Morality: trial and error

[Ledifni]

I wouldn't consider a sociopath immoral if he did immoral actions. But that is just my opinion. I wouldn't factor mental illness into the equation at all.

This is fairly irrelevant, but you might be interested to know that Antisocial Personality Disorder (the disorder of sociopaths) is not a mental illness. It's a personality disorder, a trait of personality that does not impair mental functioning. A person with APD is entirely rational, entirely aware of what they are doing and that it's wrong -- they just don't care; they believe that their welfare is of paramount importance and that others exist purely to serve their selfish purposes (which generally results in them doing quite a bit of damage to others).

 

[]RiSeN[]

Would it be so bold so as to call this instinct?

Happy b'day by the way!

 

[Ledifni]

Would it be so bold so as to call this instinct?

I'm not sure I understand your question... ?

Happy b'day by the way!

Thanks!

 

[]RiSeN[]

Would it be so bold so as to call this instinct?

Happy b'day by the way!

Well, the psychopath or sociopath has no marals since he is not choosing what is right and wrong, but only what is good and bad for him, his survival. The lack of a conscience also negates it from being moral.

 

[Boomygrrl]

Sociopaths are "wired" differently. They have done brain scans to show this. There is a bio-chemical process here.
Morality is a behavior. So they do engage in immoral behavior. But are they completely responsible? That's what I'm wondering. I don't advocate letting cold blooded burders out of jail, because "they can't help it." I"m not implying that at all. Society still needs to be protected from them.
However, what does this mean in theological terms?

Also, back to "trial and error." I believe that's how most of us (unless we are mentally ill or have a brain disorder) learn moral behavior...through socialization, rewards and punishments, learning from parents (or from peers or from minister). Our temperament plays a role too. Why does God require perfection from us? Since we can't be perfect, Jesus had to reconcile our broken relationship to God, or at least that's the reasoning behind Christianity. Why the obsession with sin? Rather than punishment and reconcilation, why have a broken relationship to begin with? Can't God understand us? I'm not saying that all are actions should be seen as okay. I"m not saying that we shouldn't be responsible for our behaviors. The idea of being born again and being saved from hell and other Christian beliefs just doesn't seem to fly well with how we are wired. I don't know if I'm making sense.
I don't need for you to assert your beliefs, I want you to explain them.

Boomygrrl

 

[]RiSeN[]

Sociopaths are "wired" differently. They have done brain scans to show this. There is a bio-chemical process here.
Morality is a behavior. So they do engage in immoral behavior. But are they completely responsible? That's what I'm wondering. I don't advocate letting cold blooded burders out of jail, because "they can't help it." I"m not implying that at all. Society still needs to be protected from them.
However, what does this mean in theological terms?

If its a physical, biological error, it falls under imperfect flesh, just like suicides, and only to God is reserved judgement.

Also, back to "trial and error." I believe that's how most of us (unless we are mentally ill or have a brain disorder) learn moral behavior...through socialization, rewards and punishments, learning from parents (or from peers or from minister). Our temperament plays a role too. Why does God require perfection from us? Since we can't be perfect, Jesus had to reconcile our broken relationship to God, or at least that's the reasoning behind Christianity. Why the obsession with sin? Rather than punishment and reconcilation, why have a broken relationship to begin with? Can't God understand us? I'm not saying that all are actions should be seen as okay. I"m not saying that we shouldn't be responsible for our behaviors. The idea of being born again and being saved from hell and other Christian beliefs just doesn't seem to fly well with how we are wired. I don't know if I'm making sense.
I don't need for you to assert your beliefs, I want you to explain them.

God demands "perfection" from us because we were created "in His image", " "Man is God's glory". Cant be too glorious an image if we make it look nothing like him.

Boomygrrl

My opinion.

 

[Farquad_38]

If morality is trial and error, why do Christians believe God has a strict "no sin" policy? If we are considered too imperfect to be in God's presence, without being "born again" or whatever, why did God bother? Knowing the majority of humans are not going to be Christian, what was the point?

Why bother doing what? Creating humanity? Despite all of the hardships, evils and trials, I would still rather live a miserable life than to have never lived at all. Wouldn't you?
I believe the same line of thinking can be applied to God creating humans. Well, not just creating humans, but creating everything. Before the creation, there was nothing. No time, no space, no anything; just God. How could God not create? Even God must have purpose. What purpose would God have if he mereley existed within himself? So He made us. By making us, He made the only creature He was able to interact with, the only creature He could truly love. But what is love without free will? If there is no other choice but God, how can the lvoe we have for Him be real and sincere? So God gave us freedom. But with freedom comes consequences. If there is a possibility that an event will occur and there is an eternity for that event to happen, it is a mathematical, statistical fact that that event will eventually happen. So, after some period of time, Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and chose something besides God; evil, which is the polar opposite of God. Thus evil was inevitible when love was created. Thus we have the world as it is today. And that was the point of creating us. Without love, there cannot be evil. And I don't think we can really ask what the point of love is, can we?

We are influenced by many factors, it's not so simple as freewill. Does that mean we are not responsible for our actions? No, it doesn't. We have brains, we can think, but we mess up. That's what's great about us. We're not robots. I would not be able to relate to the "perfect person." I think it's great that we learn from trial and error. We are in the process of learning. Some learn faster than others, and some don't give a darn. Why is it considered bad that we mess up?

Messing up is bad, but as you point out, good can always come out of our mistakes. But how could messing up be "messing up" if it wasn't bad? What mistake would we be making if messing up was in fact a good thing? If there were no consequences to slipping up, why would we bother trying to not mess up? You're right, it is great that we learn from trial and error. But do you see the logic I'm trying to present? If we don't try to not mess up, than what point would learning from our mistakes have?

I don't disown my dog for pooping on the living room floor. I don't hate someone who might be thoughtless and selfish at times. Why is God obsessed with moral behavior? Doesn't He/she/it understand human nature? Why not inspire us to be the best we can be, than using punishments and death as a price tag?


Boomygrrl

I'd like to use your analogy to attempt to answer your question. Do you hate or disown your dog for pooping on the carpet? No. But do you let him do it over and over again without repricussion? Of course not. Otherwise, how would the dog learn that he shouldn't poop on the floor? Same way with us. (Not that we poop on the floor, but I'm comparing the situation with trial-and-error morality. ) Such is the nature of the human psyche. When we mess up, there will be consequences for our actions. There has to be. Otherwise, why would we want to stop "messing up"? Those consequences could be anything from a guilty conscience to being put in prison but all actions will eventually have consequences. God understands human nature completely. He invented it. That fact is the reason of God alotting salvation to humanity; because we are imperfect and are desperately in need of it. God knows this, and this is how we are able to sin and still be Christians. Because of grace, we can mess up, and still be right with God. We can sin against God and still enter God's presence and gain acess to His love. Or, in your analogy, we can poop on God's floor a million times, and he will always clean it up and will always forgive us for doing it.

 

[Boomygrrl]

And why must the consequences be hell?
That's pretty severe.

When I said "why bother?" I was thinking...why would God create billions and billions of human beings, only to have a minority of them go to heaven. I could not in a good conscience create so many people and send them to hell. If I had the foresight that the majority were going to end up in hell, I would try to figure out a better system or just not create them at all.

God's need for us to love him is clouding his judgment.


Boomygrrl

 

[]RiSeN[]

And why must the consequences be hell?
That's pretty severe.

When I said "why bother?" I was thinking...why would God create billions and billions of human beings, only to have a minority of them go to heaven. I could not in a good conscience create so many people and send them to hell. If I had the foresight that the majority were going to end up in hell, I would try to figure out a better system or just not create them at all.

God's need for us to love him is clouding his judgment.


Boomygrrl

'Hell' is an inacurate reading of the bible left over from early clergy. There is such a thing as 'eternal death' which is refered to as 'hades' or 'sheol' in the bible. These words are also said to describe a destruction or complete anhilation. But the bible does not say anything about God creating an eternal tormenting plane out of sensless sadisism. Insisting that God would 'keep us around' in a 'hell' to be tortured would incite that God is petty and childish. God is a judge, His verdicts are final and complete. Eternal 'hell' is an adversion of the sentencing given be God;

Genesis 3:19: "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."

God plainly tells Adam what he really is in the 'Big Picture'. Adam sin was to indirectly tell God the man could know what was good and bad for himself. An declaration of independance from God. God responds with the obvious, 'I made you from dust, without Me you will return to dust'. Complete unexistece is the sentence for mans claim to independance. The only suffering he will do will be during "all the days of his life". God provided everything the First parents needed, on they're own, they would toil in pain working for their bread, no longer from trees but from the ground. Man would now return to the ground he had toiled all the days of his life for subsistance.

 

[Farquad_38]

That's an interesting idea, Fallen. It certainly makes sense to me, anyway. I'll have to give it some more thought, sometime.

In any case, I'd like to answer the way I normally answer this question: Why does God send people to Hell?
I'm sure you've heard the preacher's cliche', classic response: "God does not send people to Hell; people send themselves there". Although plain and somewhat brutal, I believe it's fairly accurate. I don't believe it's completely correct, howevor, at least not in a literal sense. Hell was not made for us. It was made for Satan and his followers for their rebellion. As a last resort for an atack against God, Satan tried to bring down God's earthly creation. Satan planted evil in God's perfect garden. This question is well adressed in Jesus' parable of the weeds, found in the book of Matthew, chapter 13, verses 24-29.

24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared."

The field is the world; God's creation. And we, Christians in the world, are the good seed in the field. We know this because Jesus speaks of "the kingdom of heaven" in the comparison here. The kingdom of heaven, Jesus' kingdom, is "not of this world" (Jn 18:36). It's not the way we would normally think of a kingdom; it is not one single physical thing in one single physical place. Jesus' kingdom is in the entire world, in the hearts of of all who believe in Him and serve His name. In other words, the entire world is now His kingdom, and every Christian in the world is one of His servants.
The "enemy" that Jesus is speaking of is Satan. The weeds He speaks of is evil. Satan came into the kingdom and implanted every and all forms of evil and showed us how to sin against God. Anything that sepreates us from God is a weed planted by Satan, put there in an attempt to tear God's kingdom apart. As God's kingdom has grown, so have the weeds. I believe it was John the apostle that wrote that as the last days come closer, evil will increase, but so will the spirit. (I've been looking for this passage all night, but I can't find it off hand).
But anyway, on with the parable;

27“The owner's servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”

If you'll notice, the burning of the bundles -- most likely a referance to Hel| -- was not intended for the good seeds. It was only intended for the weeds, the evils in the world, not us. The weeds choke us and bring us down with them, killing us in the process. This goes along with what Paul says in Romans 6:23; "The wages of sin is death". Hel| was intended for Satan, his angels, and all the evils in the world, but many of us will become entangled in these things and thereby be condemned with them. The reason people end up in Hell at all is because they are pulled down with Satan, not pushed down by God. So the saying, "God does not send people to Hell" is justified. God does not send people to Hell. Satan does.
Anyway, that's just my view on things. Hope it sheds some light on Christian doctrine, or if nothing else offers you another viewpoint of it among the thousands.

 

[]RiSeN[]

That's an interesting idea, Fallen. It certainly makes sense to me, anyway. I'll have to give it some more thought, sometime.

In any case, I'd like to answer the way I normally answer this question: Why does God send people to Hell?
I'm sure you've heard the preacher's cliche', classic response: "God does not send people to Hell; people send themselves there". Although plain and somewhat brutal, I believe it's fairly accurate. I don't believe it's completely correct, howevor, at least not in a literal sense. Hell was not made for us. It was made for Satan and his followers for their rebellion. As a last resort for an atack against God, Satan tried to bring down God's earthly creation. Satan planted evil in God's perfect garden. This question is well adressed in Jesus' parable of the weeds, found in the book of Matthew, chapter 13, verses 24-29.

24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared."

The field is the world; God's creation. And we, Christians in the world, are the good seed in the field. We know this because Jesus speaks of "the kingdom of heaven" in the comparison here. The kingdom of heaven, Jesus' kingdom, is "not of this world" (Jn 18:36). It's not the way we would normally think of a kingdom; it is not one single physical thing in one single physical place. Jesus' kingdom is in the entire world, in the hearts of of all who believe in Him and serve His name. In other words, the entire world is now His kingdom, and every Christian in the world is one of His servants.
The "enemy" that Jesus is speaking of is Satan. The weeds He speaks of is evil. Satan came into the kingdom and implanted every and all forms of evil and showed us how to sin against God. Anything that sepreates us from God is a weed planted by Satan, put there in an attempt to tear God's kingdom apart. As God's kingdom has grown, so have the weeds. I believe it was John the apostle that wrote that as the last days come closer, evil will increase, but so will the spirit. (I've been looking for this passage all night, but I can't find it off hand).
But anyway, on with the parable;

27“The owner's servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”

If you'll notice, the burning of the bundles -- most likely a referance to Hel| -- was not intended for the good seeds. It was only intended for the weeds, the evils in the world, not us. The weeds choke us and bring us down with them, killing us in the process. This goes along with what Paul says in Romans 6:23; "The wages of sin is death". Hel| was intended for Satan, his angels, and all the evils in the world, but many of us will become entangled in these things and thereby be condemned with them. The reason people end up in Hell at all is because they are pulled down with Satan, not pushed down by God. So the saying, "God does not send people to Hell" is justified. God does not send people to Hell. Satan does.
Anyway, that's just my view on things. Hope it sheds some light on Christian doctrine, or if nothing else offers you another viewpoint of it among the thousands.

Absolutely. If I substitute your word of 'hell' with 'unexistance', i completely agree. Free Will. God does not send people to 'hell', in fact He does the exact opposite in John 3:16.

 

[]RiSeN[]

And why must the consequences be hell?
That's pretty severe.

When I said "why bother?" I was thinking...why would God create billions and billions of human beings, only to have a minority of them go to heaven. I could not in a good conscience create so many people and send them to hell. If I had the foresight that the majority were going to end up in hell, I would try to figure out a better system or just not create them at all.

God's need for us to love him is clouding his judgment.


Boomygrrl

Your knowledge of God and His qualities are severly incomplete. God does not need us to love Him. He is asking us to. We can say yes or no. Free Will.

 

[jamicon]

Another interesting question. This question, from a Christian perspective, was probably answered by Aquinas and Calvin. Both, especially, Aquinas, believed that there is a "law of nature" that was implanted upon the hearts of men as the "natural law." The law of nature was the perfect will of God, which was burned into us as a guiding light.

Now, we all have reason. But, according to Aquinas, only "Divine Reason" was true reason. Divine reason was the inspired reason of God. Under divine reason was demonstrative reason.

Both Calvin and Aquinas believed that the "natural law" was written into the hearts of man, but could be altered through continued behavior which violated the Godly scheme. Therefore, guilt is the tool used to help guide us. So, morality exists from God's gift of his "Laws of Nature" which are given to us as the "Natural Law."

But, the interesting question is not if natural law exists, but can our "guilt" be triggered by actions which do not violate the "Law of Nature," but our socialization process, therefore, causing guilt. If so, then how do we distinguish Godly action from social action without the use of demonstrative reason. The problem is, that on Aquinas' scale, demonstrative reason gives way to "Divine Reason" and, therefore, could not be controlling.

Finally, perfection is not the standard which God expects us to achieve. If it were, then why would he have sent his Son as a propitiation for our sins. Clearly, we all need to use God's cheat sheet. Trial and error is an integral part of human existence. To argue otherwise would be absurd.

 

[]RiSeN[]

From a christian point of view, morals only exist because of the Original sin, "they're eyes were opened". It was a declaration of independence from God's ways. The noticed there nakedness for the 1st time, when God spoke to them next they hid from Him, feeling guilt and shame.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Finally, perfection is not the standard which God expects us to achieve. If it were, then why would he have sent his Son as a propitiation for our sins. Clearly, we all need to use God's cheat sheet. Trial and error is an integral part of human existence. To argue otherwise would be absurd.

This statement is based on incomplete or false biblical knowledge.

 

[jamicon]

Fallen, please explain how my interpretation of the scripture, Aquinas, Calvin, and Blackstone is incorrect. Because, honestly, the one sentence rebuke isn't convincing. BTW, it is difficult to sum up a long, drawn out topic in four short sentences and be funny at the same time.

Fallen, I do appreciate your involvement, contributions, and views (most of which I agree -- at least from what I've read).

 

[Boomygrrl]

Your knowledge of God and His qualities are severly incomplete. God does not need us to love Him. He is asking us to. We can say yes or no. Free Will.

And your knowledge of God is complete? Wow, that's amazing. You really believe you know God that well?
God doesn't need us to love him, but if we don't we fry or we are annihilated. Gee!

Boomygrrl

 

[]RiSeN[]

Again, your knowledge is incomplete, and can best be descibed as 'hearsay'. Study the bible, dont steal things from it.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Another interesting question. This question, from a Christian perspective, was probably answered by Aquinas and Calvin. Both, especially, Aquinas, believed that there is a "law of nature" that was implanted upon the hearts of men as the "natural law." The law of nature was the perfect will of God, which was burned into us as a guiding light.

Agreed.

Now, we all have reason. But, according to Aquinas, only "Divine Reason" was true reason. Divine reason was the inspired reason of God. Under divine reason was demonstrative reason.

Agreed.

Both Calvin and Aquinas believed that the "natural law" was written into the hearts of man, but could be altered through continued behavior which violated the Godly scheme. Therefore, guilt is the tool used to help guide us. So, morality exists from God's gift of his "Laws of Nature" which are given to us as the "Natural Law."
Stop. Guilt did not apear untill the first time God spoke with them after 'their eyes were open'. Only then did they remember they had disobeyed, feeling guilt and shame they hid in the bushes. But i see what your saying. If say Satan had 'worn down' their consciences to the point of sin, leading them a little further everytime without actually having sinned, but only cultivating the 'desire/sin' slowly in their heart till they 'pushed the button' themselves. I dont agree with there view because they seem to discount the Devil and say that the First couple drifted on there own. Everything was fine before Gods Adversary started to influence Man. That and Aquinas seems to believe evil doesnt really exist.


But, the interesting question is not if natural law exists, but can our "guilt" be triggered by actions which do not violate the "Law of Nature," but our socialization process, therefore, causing guilt. If so, then how do we distinguish Godly action from social action without the use of demonstrative reason. The problem is, that on Aquinas' scale, demonstrative reason gives way to "Divine Reason" and, therefore, could not be controlling.

See above answer.

Finally, perfection is not the standard which God expects us to achieve. If it were, then why would he have sent his Son as a propitiation for our sins. Clearly, we all need to use God's cheat sheet. Trial and error is an integral part of human existence. To argue otherwise would be absurd.

Trial and error is only integral because of sin.

 

[Boomygrrl]

Again, your knowledge is incomplete, and can best be descibed as 'hearsay'. Study the bible, dont steal things from it.

I have studied the bible, thank you. I've read the whole bible, and I've read several books of the bible several times over.

I think we can describe the bible itself as "hearsay." Did Moses witness the creation of the world, the Flood? The wording of the gospels shows that they copied from each other...seems hearsay to me.

So, why do you have so much confidence in your ability to ascertain what it is that God wants? Do you share a condo with him in Heaven Estates?
The way I see it is your guess is as good as mine...no better, no worse.


Boomygrrl