Of course it isn't. I'm a mere individual. My words are just that, my words. Nobody else is obliged to accept them. However people are obliged to follow the laws of the State due to the fact they have the power to punish offenders.
Yes but those laws are the product of our collective morality, crossing faiths and moral philosophies. So thats one way that our judgement is binding. The other, for lesser immoralities, is social condemnation, exclusion, etc.Laws do differ slightly between states, there is an affinity between what is generally punished, but there are differences in how they are punished. It seems to me that morality is relatively consistent, but the penalties are different. I'm not a Calvinist, but in his Institutes of Religion Calvin deals with this quite extensively from what I've flicked through of it.
Yes, but we disagree on why this is so. You maintain that the source of common morality, and the laws of man which follow those, is God. Since nothing seems to change regardless of how religious a society is, I tend to see it as simply the reflection of common values intrinsic to humans. Those wont be universally consistent but would be subject to some sort of distribution about a mean, which is sufficient.This is kinda shooting yourself in the foot though. Common values indicate that there is a common source, or a common indicator for while we should live that way.
The common source is that we're all biologically, psychologically and emotionally quite similar. Or at least generally situated around various means. It would be shooting myself in the foot to suggest that there were no such common values, because then we'd really need an authority-based morality system to keep society in one piece.To me it is as follows:
1) There exists a Moral Law which is by and large consistent between groupings in society.
2) Every law has a law giver.
3) The Moral Law has a Moral Law giver (God).
We don't need need a "height giver" to give humans an average height of about 5'8" feet distributed around that mean in a Gaussian curve. Or the the same for intelligence distributed around a mean IQ of 100. So why does there need to be an intelligent giver of morals?The reason for condemning the Rwandan Genocide can only happen if you believe that your moral maxims should indeed be the objective norm. That's the only way you can condemn another. You think that they and all others should follow the norm that you have set. As such you are arguing that if there were such a God's eye view, that it would be objectively wrong to do what they are doing. (Thank God for Moral Philosophy lectures)
I get that making a moral argument against genocide requires common ground between myself and the audience. I think that moral norms exist and that norms are objective, albeit subject to distribution. I just don't think they have anything to do with God and that they are the product of many subjective moralities. So in a way, I guess you've argued me around to accepting the requirement for some objective morality there, but I maintain it is the product of collective subjective morals rather than being a real absolute.Relative morality is too tolerant to work in practice. In it's strictest form you have to concede that even if you deem something to be horrible, it is only your opinion and it could be right for them. I've explained the understanding of condemnation in response to your previous quote. That can't work unless you think that something should be wrong across the board. There is no point in condemning someone if it only applies to you.
Setting aside my concession that some objective construct is needed, where's the evidence that Godless morality, based upon our (broadly) shared values and acceptance of them as being also subjective, (inhale) does not work?In fairness, the chap is a legend. Morality doesn't make sense without moral absolutes.
You mean, it doesn't make sense to you? I get that you hold Kant in high regard, but I can't say I really agree with much of what he says. Didn't Kant assert that to lie to a murderer about the location of his intended victim would be immoral as it entailed treating the murderer as if he lacked moral agency? Sociopathic people don't have values that conform to our shared norms (they fall into the tails of a normal distribution), and so although their moral agency may be the same as ours, they're not at mentally similar to us. I think Kant's moral philosophy is a product of a time before we understood things like the origin of values. I mean, this is a moral philosophy that predates Darwin, Freud... and which was conceived at a time when psychology that considered biology was brand new and not well accepted.You're right. They don't make sense apart from if they are binding on everyone. Relative morality means that people should actually keep their gob shut because they well could be wrong about morality. I personally don't think that I am wrong to condemn rape. Under relative morality though you would have to concede, well for him, it could have been great craic, and it could be very pleasurable.
I'm not sure what I'm talking about could really be called "relative morality". More "agreed morality", which means that it's fluid depending on the subjective moralities of the collective of people that adopts it. The way you put it sorta suggests no feedback to us from the social norm too, which I think is a very significant influence on subjective morals.0 -
-
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Are you selective about that adoption at all?
I believe certain Torah laws to be fulfilled:
1) Legal laws - the Torah bound State of Israel no longer exists. The Sanhedrin is no longer in practice. Jesus is the High Priest and the Judge of the Torah. Christians are also encouraged to be subservient to the states where they live in. This was a result of Christianity being a faith for both Gentiles and Jews alike.
2) Ceremonial laws - like animal sacrifice has been fulfilled by Christ's role in atoning for the sins of mankind.
3) Torah judgements that Jesus speaks of in the Gospels and their effect on previous laws in the Torah. Such as Jesus extending the laws concerning murder to anger, or extending the laws of adultery to lust amongst others.
I personally hold that Moral Torah is binding on all Christian men. I think it is reasonable to say that there is a difference between Christian and Jewish understandings of the Torah and the Tanakh in several respects.AtomicHorror wrote: »That analogy is no good. Even if I had no choice to enter your house, I'd be able to leave you house if I found your rules unacceptable. Where can I go if I disagree with God? He's left me no option. Obey or be damned.
It's like laws though. If I lived in Saudi Arabia and I stole I could expect to lose a hand, if I did the same here I could expect to be in jail. Either way it seems to be obey or be damned, or obey or something will happen to your detriment.AtomicHorror wrote: »Yes but those laws are the product of our collective morality, crossing faiths and moral philosophies. So thats one way that our judgement is binding. The other, for lesser immoralities, is social condemnation, exclusion, etc.
Yes, that's all well and good, you go on about collective morality, but all morality must have some form of source. It's not as if it is by magic that we have the moral inclintations that we do. I believe it is because humans have a sense of morality written on their hearts and in their consciences, however in some cases people can mute them out after time which leads people to carry out crimes, or perform grossly immoral deeds. I feel personally that my natural conscience was reawoken when I personally accepted Jesus into my life.AtomicHorror wrote: »Yes, but we disagree on why this is so. You maintain that the source of common morality, and the laws of man which follow those, is God. Since nothing seems to change regardless of how religious a society is, I tend to see it as simply the reflection of common values intrinsic to humans. Those wont be universally consistent but would be subject to some sort of distribution about a mean, which is sufficient.
How does nothing seem to change though? Many people who I have known as Christians have reported to me that people have seen a profound change in the way that they live and the way that they operate. People have also told me the same thing. What am I to put this down to though? It seems coincidental that these comments seemed to come after my choice to adopt Christianity as my own.
You say that these reflect the common values intrinsic to humans, but you are stopping short here. What is the source, how did we get these laws, why do we have consciences responsive to these things?AtomicHorror wrote: »The common source is that we're all biologically, psychologically and emotionally quite similar. Or at least generally situated around various means. It would be shooting myself in the foot to suggest that there were no such common values, because then we'd really need an authority-based morality system to keep society in one piece.
Sounds like stuff I've heard from Jurgen Habermas, and Edith Stein. Value theory tends to start from the common source of humanity. However this doesn't explain why moral systems have been rather similar in the world since their emergence. People could surely come to very different conclusions from merely the understanding of our humanity. I think the most crucial thing in all of this is that we understand that there is some external responsibility to our fellow man and that we have an ordained duty to eachother.AtomicHorror wrote: »We don't need need a "height giver" to give humans an average height of about 5'8" feet distributed around that mean in a Gaussian curve. Or the the same for intelligence distributed around a mean IQ of 100. So why does there need to be an intelligent giver of morals?
Height is rather different to morality in fairness to you. There needs to be an intelligent giver of morals just like there needs to be a programmer for a computer program, or there needs to be a writer for a page to be written upon. We must have a source if we are appealing to eachother that you should know better, what is telling the other that they should know better? It certainly can't be you because that would be a failed appeal to authority, as who are you to say that your subjective morality applies to another person as well as you, surely they have the right to form their own subjective morality.AtomicHorror wrote: »I get that making a moral argument against genocide requires common ground between myself and the audience. I think that moral norms exist and that norms are objective, albeit subject to distribution. I just don't think they have anything to do with God and that they are the product of many subjective moralities. So in a way, I guess you've argued me around to accepting the requirement for some objective morality there, but I maintain it is the product of collective subjective morals rather than being a real absolute.
You're getting so close to my understanding now. We have this common ground, however we have to ask why is this common understanding there. As for collective subjective morals, you hold a very similar view to Gilbert Harman whose view is basically that morals are a form of contract with another people. It doesn't explain though that groups of people that have been separated due to racial divisions in the past often had notable similarities in their morality systems. What caused them to form these similarities if they weren't in direct communication with eachother? We would have to assume another source wouldn't we?AtomicHorror wrote: »Setting aside my concession that some objective construct is needed, where's the evidence that Godless morality, based upon our (broadly) shared values and acceptance of them as being also subjective, (inhale) does not work?
Wheres the evidence that it does? (Can't prove a negative! hah)
In seriousness however, the removal and separation of cultures doesn't make it likely that it came merely from humans. This intuition was at the very least a law similar to the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and through experimentation and revelation the Moral laws of the universe became known to us. Problem is, what caused these laws to exist in the first place. I'd be the first to say I believe it was certainly God.AtomicHorror wrote: »You mean, it doesn't make sense to you? I get that you hold Kant in high regard, but I can't say I really agree with much of what he says. Didn't Kant assert that to lie to a murderer about the location of his intended victim would be immoral as it entailed treating the murderer as if he lacked moral agency? Sociopathic people don't have values that conform to our shared norms (they fall into the tails of a normal distribution), and so although their moral agency may be the same as ours, they're not at mentally similar to us. I think Kant's moral philosophy is a product of a time before we understood things like the origin of values. I mean, this is a moral philosophy that predates Darwin, Freud... and which was conceived at a time when psychology that considered biology was brand new and not well accepted.
Well relative morality has failed, quite profoundly too, and it can be dangerous if it is accepted widely.AtomicHorror wrote: »I'm not sure what I'm talking about could really be called "relative morality". More "agreed morality", which means that it's fluid depending on the subjective moralities of the collective of people that adopts it. The way you put it sorta suggests no feedback to us from the social norm too, which I think is a very significant influence on subjective morals.
You mean kind of contractual based morality, I've dealt with this above.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement