Can morals and feelings be separated even though they are all a subjective experience?

[Adjac]

preface:
a friend said he can't identify with Christianity bc of how American slave owners forced it onto his ancestors. he said that it was a tactic used as a form of manipulation to worship whites and see them as people of power and to support white supremacy. and then i gave him the analogy of the gun and the shooter. you aren't mad at the gun but at the shooter. in other words, not Christianity but how it was used. he however says he isn't against the teachings that Christianity offers. but just because of what it represents to him (would this be relativism?)
i then stated that he was making it arbitrary. then replied with "i guess if that's how you interpret it." then i said: if i were to interpret it any other way then that would just make my assessment arbitrary too. I then told that had he had premised his position from the beginning then the conversation then it would not have continued. and then he restates that he couldn't identify as a Christian predicated upon his feelings on how it was used which would connect to his morals, which he proclaims, can't be seperated. and because everything is subjective with our experience in that you or i are needed to process things. those experiences require you. you live subjectively. so anything interpreted or take in is subjective. not saying that morals utlimately are subjective. but if this is true how does one, say, get to the objective truth of reality or God's objective truth?

 

[grasping the after wind]

preface:
a friend said he can't identify with Christianity bc of how American slave owners forced it onto his ancestors. he said that it was a tactic used as a form of manipulation to worship whites and see them as people of power and to support white supremacy. and then i gave him the analogy of the gun and the shooter. you aren't mad at the gun but at the shooter. in other words, not Christianity but how it was used. he however says he isn't against the teachings that Christianity offers. but just because of what it represents to him (would this be relativism?)
i then stated that he was making it arbitrary. then replied with "i guess if that's how you interpret it." then i said: if i were to interpret it any other way then that would just make my assessment arbitrary too. I then told that had he had premised his position from the beginning then the conversation then it would not have continued. and then he restates that he couldn't identify as a Christian predicated upon his feelings on how it was used which would connect to his morals, which he proclaims, can't be seperated. and because everything is subjective with our experience in that you or i are needed to process things. those experiences require you. you live subjectively. so anything interpreted or take in is subjective. not saying that morals utlimately are subjective. but if this is true how does one, say, get to the objective truth of reality or God's objective truth?

Morality is subjective not whimsical. It is subjective because one is making a judgement between what one considers right and wrong. It is not whimsical because it is not based upon emotion or feelings but on one's reasoned consideration of the issues involved. One does not need to involve reasoned judgement when considering objective reality. A thing is objectively seen as what it is not judged to be that. A rock is a rock. You don't pronounce it a rock based upon a judgement you make of its worth but upon the physical evidence. However, when you use your judgement to consider whether an action is morally upright or not, you must have some standard to apply other than physical evidence. One needs a basic philosophy of morality to adhere to or one is simply amoral and morality holds no meaning. Just feeling that way at the time is not a moral phiosophy. One will treat their moral philosohy as if it were an objective standard but it is arrrived at subjectively. Even what we might consider to be God's objective truth is actually a subjective standard that God has laid down because it is what He considers to be right and wrtong not beccause he has discovered it objectively to be true apart from His own will.

 

[Arc F1]

Is your friend judged based on the actions of his ancestors? Obviously not since you refer to him as a friend. Religion itself isn't bad its man that is bad and corrupt. Man has used everything at his disposal to harm others at one time or another. If history has taught us anything its that color doesn't seem to matter when it comes to being a bad person.

 

[paul1149]

We have objective moral principles that must be applied subjectively. The principles don't change, but the circumstances, and therefore the application of the principles, do.

Our covenant is of spirit, not letter, because the letter kills but the spirit gives life (2Cor 3.6). But at the same time it is also based on the bedrock revelation of God in Christ Jesus.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have gazed upon and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life:
And the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us.
That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you too may have fellowship with us. And indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. -1John 1:1-3

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. -2Pet 1:16​

Your friend can go directly to the Bible and find that it teaches the equal value of all men. And while Paul does not advocate for the abolition of slavery as a mass-movement, he does on the individual level, as the letter to Philemon shows. Paul had more important work to do, that of changing hearts, than to work on political causes. He knew that changed hearts change nations.

Your friend has a stumbling block operating in his life. It is something of lesser significance keeping him from something of greater significance. It's a stronghold, even an idol. He needs to turn to the Bible and find out what it really says about man and equality. The history of the church, and even the behavior of present-day Christians, can be a real impediment, but it is one we must get over.

 

[Adjac]

We have objective moral principles that must be applied subjectively. The principles don't change, but the circumstances, and therefore the application of the principles, do.

Our covenant is of spirit, not letter, because the letter kills but the spirit gives life (2Cor 3.6). But at the same time it is also based on the bedrock revelation of God in Christ Jesus.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have gazed upon and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life:
And the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us.
That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you too may have fellowship with us. And indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. -1John 1:1-3

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. -2Pet 1:16​

Your friend can go directly to the Bible and find that it teaches the equal value of all men. And while Paul does not advocate for the abolition of slavery as a mass-movement, he does on the individual level, as the letter to Philemon shows. Paul had more important work to do, that of changing hearts, than to work on political causes. He knew that changed hearts change nations.

Your friend has a stumbling block operating in his life. It is something of lesser significance keeping him from something of greater significance. It's a stronghold, even an idol. He needs to turn to the Bible and find out what it really says about man and equality. The history of the church, and even the behavior of present-day Christians, can be a real impediment, but it is one we must get over.

so feelings and morals can't be separate?

 

[Adjac]

so if i've analzyed this correctly, then no, feelings and morality cannot be separate.

 

[paul1149]

so feelings and morals can't be separate?

Of course they can be separate. You can love a woman and then find out she's married. Your feelings are unlikely to change instantly, but you are bound by your morals.

 

[com7fy8]

Even what we might consider to be God's objective truth is actually a subjective standard that God has laid down because it is what He considers to be right and wrtong not beccause he has discovered it objectively to be true apart from His own will.

I offer I understand what you mean. You mean what God decides is subjective relative to Himself. And you are saying God does not have an objective standard for morality, then.

But I consider how our Apostle Paul says there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). This evil spirit is what causes people to do what is anti-love. God knows which things are not what He does, but . . . objectively . . . what He knows the spirit of evil brings people to do.

Now some number of things caused by Satan's selfish spirit are not obviously causing physical pain and damage. But the spirit causing these things is degrading people in lusts and anger and frustration and stress and unforgiveness, and these things are damaging and degrading . . . anti-love.

And God knows objectively what actions and which emotions are in Satan's anti-love spirit. So, He has moral rules based on what He knows. He gives not only physically practical rules, but also emotional commandments, I would say . . . or partly emotional, and including relational. For example >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

This command seems mainly to be emotional and relational, about how we live and love inside ourselves. But Philippians 2:13-16 has things which I would say also speak to our outward behavior >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation," (in Philippians 2:13-16)

About lusts > I mean driving and dominating emotions for pleasure. God knows these dictatorial things are not His gentle and humble and sensitively caring and sharing love. So, He has rules against things which He knows objectively are driving people after pleasure, and are not making people genuine in how to relate with God and one another in His love.

Lusts can isolate a person with a pleasure and seeking it, and with whomever the person might be trying to use to get that pleasure. But even if they are fond of each other, this is not making them all-loving in tender and sensitive sharing with God. And their lust stuff does not give them "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30) which is kind and even nicer than any physical or social pleasure sensations.

And God knows objectively how people weak for a selfish pleasure are also weak for suffering pain and/or giving in to hurting themselves and others.

And Jesus says, "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" in Matthew 5:46.

This can seem subjective, but it is an objective reality how God is all-loving, by nature; so if we are picky and choosy about who we love, this keeps us from sensitively sharing with God who is all-loving; and selfish loving keeps anyone from being submissive to how God creatively, as our Creator, guides us how to love each and any person.

So, people with mainly their preference for pleasure are given commands about right from wrong, which can help us get out of that, and into sharing with God and with one another as His family.

Our Heavenly Father is about intimacy as His family . . . therefore, not being intimate with feelings and drives for pleasure and using people in isolation.

God's love does not isolate us, like that, with only a few people and certain treasure pleasures. And so, He has rules to help us to tell the difference.

 

[Hazelelponi]

preface:
a friend said he can't identify with Christianity bc of how American slave owners forced it onto his ancestors. he said that it was a tactic used as a form of manipulation to worship whites and see them as people of power and to support white supremacy. and then i gave him the analogy of the gun and the shooter. you aren't mad at the gun but at the shooter. in other words, not Christianity but how it was used. he however says he isn't against the teachings that Christianity offers. but just because of what it represents to him (would this be relativism?)
i then stated that he was making it arbitrary. then replied with "i guess if that's how you interpret it." then i said: if i were to interpret it any other way then that would just make my assessment arbitrary too. I then told that had he had premised his position from the beginning then the conversation then it would not have continued. and then he restates that he couldn't identify as a Christian predicated upon his feelings on how it was used which would connect to his morals, which he proclaims, can't be seperated. and because everything is subjective with our experience in that you or i are needed to process things. those experiences require you. you live subjectively. so anything interpreted or take in is subjective. not saying that morals utlimately are subjective. but if this is true how does one, say, get to the objective truth of reality or God's objective truth?

All morality is subjective unless there is an absolute morality that exists outside of our subjective experience.

The Christian claim is that there is indeed an absolute morality that exists outside of our subjective experience, and does then apply equally to all, since it's based in an absolute who is outside ourselves.

From within our subjective experience we aren't qualified to judge that absolute, because we ourselves don't stand outside the subjective experience and as such aren't in a position to judge it.

We can say, from a subjective experience that murdering and eating human beings is wrong, but if the subjective experience is what judges wrong verses right, then it may not be evil in someone elses subjective experience and thus we see there is no real law when we base it on our own ideas and ideals, because they are subject to change person to person and society to society.

Since God is unchanging there is not the same issues with an absolute morality which comes from Him as He is also outside of subjective experience.

Inside our subjective experience we may read our experiences/ideals into what He tells us where concerns right and wrong, but this doesn't mean He is changing it means we can and do however, that brings no fault to the door of Truth... only to our door.

 

[Jonaitis]

preface:
a friend said he can't identify with Christianity bc of how American slave owners forced it onto his ancestors. he said that it was a tactic used as a form of manipulation to worship whites and see them as people of power and to support white supremacy. and then i gave him the analogy of the gun and the shooter. you aren't mad at the gun but at the shooter. in other words, not Christianity but how it was used. he however says he isn't against the teachings that Christianity offers. but just because of what it represents to him (would this be relativism?)

He should know that those abolitionists who fought for his ancestors' emancipation and publicly denounced such cruel acts were motivated by their deep faith in Christ. William Wilberforce, Charles Spurgeon and John Newton (who formerly owned/sailed slave ships before his conversion) to name a few. There were many Christians and professing Christians who abused grace and twisted Scripture to justify it, but there were also men who fought against it based on their faith.

 

[Adjac]

Of course they can be separate. You can love a woman and then find out she's married. Your feelings are unlikely to change instantly, but you are bound by your morals.

okay, i think i understand it now. thank you so much kind sir.

 

[com7fy8]

so feelings and morals can't be separate?

Well, you can do something that is moral, but not feel like doing it. So, feelings can be separate from your morals. Or . . . you can feel like doing what is moral.

For example, God's word says to forgive, but a number of people forgive even though they don't feel like it.

But in such a case, my opinion is we need to feel like doing whatever really is moral. So, if God wants us to forgive someone, we should feel like forgiving because it is what God wants.

And let's say God wants me to be moral with a woman who is another man's wife. If I act morally with her but I do not feel like being moral with her, this can have me being weak so I am struggling and distracted and not loving her the way I should. But if I am in God's love making me glad and appreciative to be moral with her, I am stronger in real love for her.

So, I would say feelings can be separate, but it certainly can be better to be glad to be doing the morals God wants.