Situational Morality

[SolomonVII]

As they used to say on the old Game show Family Feud "Good Answer", "Good Answer"


I have tried very hard at times to imagine my life without my faith, without God but can't I can't imagine what it would be like to live without Him . It scares me.

Thanks, mhatten. Reading what people such as you on CF have written has been a great help in strengthening my own faith. There are many fine Christians here that I am sure I will continue to appreciate listening too long after I no longer will have the time to post much myself.

 

[placebo]

From the point of view of an athiest, since God does not exist, how can a non-existent God be held morally accountable for the death of millions? ...

As an atheist I agree. However, as an atheist living in the USA I'm trying to understand how intelligent people such as yourself rationalize the actions and make sense of your Christian God.

... In a way, the question really does not make sense. Do we hold the sky morally accountable for the havoc wreaked by a tornado, or the ocean morally accountable for floods. Like nature, God is not really a part of the ethical system of man. ...

Are you equating God with the inanimate forces of nature? I assumed that he was much more than that. My understanding was that he is the Supreme Being- conscious, omnipotent, the basis of the ethical system of man, and on and on. If He is, and one of His laws is that "Thou shall not kill," and then he breaks his own law by murdering millions then of course it is legitimate to ask if God is wrong for committing murder.

... In the world of nature, where the hunter becomes the hunted, and the devourer becomes the devoured, it is not always apparent which is the best path. We can only trust that God knows, and pray from the depths of our heart that He may show us. ...

God apparently does not know himself which is the best path. His words say, "Thou shall not kill," but his actions betray his words as he slaughters millions. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then he surely could have solved his problems with Man without violating his own laws! How can Man know what path to follow when the message is so confusing?

 

[Bulldog]

Question 1: Was it wrong for God to murder millions of men, women and children as detailed in the Old Testament?

No, because it wasn't murder. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a human. What God did was LAWFUL.

 

[armed2010]

No, because it wasn't murder. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a human. What God did was LAWFUL.

How is killing millions of women and children LAWFUL?

 

[placebo]

No, because it wasn't murder. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a human. What God did was LAWFUL.

But it was unlawful. God violated his own law- Thou shall not kill.

 

[SolomonVII]

As an atheist I agree. However, as an atheist living in the USA I'm trying to understand how intelligent people such as yourself rationalize the actions and make sense of your Christian God.

Ironically, one of the biggest admirers of Yaweh of the Old Testament was the ultra-athiest Frederick Nietczhe. I could look up one of his quotes on what he though about Yaweh, if I have time. On the other hand, he despised what he thought was the different God of the New Testament as being weak and womanish.
As late as 1975, statitistic on religious beliefs on the US and Germany showed around 90 percent of the people believing in God or a Higher being. Only around 6 percent that described themselves as athiests. Intelligence is not the prime factor in whether or not one believes. What is of primary importance is whether or not one decides that the totality of reality may be trusted to be ultimately meaningful and purposive. The existence of God provides a grounds for such a trust. While undoubtedly many athiests can believe that the absoluteness of their moral principles are justified, ultimately without God, there is no real grounds on which such a belief can be based. To believe in god, then, means that one decides that his subjective experience of himself as a moral being is not without foundation.

Are you equating God with the inanimate forces of nature? I assumed that he was much more than that. My understanding was that he is the Supreme Being- conscious, omnipotent, the basis of the ethical system of man, and on and on. If He is, and one of His laws is that "Thou shall not kill," and then he breaks his own law by murdering millions then of course it is legitimate to ask if God is wrong for committing murder.

No, I am only comparing God to the inanimate forces of nature in terms of an analogy. To state that God is a murderer, is to unduly anthropomorphize the infinite. Only in the second person of the Trinity can God be truly be seen with human attributes. The laws themselves were made for the benefit of man, and not for God, who both creates and destroys.
For instance, the genius of the Ten Commandments is not that they are a comprehensive code for human behavior in and of themselves. Clearly, for example, there is not enough mention of the equal status of woman with man in them. However, because these laws were given to us with the absolute authority of the Most High, the idea is presented for the first time in history that God is personally interested in the welfare of his human creation. In this way, morality is invested with the authority of being absolute.

God apparently does not know himself which is the best path. His words say, "Thou shall not kill," but his actions betray his words as he slaughters millions. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then he surely could have solved his problems with Man without violating his own laws! How can Man know what path to follow when the message is so confusing?

If the real nature of reality is truly based on a nihilistic contradiction, and reality is in fact is merely aimless, meaningless, puposeless, and groundless existence of no inherent worth, as Nietszche has suggested, ultimately there could be no such thing as a best path. Morality is nothing more than an oranic will to power based in our evolutionary biology. Our innermost longings for ultimate meaning can never really be fulfilled in such a world in which reality contradicts our hearts desires and even itself.
But if God exists, then this is not the ultimate state of affairs. the world is as iti is because the world is not God. Yet through our choices, through our struggles with our own natures, with external reality, and with God Himself, if God truly does exist, then we can trust that there are answers to the very difficult moral problems that face us. Through our struggles, and our choices we may find these answers.

 

[placebo]

... What is of primary importance is whether or not one decides that the totality of reality may be trusted to be ultimately meaningful and purposive. The existence of God provides a grounds for such a trust. ...

Does the existence of the Christian God give meaning and purpose to all mankind or only to those who believe in Him? As an atheist is my life without meaning and purpose? Or a Muslim's life? Or a Mormon's life?

... While undoubtedly many athiests can believe that the absoluteness of their moral principles are justified, ultimately without God, there is no real grounds on which such a belief can be based. ...

If the United States was 100% percent Christian would there be a need for any man-made laws? I ask this because my impression is that Christians believe that the moral foundation that God provides is firm and absolute. If that is the case shouldn't that be enough to guide man's behavior? Shouldn't it be obvious which behavior is moral and which is immoral?

... To state that God is a murderer, is to unduly anthropomorphize the infinite. Only in the second person of the Trinity can God be truly be seen with human attributes. ...

When Christians tell me that God is love do they "unduly anthropomorphize the infinite?" Or how about when I hear that God gives meaning and purpose?

... if God truly does exist, then we can trust that there are answers to the very difficult moral problems that face us. Through our struggles, and our choices we may find these answers.

If ten Christians are all faced with the same difficult moral problem do you think that all ten will find the same answer?

 

[Lillithspeak]

Heck, look at the number of different denominations of "Christians" and you have your answer. They don't know which part if the whole myth to accept, so they argue over it. It's too funny. I'm sending you blessings!

 

[SolomonVII]

.... God is love....

If it be true that God is love, then ,truly, Nietzche was as godless a man as he claimed to be. If anyone knows love, they know God, and through love, god know them.
God's spiritual gift of love is the very source of our life, the grounds for all morality, and the ultimate purpose for human existence.

 

[placebo]

You are really promoting your God with your last couple mystical posts. However, you didn't answer my questions. Was it an oversight, or don't you want to respond?

 

[SolomonVII]

Placebo,
The dialogue was going nowhere. Your belief that God can be a murderer makes no sense to me, and what I have so far posted seems to make no sense to you either, Sorry we couldn't connect.
...........................................
Whatever anybody might think, I myself don't consider anything I've posted so far in this thread as being unduly mystical. I tend to have a very secular understanding of the world in fact. What I have so far posted reflects my own understanding of Kant's view on morality. Science best explains the natural world as phenomena, but yet science is of limited usefulness when it comes to explaining the world underlying the phenomenal world as it presents itself to us. When science stays within the boundaries of what can be known empically, however, it is most useful, as for example in defining the devolopmental processes involved in moral thinking, which is what my initial post was about.
The fact that we experience ourselves as moral human beings in our day to day lives, capable of making moral choices, led Kant to the idea that God is the best explanation that ultimately can justify the experience of our lives as purposeful and meaningful.
Not just from a Christian, but from a purely secular point of view, the bible itself contains some much valuable wisdom which can help build a moral foundation for a society. Spanning the millenia as it does, and preserving what people since the dawn of writing have considered most valuable, there is much to be learned and treasured within its pages. In a societal sense, it still very much serves as the moral underpinnings of western culture. The moral lessons we pass onto our children are still very much derived from the traditions that arose from the Bible. Far from having a total revaluation of our values, as Nietzche predicted, the Christian God is still very much alive in the norms and mores of our society even today.

 

[placebo]

... The dialogue was going nowhere. Your belief that God can be a murderer makes no sense to me, and what I have so far posted seems to make no sense to you either, Sorry we couldn't connect ...

I did not realize that I was to only listen to your mantric discourse and not to ask any questions. Once again I apologize.

 

[onionring]

Are certain immoral actions moral under the right conditions? Is theft of food acceptable when you are starving, murder acceptable in the situation of war? What makes something moral and some other action or thought immoral, in your view?

IMO, your examples are skewed and the question is misspoken. I don't agree that war is murder or eating food (not your own) to survive is stealing. It seems to me that man's finite vocabulary and understanding, is once again found lacking. Just because two things share similar descriptions and actions, doesn't make them the same thing. Take for instances, identical twins. While they often share similar actions and look the same, that doesn't mean they are the same person. Why is that? Perhaps it has to do with soul or spirit? Morality, in the same way, directly address the reflection of soul and spirit in/through action(s).

I propose that "the action" is a thing which is done. Reflected in that action is a spirit. And morality is a measurement of that spirit within the action.

While actions and spirit vary; morality does not. Morality is a constant like gravity. And like gravity, morality is not dependent on man's definition of it, or belief in it. It exists.

Morality is a measurement of good or evil; right or wrong of the spirit of an action. And here's the tricky part...there are some actions in which the spirit can be nothing but "wrong". Murder. Stealing. Idolatry. ( For more reference 10 commandments). All these words, in their very name, maintain their actions as having a spirit of evil. So if you describe an action similar to stealing and yet it lacks the spirit of evil, then that action can not be correctly called stealing. The problem is limited and misused vocabulary, not morality.

In closing, morality is a measurement of the spirit, not a measurement of the action. Your examples where not immoral, even though you implied they were. The answer to your question is no. An immoral action will always be immoral, because morality doesn't change, no matter what man thinks or believes.

I hope, I expressed that clear enough to understand.

 

[onionring]

You are really promoting your God with your last couple mystical posts. However, you didn't answer my questions. Was it an oversight, or don't you want to respond?

Oversight...due to narrow-mindedness.

You rather argue than think. You're arguing and rhetorically questioning, and he's thinking and explaining.

Learn your enemy (or those with opposing ideas). I winced every time I read your responses. Not because your points were not valid, but because they were so weakly supported. I'd like to argue some of your same points (in agreement), but you blew up the argument so much, I'm afraid to get hanged by "your" loop-holes.

Good luck in the future; you need it.

 

[placebo]

Huh?

 

[onionring]

Huh?

LMAO! <-- can we put this in the forum?

(Implied)Oversight on your part, tough guy.

 

[SolomonVII]

IMO, your examples are skewed and the question is misspoken. I don't agree that war is murder or eating food (not your own) to survive is stealing. It seems to me that man's finite vocabulary and understanding, is once again found lacking. Just because two things share similar descriptions and actions, doesn't make them the same thing. Take for instances, identical twins. While they often share similar actions and look the same, that doesn't mean they are the same person. Why is that? Perhaps it has to do with soul or spirit? Morality, in the same way, directly address the reflection of soul and spirit in/through action(s).

I propose that "the action" is a thing which is done. Reflected in that action is a spirit. And morality is a measurement of that spirit within the action.

While actions and spirit vary; morality does not. Morality is a constant like gravity. And like gravity, morality is not dependent on man's definition of it, or belief in it. It exists.

Morality is a measurement of good or evil; right or wrong of the spirit of an action. And here's the tricky part...there are some actions in which the spirit can be nothing but "wrong". Murder. Stealing. Idolatry. ( For more reference 10 commandments). All these words, in their very name, maintain their actions as having a spirit of evil. So if you describe an action similar to stealing and yet it lacks the spirit of evil, then that action can not be correctly called stealing. The problem is limited and misused vocabulary, not morality.

In closing, morality is a measurement of the spirit, not a measurement of the action. Your examples where not immoral, even though you implied they were. The answer to your question is no. An immoral action will always be immoral, because morality doesn't change, no matter what man thinks or believes.

I hope, I expressed that clear enough to understand.

If I am understanding then, what ultimately makes an act moral or immoral is not the act in and of itself, but the intent. Even if morality is absolute, the laws, mores and norms that aid in defining morality are not. They serve as signs to guide us direct us along the correct path. In other words, man was not created to serve the Law, but the Law is created for man benefit.

Inherent in the definition of stealing and murder is the evil intent to do someone harm, or at least an indifference to any harmful social consequence of an action performed for one's own self-aggandizement. As pointed by out by Onionring about feral's OP, the acts so defined are not acts of hatred. Such acts may be viewed primarilyy as acts of survival, and acts of self-preservation.
As individuals and as a people, we are bound to the moral imperative not merely to preserve our life, but to even increase it. Even a mind as strongly athiestic as Nietzche's could proclaims this.

The absolute morality in these cases, then, is defined by the moral imperative to survive and to honor God's gift of life by sustaining it. Hence, morality itself is not being relativized, nor are any moral imperatives being ignored.

 

[foolsparade]

The absolute morality in these cases, then, is defined by the moral imperative to survive and to honor God's gift of life by sustaining it. Hence, morality itself is not being relativized, nor are any moral imperatives being ignored.

wrong! at what point do you feel the need to barf up "god's gift"?

 

[SolomonVII]

wrong! at what point do you feel the need to barf up "god's gift"?

Great argument, foolsparade. You've really outdone yourself with that one!
Honestly, it one the your best!
If Nietszche considered Christ an idiot, with an erudite argument like these, well, what more can I add. You are absolutely Christ-like, in the Nietzschean sense of course!
On a positve note, you really know how to work those cut and pastes.
Hmm, I just had a thought. Didn't Nietszche go to his deathbed thinking he was the crucified Christ? I wonder what this says about his own opinion he had of himself?

 

[onionring]

If I am understanding then, what ultimately makes an act moral or immoral is not the act in and of itself, but the intent.

Not sure "intent" is the word I would choose...implies willful morality. But okay....for now.

Even if morality is absolute, the laws, mores and norms that aid in defining morality are not. They serve as signs to guide us direct us along the correct path. In other words, man was not created to serve the Law, but the Law is created for man benefit.

Agreed. Laws are fallible attempts by man to express his conceptualization of morality. Hence, they can be an incorrect "definer" of morality.

Inherent in the definition of stealing and murder is the evil intent to do someone harm, or at least an indifference to any harmful social consequence of an action performed for one's own self-aggandizement. As pointed by out by Onionring about feral's OP, the acts so defined are not acts of hatred. Such acts may be viewed primarilyy as acts of survival, and acts of self-preservation.
As individuals and as a people, we are bound to the moral imperative not merely to preserve our life, but to even increase it. Even a mind as strongly athiestic as Nietzche's could proclaims this.

Add a few big words, move them around, mention Nietzsche...why not just say "Onionring, in his infinite wisdom, was correct." Simple and to the point.

The absolute morality in these cases, then, is defined by the moral imperative to survive and to honor God's gift of life by sustaining it. Hence, morality itself is not being relativized, nor are any moral imperatives being ignored.

I equate morality to truth. Therefore absolute morality to absolute truth. The real issue is not does morality (truth) change; for it does not. The issue is man's understanding of it. And as man does with everything he lacks understanding in, he simply bends his conceptualized "truth", to his benefit.