God and sin

[Locutus]

The Christian belief and my belief is that this is where the Holy Spirit will guide our actions. If we submit to God, His Spirit will guide our actions and even in a horrible situation the outcome will be good. Someone who relies on their own moral compass will undoubtably make wrong decisions that might result in further harm. This is why the belief that there is a correct action for every situation is important, however, the correct action can only come from God.

You don't have to agree with this, just try to understand.

I understand. What you're saying is that your imagination (where your god contacts you) 'guides' you to your decisions. In exactly the same way those who 'rely on our own moral compass' reach decisions.

'Undoubtedly make wrong decisions'? You mean, like ALL humans, regardless off of creed?

 

[Locutus]

No. It is the other way round.
A child will reject parents when he find a good reason to do so.
The burden is on the child, not on parents.

I truly hope you don't believe this.

The parent is ALWAYS responsible for the actions of a child. Children are blameless. I find it incredibly disturbing that there are adults out there who would blame a child for their own failings.

 

[Locutus]

I believe morality comes from God and that morality is objective. My hope is that my personal moral compass is inline with God's objective morality and I ask God to help me to do the right thing everyday.



As Christians our hope and prayer is that God would guide us in all we do. It's all about trusting in God with our lives and not trusting ourselves. Sorry if this answer is too vague for you.

It's far too vague. I'd like to know the mechanics of it. I'd also like to know how you know it's your god giving you instructions, and not someone else's god, or satan. I'd also like to know how you know you've picked the right decision? If you don't know whether you've picked the right decision - what's the point in the god element? You're effectively on the same playing field as those of us without gods.

 

[Locutus]

If I feel guilt after doing something that I didn't think was wrong at the time then I know it was actually wrong in God's view. I then honestly repent and move on.

If I feel blessed after doing something that I didn't think was good at the time, (maybe it just came naturally) then I know it was good in God's view.

Often the feeling of guilt or blessing comes after reading Gods word, where He's placing something on my heart in order to refine me.

These feelings are reliable because you can't fake the feeling of guilt and you can't fake the feeling of being blessed.

If one never feels guilt or blessing then it might mean they are far from God. It might take a tragedy in their life to wake them up and bring them closer to God.

You do realise that atheists also experience guilt and satisfaction in the same way, right? We just don't call it 'god'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...If those errors are avoided then I'm not convinced that the problem is nearly as prevalent as you say.

I don't know how prevalent it is; as someone raised Catholic myself, I can recall a few times where what the monks (supposedly God's representatives) did or told us conflicted gut-wrenchingly with what I thought was fair, right, and just. Monks and priests are human and can make mistakes, but ISTR the Bible has some instances of God's direct commands having the same effect...

... for both Aristotle and the Church the good life is objective and the search for happiness is not a relativistic affair. A human person must therefore shape themselves to achieve the end of happiness just as an athlete must shape themselves to achieve their end of excellence.

Agent-relative consequentialism?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did answer the question. You asked "When" and I told you when.

Nuh-uh; he asked, "When has it done something...", which is the past tense, not the future tense you answered with. [/pedant]

 

[Locutus]

I can recall a few times where what the monks (supposedly God's representatives) did or told us conflicted gut-wrenchingly with what I thought was fair, right, and just.

I've had pastors storm off in anger simply because I asked them to tell me why I ought to believe their god exists. I've had Christians tell my children horror stories behind my back. I've known Christians who disowned their families because the family was atheist. I've known Christian girls who had babies at age 14/15. I currently know several alcoholic Christians, and see many obese, smoking Christians outside my local megachurch. I've known and still know Christians who focus all their moral outrage on sex and trivialities (appearance, clothing, etc), while simultaneously completely disregarding the really big 'sins', like rampant consumerism and planetary destruction.

I could go on

 

[zippy2006]

I don't know how prevalent it is; as someone raised Catholic myself, I can recall a few times where what the monks (supposedly God's representatives) did or told us conflicted gut-wrenchingly with what I thought was fair, right, and just. Monks and priests are human and can make mistakes, but ISTR the Bible has some instances of God's direct commands having the same effect...

There could be places in the Bible where that happens, I can't think of any off hand.

Much of this has to do with how one understands conscience. The tradition I'm familiar with understands it primarily as a kind of habitual rational accumulation, almost like a virtue or at least a habitus. Supposing this is so, reason is in some sense sovereign over conscience, shaping and even correcting it in certain circumstances. I think most have had the experience of doing something they believe is right even when their "gut" tells them otherwise.

Agent-relative consequentialism?

Not in the least! Rather, species-relative consequentialism.

We were made to flourish, for happiness, but you know as well as I that Aristotle does not conflate happiness with pleasure. Happiness is found in possessing the good; pleasure is just an effect flowing from that possession. The same basic fact emerges from both virtue ethics and evolutionary biology.

 

[juvenissun]

I truly hope you don't believe this.

The parent is ALWAYS responsible for the actions of a child. Children are blameless. I find it incredibly disturbing that there are adults out there who would blame a child for their own failings.

Children are innocent and should be taught to obey their parents, good ones or bad ones. Children can run away from bad parents. But children should never deny or turn back to their parents.

The burden of maintaining the relationship is on children, not on parents.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A Muslim sage was asked what is piety...

"What would you do if you came to a land full or thistles?" he asked.

"I would avoid it"! was the response.

"Do that in the world it is piety (taqua)"....

 

[Locutus]

Children are innocent and should be taught to obey their parents, good ones or bad ones. Children can run away from bad parents. But children should never deny or turn back to their parents.

The burden of maintaining the relationship is on children, not on parents.

Children are clean, blank slates. If they turn on us, it's because we taught them to. They are simply doing what we programmed them to do. They know no better, because we didn't 'make' them better.

The burden - and all responsibility - is on the ADULT. How can you possibly have convinced yourself that children are to be blamed for the failings of adults?

And yes, children SHOULD reject parents who are toxic. Or at very least acknowledge the damage and put some distance between them. How very bizarre that you think obedience is more important than the pursuit of moral improvement and self preservation.

 

[juvenissun]

Children are clean, blank slates. If they turn on us, it's because we taught them to.

No. You do not tell you children that. You tell them to obey you.
If they do not, that is what they want to do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Much of this has to do with how one understands conscience. The tradition I'm familiar with understands it primarily as a kind of habitual rational accumulation, almost like a virtue or at least a habitus. Supposing this is so, reason is in some sense sovereign over conscience, shaping and even correcting it in certain circumstances. I think most have had the experience of doing something they believe is right even when their "gut" tells them otherwise.

That's an interesting point. When reason and conscience conflict there's likely to be cognitive dissonance - and if one's adopted moral philosophy suggests a third direction, it's no wonder we get confused... Perhaps this is one reason why we can be comfortable despite holding conflicting beliefs - as long as you don't focus on the conflict, everything is fine.

We were made to flourish, for happiness, but you know as well as I that Aristotle does not conflate happiness with pleasure. Happiness is found in possessing the good; pleasure is just an effect flowing from that possession. The same basic fact emerges from both virtue ethics and evolutionary biology.

Yes, well put. It just put me in mind of the difficulties utilitarians have had in defining 'the sum of human happiness' and squaring that with with the less desirable consequences of attempting that goal.

 

[quatona]

Would you punish your son if he thought you are only fictional?

No.

 

[zippy2006]

That's an interesting point. When reason and conscience conflict there's likely to be cognitive dissonance - and if one's adopted moral philosophy suggests a third direction, it's no wonder we get confused... Perhaps this is one reason why we can be comfortable despite holding conflicting beliefs - as long as you don't focus on the conflict, everything is fine.

And yet moral philosophy is built on reason (and also conscience if it is thought to be distinct from reason), so hopefully the divergence isn't too drastic.

Yes, well put. It just put me in mind of the difficulties utilitarians have had in defining 'the sum of human happiness' and squaring that with with the less desirable consequences of attempting that goal.

True. Happiness-based ethical systems seem to be the most intuitive and compelling, but modern systems like Consequentialism come from an individualistic standpoint and therefore always run up against the question of individual happiness vs. common happiness. What is needed is a robust account of the common good and the way in which the individual participates.

Aristotle avoids excessive normativity, but I think he also has an attractive understanding of the common good. It starts with his understanding that man is a social animal who belongs, by nature, in the polis. He isn't conceived simply as an individual, largely because the human intellect and specialization provide a natural ground for societal life. The polis is thus a truly common good. Each man's flourishing depends on the polis, and the flourishing of the polis depends on each man.

But unlike communism, the common good is not something apart from the good of the individual members, nor is it a mere sum as Consequentialism would have it. It is a common good privately partaken of by each member. Think of a keg of beer. Each person at the party drinks of the keg and derives personal enjoyment from the beer. But his enjoyment is not found solely in the beer, but also in the keg considered precisely as common. His joy is increased by the knowledge that others are enjoying the common good, they share in this good/joy together, and the more the merrier. ...until the kegs run dry, as do finite goods.

...but I digress. Consequentialism fails both in the way it conceives happiness and in its individualistic premises.

 

[juvenissun]

No.

Yes.

 

[quatona]

Yes.

Sorry, you don´t get to tell me what I would do.

 

[Locutus]

No. You do not tell you children that. You tell them to obey you.
If they do not, that is what they want to do.

Rubbish. Children need only be made to 'obey' parents up until around the age of reason. If you've raised them properly they will WANT to obey you after that, but will only do so if you've acquitted yourself well and have earned their respect (by respecting them). If they reject you, it's for a REASON, and you provided that reason. You also raised a child prepared to reject a parent. Both point squarely at YOU.

You seem to think children are lesser beings, and the relationship with them is all about master and servant. I'm truly sorry for you.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, you don´t get to tell me what I would do.

I will say it anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

Rubbish. Children need only be made to 'obey' parents up until around the age of reason. If you've raised them properly they will WANT to obey you after that, but will only do so if you've acquitted yourself well and have earned their respect (by respecting them). If they reject you, it's for a REASON, and you provided that reason. You also raised a child prepared to reject a parent. Both point squarely at YOU.

You seem to think children are lesser beings, and the relationship with them is all about master and servant. I'm truly sorry for you.

No. Children SHOULD obey parents.