Christianity no longer seems moral to me

[Hoping2]

Well that's good new, isn't it. Used to be that all of the countries had their own Gods. Conquest by religion is a relatively new concept.

I don't feel that more paganism than Christianity is a good thing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well that's good new, isn't it. Used to be that all of the countries had their own Gods. Conquest by religion is a relatively new concept.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the expansion of Christianity and Islam, yes?

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the expansion of Christianity and Islam, yes?

Not to mention Hinduism and even Bhuddhism!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not to mention Hinduism and even Bhuddhism!

Now these I am not familiar with.

 

[Larniavc]

True, any road that leads to Christ is a good road.

Even though that road is pathed with human skulls?

I know that’s a bit dramatic but you get my point.

 

[Larniavc]

Morals are value statements, but they cannot be allowed to vary from person to person or else the entire concept is destroyed.

Can they vary from God to person? Is God’s morality identical to human morality?

Can it be right for God to do something but wrong for a human.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now these I am not familiar with.

I confess I consulted ChatGPT, following a suspiciion that Islam and Christian societies could not be unique in the human pastime of attacking your neighbours. It seems that Hindu religion and culture were spread by the aquisitive acts of princes and maharajahs seeking to expand their realms. That is in line with my limited study of the history of the Indian subcontinent.

The Bhuddist one surprised me, but it was apparently an aspect of expanionist moves by the nominally Buddhist leaders: " the spread of Buddhism into Central Asia, China, and Southeast Asia often occurred alongside or following military campaigns and political alliances."

 

[Fervent]

Can they vary from God to person? Is God’s morality identical to human morality?

Can it be right for God to do something but wrong for a human.

Yeah, because unlike people God has perfect knowledge of every aspect that informs whether a choice is moral or not.

 

[Larniavc]

Yeah, because unlike people God has perfect knowledge of every aspect that informs whether a choice is moral or not.

Then morality is not objective.

 

[trophy33]

Yeah, because unlike people God has perfect knowledge of every aspect that informs whether a choice is moral or not.

What would moral mean in this context? Creating the best possible world? Permitting the least evil possible, only that which must happen, for some higher reasons?

I mean, saying that God does moral choices is a bit anthropomorphic. I would rather say He does the best possible choices, considering everything. We may call it "moral", but we are not adding any information with that, I think. Or, are we?

 

[Fervent]

What would moral mean in this context? Creating the best possible world? Permitting the least evil possible, only that which must happen, for some higher reasons?

I mean, saying that God does moral choices is a bit anthropomorphic. I would rather say He does the best possible choices, considering everything. We may call it "moral", but we are not adding any information with that, I think. Or, are we?

You're right, there is an anthropomorphic dimension to it. Reality is it flows the other way around, things that align with God's nature are moral while those that do not are not.

 

[Fervent]

Then morality is not objective.

Sure it is, it's just not purely deontological.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're right, there is an anthropomorphic dimension to it. Reality is it flows the other way around, things that align with God's nature are moral while those that do not are not.

God's nature is kenotic, relational, perichoretic love.

 

[trophy33]

You're right, there is an anthropomorphic dimension to it. Reality is it flows the other way around, things that align with God's nature are moral while those that do not are not.

We could say God does moral choices because His nature is perfectly good. So, the best possible choices He chooses are taking the highest possible good (His nature) into consideration.

But we would need to define "good", then. And so on. The happiness of the largest possible number of beings?

 

[David Lamb]

We could say God does moral choices because His nature is perfectly good. So, the best possible choices He chooses are taking the highest possible good (His nature) into consideration.

But we would need to define "good", then. And so on. The happiness of the largest possible number of beings?

I would say that "good" is what accords with God's nature.

 

[trophy33]

I would say that "good" is what accords with God's nature.

That is not sufficient, because "good" or "evil" are moral judgement, while God's nature is just His nature.

When we say that God is good and not evil, we add something more than just "God is as He is". Something like that He cares about the happiness of His creation.

 

[David Lamb]

That is not sufficient, because "good" or "evil" are moral judgement, while God's nature is just His nature.

When we say that God is good and not evil, we add something more than just "God is as He is". Something like that He cares about the happiness of His creation.

But it isn't just us saying the God is good; Jesus says He is good.

 

[trophy33]

But it isn't just us saying the God is good; Jesus says He is good.

Which must mean something more than just "God is God". "God is good" is a kind of moral judgement, some moral quality in God.

 

[David Lamb]

Which must mean something more than just "God is God". "God is good" is a kind of moral judgement, some moral quality in God.

If so, who is making that moral judgment?

 

[trophy33]

If so, who is making that moral judgment?

The one who is saying that. Jesus, you, me...

And what we mean by that is basically that God cares about us.