Is morality objective, even without God?

[Aaron112]

Did I read a post recently (in the last few days)
that noted that one of the posters is AI, or using AI to post ?

 

[Aaron112]

It was not a promise, I think,
and not only did Adam die,
he brought death to all men./ and animals? / mankind....

Are you using AI ?

Adam lived some 900 years.
It doesn't seem like the death sentence he was promised.

 

[Ana the Ist]

(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.

As creatures that exist in the sequence of time, our language is handicapped in explaining the nature of a being outside time.

If it's something we can't know...then it's something we can't know. Those are things that I don't presume to be, let alone presume to know.

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."

Far be it from me to disregard Pierre....but he's describing a universe devoid of free will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was not a promise, I think,
and not only did Adam die,
he brought death to all men./ and animals? / mankind....

Are you using AI ?

No. Sorry if you took my joke seriously.

 

[QvQ]

Who would be judging him?

Genesis 4:10 And He said, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground

 

[Astrid]

@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.

What you are referring to is superstition.

The educated population has little interest in such.*

Foreign interventionists have caused immense problems in
China, not least with their religions..

Those are what is “ suppressed”, and, rightly so.

* images of Santa Claus, or, dragon boat races do not
indicate “ acknowledging” the so called
”supernatural world” it being, for one, impossible to
”acknowledge” the unevidenced.

 

[QvQ]

What you are referring to is superstition.

The educated population has little interest in such.*

Foreign interventionists have caused immense problems in
China, not least with their religions..

Those are what is “ suppressed”, and, rightly so.

* images of Santa Claus, or, dragon boat races do not
indicate “ acknowledging” the so called
”supernatural world” it being, for one, impossible to
”acknowledge” the unevidenced.

Chinese have a well developed theological literature and tradition
Chinese religion does include many folk traditions however formal theological concepts of God, Heaven and the usual cosmology found in all orderly religious thought have been documented continuously from centuries before the time of Christ

"Chinese scholars emphasise that the Chinese tradition contains two facets of the idea of God: one is the personified God of popular devotion, and the other one is the impersonal God of philosophical inquiry. Together they express an "integrated definition of the monistic world".
Wikipedia Chinese Theology

 

[Astrid]

Chinese have a well developed theological literature and tradition
Chinese religion does include many folk traditions however formal theological concepts of God, Heaven and the usual cosmology found in all orderly religious thought have been documented continuously from centuries before the time of Christ

"Chinese scholars emphasise that the Chinese tradition contains two facets of the idea of God: one is the personified God of popular devotion, and the other one is the impersonal God of philosophical inquiry. Together they express an "integrated definition of the monistic world".
Wikipedia Chinese Theology

The one is superstition.

The other has a role in ways of thunking and
behaving, which have nothing to do with
“ acknowledging” the nonexistent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Ok.

The sins are fear despair hate greed lust pride rebellion
The virtues are faith hope love charity chastity humility patience

Maybe it's unclear what I mean by isolated or alone...

Let's imagine this hypothetical man on some distant planet....far from our eyes, far from our judgment, far from any sentient life. If you want to imagine him with few resources and soon to die of starvation or with more than enough to survive the rest of his natural days does not matter....

That's what I mean by isolated. It doesn't matter how he got there, it doesn't matter why. It's just a thought experiment to see if your morals are indeed independent of him and mankind in general...

I'm not asking you for a list of virtues or sins....those are far too abstract.

I'm asking you to tell me something which he could do that you can describe as morally good....or morally bad. That's all.

There's no wrong answer here. I'm not going to ridicule you for describing his actions one way or the other. The only thing I might ask is...."why".

He's not on a planet with sentient sheep or horses. If you want to imagine him with animals....imagine those animals as fish and no more intelligent than a salmon. He will never meet any living person nor be found by any for eternity. Total isolation.

Please...humor me....and describe a morally good thing he can do....or a morally bad thing he can do....or both. You need not include his intentions or reasons....we can just assume he has them for whatever he does.

 

[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.

Let me say it again....because it may have been over 20 years since I read the KJV cover to cover... and I don’t claim any expertise. I have never attended a church apart from weddings and funerals. I have no formal instruction in Christianity. If you want to call me ignorant....it won't bother me.

But I am saying the NT and OT read very differently if you first consider Christianity at the late age of 19 or 20 and you simply want to know what it says.

I distinctly remember the Christian god loving blood sacrifice. It's the highest virtue I know of in Christianity. Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross and I'm almost certain at some point before even that....he offers his holy blood to his father as his personal sacrifice. Water pours from his body when he is pierced by the spear.

It's the one of the few consistently unique aspects of the Christian god. Blood is the sacrifice he loves most. Look at all your martyrs in Rome. Look at Abraham and Isaac. Look at the lamb which replaces Isaac. Look at everything Job lost. If he cannot have your blood he won't hesitate to throw you into flame. Call that love if you want.

It is blood that he recognizes as the greatest thing you can give to him. The second highest virtue is service to your fellow man...particularly those in the greatest need....but blood first. Is Jesus coming back with a smartphone? No....he is awaited to return with a sword and my friend, if you think he's just showing it off, you're wrong. He will have blood. Abel sacrifices his youngest most innocent stock...because virgin blood is best. When he consoles Cain, he says "do better" and what does Cain have to bleed dry for God? Only his brother whom he slew on the field of sacrifice. It wasn't a coincidence. If he merely wanted to murder....he could have done it anywhere. The story passed through many hands before codification but if you pay attention to what god demands....not what he asks....it's blood sacrifice.

Pass the plate around and offer up some cash if you like....god has no use for your money. He's a god that loves your blood.

The reason why it was rejected is given in Hebrews 11: 4, "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain,

What's so excellent about Abel's sacrifice? It's as if that part was left out. The clue is right after.

through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks." NKJV.

Through it, he being dead still speaks.

Your bloodline will speak for you long after your death.

Cain didn't have faith

Didn't have faith? Do you believe he went and sacrifices his harvest for fun? Do you think he's walking around and speaking to god while in need of faith?

He doesn't need faith....he speaks with God as plainly as you and I....in person.

Even if you believe he didn't have faith...and I don't see it....why would he need faith? God instructs him face to face.

"If you do well, will you not be accepted?

Was he accepted? I'd say he was rewarded.

.

And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door.

That's a promise to favor his brother instead.

And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Genesis 4:7 NKJV

You should rule over your brother and not he over you. Have courage. Have faith. Sacrifice him to me.

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.

You think Jesus is there to praise people?

I recall most of his words being condemnation of sin.

The sermon on the mount's main theme isn't "you guys are really doing well, keep it up, I love you and what you have going here."

If anything it's that you are vile in the eyes of god. You are so filled with sin that before you even look upon the woman you lust after....your thoughts are of adultery. Sin springs forth from your heart like a well.

Even a number of people Jesus bothers to save he doesn't name righteous or even just good....he tells them to leave his presence and stop sinning.

I find it remarkable the number of Christians who imagine they are loved and will be amongst those in heaven....the path is narrow, those who walk it are very very few.

Most will be right alongside me in hell. I'll even introduce myself if I'm wrong and I see you there lol.

Who does he save on the cross? The man who despite his agony can still recognize the righteous. What does it do? Fills him with shame and fear. He begs for mercy. He has no pretense about how vile he is. He doesn't imagine himself good. The other man? Hates Jesus and imagines himself better....less deserving of punishment.

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

Good luck with that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

(Missed these comments in your second post.)

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

You asked....

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 And if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it from you! For it is better for you that one of your members be destroyed than your whole body be thrown into hell.


Take this literally....not as metaphor. He hates your nature...as he made you. It's better that you literally tear off the sinful parts of your flesh than to live as you do. Your heart is filled with sin.

If you wonder why god wants blood sacrifice it seems obvious to me that it demonstrates the willingness to destroy evil....and Jesus spends a lot of time pointing out evil. He spends far less time teaching good (if I recall correctly) and why would he? Evil is mankind's nature. Whether he washes it away with flood or burns it from the sky....or transforms it to a pillar of salt. God imagines himself good....and loves to destroy evil.

You think the serpent was evil? It spoke the truth. What was it's "curse"? To slither on its belly the rest of it's days? Lol...it's a serpent. Who is lying here?

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

And in that time he did service for his fellow man....until the time of his sacrifice came.

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.

Is it any worse than the gibbet? The ouibilette? Romans didn't come up with crucifixion....they just liked the visible reminder of their authority.

Those who kill without fear of any reprisal seem to make the rules. Tell me your god is somehow different.

On the psychological spectrum, imagine the pain one incurs in being betrayed by a "friend"

Jesus knew he would be denied three times and you think he didn't know who "betrayed" him? I think judas did as he was commanded. I don't remember if it was arrows or a noose...but that was his reward. Far less painful than other disciples.

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."

Imagine a god that needs a do-over. All knowing? All good? Infallible?

If he's showing up to change the message...what I read was a simplification. Don't worry about being good...you keep failing. Just remember those first three commandments, recognize his authority, and pain and suffering will be your reward. Hopefully, he isn't lying about what comes after.

 

[QvQ]

That's what I mean by isolated. It doesn't matter how he got there, it doesn't matter why. It's just a thought experiment to see if your morals are indeed independent of him and mankind in general...

All right
A man in solitary who is given food and temperature control
Nothing more, just bare stone walls and floors.
Maybe not even light.
Not deprived in a way that could stimulate an action or reaction

As is well known, a person can go mad with only himself as company
Start howling, hallucinating, banging their head against the wall or chewing on themselves, well documented cases of that
Many in isolation become paranoid, incredibly violent and angry and/or fall into total despair

However, there are hermits, religious men who have walled themselves away and lived quiet lives of peaceful contemplation.
For some mystics a cell is a sought after experience, the life of a contemplative.

IF morals are universal, then to harm yourself is an immoral act. To be in harmony with the universe is a moral act.
That comes from within and from without because without God in that cell, a man most likely will commit immoral acts.

A man without God who is in isolation will chew on himself and that same man in society will chew on other people and blame them for making him do it.

 

[o_mlly]

In the day....

Adam lived some 900 years.

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

He's dead, isn't he?

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

The serpent lied telling them they will not die. They both are dead as are their offspring, aren't they.

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

What is all over the OT is that man's sinning brings suffering and death into the world.

Why?

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

Seems like a teaching moment. The point is that Adam knew that he had committed evil.

 

[o_mlly]

If it's something we can't know...then it's something we can't know. Those are things that I don't presume to be, let alone presume to know. Far be it from me to disregard Pierre....but he's describing a universe devoid of free will.

We can come to know about reality empirically or rationally. Knowledge of God, or if you like, the force that caused those elements to come into being, is empirically unknown. However, as Pierre rationally hinted, that intelligence is vast and must be outside space, time and matter.

 

[Astrid]

All right
A man in solitary who is given food and temperature control
Nothing more, just bare stone walls and floors.
Maybe not even light.
Not deprived in a way that could stimulate an action or reaction

As is well known, a person can go mad with only himself as company
Start howling, hallucinating, banging their head against the wall or chewing on themselves, well documented cases of that
Many in isolation become paranoid, incredibly violent and angry and/or fall into total despair

However, there are hermits, religious men who have walled themselves away and lived quiet lives of peaceful contemplation.
For some mystics a cell is a sought after experience, the life of a contemplative.

IF morals are universal, then to harm yourself is an immoral act. To be in harmony with the universe is a moral act.
That comes from within and from without because without God in that cell, a man most likely will commit immoral acts.

A man without God who is in isolation will chew on himself and that same man in society will chew on other people and blame them for making him do it.

Lucky I’m a woman, then

 

[o_mlly]

You asked....

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 And if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it from you! For it is better for you that one of your members be destroyed than your whole body be thrown into hell.


Take this literally....not as metaphor. He hates your nature...as he made you. It's better that you literally tear off the sinful parts of your flesh than to live as you do. Your heart is filled with sin.

Because He loves us, and love unites lovers, He hates sin which separates us from Him.

He created us "very good" -- "God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good" (Gen 1:31). What happened? Man sinned. Man suffers and dies, for apart from God, man can do nothing good.

If you wonder why god wants blood sacrifice it seems obvious to me that it demonstrates the willingness to destroy evil....and Jesus spends a lot of time pointing out evil. He spends far less time teaching good (if I recall correctly) and why would he? Evil is mankind's nature. Whether he washes it away with flood or burns it from the sky....or transforms it to a pillar of salt. God imagines himself good....and loves to destroy evil.

You think the serpent was evil? It spoke the truth. What was it's "curse"? To slither on its belly the rest of it's days? Lol...it's a serpent. Who is lying here?

Scripture attests that God does not want blood sacrifice, or any kind of sacrifice at all from man (Hosea 6:6; 1 Sam 15:22; Am 5:22–24; Mi 6:6–8; Eccl 4:17; Mt 9:13; 12:7).

We've covered the lying snake thing so no need to dig it back up.

And in that time he did service for his fellow man....until the time of his sacrifice came.

? When His time came, He gave the ultimate sacrifice for us .

Is it any worse than the gibbet? The ouibilette? Romans didn't come up with crucifixion....they just liked the visible reminder of their authority.

Those who kill without fear of any reprisal seem to make the rules. Tell me your god is somehow different.

The gibbet? Yes, crucifixion is worse; the gibbet causes no suffering. The ouibilette? Perhaps, I've never been confined to one. Although, I have been disciplined and sent to my room in my youth.

God did not kill Jesus. Man did. God's rule is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". So, yes, He is very different to fallen man.

Jesus knew he would be denied three times and you think he didn't know who "betrayed" him? I think judas did as he was commanded. I don't remember if it was arrows or a noose...but that was his reward. Far less painful than other disciples.

? I didn't say Jesus did not know who betrayed Him. Rather, Jesus revealed that He did know at the Last Supper the evil that Judas was contemplating.

Judas was not commanded but did freely betray Jesus for money ... 30 bits of silver, remember? In utter remorse, Judas committed suicide. How does Judas' manner of death or the other disciples disclose something evil about God?

Imagine a god that needs a do-over. All knowing? All good? Infallible?

A do-over? This is Act 2 of a three-act play. Act 2 and, as far as I know, Act 3 is not a replay of Act 1.

Omniscient and All-Benevolent, yes.

If he's showing up to change the message...what I read was a simplification. Don't worry about being good...you keep failing. Just remember those first three commandments, recognize his authority, and pain and suffering will be your reward. Hopefully, he isn't lying about what comes after.

? His message is not changing. He's also Immutable and cannot change. Jesus came not to change the message (Mat 5:17) but to change fallen mankind.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist
I can't find which post but I remarked that Jung said "man is a religious animal."

We can just say he did....I tend to agree.

I believe you took issue with that as "not the Chinese"

Most people would consider many of the prominent worldviews and ideologies and even ancestor worship of pre-modern China to fall short of being considered religions.

I would argue that people have a "religious impulse" by nature. That is...we are pattern seeking, meaning seeking, and morally judgmental. We like explanations that are simple and easily understood over complex and difficult. We like authoritative sources even if mostly untrue....over doubtful and uncertain sources that are completely honest and more true. We want clear ingroups we are a part of that we see as good or necessary....and by their nature, create outgroups which are evil, and guilty. These are aspects of our nature generally and all that is needed to create Gods. Wise men like Confucious are essentially deified...even if not literally done so...because they are mythologized in their wisdom and courage etc. This almost always happened after death...but in some rare cases like Julius Caesar or Jesus...while they lived. It wouldn't matter if they ever proclaimed themselves Gods as so few would believe such men ever existed in those times.

I would call that a religious impulse...and it even applies to the many atheists who we call woke. Those are oversimplified mostly false beliefs. They create in groups and out groups through moral judgements. They have authority figures....just shallow identity based ones. Women are the authorities on women. Trans people authorities on gender (despite the claims of infinite genders logically contradicting the possibility of any expertise or authority). Black people the authorities on race....especially those who endlessly try to promote racial views that are mostly false.

I'm sure you can recall a couple years ago when the woke were called a religion or cult. They may not fulfill the definition of those words...but I'd argue, and I think Jung would agree, the woke are fulfilling the religious impulse.

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."

I know. Taoism particularly blurs the lines of philosophy and religion.

The Chinese populace, in spite of the government suppression, do most definitely believe and acknowledge the supernatural world.

Hard to say exactly though....because of the government oppression. They may not believe in a religion in a way Europeans understand it....but I would agree they still share the religious impulse.

I hope we can agree on that much.

 

[o_mlly]

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

Substitute for "God" any "transcendental authority" and you have your answer.

Hallowell put it well:

When...men abandon the belief in transcendental standards ... liberalism becomes degenerate.... When belief in the existence of eternal truths and values is lost... the “liberal” is driven by his own logic to either of two conclusions: to make the sovereign absolute (tyranny) or to make the individual absolute (anarchy). [Having divested himself of objective truths and values,] the positivist "liberal" cannot evaluate the acts of the sovereign [or of himself] in terms of justice or injustice (The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology, John H. Hallowell).​

 

[partinobodycular]

When...men abandon the belief in transcendental standards ... liberalism becomes degenerate....

Here's the thing though, I absolutely, positively agree with this. What I don't agree with however is the idea that those 'transcendental standards' require a 'transcendental being' to validate them. They're valid in and of themselves.

I would argue... and I hope that you would agree, that God would value "One Gentile, who without the law, does by nature the things required by the law", over a thousand "Christians" who on that day will lament "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out devils, and in your name do many wonders?"

One of the above is a true Christian, and all of the others aren't. My goal is to be like that Gentile, to have the law written on my heart, and not just preached to me from some pulpit and supposedly validated by some book.

I will try to do what is right, simply because it's right, and for no other reason than that. And if your God is real, then He will understand that He cannot reach me via some book or some preacher... He's going to have to be more personal than that.

 

[o_mlly]

Here's the thing though, I absolutely, positively agree with this. What I don't agree with however is the idea that those 'transcendental standards' require a 'transcendental being' to validate them. They're valid in and of themselves. ... I will try to do what is right, simply because it's right, and for no other reason than that.

Two points: There are no self-validating moral rules, and you will do what's right whenever you think it's right.

You've described subjective moralism above. Since there are no self-validating moral rules, you are the only validating authority for your moral compass. Kant's Categorical Imperative (which incidentally lacks any moral content) requires that what you license for yourself, you must give the same license to everyone else, ie., you cannot impose your ideas of right and wrong on others.

You may call it "transcendental authority" if you like ... you still end up in with the same conclusion. As the sole authority of right and wrong, you are, 1) an anarchist and, 2) there is no objective morality.