Situational Morality

[onionring]

I don't believe in a personal god, and I don't believe in the concept of sin as expressed by most people who consider themselves christian. Interestingly enough, I do believe that when the circumstances are narrow enough, you do infact achieve absolute morality.

As for God and Noah's time, yes that is God's "rationale" for killing everyone on Earth. Even if many people were acting very immorally, certianly not everyone was - including children. Yet, according to the story, God decided to kill everyone. When judging the act itself, without relying on WHO is doing the act, I find impossible to view such conduct as being good and driven by love.

If you don't believe in God then why argue a point of something He did? What's the point of proving something a unreal person did? Wouldn't it be an unreal act, then (given it was done by an unreal person)? Then doesn't that logic also dictate that He should be considered innocent, in the fact that He doesn't exist?

Also, I don't have a Bible, like some people...so I found one online. I'm referencing http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+6&language=english&version=NIV if anyone cares about exactness.

Genesis 6:5 "6 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."
Genesis 6:11-12 "11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways."

First let me say, I hope you actually read that because it took me forever to actually find it. I didn't realize that that site had a word search until after I had read through the first 6 chapters.

These verses states the reasoning for God's action (in this instance). It also states "all the people" were evil. How can you interpret that in some other way? It would be like arguing that a medieval documentation of the Black Plague wiping out an entire cities is wrong, because you believe that in a population the size of a city, someone must have developed an anti-body to it. While that logic seem probable, the documentation of that account says otherwise. So which then is to be considered, "the truth". Reasoning dictates the documentation, until other evidence (not opinion) proves otherwise.

I think, it's fine to look at the Bible as a type of documented history (in a way). But in arguing, you can applied unstated reasoning and interpretation only so far as it doesn't directly contradict the written historical account. If the Bible said "all" people were evil, then it should be assumed that "all" people were evil. Aside from that, the Bible should be considered a fallible historical document. And from that stand point, not worth arguing over. By arguing its details, you give validity to it as a legitimate historical document...and thereby weakening your argument when you directly contradict, said legitimatize document.

The same thing goes for arguing actions of God. By arguing over God's reasoning and responsibility in His actions, you (albeit unintentionally) give legitimacy to the fact that there is a God....else why argue His actions?

So all in all, if you are atheist....what are you doing arguing this point? The point that should be argued is "Is there a God?", not "Why did He do the things He did?" Why lend legitimacy to a point which is directly contrary to one's life philosophy?

Just a thought(s). Just a question(s).

 

[SolomonVII]

Then Saddam and Hitler are not responsible for any deaths whatsoever? Or do those men share responsibility with God? Being ultimately responsible, yet doing nothing doesn't sound very right or just either. Perhaps I'm not getting your point.
I really don't inderstand the response. Saddam and Hitler are people. They are not God. they are responsible for the deaths that they caused through their actions and their orders.
Of course I was under the assumption that you did believe in a god of some kind from previous posts of yours, and tried to tailor my answer accordingly.

True, but the nature of one's death should matter. If I live to be 100, I certianly won't complain about dying. But if someone wanted to take my life at 35, without any justification other than wanting the contents of my wallet, I just might have a problem with that.
On the contrary, the life of a one hundred year old is as precious as any other.
Death is a part of life. The more we love life, the more we absorb ourselves into life, the crueler and more unfair death will appear, no matter what the age, or no matter what the cause. My main point is that it is just as absurd to blame God for our life and our death as it would be to blame the impersonal forces of nature. If one's focus upon reading the Bible becomes displaced from man's own ethical responsibility, and instead causes one to shake his fist at the sky and curse His creator for creating the world such as it is, one is missing the point that the authors were trying to get across.

It is dangerous to start with the position that one should only worship something so great that whatever It does must necessarily be right and good to be worth worshipping, then evaluate Its acts according to that standard. If we used such methodology in our everyday lives, we'd still be living in caves, or more likely be extinct as a species.
That fact that our civilisation after at least 2500 years of reading the Bible and worshipping the God within we have not only emerged from caves, but have created a civilisation like none before negates your conclusion.
What has not been done has been to base our conclusions on a misreading of the Bible, as onionring has already pointed out. The ethical standard derived from reading the Bible has also not been based on reading some of the more obscure and archaic passages alone, outside of the context of the Biblical tradition taken as a whole.
What has also not been done is to create a standard based on our own personal feelings of what is good. As often as not, in spite of our conscious intentions, such a standard will only end up being self-serving. Such is the nature of the beast.

Recognizing the value of life does not require life after death whatsoever. Such a belief cuts both ways - just look at suicide bombers.
An afterlife is not necessarily implied in the the concept of transcendance. It only means a going beyond the normal, or an understanding that what we know is more limited than not just what we can know, but that what we can know has limits as well.
Suicide bombers are nihilists. They have no values at all. There actions are not based on God or ethical considerations. A study of the phenomena of suicide bombing will reveal that such acts are rational in that they are almost exclusively directed at democracies as an attempt to sway public opinion by causing as much human destruction as possible. Paradise is not what motivates the suicide bomber. It is hate, pure and simple.

I'm really not focusing on the unfortunate aspects of the Bible, but rather pointing out the logical inconsistency of those who claim to oppose so-called "situational morals."
To tell the truth, my original intent in joining this thread was not to argue for either the Bible of the absoluteness of values. My primary intent was to suggest that the sense of morality that we internalize in childhood is instrumental in all subsequent morality. If a sense of morality is not instilled in us before a certain age, chances are any moral lessons learned after will be no more than superficial.
Rather than presenting a case for situational ethics, it seems that many preferred to use this thread as a forum to express their contempt for the bible and Christianity in general.
I have seen several good arguments for how and why morality can be considered absolute, some that are not even biblical. Very little in the way of an argument for situational ethics has been presented. Even if the Bible is shown to be an inadequate standard for an argument for absolute values, the case for situational ethics has still not been made.
What onionring has already said is true. If one does not believe in God, then to focus on the Bible as a way of making your case for situational ethics is nonsensical. It would be much more productive to make a case for situational ethics independant of a fallible book and a non-existant god.
I have not yet read the case for situational ethics on this thread. Worst still, those who agree that ethics are relative have not presented me anything that I can teach to my children.

 

[tcampen]

If you don't believe in God then why argue a point of something He did? What's the point of proving something a unreal person did? Wouldn't it be an unreal act, then (given it was done by an unreal person)? Then doesn't that logic also dictate that He should be considered innocent, in the fact that He doesn't exist?

If you've ever engaged in an analysis of literature, you might have discussed why a character took some action or felt a certain way. Such issues are not set in stone but vigorously debated in good literature, like Shakespear, for example. Whether the characters are real or their depictions are historically accurate are irrelevant to the discussion of understanding the work itself. Thus, your point seems to advocate never reading and considering any literature at all, for example.

Also, I don't have a Bible, like some people...so I found one online. I'm referencing http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+6&language=english&version=NIV if anyone cares about exactness.

Genesis 6:5 "6 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."
Genesis 6:11-12 "11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways."

I understand that's what that interpretation of the bible says, and thank you for quoting it. My question is how so corrupt can a newborn really be to deserve being killed?

These verses states the reasoning for God's action (in this instance). It also states "all the people" were evil. How can you interpret that in some other way? It would be like arguing that a medieval documentation of the Black Plague wiping out an entire cities is wrong, because you believe that in a population the size of a city, someone must have developed an anti-body to it. While that logic seem probable, the documentation of that account says otherwise. So which then is to be considered, "the truth". Reasoning dictates the documentation, until other evidence (not opinion) proves otherwise.

My point is that I disagree with the assessment that newborn infant can be so evil as to warrant killing her. Thus, the position itself is wrong. Period.

I think, it's fine to look at the Bible as a type of documented history (in a way). But in arguing, you can applied unstated reasoning and interpretation only so far as it doesn't directly contradict the written historical account. If the Bible said "all" people were evil, then it should be assumed that "all" people were evil.

Why? I see your point if we assume that fact to be true just for the sake of argument. But even making that assumption, do we go around killing newborn children because they are "evil?" It's difficult to even imagine an omnibenevolent being take such an action - it's downright antithetical.

Aside from that, the Bible should be considered a fallible historical document. And from that stand point, not worth arguing over. By arguing its details, you give validity to it as a legitimate historical document...and thereby weakening your argument when you directly contradict, said legitimatize document.

I don't get your point there, sorry.

The same thing goes for arguing actions of God. By arguing over God's reasoning and responsibility in His actions, you (albeit unintentionally) give legitimacy to the fact that there is a God....else why argue His actions? So all in all, if you are atheist....what are you doing arguing this point? The point that should be argued is "Is there a God?", not "Why did He do the things He did?" Why lend legitimacy to a point which is directly contrary to one's life philosophy?

Just a thought(s). Just a question(s).

Claims are made. Others test the accuracy of those claims. Even if we're talking about hypotheticals, it strengthens one's analytical ability. What's so wrong about intellectual exercise?

btw, I am not an atheist, but a seeker of truth, however it presents itself.

 

[tcampen]

To tell the truth, my original intent in joining this thread was not to argue for either the Bible of the absoluteness of values. My primary intent was to suggest that the sense of morality that we internalize in childhood is instrumental in all subsequent morality. If a sense of morality is not instilled in us before a certain age, chances are any moral lessons learned after will be no more than superficial.
Rather than presenting a case for situational ethics, it seems that many preferred to use this thread as a forum to express their contempt for the bible and Christianity in general.

I certainly do not have any contempt for the bible or Christianity. While I may have some disagreements, this should never be confused with contempt. I totally agree that children should be instilled with strong moral values as a foundation for the rest of their lives. It is also important to recognize that many have also used this thread to show contempt for situational morality while not even recognizing they practice such themselves.

Irony can be pretty ironic, sometimes.

 

[loveisallyouneed]

My morals are based on commonsense, on behavior that I know will not infringe upon another humanbeings right such as the right to live, the right to freedom of speech, and so forth. Above although, my morals are based in the greatest message of Jesus Christ, love. When I try my best to view the world through the eyes of Christ, through unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness, it's difficult to sin and judge my brothers and sisters. The rest of the bible doesn't mean very much to me, at least not as much as the words of the Lord, and His words alone.

 

[SolomonVII]

[/i][/color]

I certainly do not have any contempt for the bible or Christianity. While I may have some disagreements, this should never be confused with contempt. I totally agree that children should be instilled with strong moral values as a foundation for the rest of their lives. It is also important to recognize that many have also used this thread to show contempt for situational morality while not even recognizing they practice such themselves.

Irony can be pretty ironic, sometimes.

Actually I haven't even seen any arguments for situational morality on this thread yet. That is not to say that there may not be many good arguments for such a position. It only means that instead of arguing for the merits of situational morality, or what the basis for morality could be other than God, people have taken it upon themselves to base their arguments on the analogies of God being a thug that lifts you wallet or a genocidal monster that somehow gets his rocks off on killing sweet little babies. What is confusing is trying to understand such attitudes as based upon anything other than contempt.
Or to rephrase this in the language of the thread, it's not so much that I would like people to stop barfing up their idea of situational morality for me, but rather I would like them to start barfing it up.

Enough said.

 

[tcampen]

Solomon,

I think the point of showing God's actions as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) are brutal, violent and even genocidal. Absolute morality means certain acts are always wrong regardless of the situation. Situational morality means certain acts may be wrong or not wrong depending on the situation.

When one claims, as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, that God did nothing but good when being brutal, violent and genocidal, but then recognizes that any other being who committed exactly the same acts would be doing wrong - well, that just happens to be situational ethics. Changing the "absolute rules" based on who is committing the act renders the concept of an absolute rule meaningless, in other words.

As I posted above, there are other reasons to find that all peoples' morality is situational morality, when you analyze it. I guess that's the point.

 

[SolomonVII]

Life itself is brutal, violent and even genocidal. The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same. Jesus understood that manner in which he was to die, and he understood that it was God's will for Him to die in the way the He did. And yet to Jesus, God remained "Daddy". This man, who was astounding the religious wise men with His deep knowledge of scripture (Old Testament) at the age of twelve, who undoubtedly understood his destiny upon his first hearing of the Suffering Servant prophecies of Isaiah, loved this at the same time very terrible, very stern, very loving, very demanding Yaweh as He is depicted in the Old Testament. He loved this Yaweh to the point of the horrible death demanded of Him, and stated flatly than only God (Yaweh) is good. To follow Jesus, it must be remembered that it was Yaweh Himself that Jesus accepted and loved and glorified. A warm fuzzy teddy bear of a god, however good and safe it may make a child feel at night, cannot be a true depiction of the God who created a world such as ours. Life itself, as we experience it, should make us aware that only a God such of this can truly be considered real. He is as terrible as life is itself, but also the grounds for a morality that will lead to a true and lasting peace.

It is to the credit of the ancient Hebrews that they were able to understand a revelation of God that at the same time that remained true to violent intensity of tribal life, and at the same time also provided the basis of a system of morals and ethics that would help them transcend such a life. The Bible itself does not idealize such a society, but as a sacred history, it prohecies that in time ,through accepting God, we will transcend it.

To love Yaweh is to embrace the life that has been given to us, in all its suffering and glory, its promises and its horrors. To love God is to consider life, such as it is, as a blessing and not a curse. If the truth is terrible, so too must God be terrible. But if it is our decison to embrace our lives as being good, then it is not illogical to conclude that God is truly good for having created us.
No more than it can fathom life itself, our logic by itself cannot even begin to measure the goodness of God.

 

[onionring]

If you've ever engaged in an analysis of literature, you might have discussed why a character took some action or felt a certain way. Such issues are not set in stone but vigorously debated in good literature, like Shakespear, for example. Whether the characters are real or their depictions are historically accurate are irrelevant to the discussion of understanding the work itself. Thus, your point seems to advocate never reading and considering any literature at all, for example.
...

That's quite a stretch. Are you saying everyone here is in a literary debate on a fictional character? Or just you? Can you see the problem of debating others, if they believe the character true and you believe the character is literary (or fictional)? Hence my point. Arguing the actions (of character) can not be (should not be) argued if you cannot first agree on if that character is fact or fiction.

Re-read my previous posting. It should be clear now. It's really quite simple.

....
I understand that's what that interpretation of the bible says, and thank you for quoting it. My question is how so corrupt can a newborn really be to deserve being killed?
....

Apparently corrupt enough. Whuhahahahaha!!!! (my evil laugh).

Actually, I would say "that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." That would probably do it.

....
My point is that I disagree with the assessment that newborn infant can be so evil as to warrant killing her. Thus, the position itself is wrong. Period.
....

Since I never said anything about newborn infants being evil...you lost me. Yet I did speak of validity of historical documentation... are you saying, that if a historical document (the analogy I used) says one thing, but you don't understand how or why, then you go with "your feelings" on the matter and declare it is "wrong. Period."?

....
Why? I see your point if we assume that fact to be true just for the sake of argument. But even making that assumption, do we go around killing newborn children because they are "evil?" It's difficult to even imagine an omnibenevolent being take such an action - it's downright antithetical.
....

"Omni benevolent"?! LMAO! <-are we allowed to do this? It's not mocking...just tickled by this new thought....Sorry, I'm a "VERY" simple man.

I didn't realize this was the case...my apologies for my limited understanding of God.

....
I don't get your point there, sorry.
....

I was saying. If you believe a document to be fallible, why argue specifics of it? Seems pointless. Either, it is correct, or not. You actually give that false document a level of validity by arguing specific "parts" of it. This point links back to my first point that you can't debate specifics of "an object" until you first agree on the validity of "an object".

You know...horse before the carriage and all.

....
Claims are made. Others test the accuracy of those claims. Even if we're talking about hypotheticals, it strengthens one's analytical ability. What's so wrong about intellectual exercise?
....

Nothings wrong with "intellectual exercise". Of course, to get to a level above double-talk and mindless opinions, you will need some factual base and logic reasoning. Right?(*Not implying there is not any in this debate; simply asking if we agree on this point*)

That's been my whole encompassing argument over these points. People are arguing (for instances) aspects of God, and yet don't even agree whether he exist. What a waste of time!

....
btw, I am not an atheist, but a seeker of truth, however it presents itself.
...

Sorry. All my "you"s are generic and not specific. I try to use the word "one's" as much as possible but since I don't talk, or think that way, some times it comes out (written) as "you"s (generic). Sorry for the confusion.

btw, I don't care about your (tcampen...or others for that matter) beliefs. Wisdom isn't exclusive to a specific religion (or lack thereof). Rather, it IS exclusive to "truth". And that is what I seek...albeit not very well at times (I'm a "VERY" simple man...lol).

 

[tcampen]

That's quite a stretch. Are you saying everyone here is in a literary debate on a fictional character? Or just you? Can you see the problem of debating others, if they believe the character true and you believe the character is literary (or fictional)? Hence my point. Arguing the actions (of character) can not be (should not be) argued if you cannot first agree on if that character is fact or fiction.

Not a stretch at all. Debating the merits of a claim, whether based on fact or purely hypothetical, is a valuable intellectual exercise. One need not be training for the Olympics to gain benefits from running, you know.

Since I never said anything about newborn infants being evil...you lost me. Yet I did speak of validity of historical documentation... are you saying, that if a historical document (the analogy I used) says one thing, but you don't understand how or why, then you go with "your feelings" on the matter and declare it is "wrong. Period."?

Your quote from Genesis was about God finding everyone on earth to be so evil that killing them all (minus Noah's crew) was justified. Killing them all included newborns. Furthermore, the claim is that killing newborns was a good thing, because god can only commit perfect love and goodness. I think your confusing terms. Whether an event happened, like an earthquake, a war, or a birth can be established as historical. Whether that event was good or bad in the scheme of things is not a matter of historical fact, but of moral assessment. Racial segregation in America is a historical fact. Whether it was a good or bad thing has certianly changed over time based on a moral assesment of it. See what I mean?

"Omni benevolent"?! LMAO! <-are we allowed to do this? It's not mocking...just tickled by this new thought....Sorry, I'm a "VERY" simple man.

I didn't realize this was the case...my apologies for my limited understanding of God.

Sorry, my bad. I made the false assumption that you thought God was all good. My apologies.

I was saying. If you believe a document to be fallible, why argue specifics of it? Seems pointless. Either, it is correct, or not. You actually give that false document a level of validity by arguing specific "parts" of it. This point links back to my first point that you can't debate specifics of "an object" until you first agree on the validity of "an object". You know...horse before the carriage and all.

That's been my whole encompassing argument over these points. People are arguing (for instances) aspects of God, and yet don't even agree whether he exist. What a waste of time!

No document ever created (except for some the bible ) is infallible, yet we don't disgard it altogether because it may contain some errors. That's just silly. Furthermore, debating the specifics of "an object" helps to determine the vilidity of "an object." You know...there's more than one way to skin a cat, and all.

Furthermore, just because people may not aggree with you about the specific nature of god, doesn't mean they are an atheist. I honestly can't tell what your faith or spiritual belief is, but if you have one, and if it is important to you, why wouldn't you want to share it?

As for the Truth...I'm glad we are both committed to it.

 

[onionring]

…
Not a stretch at all. Debating the merits of a claim, whether based on fact or purely hypothetical, is a valuable intellectual exercise. One need not be training for the Olympics to gain benefits from running, you know.
...

Well, I guess we disagree. I believe exercise is good, yet if you do it improperly you can seriously hurt yourself and reap negative benefits (to the opposite effect you want) from it. And you (tcampen) seem to be claiming, it doesn’t matter if you “stretch” just as long as you exercises. Thinking like that gets people “injured”. There’s nothing wrong with “stretching”. You know? …The thing you do before you exercise, so that the exercise actually benefits you?

…
Your quote from Genesis was about God finding everyone on earth to be so evil that killing them all (minus Noah's crew) was justified. Killing them all included newborns. Furthermore, the claim is that killing newborns was a good thing, because god can only commit perfect love and goodness. I think your confusing terms. Whether an event happened, like an earthquake, a war, or a birth can be established as historical. Whether that event was good or bad in the scheme of things is not a matter of historical fact, but of moral assessment. Racial segregation in America is a historical fact. Whether it was a good or bad thing has certianly changed over time based on a moral assesment of it. See what I mean?
...

Actually you (tcampen) may be the one “confused”. In “my” discussion about the Flood (and other such acts) I never claimed, “because god can only commit perfect love and goodness”. And since the rest of your argue was based of that concept…what are you (tcampen) trying to say (in regards to what I actually posted)?

But nice argument, otherwise.

…
Sorry, my bad. I made the false assumption that you thought God was all good. My apologies.
…

NP.

Hmmm…had to look it (omnibenevolent) up. Google found it for me.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/arg/blarg_god_omnibenev.htm
http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/eotheodicy.htm
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/evilis.html

Only problem is atheists seem to be the only writers of the subject. I couldn’t find the other side…aside from atheist/agnostic claims. Someone shoot me a “Christian” perspective link. Thanks.

…
No document ever created (except for some the bible ) is infallible, yet we don't disgard it altogether because it may contain some errors. That's just silly. Furthermore, debating the specifics of "an object" helps to determine the vilidity of "an object." You know...there's more than one way to skin a cat, and all.
…

Documentation CAN be infallible. I believe what you (tcampen) are referring to is literature. Difference being a document is a record and literature is an interpretation.

With that understood…a document, whose sole-exist is the record, fails in recording. Is it a document? If not, is it literature? If literature, it should not be argued as a record of events…but as an interpretation of events.

…
Furthermore, just because people may not aggree with you about the specific nature of god, doesn't mean they are an atheist. I honestly can't tell what your faith or spiritual belief is, but if you have one, and if it is important to you, why wouldn't you want to share it?
…

If I believe “specific nature of god” is that he exists, and you don’t, then by definition…you are atheist. Correct?

Now if you (tcampen) meant to imply that ‘people can disagree about specific “characteristics” of God’ then I agree. I would even agree, that atheist and Christians could debate the characteristics of God (in an approach to proving existence – philosophically). But what is all this arguing about God’s intentions, thoughts, feelings, or reasons for doing an action, or being a certain way? To debate (proving or disproving) a person based on their reasoning, IMPLIES existence.

“I think, therefore I am.”

That continues to be my point! Is it really that hard to understand?

…
As for the Truth...I'm glad we are both committed to it.
…

Committed? Hmmmm…like marriage? I’m not sure I know “Truth” that well. I...I...I mean…I don’t want to rush in to anything. That’s a big step (and claim).

DISCLAIMER: Just in case ppl forgot...my "you"s are generic, unless otherwise stated. Example: "Now if you (tcampen) ..."

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Morality is relative. While a basic social moral code is necessary for society to function (i.e. murder can't be legal just because some people think it's right), you must accept that Christian morals only apply to Christians. Every action has a justification on a personal level. There is no action we take that is without reason, so obviously we are justifying it to ourselves, otherwise we would not commit to it. Therefore, a human being can do no wrong on a personal level, just a social level.

However, as I said, there must be a moral standard for society to function. If someone feels justified in murdering a child, obviously he is right and justified in his mind. Should society ignore it because he feels so? Of course not, that's ridiculous. He must be punished for not conforming to the moral code which keeps society under control.

The ideas of right and wrong are nothing if not a device to control the masses, yet they are necessary.

 

[onionring]

Morality is relative. While a basic social moral code is necessary for society to function (i.e. murder can't be legal just because some people think it's right), you must accept that Christian morals only apply to Christians. Every action has a justification on a personal level. There is no action we take that is without reason, so obviously we are justifying it to ourselves, otherwise we would not commit to it. Therefore, a human being can do no wrong on a personal level, just a social level.

However, as I said, there must be a moral standard for society to function. If someone feels justified in murdering a child, obviously he is right and justified in his mind. Should society ignore it because he feels so? Of course not, that's ridiculous. He must be punished for not conforming to the moral code which keeps society under control.

The ideas of right and wrong are nothing if not a device to control the masses, yet they are necessary.

Can anyone say, "high-school individualism"?

Fun time, but it’s not the "real world". Though some people hang onto it. And some never grow up.

You stick to your guns, Voice Of Reason! No matter what.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Can anyone say, "high-school individualism"?

Fun time, but it’s not the "real world". Though some people hang onto it. And some never grow up.

You stick to your guns, Voice Of Reason! No matter what.

If you wish to disregard everything I said about why a moral code is necessary, then yes, it is "high-school individualism."

 

[SolomonVII]

Morality is relative. While a basic social moral code is necessary for society to function (i.e. murder can't be legal just because some people think it's right), you must accept that Christian morals only apply to Christians. Every action has a justification on a personal level. There is no action we take that is without reason, so obviously we are justifying it to ourselves, otherwise we would not commit to it. Therefore, a human being can do no wrong on a personal level, just a social level.

However, as I said, there must be a moral standard for society to function. If someone feels justified in murdering a child, obviously he is right and justified in his mind. Should society ignore it because he feels so? Of course not, that's ridiculous. He must be punished for not conforming to the moral code which keeps society under control.

The ideas of right and wrong are nothing if not a device to control the masses, yet they are necessary.

Does morality only mean following the rule of who holds the biggest stick? Can a society truly progress unless individuals define their morality as a postive willing toward a higher good?
This version or morality is defined only in the negative aspect, as a curtailment of the individual's appetites in lieu of weaknes relative to a greater force. However, a grander vision of morality might be selfessly reaching out to somebody in a position of weakness from your position of strength and empowering them.
Critics of this position might hold that the 'stick' in this case is a spider morality of resentment in which the weak entraps the stronger into spending their resources in taking care of them in a web of guilt. However, is it not just as possible that love and altruism exist in the human heart, and the primary motivation is not to assuage guilt but empathy and genuine caring?

 

[tcampen]

Documentation CAN be infallible. I believe what you (tcampen) are referring to is literature. Difference being a document is a record and literature is an interpretation.

I am eager to see an example of infallibility, beyond conceptual terms. Sure, a book on math can contain no errors, but that's not the context we're talking about. We're talking about recounting of past events by an author. If such were possible, then how can there be so many books on the American Civil War, or who shot JFK, or on Thomas Jefferson?

With that understood…a document, whose sole-exist is the record, fails in recording. Is it a document? If not, is it literature? If literature, it should not be argued as a record of events…but as an interpretation of events.

Not much arugment there, except Webster's dictionary doesn't really define "literature." Furthermore, a record of an event is only as accurate as the thing that recorded the event. Even seismographs at different locations don't give the exact same readings on the magnatude of an earthquake, for example. Thus, making a record of which candidate won a particular election may be perfect, but that is not what we're talking about.

If I believe “specific nature of god” is that he exists, and you don’t, then by definition…you are atheist. Correct?

Ok, I'll bite. go on...

Now if you (tcampen) meant to imply that ‘people can disagree about specific “characteristics” of God’ then I agree. I would even agree, that atheist and Christians could debate the characteristics of God (in an approach to proving existence – philosophically). But what is all this arguing about God’s intentions, thoughts, feelings, or reasons for doing an action, or being a certain way? To debate (proving or disproving) a person based on their reasoning, IMPLIES existence.

“I think, therefore I am.”

That continues to be my point! Is it really that hard to understand?

First of all, Decarte was talking about proof to the self that one exists, not that any other being exists when he said “I think, therefore I am.” Second, the debate over the morality of a being, with certain facts assumed to be true for the sake of that discussion, is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether that being really exists or not. It can just as easily be a hypothetical situation. In fact, that's how critical thinking works. So, one could ask the question, "if someone killed all the healthy newborn babies in the world all at once, is that act consistent with being good?" Whether that person really exists or that act really happen is irrelevant to the question, nor does the question in any way imply either is or must be real. It's a form of "what if...?", and we all engage in it every day of our lives.

 

[tcampen]

I don't think Voice was saying morality is used as a stick. Rather, society sees the effacacy in certain moral stances, and we as a people tend to recognize what works versus what doesn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Pople to understand the destructive power of violence or the deep advantages of charity on both a personal and societal level.

 

[onionring]

I am eager to see an example of infallibility, beyond conceptual terms. Sure, a book on math can contain no errors, but that's not the context we're talking about. We're talking about recounting of past events by an author. If such were possible, then how can there be so many books on the American Civil War, or who shot JFK, or on Thomas Jefferson?

Not much arugment there, except Webster's dictionary doesn't really define "literature." Furthermore, a record of an event is only as accurate as the thing that recorded the event. Even seismographs at different locations don't give the exact same readings on the magnatude of an earthquake, for example. Thus, making a record of which candidate won a particular election may be perfect, but that is not what we're talking about.
...

I see your point of Webster not making the clear-cut difference that I am. But I have taken the time to express a difference in order to explain my point. Not in an attempt to twist their meanings, or an attempt at some double-talk. As you can tell, I haven't harm or contorted their meanings, rather differentiated between the two to clarify my point (obviously, not doing that too well).

Infallible document: Account statement, financial records, tax receipt, sale receipt, some text books (math, zoology...)...
Interruptive literature: "Who shot JFK?", "The Man on the Grass Knoll", "South Invaded", "Slave No More", "The Lincoln Years"...

See the difference. We agree, but I think you miss understood my point.

I was questioning whether to see the Bible as a historical document or more like literature where the author explains the events in his own interpretive way. Literature, right?

And I would agree in definition...but the problem becomes that it is the only recorded documentation (whether biased by author or not) of that time. (How convenient, huh?) Yet as a historian (or logical thinker) you have to give it validity to some point, because you have no other reference points to that time in which to compare it to. And I would be foolish (as a historian) to disregard it off hand as false. Take for instance, the hieroglyphics in the pyramids. Are they literature or records of events? I believe, the same question applies to the Bible. Is it literature or documentation? I see it as both.

Now all that's left is to speak to the influence of the author's interpretation.

As I understand it, Christians believe that man dictates history, and God dictates the "truth". And since the authors of the books of the Bible are "men of God", that is to say in the "will of God", ...to that point the Bible is less a "historical" document (debatable as literature) and more of a collection of "truth".

My point was never to get you to believe the Bible as a "collection of truth", but to understand, that is the stance of your opposition. So in arguing, you can have an extremely valid point (from your point of view), and yet be entirely disassociated with reality (from the other point of view).

...
Ok, I'll bite. go on...
...

Sorry, I've got nothing for you here. We agreed, but you seem to want to argue the point. So I restated it. You "bit"...the end.

First of all, Decarte was talking about proof to the self that one exists, not that any other being exists when he said “I think, therefore I am.” Second, the debate over the morality of a being, with certain facts assumed to be true for the sake of that discussion, is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether that being really exists or not. It can just as easily be a hypothetical situation. In fact, that's how critical thinking works. So, one could ask the question, "if someone killed all the healthy newborn babies in the world all at once, is that act consistent with being good?" Whether that person really exists or that act really happen is irrelevant to the question, nor does the question in any way imply either is or must be real. It's a form of "what if...?", and we all engage in it every day of our lives.
...

It seems very weak that you can apply this "truth" any further than one's "self". It's a concept that encompasses something more than the sum of its words. And I'm surprised you would handicap it into being such a narrow idea. But if you are going to, I'm not going to argue it back out of the pigeonhole you stuck it in. It's an understood concept, I believe, the point stands valid for most thinkers. Sorry for not taking time to argue (explain) the point to you. I just feel that it would draw to far from the OP, and (truthfully) I can’t really believe that you don’t see my point.

I agree with your ideas on hypothetical arguments. The issue I've been trying to clarify is validity of declaring guilt on an existing being through hypothetical reasoning.

I'll try one more time to explain my point. Please read it this time knowing, I'm not trying to prove God (or disprove Him). I'm simply trying to explain why "hypothetical judgment" is poorly used in a debate on God (if an existing being). In a hypothetical argument (or discussion) one describes (or defines) aspects of the argument to which they wish to question. With this being true, the "definer" implies certain "truths" or "points" that wish to address. We agree so far?

…Oh man (duty calls)...let me cut to the short of it, hypothetical arguments work (and is valid) for undefined arguments concepts and ideas...but not a "real" person, place or thing.

Think of it has, people arguing aspects of "you". In discussions assumptions will be made to your reasoning, actions, feelings and motives. If they thereby find them (motives, reasoning, actions...etc) illogical or unexplainable or not in keeping with their stated "assumptions" of you...can they then determine your guilt on a matter? Or more to the point, your actual existence?

If God exists...hypothetical reasoning and discussion would not be a valid as a qualifier or a descriptor of Him. While it is a valid tool for reasoning, it's not a qualifying tool for determining motive or existence of a "real" being.

This move back to my point on first arguing "Is God real?" Proving existence matters to the “method” of debate. And we can disagree on this, you know?

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't think Voice was saying morality is used as a stick. Rather, society sees the effacacy in certain moral stances, and we as a people tend to recognize what works versus what doesn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Pople to understand the destructive power of violence or the deep advantages of charity on both a personal and societal level.

So charity was not one of the Christian values that Voice of Reason was saying could be only applied to Christians then?

 

[SolomonVII]

<edit to read>

Instead of double-posting what I really meant to say was "Since I cannot read Voice of Reason's mind, I resort to limiting myself to what he has written instead."

Actually, the concept of charity is central to the whole of the Christian ethical system. The idea of fair play and ***-for-tat is the conventional mode of morality for societies, but the idea of loving on's enemy, repaying evil with kindness, and when somebody demands something from you, giving even more than what was asked radically redefines the concept of charity.