Is morality objective, even without God?

[Fervent]

You have the conclusion in the premise.

I know, I wasn't trying to make a valid argument. Just one with the appearance of validity, it was meant to be illustrative of what a moral argument might look like.

 

[o_mlly]

Well it's self evident or it isn't. If it's morally self evident....why would they need to eat the fruit to understand that they're naked?

The story seems to be suggesting either God wasn't perfectly clear about the fruit....or perhaps the fruit was some other understanding....sentience itself perhaps.

Before disobeying, Adam and Eve were in friendship with God and, in their innocence, nakedness was not shameful. At the moment of disobeying, they lost innocence and, being ashamed of their sin, also became aware of their nakedness. And they hid.

God's command was clear, "‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” The snake tempts their pride and lies saying, “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”

The story tells us that the sin of pride goes before the Fall.

It appears logically contradictory. Did they understand good and evil before they ate the fruit or not?

They knew that God forbade touching or eating the fruit from that tree, and they understood His command. On willfully disobeying God, they came to know evil. Shame and guilt are not synonyms; a sense of shame (they hid) precedes the sense of guilt (awareness of one's evil act). Parents, at least this parent, understand a somewhat similar process in their children.

Well I don't know who you're hanging out with....but God hasn't popped out of the bushes around my house anytime I've been alive.

Still looking for your own backyard resurrection?

This original sin of understanding morality is what they are atoning for, is it not?

Surely it's not disobeying God. We all do that in far worse ways.

Seems a bit muddled to me. There is no evil in understanding morality, right? The evil is in knowing and willfully disobeying. For that evil act, we ought to seek atonement.

The simplicity of the story makes clear that they disobeyed, and they were culpable for their disobedience. Judging horrific sin in others would be more complicated and not as clearly instructive.

Exactly. That way they can understand them....before they risk any transgression and the consequences of our judgment. The explanation has to be understood. Sometimes it's difficult for a young child....or someone who doesn't speak the language...right?

? The story does not indicate any misunderstanding of the command.

To do so willfully requires that understanding. You're not merely suggesting a course of action as advice....you're describing a relational expectation in behavior. It's not, for example, a suggestion because the fruit is bitter and unpleasant. It's an explanation of acceptable and forbidden....good and bad....because of where they are and who makes the rules....right? Indeed....which seems rather unjust without any understanding.

Again, they understood. Good behavior subsists in keeping the commandment, bad behavior, in not keeping the commandment.

It's a story. The instruction is sub-text.

• God is the authority.
• Mankind is subject to that authority.
• The commands are not punishments but rules to experience a good life, a life well-lived.
• If we disobey, the negative effects we experience are in this life.

Yet still ignorant of morality?

No, they were not ignorant as they understood the command, ie., the moral or good behavior prescribed (or proscribed, if you wish to see it that way),

 

[o_mlly]

Well hold on there partner....let's consider this part...


Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent says the tree will give them knowledge that God has. God says that if they eat the fruit they will die.

Who told the truth here?

Eating the fruit didn't kill them. Eating the fruit gave them "knowledge" or understanding of good and evil.

The serpent appears to be honest....God appears to be lying.

If we are indeed filled with sin and love lying and dislike honesty (especially that which is undesirable) it makes sense that God would lie to us as we are made in his image.

We simply shouldn't believe every word of an evil lying God. He's clearly trying to cover his own tracks in this story.

How else can you explain this next part.....

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Is that an all knowing God pretending to not know what happened, who did it, and where they are???

Clearly an act.

(It appears you double posted a response, right? I'll respond to what looks new in the second reply.)

God spoke the truth. Eating the fruit did cause their death. They were before immortal.

The serpent, a liar -- as do most liars -- threads a bit of truth (knowledge of good and evil) in the lie to make the lie more believable. However, he remains a liar, Adam and Eve died because they disobeyed. But note that God still cared for them, He made clothes for them in their fallen state.

Where in the story do you come to conclude that, "... we are indeed filled with sin and love lying and dislike honesty ... We simply shouldn't believe every word of an evil lying God. He's clearly trying to cover his own tracks in this story"?

"Is that an all knowing God pretending to not know what happened, who did it, and where they are???" No, we call that a kind of exchange a Socratic questioning.

 

[o_mlly]

How does that work again? You gotta refresh my heathen ears...they haven't read the story in a while. God shows up as Jesus, reminds us we're all scum, sacrifices a three day weekend before skipping back up to heaven?

1. Hard to see that as a sacrifice. I think my time is precious too...and while giving up three days may be a big deal to me, God is eternal isn't he? He's got all sorts of time.

2. *Almost forgot this* the nature of the sacrifice (temporary and easy) reflects the nature of nature of the salvation, doesn't it? A mere proclamation of faith isn't much to undo a life of evil.

(Missed these comments in your second post.)

Where in the gospels do you possibly conclude that Jesus "reminds us we're all scum"?

Jesus was on the earth ~ 33 years; not three days.

As to the nature of His sacrifice, I'd suggest a review of the physiological pain and suffering that one incurs via a Roman crucifixion is in order.

On the psychological spectrum, imagine the pain one incurs in being betrayed by a "friend", abandoned by your other "friends", innocent but condemned to death by a spineless bureaucrat, and ridiculed while dying by onlookers.

You see how you used "before" in relationship with god creating the universe?

That doesn't really mean anything without a time before the universe.

Or in other words....

If time is indeed dependent upon the universe, there's no such thing as "before the universe".

As creatures that exist in the sequence of time, our language is handicapped in explaining the nature of a being outside time. However, an atheist mathematician, Pierre Simon La Place, came to understand that an intelligence outside time would have certain knowledge ... that were there an intelligence sufficiently vast to know the present distribution of all the physical particles of the universe and the magnitude of the forces among them, "nothing would be uncertain for [this intelligence], and the future, like the past, would be present to its eyes."

 

[QvQ]

Eating the fruit was not the sin.
The sin was disobeying God.
If a person is all alone, in a remote area, can that person sin?
Yes.
The sins are fear despair hate greed lust pride rebellion
The virtues are faith hope love charity chastity humility patience

There is a quote in the movie, The Edge "You know, I once read an interesting book which said that, uh, most people lost in the wilds, they die of shame."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I'm in a weird mental place today.

There's absolutely no need to apologize.

We all have difficult days and I don't judge people by their ability to tolerate me lol.

I think you might be one of 2 or 3 people on here I've seen apologize and that actually elevates your character compared to other posters in my opinion.

You can keep in mind though, there's nothing you can possibly say to me that I wouldn't forgive automatically by the next time we communicate.

Yeah, that works too.

I think intersubjective agreement is an important part of science....but as in science, it has to be reached independently. That's why scientists replicate experiments based upon the initial experiment. Replication gives a higher degree of credibility to experimental results. The more replicated a result is by a wider and wider range of scientists....the more trusted the results become.

The issue isn't perspective, it's about unjustified assumptions.

Ok.

There is an objective truth, and if we dig deep enough there is a ground floor.

I'm not quite sure what the floor is in this analogy.....the limits of perspective or language or....?

God cannot not exist, because existence is in His nature.

That seems contradictory to me.

It's literally impossible, so the question isn't does God exist but what God is like.

Well if he cannot exist then I don't know what we can say about his qualities.

This doesn't preclude science at all, it just means that if we're truly interested in what is objectively true we have to start at First Principles.

Isn't the axiomatc assumption I described a "first principle"?

Science can never escape the subjective understanding of the most intelligent human being, or at least not much beyond that.

Right....we're all limited to a human perspective that's limited by both our general and specific nature.

Reason can't take us to the promised land,

I'm also unsure what you mean by this....

Eden?

at least not from science, because it begins by settling for the universe as the thing that must be true rather than digging all the way to the thing that is true by definition.

True by definition? This is either headed to the ontological argument for God or that paradox where you write the sentence...

This statement is false.

And ask people if it's true or false.

Science settles for physical, but reality is deeper than that.

Ok.

There is only one objective truth, and it's not the universe.

I'm unsure what you mean here as well.

My issue isn't with science principally, but with the metaphysics of science..

One of the hardest abstract concepts in philosophy for me personally to grasp....is "metaphysics".

It was unclear to me what the concept meant exactly....even once I did get it....it's still difficult to describe.

What makes you believe it exists?

Taken the universe as the foundational brute fact. Physical reality, but not reality proper.

A sort of simulacra in your mind?

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, because it's not whether you agree with a thought but reality as it exists in the abstract. The world of the mental, which is just as real as the physical substance of our bodies but physics must deny as truly real.

I don't know enough physics to know what their particular stance on consciousness is (if they have one)....

And if you want to include subjective conceptions which have no actual physical or rather external referent in reality nor any criterion by which we would be able to identify one as such....into the vast amount of what exists in objective reality....

Then I would agree that we can include morality as a part of objective reality.....but it appears to me that is simply because we've removed the concept of "subjective" from our vocabulary when describing reality.

It's a fun solution to the problem, but as we've only expanded the objective to include the subjective....we aren't any closer to describing morality in any useful way.

If we have to define observor and measurement in a way in which it no longer resembles our conception of these things we lose semantic coherence.

Technical and specialized fields have technical and specialized language. Journalists aren't physicists....and they aren't particularly bright either. The double slit experiment was a very important one in the field of quantum physics (particle physics, quantum mechanics) and in the minds of many scientists....one of the most significant discoveries in the modern age.

To spell out plainly what they discovered actually bores most people to death. It loses a lot of it's scientific weight. I have no idea whether it was intentionally misrepresented by the journalists or accidentally because the physicists were using their technical language....

But either way I'd suggest you ask yourself a question if you believe the term "observer" refers to the scientists in that particular experiment......

What exactly were these observers observing?

Was it subatomic particles flying through the air?

I promise you....their eyesight isn't that good.

The term observor in the "observer effect" can be thought of this way....

Your tire has a psi. You can measure it. If you prefer to think of yourself as the observer... and not the tire pressure gauge....that's fine. You'll let out a little air in using the gauge....altering the reality of how much air is in the tire. It won't be exactly the same as when you decided to measure it.

Nobody is altering reality with their minds here though....nor are they observing particles flying through the air.

I know a lot of people have gotten a lot of milage out of the false interpretation that you can mentally alter reality without any physical interaction. Perhaps the truth that it's actually the tire pressure gauge is altering the psi is unsatisfactory emotionally. Perhaps you've invested the idea of a reality dependent upon your worldview and it doesn't contain this truth...and so you reject it to protect your ego.

Or...you understand this truth, and are already incorporating it into your understanding of reality.

I have no real way of knowing that subjective truth.

The truth that rests at the bottom of reality. Science promises to get to it, but it can't because science begins with an unjustiified assumption and then refuses to consider it's validity so long as it keeps producing physical facts.

What do you think science is missing?

There's a positive aspect to the idea we can control reality with our minds....if the idea leads to clearly setting goals that are realistic and then striving to achieve them. They may not be achieved, but the act itself can be deeply fulfilling. The negative aspect of the idea has people thinking that they need not pursue medical treatment for a serious chronic illness or life threatening one because they can simply change their health by way of mental magic.

I don't think it's likely you'd reject this interpretation of the double split experiment and the observer effect because you think you can wish away a brain tumor or something....so if you disagree with me, that's fine. It's a low stakes disagreement.

Yeah, I suppose we could categorize truth in all sorts of ways.

Apart from the objective/subjective distinction I already mentioned....I find the relationship of truth to emotional satisfaction probably the most important. Objective truth has no consideration at all....let alone any regard....for how it makes us feel. The dangerous truths are dangerous because of statistical fact however, so those are a slightly different matter.

There's already been Christians on this thread who have stated that anything, no matter how harmful to themselves or others, is permissable if God doesn't hold them morally accountable....and if they genuinely believe this....I genuinely don't wish to convince them otherwise. For not only society's benefit....but for theirs as well.

So long as science assumes that physical is the foundation, it will never be able to approach objective truth.

Why not?

Again, it wasn't faith that placed a rocket on the moon....unless you count the faith in the existence of an objective reality.

If truth were approachable by multiple other means....and mathematics and logic are certainly types of paths to truth....then I think we can reasonably expect some demonstration of that other method.

I'm not saying that I've ruled out other paths to truth.....but I've yet to see any evidence they exist. The paths are few, difficult to walk, and will likely lead to many emotionally unsatisfactory if not entirely negative conclusions. I wouldn't recommend anyone orient their lives towards truth if they want to be happy with their life.

That's the sort of inevitable conclusion that one reaches after walking those narrow paths for very long and making some progress.

God is the ground floor, and God is objective truth.

That doesn't give me much in way of a starting point to consider what sort of claims are true and who I can trust regarding certain claims because of the road to truth that they walk.

That doesn't mean Christian doctrine contains no truth. I think it does in some respects to human nature. That's because even paths that aren't necessarily created to lead one to truth can often intersect with one that does....and such paths are unlikely to persist without any connections to truth at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I'm in a weird mental place today.


Yeah, that works too.

The issue isn't perspective, it's about unjustified assumptions. There is an objective truth, and if we dig deep enough there is a ground floor. God cannot not exist, because existence is in His nature. It's literally impossible, so the question isn't does God exist but what God is like. This doesn't preclude science at all, it just means that if we're truly interested in what is objectively true we have to start at First Principles.

Science can never escape the subjective understanding of the most intelligent human being, or at least not much beyond that. Reason can't take us to the promised land, at least not from science, because it begins by settling for the universe as the thing that must be true rather than digging all the way to the thing that is true by definition. Science settles for physical, but reality is deeper than that. There is only one objective truth, and it's not the universe.

My issue isn't with science principally, but with the metaphysics of science. Taken the universe as the foundational brute fact. Physical reality, but not reality proper.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, because it's not whether you agree with a thought but reality as it exists in the abstract. The world of the mental, which is just as real as the physical substance of our bodies but physics must deny as truly real.

If we have to define observor and measurement in a way in which it no longer resembles our conception of these things we lose semantic coherence. Nobody understands what an observor without consciousness is, so how can we say that such a thing is possible? It's somethng that we have no real concept for, so it's not really explanatory. It's just words that are bound to lead to confusion.

God

Within which I move and breath and have my being. That reality is God.

Yep. The necessary truth that exists by its own necessity. God.



The truth that rests at the bottom of reality. Science promises to get to it, but it can't because science begins with an unjustiified assumption and then refuses to consider it's validity so long as it keeps producing physical facts. But all you'll ever get are physical facts until science gives up the idea that physical reality is the substrate. Science isn't approaching the truth, because it can never go deeper than it's opening assumption.

Yeah, I suppose we could categorize truth in all sorts of ways.

So long as science assumes that physical is the foundation, it will never be able to approach objective truth. God is the ground floor, and God is objective truth. Science is just the latest tower of Babel man has built in an attempt to get at Him. We're fast approaching the point where science will declare that man has no mind, and cut off its own legs. God is dead, man shortly followed.

I'm trying to be honest as possible about how I see truth without coming off as disrespectful to Christians. Maybe it would help if I pointed out a truth revealed in Christianity....

If man's nature is indeed sinful, and the virtues set forth by Jesus's example is indeed morally good and righteous in behavior....then the persecution of those good and righteous Christians seems inevitable. After all, the good and righteous will reflect in the sinful that which they wish they had the strength to be, or imagine the way they are, but ultimately are not.

That will obviously create envy, hatred and resentment, and inevitably.....persecution.

I do believe the above true....without a belief in Christianity or a god.

 

[QvQ]

@Ana the Ist
I can't find which post but I remarked that Jung said "man is a religious animal."
I believe you took issue with that as "not the Chinese"
The Chinese have suppressed religion but 51% of the Chinese believe in God and practice openly.
Also the Chinese are folk religious people, having many practices of fortune telling, omens, and ceremonies to appease a number of perhaps nebulous forces and entities most correctly labeled "spirits" and "spiritual."
The Chinese populace, in spite of the government suppression, do most definitely believe and acknowledge the supernatural world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

....................................................... yes. "Our faith," assuming we're talking Christianity here, of course.

I hadn't asked in awhile but I was pretty sure you're Christian

It's those "vice versa" issues that most annoy me......................that is, when I see them manifested cavalierly among "everyone else" without much of anything in the way of deep thought on the matter.

Well how much thought need go into everyone else's opinion?

I tend to think it's this position we make the majority our moral judgements from....less out of deep consideration, but more out of a byproducti of desire to be seen as good and fear of being judged by the group.

Then again, I don't expect everyone to be able to study Philosophy (i.e. ETHICS and other stuff) and achieve a significant degree of understanding and familiarity with the various substantive issues involved.

I think philosophy has unintentionally complicated an issue that inherently is difficult to approach because of it's relationship with emotions and judgement.

Mankind has slaughtered each other over moral issues. We've stripped cultures of traditions over moral issues.

The mere possibility of no objective good or factual good makes such actions....hard to accept.

However, I do expect people to realize that my main axiom is true ................... "no one human knows everything," even where ETHICS is the main focus.

I agree.

But by golly, I keep running into so many, many people who seem to eschew that axiom and claim that where morality and ethics is concerned, they somehow do indeed know, and they do so on what seem to me to be from such paltry epistemological grounds, too (those grounds referring often to some amorphous phenomenon called "common sense.")

Rather uncommon isn't it?

Tsk, tsk!


If you don't know that what "God believes" or "Jesus believes" is good, then it's time to learn how this is the case, maybe?

Shall I judge him by his deeds or words?

I mean, for my part, I like to imagine you as a good person, Ana, on his way to eternal life in Christ, full of actual moral wisdom by which to alight upon a public forum and doll out what is much needed among the patrons.

I'll tell you a story....you won't like it...and I'll deliberately cut it off before it continues past the point of being boring.

Let's consider your great great great great ancestor. So many generations before you we cannot be certain he had any sophisticated vocal language. He made tools, he hunted, he loved, he fought, he procreated, he lived. Perhaps he had words....perhaps grunts and crude drawings were his limitations. His group, as were most, was small.

Since we come with some variety....perhaps it was him or a friend of his who got lost one day. Weather, disorientated, ill...or in search of water or food. He wandered far afield and was lost. He doesn't quit easily though....finally sees a campfire in the distance.....but pauses. It's the most horrifying and dangerous thing he's ever seen. An unknown group.

He is undoubtedly in need. Thirst and hunger and help to return home are his problems and they are not simple. If he has a language, he certainly doesn't share it with these hominids.

So how does he decide what to do? He's concealed for now....but he must flee or make contact. He watches and waits. He judges their behavior.

He judges how alike or unlike their behavior is to his own group. If similarly alike...perhaps he hatches a plan and gathers a gift he would find impressive. Perhaps he humbles himself and falls to his knees. Before he ever knows the word mercy he understood it and his need for it in that moment. Before he ever had a word for compassion he certainly would have felt it if he received it. If he saw they were dangerously different....or if they chased him off....he knew wrath and it's evil....without a word spoken between them of motive.

Obviously, once he either joins the new group or returns to the old....he must describe them. Perhaps a good people....perhaps a bad people....but certainly he would know by then. The words would come eventually....and later after much refinements and sophistication virtues would be described more carefully as well as evil....but morality was then as it is now, serving the same purpose, and negotiated by circumstances and individuals.

I would say it's inter-subjectively non-real and negotiated for the benefit of the group. Where disagreement lies within an individual and the group....he must guard his view carefully, trying to convince others only when prudent, or not at all. These are judgements of behavior, and they kept us alive long before we began to consider truth or logic. They cannot simply be abandoned now that we are more capable of reason....and should we do so....I think we'd no longer be human in the most meaningful sense of the word.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Before disobeying, Adam and Eve were in friendship with God and, in their innocence, nakedness was not shameful. At the moment of disobeying, they lost innocence and, being ashamed of their sin, also became aware of their nakedness. And they hid.

The loss of innocence and acquisition of knowledge of good and evil are the same?

God's command was clear, "‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” The snake tempts their pride and lies saying, “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”

Odd the snake spoke the truth....isn't it?

Trust your local snakes.

The story tells us that the sin of pride goes before the Fall.

Pride is a tough sin to manage. Pride got Satan, didn't it?

Yet if I were to judge God by his first 3 (and arguably most important) commandsments...

1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourselves an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God

It does seem rather proud. For a lone god....#1 doesn't seem possible but it's the worst one. If no other gods exist, we can skip on past #1.

As for 2...a simulacra is unpleasant to him. An image of a God. Yet...are we not made in the image of god? #1 is impossible without other gods... #2 is something God did himself......

#3. Keep his name holy. I don't know his name, yet, if I were commanded to do this...the simplest way would be to lie, and give a different name. That way none could misuse it.

In all cases...they seem rather proud commandments. Less about the risk of becoming profane ourselves but more about the risk of embarrassing him.

They knew that God forbade touching or eating the fruit from that tree, and they understood His command.

My wife could, for example, tell me to walk the dog. I see no evil or good in it. Yet if one exists....it seems that to judge me according to it requires it's knowledge.

On willfully disobeying God, they came to know evil.

Note they didn't gasp in awe of the abundance of good all around them....but were focused on themselves.

Pride.

I still have to wonder though....what sort of sin lies in knowing good and evil?

Shame and guilt are not synonyms; a sense of shame (they hid) precedes the sense of guilt (awareness of one's evil act).

And what removes the shame and feelings of guilt but forgiveness?

If sin is the nature of mankind it certainly makes sense that your salvation lies in forgiveness.

As an atheist...I have no choice but to forgive myself. Typically this is done every day, right upon waking. If however, I'm particularly evil....I try to forgive myself immediately upon moral transgression.

Parents, at least this parent, understand a somewhat similar process in their children.

Ever noticed how on a playground....two little children who are friends will have each other's back....even if one knows the other acted immorally towards another?

We start off with loyalty to our friends as our highest good....even when they do evil to a stranger.

Yet it would seem God would prefer we be honest, and brave, and sacrifice that evil friend to a group that may be entirely indifferent to us.

Still looking for your own backyard resurrection?

I'm choosing hell. Surely, my friends and loved ones will want my help there.

Seems a bit muddled to me. There is no evil in understanding morality, right?

Well understanding morality was the consequence of the fruit.

It appears God intended us to hold the morals of all his other animals. However you prefer to state it....the law of the jungle.

We only had a chance to choose better once the fruit was eaten.

The evil is in knowing and willfully disobeying. For that evil act, we ought to seek atonement.

Every child starts off with loyalty as his highest good....except perhaps girls. I don't know. I was born a boy.

The simplicity of the story makes clear that they disobeyed, and they were culpable for their disobedience. Judging horrific sin in others would be more complicated

I wonder if it really is. If our nature is sinful...it's no wonder our leaders lie to us, for we hate honesty. If we are proud....then it brings us envy to see someone with the virtues we lack. We love to watch them fall to the judgement of the group. We enjoy learning their sins which they hid from us and pretended to not have. It comes as a sort of catharsis.....a reassurance of what we really are.....in spite our constant denial.

? The story does not indicate any misunderstanding of the command.

Consider the dog example. I can obey or disobey....but as for being judged evil....that's another matter.

Again, they understood. Good behavior subsists in keeping the commandment, bad behavior, in not keeping the commandment.

Then it wasn't knowledge of good and evil gained by eating the fruit. Perhaps it was rationality. This conflicts with moral judgements all the time.

In fact, the struggle between these two can convince us to do evil in place of good...can't it?

It's a story. The instruction is sub-text.

• God is the authority.
• Mankind is subject to that authority.
• The commands are not punishments but rules to experience a good life, a life well-lived.
• If we disobey, the negative effects we experience are in this life.

No, they were not ignorant as they understood the command, ie., the moral or good behavior prescribed (or proscribed, if you wish to see it that way),

Lol I can't see the word proscribed without thinking of Roman proscription.
A sweeping away of those who may stand against the rulers.

I'm just saying....there's a difference in the reading of the passage if you do it the first time around 19-20. You probably heard it so young you don't recall the first time. If you think that's a sticky wicket....imagine the problem with Cain and Abel. God plays favorites and you see that he considers blood to be a proper sacrifice. It's in Abel's sacrifice. It's in Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. It's in Jesus's sacrifice of himself. I don't know why the plate gets passed around for cash when God clearly wants blood.

After all, what is Cain's curse for sacrificing (I mean murdering of course) his brother? He's marked in some way that all fear to murder him? He need not be afraid of murder ever again? Then he has a big family?

That's some curse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I hadn't asked in awhile but I was pretty sure you're Christian

Well..............you did say "our faith," so I was sort of hoping you'd claim the possessive pronoun you actually wrote without the pejorative insinuation.

Well how much thought need go into everyone else's opinion?

A lot MORE than is typically done. ..............but I get it. It's human nature for most people to think they DON'T need to thoroughly assess their justifications for holding the particular ethical position (among many that they're often not even aware of)..............than they do.

Unfortunately, I do. And I fully realize I'll be offered the hemlock by insisting that all other people begin to do so too.

I tend to think it's this position we make the majority our moral judgements from....less out of deep consideration, but more out of a byproducti of desire to be seen as good and fear of being judged by the group.

I think this conclusion of yours is a Fallacy of Composition, arguing incorrectly some smaller aspect or sample of a whole and then inferring that it applies to the whole. I wouldn't assume, though.

Some of us don't assume that others are equitable enough or educated enough to realize whether I truly am being good or bad beyond the most superficial levels of morality. There's a lot that passes for morality among the masses of people----at all levels----that is highly questionable. Morality born out of some lowest common denominator is the lowest sort of morality and has more in common with Nietzsche or Marx than it does with Jesus. Somehow, we need to get this point straight in our heads, but as things go on a biblical scale, I know this won't ever happen.

I think philosophy has unintentionally complicated an issue that inherently is difficult to approach because of it's relationship with emotions and judgement.

You think this because.................................................of your already chosen position of philosophy. You sound like a pragmatist, so it's no wonder that you'll cite someone like myself as having somehow complicated what you think is rather obvious and/or simple. Needless to say, I have problems with pragmatism, mainly because its praxis works off of principles that are too narrow and superficial to really qualify anything in a robust and meaningful way for what some people, like myself, care most about, which isn't "looking good in the eyes of the world."

Mankind has slaughtered each other over moral issues. We've stripped cultures of traditions over moral issues.

I think we need to firmly make a distinction between "mankind as it is" and humanity as Jesus intends for it to be.

So, we can cite humanity's moral missteps for the last 5,000 years, but that wouldn't necessarily posit and fuller truth about the nature of the world that we can say, "we really know this."

The mere possibility of no objective good or factual good makes such actions....hard to accept.

Jesus isn't good in your estimation???? Really?

Rather uncommon isn't it?

Yes, and this is why the Christian Church, as it's suppose to be, advocates for moral education.

Shall I judge him by his deeds or words?

That's a loaded question, Ana. The ethical position that YOU think is prescriptive is the one that you will judge Him by, which leaves you open to being questioned about your own position. Unless, of course, you have some extra power by which to squelch anyone's attempts to scrutinize your own choice of ethics, of whatever sort they may be.

When a person engages the field of Ethics, usually hes/she quickly becomes aware that not only is there more than merely 1 or 2 positions in ethics to had, but that our very own positions, as civil or as modern as they may seem to us and which we all too often take for granted, don't get a free pass from evaluation.

I'll tell you a story....you won't like it...and I'll deliberately cut it off before it continues past the point of being boring.

Let's consider your great great great great ancestor. So many generations before you we cannot be certain he had any sophisticated vocal language. He made tools, he hunted, he loved, he fought, he procreated, he lived. Perhaps he had words....perhaps grunts and crude drawings were his limitations. His group, as were most, was small.

Since we come with some variety....perhaps it was him or a friend of his who got lost one day. Weather, disorientated, ill...or in search of water or food. He wandered far afield and was lost. He doesn't quit easily though....finally sees a campfire in the distance.....but pauses. It's the most horrifying and dangerous thing he's ever seen. An unknown group.

He is undoubtedly in need. Thirst and hunger and help to return home are his problems and they are not simple. If he has a language, he certainly doesn't share it with these hominids.

So how does he decide what to do? He's concealed for now....but he must flee or make contact. He watches and waits. He judges their behavior.

He judges how alike or unlike their behavior is to his own group. If similarly alike...perhaps he hatches a plan and gathers a gift he would find impressive. Perhaps he humbles himself and falls to his knees. Before he ever knows the word mercy he understood it and his need for it in that moment. Before he ever had a word for compassion he certainly would have felt it if he received it. If he saw they were dangerously different....or if they chased him off....he knew wrath and it's evil....without a word spoken between them of motive.

Obviously, once he either joins the new group or returns to the old....he must describe them. Perhaps a good people....perhaps a bad people....but certainly he would know by then. The words would come eventually....and later after much refinements and sophistication virtues would be described more carefully as well as evil....but morality was then as it is now, serving the same purpose, and negotiated by circumstances and individuals.

I would say it's inter-subjectively non-real and negotiated for the benefit of the group. Where disagreement lies within an individual and the group....he must guard his view carefully, trying to convince others only when prudent, or not at all. These are judgements of behavior, and they kept us alive long before we began to consider truth or logic. They cannot simply be abandoned now that we are more capable of reason....and should we do so....I think we'd no longer be human in the most meaningful sense of the word.

You say this like I've never heard this story before.

You do remember that I'm an educated evolutionist even if I still adhere to the figure of Jesus Christ, don't you?

 

[o_mlly]

The loss of innocence and acquisition of knowledge of good and evil are the same?

In the first instance, the knowledge of evil and the loss of innocence are simultaneous but not the same.

Odd the snake spoke the truth....isn't it?

No, as I explained, doing so the snake was only being clever rather than truthful.

It does seem rather proud. For a lone god....#1 doesn't seem possible but it's the worst one. If no other gods exist, we can skip on past #1.

As for 2...a simulacra is unpleasant to him. An image of a God. Yet...are we not made in the image of god? #1 is impossible without other gods... #2 is something God did himself......

#3. Keep his name holy. I don't know his name, yet, if I were commanded to do this...the simplest way would be to lie, and give a different name. That way none could misuse it.

In all cases...they seem rather proud commandments. Less about the risk of becoming profane ourselves but more about the risk of embarrassing him.

Sinful pride, as opposed to the virtue of humility, is an excessive love of one’s own perceived excellence that excludes or pushes God to the margins.

The One that is most excellent does not have sinful pride.

My wife could, for example, tell me to walk the dog. I see no evil or good in it. Yet if one exists....it seems that to judge me according to it requires it's knowledge.

Whose knowledge -- the dog, your wife or you?

Note they didn't gasp in awe of the abundance of good all around them....but were focused on themselves.

Pride.

I still have to wonder though....what sort of sin lies in knowing good and evil?

Focused on themselves? Adam named all the animals in the garden. If the garden is all one knows then gasping in awe would never occur to one.

I'm choosing hell. Surely, my friends and loved ones will want my help there.

Sound a bit like Satre with a novel twist.

Ever noticed how on a playground....two little children who are friends will have each other's back....even if one knows the other acted immorally towards another?

We start off with loyalty to our friends as our highest good....even when they do evil to a stranger.

Yet it would seem God would prefer we be honest, and brave, and sacrifice that evil friend to a group that may be entirely indifferent to us.

? We start off being the most selfish beings on the planet. "To heck with Mom's need for sleep, I'm hungry!"

Loyalty to one's principles rather than persons is always preferred. A well-formed conscience ensures one's principles are moral.

Persons are not evil but they can commit evil acts. Where do you find the moral teaching that God prefers we sacrifice a friend?

I wonder if it really is. If our nature is sinful...it's no wonder our leaders lie to us, for we hate honesty. If we are proud....then it brings us envy to see someone with the virtues we lack. We love to watch them fall to the judgement of the group. We enjoy learning their sins which they hid from us and pretended to not have. It comes as a sort of catharsis.....a reassurance of what we really are.....in spite our constant denial.

Our fallen nature, yes. But that is not our created nature, only its aberration.

I cannot argue that some people act, and such mindsets exist. But it appears that in your acknowledging them, you also find them evil or at least reprobate.

Consider the dog example. I can obey or disobey....but as for being judged evil....that's another matter.

If your wife created you and provided every good thing for you then you ought to walk that dog.

And what removes the shame and feelings of guilt but forgiveness?

If sin is the nature of mankind it certainly makes sense that your salvation lies in forgiveness.

As an atheist...I have no choice but to forgive myself. Typically this is done every day, right upon waking. If however, I'm particularly evil....I try to forgive myself immediately upon moral transgression.

Do you not sense a need to obtain forgiveness from others as well if your act transgressed their rights?

Well understanding morality was the consequence of the fruit.

It appears God intended us to hold the morals of all his other animals. However you prefer to state it....the law of the jungle.

We only had a chance to choose better once the fruit was eaten.

We can leave out the beasts since morality can only apply to creatures that have both reason and free will.

Then it wasn't knowledge of good and evil gained by eating the fruit. Perhaps it was rationality. This conflicts with moral judgements all the time.

In fact, the struggle between these two can convince us to do evil in place of good...can't it?

The fallible reason of man allows for right reasoning and wrong reasoning. Right reason cannot conflict with correct moral judgments. And we always choose the apparent good, we cannot do otherwise. But the apparent good is not aways the real good.

I'm just saying....there's a difference in the reading of the passage if you do it the first time around 19-20. You probably heard it so young you don't recall the first time.

Maturity changes one's perspective.

If you think that's a sticky wicket....imagine the problem with Cain and Abel. God plays favorites and you see that he considers blood to be a proper sacrifice. It's in Abel's sacrifice. It's in Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. It's in Jesus's sacrifice of himself. I don't know why the plate gets passed around for cash when God clearly wants blood.

After all, what is Cain's curse for sacrificing (I mean murdering of course) his brother? He's marked in some way that all fear to murder him? He need not be afraid of murder ever again? Then he has a big family?

Well, for starters, I don't think the garden story is a "sticky wicket".

The Cain and Abel story does not explain why God accepted Abel's offering over Cain's. Some speculate that the story reflects traditional strife between the farmer (Cain) and the nomad (Abel), with preference for the latter reflecting the alleged nomadic ideal of the Bible. But there is no disparagement of farming here, for Adam was created to till the soil.

For the record, Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac. Jesus' accepting a horrific death in obedience to the Father, juxtaposes His act to Adam's disobedience at grasping for the fruit to be godlike. God does not want us to suffer. We suffer because we do evil to ourselves and to others.

If God wanted blood then why did He mark Cain to protect him from being the victim of his own evil act? Answer: God loves Cain.

 

[QvQ]

less out of deep consideration, but more out of a byproducti of desire to be seen as good and fear of being judged by the group.

A person who is all alone, for instance, in an isolated sheep camp can feel fear, anger, and make mistakes because of impatience or a combination of those sins, perhaps abusing or misusing a horse in the grip of that sinful state or take the anger and despair out by kicking the dog, not being a good shephard.
Or that sheepherder, all alone out in the wilderness, can become afraid, angry, impatient and get in a jackpot, getting himself or his outfit hurt which is not loving thyself
and then afterwards being ashamed of the behavior, asking forgiveness...

Sin, morality is not a group judgement
Nor is it an action. The action is the fruit of the tree, not the root and sap.
It is the states of virtue and sin that lead to those actions
"out of the abundance of the heart"
People do all sorts of wicked things but there IS motive, born of sin; fear despair anger greed lust pride and rebellion
Sins

Boredom should be a sin, "The devils workshop" as it has led many a person astray, the craving for excitement but perhaps that is rebellion.

The only answer to Fear is Faith
Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil for Thou art with me.

And then the other virtues fall right into line, as Faith in God leads me in the paths of righteousness for His namesake.

 

[Aaron112]

YHVH and JESUS REQUIRE all disciples of Jesus to suffer.

God does not want us to suffer.

 

[Aaron112]

Well, if there were family pictures,
might notice to his right someone eight ft tall and very powerful;
and to his left someone twelve ft tall and even more powerful.

Then he has a big family?

 

[Aaron112]

Perhaps,
"
It is wrong to say Cain's offering was rejected because there was no blood shed. That would be very unfair given that he was a vegetable farmer.

The reason why it was rejected is given in Hebrews 11: 4, "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks." NKJV.

Cain didn't have faith and was merely going through motions. If you believe in GOD why would you be mad that He doesn't heal your sick child or make you rich? Faith doesn't work like an entitlement mentality.

Furthermore, the LORD Jesus Christ expanded the definition of murder. He said being angry without a cause constitutes murder. What He's saying is that the thought of sin grows into committing the ac of that sin if you do not root it out at the thought level. See how this is consistent with God's warning to Cain.

"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Genesis 4:7 NKJV

Cain failed to "rule over" the sin that was bubbling in his thoughts and it eventually led to him committing the act of murder. That's exactly what Jesus explained centuries later.

In summary, Cain's offering was rejected because he lacked faith not because it lacked the shedding of blood. End."

If God wanted blood then why did He mark Cain to protect him from being the victim of his own evil act? Answer: God loves Cain.

 

[Aaron112]

With sin and error.
Note that it may have been hasatan appearing as an angel of light to talk to and deceive Eve, and Adam.
He appears today as if an angel (messenger) of light on forums, internet, telev\ision , media, including laswer/ holograms in towns and cities world wide by the world church ... to deceive everyone even the elect if possible.

Odd the snake spoke the truth....isn't it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

(It appears you double posted a response, right? I'll respond to what looks new in the second reply.)

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:17 - King James Version

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

www.biblegateway.com

In the day....

Adam lived some 900 years.

It doesn't seem like the death sentence he was promised.

The serpent, a liar -- as do most liars -- threads a bit of truth (knowledge of good and evil) in the lie to make the lie more believable.

Truth is the distinction between lies and.....truth.

Where in the story do you come to conclude that, "... we are indeed filled with sin and love lying and dislike honesty ... We simply shouldn't believe every word of an evil lying God. He's clearly trying to cover his own tracks in this story"?

It's all over the Bible. How much evidence do you want? I'm sure you've heard of the flood.

"Is that an all knowing God pretending to not know what happened, who did it, and where they are???" No, we call that a kind of exchange a Socratic questioning.

Why?

He doesn't just know what happened....he knows how Adam will answer, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps,
"
It is wrong to say Cain's offering was rejected because there was no blood shed. That would be very unfair given that he was a vegetable farmer.

Yet his vegetable weren't enough.

The reason why it was rejected is given in Hebrews 11: 4, "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks." NKJV.

I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. It simply points out Abel had the more pleasant sacrifice.

Cain didn't have faith and was merely going through motions.

Which passage mentioned Cains lack of faith?

Furthermore, the LORD Jesus Christ expanded the definition of murder. He said being angry without a cause constitutes murder.

Ok...

What He's saying is that the thought of sin grows into committing the ac of that sin if you do not root it out at the thought level. See how this is consistent with God's warning to Cain.

"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Genesis 4:7 NKJV

You're telling me Cain has no faith one moment....then the next God is telling him to cheer up.

Seems plain as day to me. It's not his faith lacking but his sacrifice. Fruits and vegetables aren't it.

Edit-
And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, Go ye, serve the Lord; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed: let your little ones also go with you.

25 And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God.

26 Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the Lord our God; and we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither.


It's everywhere in the Bible old Testament and New. The Christian God wants blood spilled for him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A person who is all alone, for instance, in an isolated sheep camp can feel fear, anger, and make mistakes because of impatience or a combination of those sins, perhaps abusing or misusing a horse

Who would be judging him?