Why do Christians distrust subjective morality?

[peter22]

It usually comes down to a lack of personal responsibility and moral accountability. By appealing to God, one is essentially saying, "I don't want to be a moral agent, I want to have a back door to sneak through when I act badly and not take responsibility for my actions."

It's repulsive when serial killers and rapists say, "Well God has forgiven me so everything is just peacy." (I'm not even talking about religious fanatics such as terrorists here)

The only difference is scale. Christians (and other religious folk, I'm not being exclusively anti-Christian here but since I lack sufficient knowledge of other major religions, I'll leave that for another day) have an unlimited "get out of jail free card" thus you are able to walk around in a bubble of freedom from true morality. "God will forgive me whatever I do thus whatever I do is ultimately permissible as long as I ask for forgiveness later."

However, NOT referring to a deity to guide one's moral actions means one is personally accountable for your actions. No fantasy figure will forgive you- you have to do it yourself. Many people cannot stomach this, and cop out to religion.

 

[Stinker]

People turning to the Lord because they have guilty consciences, because they fail at their own moral standard. C.S. Lewis called this man's Natural law.


The 'Christians' that flaunt this get out of jail free card, are only impersonating Christians. They are not the real deal.

 

[peter22]

People turning to the Lord because they have guilty consciences, because they fail at their own moral standard. C.S. Lewis called this man's Natural law.


The 'Christians' that flaunt this get out of jail free card, are only impersonating Christians. They are not the real deal.

People turning to the Lord because they have guilty consciences, because they fail at their own moral standard. C.S. Lewis called this man's Natural law.

You're telling me that only people who are moral failures turn to God? You follow God because you feel bad, not because it's the right thing to do? You're agreeing with me- religion is a moral cop out.

The 'Christians' that flaunt this get out of jail free card, are only impersonating Christians. They are not the real deal.

The thing is, if the majority of one particular group acts in a certain way, it becomes the defining feature of that group. The majority of Christians act morally superior because they are deluded into thinking they have a "get out of jail free card". Some do it nicely, some do it obnoxiously, but the majority of ones I have met (and I was in a mainstream church) act like this.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Christians (and other religious folk, I'm not being exclusively anti-Christian here but since I lack sufficient knowledge of other major religions, I'll leave that for another day) have an unlimited "get out of jail free card" thus you are able to walk around in a bubble of freedom from true morality. "God will forgive me whatever I do thus whatever I do is ultimately permissible as long as I ask for forgiveness later."

Religion doesn't exist to allow men to do contemptible things without feeling guilt, that is what Nihilism does. The only regulation to Nihilism, as Tocqueville points out, is self-interest. It is wrong to kill since murder shall lead to my own death, which is against my self-interest.

Now religion does invite guilt, it argues that there is a moral standard, and that we fail to adhere to it.

If this remark was directed towards "Christianity" I would have to call it false, obviously Christianity does not preach that men are permitted to do evil on the promise of forgiveness. But you directed it not against "Christianity" but "Christians," whereof I am inclined to remark that there might some merit in it. Christians do not preach this doctrine, but perhaps they practice it.

You argue that the promise of forgiveness begets "a lack of personal responsibility and moral accountability." Because I know that I will be forgiven, I do not feel as guilty doing evil. Thus it seems that the Christian sense of guilt lacks a certain edge.

Guilt is the consciousness of sin, and guilt leads men to repentance. Yet the very concept of repentance exists- according to your view- to allay guilt. So the whole system of Christian thought might be self-defeating; if repentance allays the guilt which creates it, then it seems natural to assume that there is no guilt, neither is there repentance. Such a system would make guilt- and thus repentance- impossible. The man that schemes to eliminate guilt succeeds, all he has left is a Freudian series of satisfactions and some vague philosophy to prevent moral conscience from getting in the way of it. I could easily use that last sentence to describe Nihilism, which is what you are really advocating, only Nihilism dispenses with the guilt and the repentance rather than letting them finish each other off.

However, NOT referring to a deity to guide one's moral actions means one is personally accountable for your actions. No fantasy figure will forgive you- you have to do it yourself.

You introduce an interesting concept- that I could forgive myself. Much like C.S. Lewis's "Grandfather God," I should like to believe this is true, and yet I find it is not. I have this great burden about me, as Bunyan would say "a weight about my back, which I would have off me if I might." It seems that every time I give mind to the things I have done wrong, I am filled with sorrow, and I can only turn aside from the sorrow by turning aside from my memories. I am struggling for words here- it seems that I am ashamed of me. I am cut off from my past, for it is always haunted by the reflecting of what an awful person I was, and from the future, since I have no visible prospect of improvement. Being unable to turn my mind to either field without terrible fear, I am left with my present sorrow, my day-to-day anxieties and fears. I would be "accountable for my actions" as you say, and yet my actions are so terrible I cannot take account. You say that I am afraid of my actions and seek divine forgiveness because I am not a responsible moral agent, and you are right. I am not.

It seems to me that my best hope in my present condition is in divine forgiveness. Not a forgiveness that eliminates guilt, but a forgiveness that uses repentance to lead to righteousness. Not a a forgiveness that excuses, but a forgiveness that reforms, like the forgiveness of a good father to his son. The good father forgives and chastises, whereas the bad father simply forgives. Aquinas says "Since God loves good and hates evil, he would not permit evil unless he meant to bring some better good out from it." If God exists, this would be the effect of his forgiveness.

People (turn) to the Lord because they have guilty consciences, because they fail at their own moral standard. C.S. Lewis called this man's Natural law.

Yes, religion is a moral cop-out. It is the admission that I cannot run my own affairs, which has certainly been my own experience. And yes, a perfect man would have no need for Christianity. Christianity argues that "we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God." If there was someone who was not a sinner and had not fallen short of the glory of God, he would have no need for God- indeed he might even have grounds to challenge God for lordship of the universe. Perhaps Lucifer imagines such things about himself.

 

[peter22]

LibraryOwl

[In Nihilism] It is wrong to kill since murder shall lead to my own death, which is against my self-interest.

Furthermore, in a religious context, it is wrong to kill not because killing is intrinsically wrong but because another agent (God) tells me it's wrong. Therefore, killing is extrinsically wrong because of the negative effect (fear of punishment, 'guilt') on you.

Now religion does invite guilt, it argues that there is a moral standard, and that we fail to adhere to it.

Interestingly, guilt is basically a western concept. In many Asian cultures, shame, or societal disapproval is a dominant reason for acting well. You don't do X because it will bring shame to yourself and your family etc. Are you saying that Japanese people are immoral because they don't subsribe to your moral standards since they don't feel guilt in the sense you mean? (Don't forget, 65% or so of Japanese are essentially agnostic so they tend not to feel a strong sense of religious guilt)

You argue that the promise of forgiveness begets "a lack of personal responsibility and moral accountability." Because I know that I will be forgiven, I do not feel as guilty doing evil. Thus it seems that the Christian sense of guilt lacks a certain edge.

That's essentially what I'm saying. Also, you are permitted to do things that might be considered wrong (witch burnings or rigging elections for example) and may even be objectively evil if there is such a thing, solely if God commands it because he, and not 'good' is your ultimate end. Yes, God claims to be 'good' but this is an unsubstantiated claim- the Bible is rife with monstrous acts in his name.

Guilt is the consciousness of sin.

You're basically just playing with words here. You're saying you feel bad (guilt) because you know it's bad (consciousness of 'sin'). That's like saying, "Being wet is consciousness of wetness." It's obvious. Where does guilt come from? You claim it comes from god, I would argue that it comes from within yourself (Not god) because you know certain things are bad. Introducing god here doesn't really help.

 

[LibraryOwl]

You say that I say that guilt comes from God, even though I do not. You also claim that false logic exists in my definition of guilt, when it does not. I defined sin with the metaphor of Bunyan's "heavy burden." All men have this heavy burden, but not all are aware of it. Therefore men are said to feel guilt in proportion to the amount they are aware of sin. So I proceeded to say that there are two ways to get rid of guilt, one being to ignore sin, the other being to get rid of it. Here, in the latter option, appears what might be called the grace of God (of which I am not qualified to write, being, as I said, that I do not possess it, and cannot confirm its existence.) This is exactly what I said and there is no false logic in it.

You claim it comes from god, I would argue that it comes from within yourself (Not god) because you know certain things are bad. Introducing god here doesn't really help.

Now as I said, I do not claim that it comes from God. I do say that "religion invites guilt, it argues that there is a moral standard, and that we fail to adhere to it." Paul says "With knowledge of the laws comes knowledge of sin, since we are breakers of the law." Of course, Paul is referring to the Jewish laws, but the laws of other religions or societies can also be broken, and that can also invite guilt.

Introducing god here helps very much. Aquinas argues that some sort of God ought to exist, "since the concept of better implies the concept of best, just as the concept of warmer implies the concept of warmest." The best helps us to define guilt, since those that believe in the best are guilty of falling short of the it, whereas Nihilists can only hold themselves guilty of falling short of the better. Nihilism, being a cowardly philosophy, says that it is enough to be better and does not even consider the concept of best. Homer gives this expression in the Illiad, he writes "Be the best, better than all the rest, and do not bring shame on the race of your fathers." A more modern expression says "Do your best, that is enough."

Christianity is couragious. It says that "better than all the rest" is not really best. God is not God simply because he is the most powerful and he can blast others to bits. That is Homer's God, Zeus, who overthrew his father and is doomed to be overthrown himself some day by one mightier. The God of Christianity is God because he is best, that is, he is perfection. Christianity does not cowardly stop at "better than all the rest," but instead turns to something we do not have proper words for, that we cannot even comprehend.

Christianity is also manful. In contrast to the philosophy of "do your best" it preaches "do the best," even though it aknowledges that doing the best is impossible. The dangers of the first philosophy are evident when we consider the state of our school-system today.

Also, you are permitted to do things that might be considered wrong (witch burnings or rigging elections for example) and may even be objectively evil if there is such a thing, solely if God commands it because he, and not 'good' is your ultimate end. Yes, God claims to be 'good' but this is an unsubstantiated claim- the Bible is rife with monstrous acts in his name.

You call the acts monstrous, and yet you deny that a thing can be monstrous, insofar as there is no objective truth. This needs explaining. And I would certainly never rig an election. I would only go on a witch hunt if there was such a thing as a witch and she was trying to kill or curse people. Then hunting her would be self-defence, or a noble defence of others.

What God commands the Jews in the Bible is concerning. Indeed, I have been quite concerned about it myself. Bring up some specific instance and we can talk about it.

Also, with your second section, I want to respond to it, but I cannot decipher it. Your topic sentence seems to be "guilt is a western concept." What is the meaning or significance of this? Then you seem to undermine your thesis, because you say that orientals feel "shame." It appears to me that shame is the same word as guilt, and that guilt is universal even by your own admission. Speaking of the cause of guilt, you say that the orientals feel it out of fear of societal disapproval. When I ask why someone would fear the disapproval of society, I come back to self-interest. Are you arguing that oriental cultures are essentially Nihilistic?

And what about your first section? What is the significance of your definition? What are you trying to say?

 

[peter22]

I defined sin with the metaphor of Bunyan's "heavy burden."

Heavy burden defined as the knowledge of sin? Can you clarify?

All men have this heavy burden, but not all are aware of it.

You'll have to qualify this statement. You assume we all feel guilt, but I can equally assert that I don't. You of course can say...

Therefore men are said to feel guilt in proportion to the amount they are aware of sin.

That's a clever argument: either we feel we sin or we don't, but either way sin exists.

However who's to say that sin isn't a construction of various religions to bludgeon people into following them for fear of divine reprisals. This is not dissimilar to Stalin's terror campaigns: create an atmosphere of fear to control and coerce people into acting and thinking in a certain way.

 

[quatona]

It usually comes down to a lack of personal responsibility and moral accountability. By appealing to God, one is essentially saying, "I don't want to be a moral agent, I want to have a back door to sneak through when I act badly and not take responsibility for my actions."

You are assuming these implications you draw to be their motives.

It's repulsive when serial killers and rapists say, "Well God has forgiven me so everything is just peacy." (I'm not even talking about religious fanatics such as terrorists here)

Well, "it´s repulsive" is not really a good argument.

The only difference is scale. Christians (and other religious folk, I'm not being exclusively anti-Christian here but since I lack sufficient knowledge of other major religions, I'll leave that for another day) have an unlimited "get out of jail free card" thus you are able to walk around in a bubble of freedom from true morality. "God will forgive me whatever I do thus whatever I do is ultimately permissible as long as I ask for forgiveness later."

Whilst we don´t even believe that there is such a jail in the first place. So, in effect, the two notions "there is no afterlife punishment" and "there is afterlife punishment and I have a free card" are the same in this regard: "I won´t go to jail."

However, NOT referring to a deity to guide one's moral actions means one is personally accountable for your actions.

I think "responsibility" and "accountably" are buzz-words in the philosophical discussion. I don´t seem to understand what they mean. I have yet to see a good definition.

No fantasy figure will forgive you- you have to do it yourself. Many people cannot stomach this, and cop out to religion.

One might argue that projecting punishment onto a fantasy figure and projecting grace and forgiveness onto this figure as well is just a complicated way of doing it yourself.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Heavy burden defined as the knowledge of sin? Can you clarify?

"Heavy burden" is merely a metaphor for sin. Heavy burden is not the knowledge of sin, Guilt is the knowledge of sin.

You assume we all feel guilt...

No, I do not. I never said anything to the effect.

However who's to say that sin isn't a construction of various religions to bludgeon people into following them for fear of divine reprisals. This is not dissimilar to Stalin's terror campaigns: create an atmosphere of fear to control and coerce people into acting and thinking in a certain way.

Grace is an awful thing, it is true. I say awful in the old sense. So terribly incomprehensible is this fact that we are really wretched, and God really forgives. It is hard to accept, it can be easily abused or misunderstood. People so terribly desire grace that they are willing to die for it. Paul writes "love is as strong as the grave."

The incredible grace of God has even been the occasion for further wickedness on man's part. The church has been given the keys to heaven, and the means of dispensing grace on earth. So terribly is this responsibility that men who did not believe seized upon it and abused it. They sold grace at a cost and withheld it from their political enemies. This is why the reformation happened.

I think "responsibility" and "accountably" are buzz-words in the philosophical discussion. I don´t seem to understand what they mean. I have yet to see a good definition.

I agree that our friend is obliged to define them.

One might argue that projecting punishment onto a fantasy figure and projecting grace and forgiveness onto this figure as well is just a complicated way of doing it yourself.

I do not understand this, Quotana. Would you please explain it?

Whilst we don´t even believe that there is such a jail in the first place. So, in effect, the two notions "there is no afterlife punishment" and "there is afterlife punishment and I have a free card" are the same in this regard: "I won´t go to jail."

I feel that there is a great point only a paragraph away from this statement, yet what I see lacks sweep and dare. Perhaps I can taunt the truth out of you: is that all you have to say? That they are the same in the regard that you won't go to jail? Plenty of people I know would look at such a point and say "who cares."

What about peter's claim that you have a bubble of freedom from true morality? What is true morality, did we define that? Is it trapped up in little words like responsibility and accountability? Or is Peter stumbling over his subjectivity by claiming that there is true morality?

 

[quatona]

I do not understand this, Quotana. Would you please explain it?

Sure.
Whether I say "I have done wrong and forgive myself" or say "My imaginary friend accuses me of doing wrong and forgives me" is basically the same. I just project my own attitude on the friend I have invented for that purpose.

I feel that there is a great point only a paragraph away from this statement, yet what I see lacks sweep and dare. Perhaps I can taunt the truth out of you: is that all you have to say?

Oh, I have a lot to say, but regarding this topic and this particular aspect that was basically it.

That they are the same in the regard that you won't go to jail?

No. They are the same in that they result in the conviction that you won´t go to jail.

Plenty of people I know would look at such a point and say "who cares."

I don´t seem to understand what you are trying to communicate here. If people don´t care about my points, that´s ok with me.

What about peter's claim that you have a bubble of freedom from true morality?

Well, what about it?

What is true morality, did we define that?

Since I haven´t used this term and have no use for it I don´t see any need to define it.

Is it trapped up in little words like responsibility and accountability?

Possibly. You would have to ask those who operate with these terms.

Or is Peter stumbling over is subjectivity by claiming that there is true morality?

I don´t understand the grammatical structure of this sentence. Bear with me - I´m not a native English speaker.

 

[LibraryOwl]

I'm afraid I can't post on this thread anymore, break is over and I'm going back to school. Happy new year everyone!

 

[KarrieTex]

It usually comes down to a lack of personal responsibility and moral accountability. By appealing to God, one is essentially saying, "I don't want to be a moral agent, I want to have a back door to sneak through when I act badly and not take responsibility for my actions."

It's repulsive when serial killers and rapists say, "Well God has forgiven me so everything is just peacy." (I'm not even talking about religious fanatics such as terrorists here)

The only difference is scale. Christians (and other religious folk, I'm not being exclusively anti-Christian here but since I lack sufficient knowledge of other major religions, I'll leave that for another day) have an unlimited "get out of jail free card" thus you are able to walk around in a bubble of freedom from true morality. "God will forgive me whatever I do thus whatever I do is ultimately permissible as long as I ask for forgiveness later."

However, NOT referring to a deity to guide one's moral actions means one is personally accountable for your actions. No fantasy figure will forgive you- you have to do it yourself. Many people cannot stomach this, and cop out to religion.

I have to say that you are not correct in your thoughts on this.

If a rapist or murderer has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior then yes they are forgiven and eternally it is peachy. No where does it say that they don't have to reap the consequences of their actions.

As a Christian, I DO NOT walk around in this little bubble, I actually have to live to a higher moral code than society has given us. I have to live by God's standards and it isn't easy. However, I have the working knowledge that God has given me grace through Christ Jesus and I don't have to do it alone and if I fail then I am forgiven and still loved.

 

[peter22]

KarrieTex

If a rapist or murderer has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior then yes they are forgiven and eternally it is peachy. Nowhere does it say that they don't have to reap the consequences of their actions.

There's a contradiction in your statement. You say they are forgiven and everything is peachy then they have to reap the consequences of their actions. What are the consequences? You commit a sin *regardless of its severity* and ask for forgiveness and bam! You're forgiven. There are no consequences as far as I know.

As a Christian, I DO NOT walk around in this little bubble, I actually have to live to a higher moral code than society has given us. I have to live by God's standards and it isn't easy. However, I have the working knowledge that God has given me grace through Christ Jesus and I don't have to do it alone and if I fail then I am forgiven and still loved.

You say that you have to live by God's standards, yet God's standards are arbitrary, nonsensical and contradictory. I'm happy to post biblical examples of all three of these if you like.

 

[KarrieTex]

KarrieTex



There's a contradiction in your statement. You say they are forgiven and everything is peachy then they have to reap the consequences of their actions. What are the consequences? You commit a sin *regardless of its severity* and ask for forgiveness and bam! You're forgiven. There are no consequences as far as I know.



You say that you have to live by God's standards, yet God's standards are arbitrary, nonsensical and contradictory. I'm happy to post biblical examples of all three of these if you like.

ONE) You didn't quote me correctly. I said ETERNALLY not here.

TWO) I have been given examples as you claim to have and it won't do any good. I have not been a Christian for 28 years not to know what God's precepts are and what they are not. I know exactly what He expects of me and what/how I should live.

 

[peter22]

You didn't quote me correctly. I said ETERNALLY not here.

You sin and ask for forgiveness and through the grace of Christ you are forgiven. As far as I know, there are NO consequences now or ever. If so, what are they?

I have been given examples as you claim to have and it won't do any good. I have not been a Christian for 28 years not to know what God's precepts are and what they are not. I know exactly what He expects of me and what/how I should live.

Why do you think the length of time (28 years in this case)makes any real difference? Is your knowledge of God's wishes qualitatively superior to mine? Why do you assume I don't know either? I'll tell you- I do know. I was a Christian for 16 years myself and I'll say it again: God's precepts are contradictory and arbitrary.

 

[mpok1519]

I tend to agree with you, but, some Christians, like me, don't think that Heaven is a place for rest; its anothe rplace to serve and work for God. That is why I don't think a 'get out of jail free' card really exists for me...cuz if I screw up (and this includes after death) I'm REALLY screwed. lol