Ethics

[drich0150]

So you would not agree that ethics are questions concerning the wellbeing of sentient creatures?

Again you misunderstand the meaning and or the nature/use of the term.

"Ethics" are anything we deem them to be. they are not directly related to God by scripture. so that means we can literally use them in any context we wish. Trying to apply ethics to God is like accounting for the volume of this world's ocean by counting out one shot glass of liquid at a time. So to apply this finite term to describe one aspect of an infinite God is a fools errand. More over trying to equate one man's idea or likeness to his understanding or estimation of God's "goodness" to his own actions is not something we can, or have been given charge to judge.

This is a foolish question originally penned a very "limited" philosopher.

 

[ericlawrence]

Again you misunderstand the meaning and or the nature/use of the term.

"Ethics" are anything we deem them to be. they are not directly related to God by scripture. so that means we can literally use them in any context we wish. Trying to apply ethics to God is like accounting for the volume of this world's ocean by counting out one shot glass of liquid at a time. So to apply this finite term to describe one aspect of an infinite God is a fools errand. More over trying to equate one man's idea or likeness to his understanding or estimation of God's "goodness" to his own actions is not something we can, or have been given charge to judge.

This is a foolish question originally penned a very "limited" philosopher.

But the volume of the ocean could theoretically be measured that way, however tedious it may be. If you're going to say that "ethics are anything we deem them to be" then I think it's fair to ask that we agree on a common definition before we go any further. As I understand the term, it is questions regarding the wellbeing of sentient creatures. The issue I've brought up is not whether or not it is fair to apply ethics to god. What I mean to discuss is the result of applying ethical standards to god. More specifically, are ethics based on god's word or, if not, is god's word ethical?

 

[solarwave]

Does god command things because they are ethical? Or are things ethical because they are commanded by god?

God commands things because they are ethical, otherwise ethics would be arbitrary.

I'll also say God and morality are the same thing though, since I think God doesn't exist within reality, but is reality and so the fundementals of reality (logic and morality, etc) are one with God in some sense.

We don't have to run in this direction, as I tend to find the evil of the New Testament exceeding that of the Old.

How so?

 

[drich0150]

But the volume of the ocean could theoretically be measured that way, however tedious it may be.

If the earth's surface is more than 50% water then where would "we" displace the water that had already been measured? I think it more accurate to say we could approximate the earths ocean's volume by ounces, rather than say it is physically or even theoretically possible to actually undertake this task.

If you're going to say that "ethics are anything we deem them to be" then I think it's fair to ask that we agree on a common definition before we go any further.

That's just it. we can not because "ethics" are subjective to one's moral code. if we can not agree the God is or has set that standard then "we" can only acknowledge the use of a sliding scale.

As I understand the term, it is questions regarding the wellbeing of sentient creatures. The issue I've brought up is not whether or not it is fair to apply ethics to god. What I mean to discuss is the result of applying ethical standards to god. More specifically, are ethics based on god's word or, if not, is god's word ethical?

Again ethics having no concrete foundation it can be whatever your specific philosophy says "Ethics" are. Because it is a term derived by man used in the personal judgment of other men and their works or deeds. This is not something we are called to do.. Let alone Judge God's works by man's "ethical" standard... Do you not see the foolishness in all of this? Who are we to judge God by our own standard?

 

[razeontherock]

In any case, the god of Abraham appears to go above and beyond the call of protecting and preserving his chosen people - instructing them to kill "every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him" and to keep only the young virgins for themselves (for reasons best left unspecified).

If your question is sincere, you can find this addressed with all the info I've come across in a thread in CWR I started called "Maltheism and Numbers 31."
(You would be the first thinking NC to contribute there, the people this was designed to engage apparently balked at information overload and were unable to process it)

Ethics are questions regarding the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Part of my argument is that the wellbeing of sentient creatures is not subjective.

And this is where we will have nothing but communication breakdown. If this is your definition of ethics, G-d is most certainly unethical. This is spelled out in the most black and white terms possible, at every step of the Covenant He has extended to mankind. (The first 2 being the garden of Eden and then the flood)

One common complaint in our Outreach section is "God is anthropomorphic." I feel like a broken record pointing out that He is not, and perhaps you can already recognize the truth of this? Our wellbeing is not His goal; indeed, it would be quite ego-centric to posit that it should be.

 

[razeontherock]

There isn't a circumstance that I can imagine in which the abduction and rape of innocent children could be considered ethical. In the case that such a circumstance does indeed exist, I would need this to be demonstrated to me prior to acting out such a heinous commandment.

Nice way of putting it! This isn't what happened though, so I'm having difficulty deciding whether to term it a strawman or a red herring

As you may have guessed, I don't accept anything worth mentioning on faith alone - especially the ethical implications of rape and murder. If asked by the creator of the universe to gut my own child - or even to revere the man who would, as all monotheists are asked to do

Wait no - STOP. This is not only strawman and red herring, but going for pure shock value as well.

In which case he isn't both omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

That false "omni-benevolent" nonsense is something I've successfully refuted in these parts quite a bit. There's been a rash of it. Where'd you ever get such a silly notion? I mean, is it contagious? How many Scriptures does it take to disprove it to you, or are you willing to merely take my word for it?

 

[razeontherock]

By what predefined standard of morality is this commandment based on?

G-d Himself. This is the direction to get the answers to your underlying question, at least in this thread.

 

[razeontherock]

My stance is that the origins of life can be attributed to entirely natural (as oppose to supernatural) causes.

To determine the natural cause is merely to know the mechanics of how G-d did it.

 

[razeontherock]

"Ethics" are terms and conditions defined by man in an effort to encapsulate a very specific essence of God. To ask your question is to not understand the basic nature of "Ethics."

(Because ethics are not commanded in scripture, they are simply identified by man as being ethical, which again is an alignment of one's works to the attribute of a specific nature of God.)

Once again Drich comes through with

NAIL. ON. THE. HEAD!

 

[razeontherock]

As I understand the term, it is questions regarding the wellbeing of sentient creatures. The issue I've brought up is not whether or not it is fair to apply ethics to god.

And how would this be done? Will you bind up the wind in your fist? Will you ascend into heaven to bring Him down? Whatever decision you may make on the matter, how would it become significant?

More specifically, are ethics based on god's word or, if not, is god's word ethical?

I think you have entered the grey shady situational ethics. G-d's righteous Judgment is not concerned with mankind's well-being, but ... (wait for it) ... G-d's Righteousness.

Mercy is more attuned to our well-being. Interesting how often the phrase "Lord have Mercy" is used in Liturgical settings ...

 

[ericlawrence]

God commands things because they are ethical, otherwise ethics would be arbitrary.

I'll also say God and morality are the same thing though, since I think God doesn't exist within reality, but is reality and so the fundementals of reality (logic and morality, etc) are one with God in some sense.

When you say "God doesn't exist within reality, but is reality" - what do you mean by this? This doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. Would you be able to expand on this notion?

How so?

In short: The introduction of eternal punishment for minor transgressions. The introduction of an eternal kingdom subject to an eternal rule. The further introduction of thoughtcrime into Jewish law (lust in your heart is adultery). The celebration of blood atonement and scapegoating. And the notion that I am bound and indebted to a sacrifice that, had I been there, would have done all my power to prevent.

 

[Uncle Floyd]

Does god command things because they are ethical? Or are things ethical because they are commanded by god?

The simple answer is "yes". Both are true in their own way.

God commands us as He does because we were created to display God's communicable attributes to Creation. God's commands guide us in doing that and when we break God's commands, because we are little representatives of God's character, we are, in essence, slandering Him. That's why He takes sin so seriously.

God's commands are based on His character and His character is, by its very nature, "ethical".

Therefore, His commands are ethical because He is ethical.

 

[solarwave]

When you say "God doesn't exist within reality, but is reality" - what do you mean by this? This doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. Would you be able to expand on this notion?

Well you can't think of God as a man in the sky for this to make sense. Well I suppose you could say, God is the 'consciousness' of whatever you think the foundations of reality are. If we just take logic and morality, instead of having them as cold hard laws, they would exist within a 'mind'. I would also say that God holds everything in existance, so everything is linked to God.

I probably could explain this better, but it is a hard thing to explain. Maybe if you told me your problems with it if you still find it doesn't make sense to you.

In short: The introduction of eternal punishment for minor transgressions. The introduction of an eternal kingdom subject to an eternal rule. The further introduction of thoughtcrime into Jewish law (lust in your heart is adultery). The celebration of blood atonement and scapegoating. And the notion that I am bound and indebted to a sacrifice that, had I been there, would have done all my power to prevent.

I would say that simplified pop theology isn't necessarily the full truth. A lot of things people say about God are likely simplified version of what is going on so that people can easily relate to it.

So I would say hell (which I don't think is eternal pain which is sick) is for those who finally choose evil over good (and I'm not saying all non-christians choose evil). So what I am saying is that you seem to be arguing against an understanding of Christianity which not everyone accepts and is likely an easier understanding to argue against.

An eternal kingdom of goodness ruled by Goodness Himself is evil?

I would say the thought crime does express an ethic which alot of people would agree with. I would say it moves from the letter of the law closer to the spirit of the law. For example if you try to do good and accidently kill someone are you more evil than someone who fully intends to kill someone, but failed for some reason? Obviously intention matters and it is better to love someone than to hate them.

Next you talk about Penal Substitution. I used to believe this, then I went against it, now I see how it can be true to some extent. I mean don't take the metaphor beyond how far the metaphor works. There have been many understandings of Jesus' death on the cross and not all are blood sacrifice ones. Different understandings of what happened can help, but perhaps have their limit too.

Anyway I just said all that not necessarily to convince you, just to show that there are other understandings of the NT that you might like more.

 

[ddjones1230]

.

 

[ericlawrence]

yeah? can I hear your stance on that? just curious, is all.

Of course. While I can't speak as eloquently on the subject as say a biologist can, my basic understand is this: There is a process that exists within nature that allows for the construction of complex molecular machines. There are simple molecular compounds which are able to self-replicate. The DNA molecule for one. What it does, is makes a near exact copy of itself. The properties of the original can be found in the copy. We call this heredity. But DNA is not a perfect replicator. It occasionally makes a mistake. New traits can be introduced and old traits can be thrown away. An organism's traits can sometimes have a positive or negative effect on its ability to make copies of itself. Occasionally a positive trait will arise and will be copied into the organism's offspring. The offspring will most likely pass this trait along to their offspring as well. The prominence of the trait has now grown exponentially. We call this process natural selection - the simultaneous existence of 3 things: heredity, copy mistakes (mutations), and the fact that traits can influence an organism's ability to reproduce. With this method, nature slowly (at least relative to our lifetimes) builds more and more complex replicators.

This is a very bare-bones explanation but i'd be willing to go into more length if you have any questions or issues.

And here is the eloquent explanation, if you're still interested.

YouTube - Carl Sagan - Evolution

Beautiful!

 

[ericlawrence]

Well you can't think of God as a man in the sky for this to make sense. Well I suppose you could say, God is the 'consciousness' of whatever you think the foundations of reality are. If we just take logic and morality, instead of having them as cold hard laws, they would exist within a 'mind'. I would also say that God holds everything in existance, so everything is linked to God.

I probably could explain this better, but it is a hard thing to explain. Maybe if you told me your problems with it if you still find it doesn't make sense to you.

I understand what you are saying. I was under the impression that beliefs of this kind were better encompassed within pantheism rather than theism - or Christianity in general, which centers around a personal creator who created man in his own image. Would the god that you describe be capable of intervening in human affairs (such as answering prayers)?
Also curious; What leads you to believe in the existence of a sort of "universal consciousness"? Is it a scriptural interpretation or something else?

I would say that simplified pop theology isn't necessarily the full truth. A lot of things people say about God are likely simplified version of what is going on so that people can easily relate to it.

So I would say hell (which I don't think is eternal pain which is sick) is for those who finally choose evil over good (and I'm not saying all non-christians choose evil). So what I am saying is that you seem to be arguing against an understanding of Christianity which not everyone accepts and is likely an easier understanding to argue against.

Well, not being a Christian myself, I'm only basing my understanding on the texts themselves and - to a lesser extent - the words of those who claim to be able to speak on behalf of the creator. There are a seemingly infinite number of conflicting interpretations of god. I can't possibly hope to address them all in a single post.

An eternal kingdom of goodness ruled by Goodness Himself is evil?

I haven't been convinced it's a kingdom of goodness.

I would say the thought crime does express an ethic which alot of people would agree with. I would say it moves from the letter of the law closer to the spirit of the law. For example if you try to do good and accidently kill someone are you more evil than someone who fully intends to kill someone, but failed for some reason? Obviously intention matters and it is better to love someone than to hate them.

I can't find the punishment of thought to be well intended, or at least not very well thought out. A thought is not something that can be prevented. What would it even mean to choose your thoughts before they enter your head? These are laws you will never truly be able to obey; therefor you will always be subject to their penalty. This is the signature of a tyrant.

Next you talk about Penal Substitution. I used to believe this, then I went against it, now I see how it can be true to some extent. I mean don't take the metaphor beyond how far the metaphor works. There have been many understandings of Jesus' death on the cross and not all are blood sacrifice ones. Different understandings of what happened can help, but perhaps have their limit too.

Well, for the purpose of conversation I'm referring to the standard Biblical interpretation - that Jesus Christ was sent to die on the cross to relieve us of our sins. This was actually a common bronze and iron age practice, one known as scapegoating. You pile the sins of the tribe onto a goat and you drive him out into the desert to die with them. The idea here is that only a human scapegoat would be sufficient. I don't accept the premise. My sins do not disappear with the death of another. Blame cannot be externalized and even if it could it wouldn't be morally sound to do so. There is a further implication; I'm told that I must accept this sacrifice. I'm told that it was I who drove in the nails. If I refuse to accept this I do so on pain of death and everlasting torture. Again, this is a tyrannical act.

Anyway I just said all that not necessarily to convince you, just to show that there are other understandings of the NT that you might like more.

And forgive me for being rather brash. I'm sure many people understand the events differently; I'm merely giving you my response to the hypothetical.

 

[razeontherock]

the notion that I am bound and indebted to a sacrifice that, had I been there, would have done all my power to prevent.

This deserves some comment. You've heard of Peter? Do you realize he was the leader because he was a big, burly dude? What did he do to try to prevent the crucifixion? What could he have done?

Now you saying you would have tried to prevent it, either that means you would've been Jesus' follower, or you would've tried to prevent every Roman crucifixion. I think you need to re-evaluate your stance!

 

[razeontherock]

I can't find the punishment of thought to be well intended, or at least not very well thought out. A thought is not something that can be prevented. What would it even mean to choose your thoughts before they enter your head? These are laws you will never truly be able to obey; therefor you will always be subject to their penalty. This is the signature of a tyrant.

This is actually NOT what Scripture teaches! Not only do I realize how this mistake can be made, but I myself was "tyrannized" by this exact wrong thinking for some time, before learning better. An old saying (that didn't really correct my thinking but might at least help you to see the logic) is "you can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you don't have to let them build a nest in your hair."

 

[ericlawrence]

This deserves some comment. You've heard of Peter? Do you realize he was the leader because he was a big, burly dude? What did he do to try to prevent the crucifixion? What could he have done?

Now you saying you would have tried to prevent it, either that means you would've been Jesus' follower, or you would've tried to prevent every Roman crucifixion. I think you need to re-evaluate your stance!

Not at all. I was careful to say that I would have done all in my power to prevent it - which may very well have been nothing. I would have been opposed to every roman crucifixion - as I am opposed to every Islamic honor killing and every American death sentence. It wouldn't matter to me if he was a deluded, charismatic rabbi or the son of god - I wouldn't have supported the execution of a human being - especially not under the guise of a human sacrifice to god.

 

[ericlawrence]

This is actually NOT what Scripture teaches! Not only do I realize how this mistake can be made, but I myself was "tyrannized" by this exact wrong thinking for some time, before learning better. An old saying (that didn't really correct my thinking but might at least help you to see the logic) is "you can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you don't have to let them build a nest in your hair."

I still have issues. If I understand you correctly you're saying that it is not punishable that the thought enter your head - but that you continue to think it. I fear thing brings us to the closely related Orwellian practice of doublethink. You are still be asked to perform a sort of mental gymnastics and suppress an otherwise healthy thought or emotion (say, lust).