A question for everyone

[Bradskii]

The key word, being "all."

Infinite scenarios may be a bit of hyperbole, but "a lot" seems workable. I think if we can see things from a high enough altitude, this is just a big sandbox with boundaries to prevent all the scenarios in the infinite scheme of things. There are certainly a lot of combinations of scenarios, though.

I doubt it's a surprise that I get moral rule from the Christian Bible, which includes the Hebrew Scriptures. I do a lot of study to properly understand it in context, both written and historical. I don't normally accept anything without thought and do not normally trust other's viewpoints and interpretations, especially as time advances. I think we're responsible for the decisions we make, so I take things from this base point.

If, or "when" 2 or more Christians give you conflicting advice!? For a Christian, when such conflicting advice was received from Christians, my course has been to get educated to do my own work in the Text, find others who have done more work than me and within the original languages vs. translations, draw on the power of prayer, reflection, and more counsel as may be necessary, and as much as possible not be forced into decisions I'm not ready to make. Also, for some issues of life I do not limit myself to input from Christians, but I always seek to take the advice back to the Text.

It's best for a new Christian and even others to understand as early as possible that this is a time in history where there is a lot of immaturity in understanding in the "churches" and in my view, a lot of pseudo-Christianity.

I think 'infinite' does cover it. Because there are virtually an infinite number of variations within an almost infinite number of scenarios, a tiny change in one that might tend one to believe something is immoral as opposed to moral. The age at which one is mature enough to make decisions on sexual matters for example (not that I'm saying that there is always a definitive answer).

And it sounds like you do pretty much what I do. I examine various options, I take on board the thoughts of those who have had something to say on the matter (and that will include, but is obviously not limited to scripture). I don't accept anything without considering it myself, in context, with reference to my personal experience. Because, as you say, it is ultimately our responsibility for the decisions we make. So even though we should certainly take on board those 'in authority', an appeal to authority doesn't absolve us from that personal responsibility. So 'it is written' is just the start of a reason why one takes a specific position. It should be 'it is written, and I agree with it because...'. In other words, it needs to have been written for a very good reason. In my opinion. Because that's the only one that really counts.

 

[GDL]

I think 'infinite' does cover it. Because there are virtually an infinite number of variations within an almost infinite number of scenarios, a tiny change in one that might tend one to believe something is immoral as opposed to moral. The age at which one is mature enough to make decisions on sexual matters for example (not that I'm saying that there is always a definitive answer).

And it sounds like you do pretty much what I do. I examine various options, I take on board the thoughts of those who have had something to say on the matter (and that will include, but is obviously not limited to scripture). I don't accept anything without considering it myself, in context, with reference to my personal experience. Because, as you say, it is ultimately our responsibility for the decisions we make. So even though we should certainly take on board those 'in authority', an appeal to authority doesn't absolve us from that personal responsibility. So 'it is written' is just the start of a reason why one takes a specific position. It should be 'it is written, and I agree with it because...'. In other words, it needs to have been written for a very good reason. In my opinion. Because that's the only one that really counts.

Thanks, Bradskii.

We're all - whether Christian or not, and in agreement with the OP - human beings, people. In one sense, we all have a common origin and for the most part, a common download of morality. Thus, you as an identified Atheist, and I as not, have much in common, and some things at this point, not. As thinking human beings, our function should and do have some things in common. What we do with the commonality mainly in our earlier years dependent upon the culture we're brought up in, or the more adult years dependent upon things we seek and decide upon, and a few other factors, is another part of the story.

Although we may well have some different thoughts and ways that we fill in the "because..." that you mentioned, we're in agreement with what you say about the way it should be written. And, in actuality, when more of what is written is considered, it is written as you say. The greater context includes a word that is typically translated as "confess." But it's a compound word in the original that more literally says, "speak the same," which is reduced to mean "agree." IOW, we come to agree with what is written.

That's one thing about the word "faith" that opponents of it misrepresent and some sects seem mostly to reject. It's not blind, because we've been given a lot of information, both written and physical, that we can consider and decide if we agree with it and come to believe it. There are some more dynamics within this in regard to the Faith I agree with, but the basic dynamics for the way the human being functions in this existence is still intact.

Anyway, I appreciate the input.

 

[Astrid]

The misuse / gross equivocation of the
word " faith" is from Christians who debase
their own Faith in God with statements like
" it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God"

 

[GDL]

The misuse / gross equivocation of the
word " faith" is from Christians who debase
their own Faith in God with statements like
" it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God"

Maybe some Christians, but not all.

Likewise, there are things said by non-Chrisitians that many people don't agree with.

FWIW, I find some disagreement with both and some agreement with both.

Such hostility you have. Relax a bit.

 

[GDL]

In my opinion. Because that's the only one that really counts.

Was off to other things and this closing came to mind. I had intended to answer it.

I'll let you explain what you mean, if you so choose. If I take it one way, then I know you seek counsel, so other opinions do matter. Since we're discussing morality, then we're dealing with how we interact, so other opinions matter again. Since you and I both have a sense of personal responsibility, then in the end, it's our personal opinions that matter.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe some Christians, but not all.

Likewise, there are things said by non-Chrisitians that many people don't agree with.

FWIW, I find some disagreement with both and some agreement with both.

Such hostility you have. Relax a bit.

I didnt say all Christians.
I need to be told that?

It is, however, common as dirt.

As for your choice to concoct that my observation
reflects some unbalanced emotional state, that type
of rhetoric is also common as dirt, and comparably low.

 

[GDL]

I didnt say all Christians.
I need to be told that?

It is, however, common as dirt.

As for your choice to concoct that my observation
reflects some unbalanced emotional state, that type
of rhetoric is also common as dirt, and comparably low.

OK. Thanks for your balanced and uncommonly & comparably high-level input. It's a pleasure reading your expressed thinking and I've learned a lot from your contributions to the topic of this thread.

 

[Astrid]

OK. Thanks for your balanced and uncommonly & comparably high-level input. It's a pleasure reading your expressed thinking and I've learned a lot from your contributions to the topic of this thread.

Try for brevity. Even a few words of low snark reveals so
much about the author.

 

[Astrid]

CGL- assuming the " friendly" is sincere and the
exchange has been as light hearted as intended, then
the " friendly" is well made and fully reciprocated

 

[Bradskii]

Was off to other things and this closing came to mind. I had intended to answer it.

I'll let you explain what you mean, if you so choose. If I take it one way, then I know you seek counsel, so other opinions do matter. Since we're discussing morality, then we're dealing with how we interact, so other opinions matter again. Since you and I both have a sense of personal responsibility, then in the end, it's our personal opinions that matter.

Yes. I would say exactly the same thing. We take advice. Either by listening or reading. We look for opposing views. We balance arguments for and against and a decision is made. And we're the only ones that can make it.

 

[Tolworth John]

I can answer it now and it is completely obvious. It's inescapable. The source is existence as such.

So what is this source that caused everything to exist?

I am biased in that I would say that is God, but what do you call it and how do you interact with it?

 

[Leaf473]

So what is this source that caused everything to exist?

I am biased in that I would say that is God, but what do you call it and how do you interact with it?

I think the OP is AWOL
And that's unfortunate because I think there's some things left hanging.

As you say, why is existence the source? Existence of what? Isn't my existence reducible to my parents? Or does he mean something different by "reducible".

 

[Astrid]

I think the OP is AWOL
And that's unfortunate because I think there's some things left hanging.

As you say, why is existence the source? Existence of what? Isn't my existence reducible to my parents? Or does he mean something different by "reducible".

I doubt you would find out

 

[Leaf473]

I doubt you would find out

If you mean that you doubt that he would give us a straight, forthright answer, I agree.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

Blind post; I'm going to jump in and say that the perceptual self evident facts of reality are:

1. human beings function better collectively in groups (families, communities, nations, civilization) than they do in isolation.
2. In order to effectively coordinate and work together, it is necessary to develop a mutually agreed-upon set of rules acknowledging how each individual's decisions and actions affect others in positive or negative ways.
3. That set of rules is what we call "morality."

To this end, I partially disagree with your definition of morality, as "moral" principles are only necessary when dealing with other people -- which your definition does not acknowledge. A man marooned on a desert island doesn't need "morality" to lead a good life -- he just needs survival skills. Add another person to the island, and now moral behavior becomes an issue.

 

[Ken-1122]

So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

Humans are social creatures, we require human contact. The worse torture you can do to someone is to deprive them of all human contact. Because we require human contact, we need to live among each other. But in order to live among each other, morality is important so laws based on morality must be implemented and enforced in order for our interactions to remain peaceful

 

[TLK Valentine]

Humans are social creatures, we require human contact. The worse torture you can do to someone is to deprive them of all human contact. Because we require human contact, we need to live among each other. But in order to live among each other, morality is important so laws based on morality must be implemented and enforced in order for our interactions to remain peaceful

This is true to a point, but let's remember that morality changes, sometimes arbitrarily and unpredictably, with the will and whim of the people. Taboos come and go -- and this is not necessarily a bad thing.

We must have a care that we don't codify any of the more arbitrary mores into law -- that will make them harder to jettison when the time comes.

 

[RDKirk]

One writer argues that at its very base, moral actions are those that perpetuate the species, immoral actions are those that work against the perpetuation of the species.

Intelligent species should be able to predict and project the consequences of their actions for or against the perpetuation of the species more accurately than unintelligent species.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

I could go into a long-winded discussion as I have before on the nature of morality, but here is my abridged version:

Morality is what brings balance to the universe: evil is what causes disharmony, good is what causes harmony.

Morality is a set of rules agreed upon by a large group; without these, we would not be able to function together as a society or as a species.

Ultimately, morality is important for social structure. Also, a fluid morality is about as stable as any other fluid as a building material to found a society on, hence why religion has been such a strong factor in history. However, change is sometimes necessary. The difficulty comes in where one is getting the information for one's moral choices, and whether that information is valid.
Hence the need for a belief in a higher deity who knows all and can properly instruct.

 

[Bradskii]

Hence the need for a belief in a higher deity who knows all and can properly instruct.

How do we tell who has been given the correct instructions?