Motivation in Morality

Treeplanter

Active Member
Jun 9, 2021
372
47
50
Southwest Florida
✟15,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
God does not inflict needless harm.
Sure He does

Here is just one of many examples:

God is not required to burn and torture those who die apart from Christ
God could just as easily choose annihilation as he does eternal damnation
Still, He consciously and purposefully chooses to inflict the harm of Hell
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Sure He does

Here is just one of many examples:

God is not required to burn and torture those who die apart from Christ
God could just as easily choose annihilation as he does eternal damnation
Still, He consciously and purposefully chooses to inflict the harm of Hell
Required? God is just. Why not say that justice is not required to do ECT against those who commit the infinite crime of rebellion against their own creator?

You are laying out your judgement based on your precepts, against what you misrepresent. You only partly represent the case, like a lawyer for the opposing side.

You would probably agree, (I'm guessing), that God is obligated to do certain things, because he says so, (or for whatever other reasons, such as it is in his nature to do or be thus). But 'obligation' does not fit God. He doesn't do anything that he does, from necessity or obligation, but it is what it is, because it comes from him. Such concepts are human.

God is just, so he does justice. Justice is what it is because God is just. It is logically self-contradictory to say that he could choose to do otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Required? God is just. Why not say that justice is not required to do ECT against those who commit the infinite crime of rebellion against their own creator?

You are laying out your judgement based on your precepts, against what you misrepresent. You only partly represent the case, like a lawyer for the opposing side.

You would probably agree, (I'm guessing), that God is obligated to do certain things, because he says so, (or for whatever other reasons, such as it is in his nature to do or be thus). But 'obligation' does not fit God. He doesn't do anything that he does, from necessity or obligation, but it is what it is, because it comes from him. Such concepts are human.

God is just, so he does justice. Justice is what it is because God is just. It is logically self-contradictory to say that he could choose to do otherwise.

Is god indipendently just or is what god does just because he/she/it decides what is just?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Is god indipendently just or is what god does just because he/she/it decides what is just?
As Omnipotent, as First Cause —necessary definitions for God, or I have no use for this discussion— He doesn't measure according to our notions, i.e. it is impossible to make him fit our notions. Rather, our notions are measured against him.

Since I don't know what you mean by, "Is god indipendently just..." (he is not a mere god —he is THE one and only God), I'm not sure if you are offering the two options to choose from, accurately. However, I am sure that what God does is just, not because he has a standard called justice, to which he must live up to, but because he is just. He doesn't need to decide if what he plans to do will be just.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
Consider this:

Were I to donate my time and energy helping to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, I think we can all agree that this would be a good and moral thing

Regardless of my motivation/reason for being there - it is a moral ACTION because there is good coming from it, right?

Hungry people are being fed
That's good

It is my contention, though, that my status as a moral PERSON hinges entirely upon my motivation/reason for undertaking said action

If I help to feed the hungry primarily because I care about people and I desire to alleviate their suffering and to benefit their lives then I am a moral person on the basis of doing so

If, on the other hand, I help to feed the hungry primarily because my boss at work is pressuring me to do so and I am angling for a promotion then I am NOT a moral person on the basis of donating my time and energy to a soup kitchen



Agree?
Disagree?
Thoughts?
Monetary donations? {PM me and I'll give you an address}

Yes, I agree that if you do something like feed the poor, but out of obligation, resent having to be there, while the act is good, I don't believe that is a moral or act of kindness.

However, I will also say this: People often have asked me how one loves their neighbor as we ought to. I think there are two factors: One is to pray for that love, for the love of God to just flow through you and make you more loving. The HS has often shown me that it is the highest will of the Father for us to love one another, and to pray for love from the Father, and he gives it generously. I'm not sure many Christians pray for love. A new job, a relationship, for their team to win as if God is a genie granting wishes, rather than ask the Father what he asks of you. There was a time when my psycho neighborhood watch really stepped over the line invading the privacy of me and my roommate by spying on us in our house jn the bedroom, and bathroom. I told God I know I was to forgive them, but the only way I could do that was to be given thst forgiveness. And was given.

The other part is to put your love in action make it a habit, like the phrase Practice Random Acts of Kindness. There was a woman in Toronto who would go buy apples, water, meat cheese and bread, making sack lunches, then go to parks, bridges, and ask homeless people if they needed some food. It was a small act of kindness, but if everyone made a drop, we would have an ocean. And even if you start off wondering if any of it makes a difference, seems like a lot of work, each time you do these small acts of kindness, it changes you. You don't see it right away, because it's a babystep towards becoming kinder. But it soon becomes your nature.

The combination of asking for love, then acting in faith, changes you into a more loving person, and you will see the fruit of the spirit in yourself.

I compare it to going to the gum. You keep meaning to. Finally, you do. You decide to commit one hour/day, running, lifting, biking, something. When you don't want to go, you go anyway.

6 months later, you start to feel the need to exercise, your food choices may change, you look better, you feel better.

If I bring you to the gym, and you keep telling me that you don't want to be there, you don't like exercising, you are only doing this for me, chances are, you won't go again. Sure, if I have a lot of patience, and could get you to go for a month, at which time you could stop, you would most likely start to like it. But if we all do it once as part of a company outing obligation once, chances are it won't have much impact.

Re: morality - a friend of mine told me that her church group went to a secondhand clothing store to volunteer to sort clothes for the homeless. Their leader found a very nice leather coat that was donated, and decided to take it as "payment" for working. That, I believe, was highly unethical. Basically, not only did she steal, and set a bad example for the people in the church group, but she stole from homeless people. That's cold.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
Is it fair, though, to call the Christian a sinner on this basis or is it true that in order to qualify as a sinner one must consciously and purposefully choose to sin?
The latter. However, this happened to me.
A woman believing homosexuality to be a sin, said to me, "I love you in Christ, but I hare your sin."

I replied, "Thank you, sister. And I love you as well. And, hate your sin, too.

She said, My sin???? What sin have I committed?

I said I didn't know nor is it my business. Was she angry that I hated her sin?
Was she angry that I said she sinned, because we all do.

She then made it clear that what I did (which I don't believe is sin, but she did), I do intentionally, but she doesn't intentionally sin. I was like, "you unintentionally find a sweater you didn't pay for in your purse? You say, whoa, whoa you aren't my husband.. Every misdeed where me act in selfishness towards our neighbor is wholeheartedly done intentionally. We make a conscious choice to know better, and make a bad decision, so we keep the extra cash the waitress gave us, even justify that you didn't take the money..: You choose. So when someone claims they don't intentionally sin, i doubt they acknowledge that they sin at all, or aware of when they do, thus, thinking there is no need to ask forgiveness to the other or God.

That is one of the problems with Christianity vs Buddhism. Christianity focuses so much on the deed, so, you make wish someone were dead, tell them so, snd think yourself good because you didn't act, while the bible says you have already committed murder. Buddhism goes for the root of the problem, the impure thought of hating the other, acknowledging the thought, and purifying it - getting rid of it.

I practiced the observance and respect of all sentient life, valuing all living things. I saw a small inch worm near the bus stop of the university. I carried it to safety. After practicing this for a number of weeks, I realized that then caring for another person was just a no brainer, so much more important to me than an inch worm.

Similarly, I will return money if given too much change. Loving my neighbor as myself makes me return it, feeling empathy. The karma of knowing I should return it and don't will manifest 3x over, as will the good karma, similar to Christ saying to cast your bread on the water.

The biggest difference in Buddhism, though, is that it doesn't give you any space to try and justify your misdeed, because at it's root, in this example, you kept the money for selfish gain, knew it wasn't yours, and took advantage of yhe clerk's mistake for your own benefit.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The latter. However, this happened to me.
A woman believing homosexuality to be a sin, said to me, "I love you in Christ, but I hare your sin."

I replied, "Thank you, sister. And I love you as well. And, hate your sin, too.

She said, My sin???? What sin have I committed?

I said I didn't know nor is it my business. Was she angry that I hated her sin?
Was she angry that I said she sinned, because we all do.

She then made it clear that what I did (which I don't believe is sin, but she did), I do intentionally, but she doesn't intentionally sin. I was like, "you unintentionally find a sweater you didn't pay for in your purse? You say, whoa, whoa you aren't my husband.. Every misdeed where me act in selfishness towards our neighbor is wholeheartedly done intentionally. We make a conscious choice to know better, and make a bad decision, so we keep the extra cash the waitress gave us, even justify that you didn't take the money..: You choose. So when someone claims they don't intentionally sin, i doubt they acknowledge that they sin at all, or aware of when they do, thus, thinking there is no need to ask forgiveness to the other or God.

That is one of the problems with Christianity vs Buddhism. Christianity focuses so much on the deed, so, you make wish someone were dead, tell them so, snd think yourself good because you didn't act, while the bible says you have already committed murder. Buddhism goes for the root of the problem, the impure thought of hating the other, acknowledging the thought, and purifying it - getting rid of it.

I practiced the observance and respect of all sentient life, valuing all living things. I saw a small inch worm near the bus stop of the university. I carried it to safety. After practicing this for a number of weeks, I realized that then caring for another person was just a no brainer, so much more important to me than an inch worm.

Similarly, I will return money if given too much change. Loving my neighbor as myself makes me return it, feeling empathy. The karma of knowing I should return it and don't will manifest 3x over, as will the good karma, similar to Christ saying to cast your bread on the water.

The biggest difference in Buddhism, though, is that it doesn't give you any space to try and justify your misdeed, because at it's root, in this example, you kept the money for selfish gain, knew it wasn't yours, and took advantage of yhe clerk's mistake for your own benefit.
Lotta' self-focus and self-righteousness in that Buddhism. . .just sayin'.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As Omnipotent, as First Cause —necessary definitions for God, or I have no use for this discussion— He doesn't measure according to our notions, i.e. it is impossible to make him fit our notions. Rather, our notions are measured against him.

Since I don't know what you mean by, "Is god indipendently just..." (he is not a mere god —he is THE one and only God), I'm not sure if you are offering the two options to choose from, accurately. However, I am sure that what God does is just, not because he has a standard called justice, to which he must live up to, but because he is just. He doesn't need to decide if what he plans to do will be just.
Then stating that god is just is meaningless.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Then stating that god is just is meaningless.
Lol, not sure now which god you are referring to. A god? Or THE God?

I.e. assuming in an argument, THE God, is just meaningless? or assuming a god, is just meaningless? You said, "stating that god". I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'stating'.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol, not sure now which god you are referring to. A god? Or THE God?

I.e. assuming in an argument, THE God, is just meaningless? or assuming a god, is just meaningless? You said, "stating that god". I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'stating'.
Stating ”god is just” is meaningless as, from your perspective, whatever god do is just.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Stating ”god is just” is meaningless as, from your perspective, whatever god do is just.
Not so, since justice gets its meaning from God, not from our notions.

But, if by what you say, what you actually mean is that it is meaningless to us, i.e. not actually meaningless, you are talking like the one that doesn't think a tree falling in the wilderness makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it!

Truth is, I think, the day will come when we will be surprised how much depth of concept is derived from God by instinct, and not by reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Herbivore Wolf

Active Member
Jun 19, 2021
45
21
Norman
✟11,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi Herb,

Sorry that it's taken me this long to get back to you!
{and forgive me for not rereading through this thread, myself}

To be honest, I'm not sure that this will shed any more light on the subject {given that it might already, as you say, be rather obvious}, but in the interest of clear communication, these are my thoughts/definitions:

Morality is simply the differentiation between right and wrong - between good and evil

Good and evil are human constructs
We created and define these concepts

In short,
Good is simply that which is beneficial to us {such as salvation and resurrection}
Evil is that which is detrimental to us {such as being drowned}

Where God consciously and purposefully inflicting harm upon us is concerned,
A NEEDLESS harm {or evil} is a harm that IS NOT REQUIRED in order to achieve His desired end
A NEEDED harm {or evil} is a harm THAT IS REQUIRED in order to achieve His desired end

Human beings, limited as we are, sometimes have no other choice except to inflict harm in order to achieve a greater good

Ex: We sometimes have no other choice except to cut people open in order to remove cancer

God, on the other hand, can ALWAYS remove cancer WITHOUT cutting a person open
God is NEVER, EVER REQUIRED to inflict harm upon us {cutting us} in the course of removing cancer

Let's look at the Great Flood
God decided to drown the entire human race
This, by definition, includes babies and children

Giving God the benefit of the doubt, I trust that He drowned the innocent babies and children alongside the wicked with the intent of saving them from a fallen world and resurrecting them to a better one

This is a good and moral end
However, God chose the evil and immoral means of drowning by which to achieve this end

He didn't have to!

God, being omnipotent, could have saved and resurrected those babies WITHOUT causing them harm {evil} in the process

Instead, God consciously and purposefully chose to do them harm
God consciously and purposefully chose to drown innocent babies and children

This was, by definition, NEEDLESS

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless ham upon another is immoral

God, having consciously and purposefully inflicted needless harm upon us, is immoral

On this basis, God is not worthy of our devotion

If, on the other hand, I am wrong and God DID NEED to drown babies and children in order to save and resurrect them - then He is not immoral, but rather inept

In which case He is unworthy of our devotion due His weakness

Either way, God is unworthy


Greetings, Treeplanter.

Forgive me for interrupting your conversation. I assume, given your pattern of posts so far, that you can carry on multiple conversations on threads, so I hope I can trouble you with a few questions.

I noticed in your post, the one I am using to reply to, that you said that we humans define the status of morality, and right and wrong. I found it fascinating that in your post, you posit that humans created the concepts of right and wrong. I understand that, as an athiest, this model makes sense to you. However, I was wondering where we humans got the basis for the ideas of right and wrong. Where do we draw from, what makes the concepts universal?

In one of your earlier posts, you stated that your position, that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm, is the overarching standard. This struck me as strange, since I don't hold to this view myself. How did you come to this belief? I understand that, since you phrase this position very carefully each time you state it, you put some thought into how this works. You seem to have a very specific idea in mind. I intend to study your posts further, but I hope that my concerns will intrigue you. I look forward to your responses.
Thank you for your time.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Greetings, Treeplanter.

Forgive me for interrupting your conversation. I assume, given your pattern of posts so far, that you can carry on multiple conversations on threads, so I hope I can trouble you with a few questions.

I noticed in your post, the one I am using to reply to, that you said that we humans define the status of morality, and right and wrong. I found it fascinating that in your post, you posit that humans created the concepts of right and wrong. I understand that, as an athiest, this model makes sense to you. However, I was wondering where we humans got the basis for the ideas of right and wrong. Where do we draw from, what makes the concepts universal?
.
Would you mind if I gave my perspective? The human basis for right and wrong comes from a variety of different things, but it is all based on human thoughts. Ya see; right and wrong are judgments humans make when we observe actions. I think for most it is based on empathy, culture. However human morality is based on human thought. As far as universal, a quick look into the real world and you will see human morality is not universal.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Greetings, Treeplanter.

Forgive me for interrupting your conversation. I assume, given your pattern of posts so far, that you can carry on multiple conversations on threads, so I hope I can trouble you with a few questions.

I noticed in your post, the one I am using to reply to, that you said that we humans define the status of morality, and right and wrong. I found it fascinating that in your post, you posit that humans created the concepts of right and wrong. I understand that, as an athiest, this model makes sense to you. However, I was wondering where we humans got the basis for the ideas of right and wrong. Where do we draw from, what makes the concepts universal?

In one of your earlier posts, you stated that your position, that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm, is the overarching standard. This struck me as strange, since I don't hold to this view myself. How did you come to this belief? I understand that, since you phrase this position very carefully each time you state it, you put some thought into how this works. You seem to have a very specific idea in mind. I intend to study your posts further, but I hope that my concerns will intrigue you. I look forward to your responses.
Thank you for your time.

And why not interrupt you. I ask myself .

Here is a q for you.

Is it impossible to think about something, and figure out if
it is right or wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Would you mind if I gave my perspective? The human basis for right and wrong comes from a variety of different things, but it is all based on human thoughts. Ya see; right and wrong are judgments humans make when we observe actions. I think for most it is based on empathy, culture. However human morality is based on human thought. As far as universal, a quick look into the real world and you will see human morality is not universal.

Can you think of anything that is universal among cultures?

Lots of things are very widely held in common.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Can you think of anything that is universal among cultures?
I wouldn't say universal because there are always exceptions, but subjective concepts like taking something that doesn't belong to you, or unfair killings, are usually deemed illegal by most of them
Lots of things are very widely held in common.
I agree, but they are usually based on subjective concepts.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I wouldn't say universal because there are always exceptions, but subjective concepts like taking something that doesn't belong to you, or unfair killings, are usually deemed illegal by most of them

I agree, but they are usually based on subjective concepts.
Well, let me also interrupt. . .

Man was endowed with a conscience, which is the source of natural morality.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I wouldn't say universal because there are always exceptions, but subjective concepts like taking something that doesn't belong to you, or unfair killings, are usually deemed illegal by most of them

I agree, but they are usually based on subjective concepts.

Some objective, some subjective? Such as...?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, let me also interrupt. . .

Man was endowed with a conscience, which is the source of natural morality.
I agree! But that conscience evolves over time, and is varies from culture to culture. A couple hundred years ago, chattel slavery (owning another person as property) was considered perfectly reasonable and moral, while homosexuality was considered sick and evil by the most moral of us; now homosexuality is seen as perfectly normal, while slavery is considered is seen as something only a sick person would condone.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums