I have seen atheists argue moral realism as an answer to the moral argument. That would allow them to say the good exists aprtr God or apart from there being a God.
Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right.[1]First I find realism commits the same fallacy as the atheist argument; no grounding, no reason for the good. No basis for an ought, I'm not sure they even value an ought. Does this mean only God can furnish objective grounding? I wont say nothing else can but I will say God is the most certain source.
Atheists try to impune God's grounding abilities with the Euthyphro dilemma. I think the Euthyphro dilemma was designed for use in a culter with limited gods who were limited by the fates and who acted arbitrarily. The dilemma works on Greek gods because they were arbitrary. Though atheists may argue God is arbitrary he is not
While the skeptic asks, does God command it because it's good? yes of course. Or is it good because God commands it? If as I think the basis of the good is God's love the question is meaningless, God is the source of all love, He created it it's from his character,which does not change according to the Bible.
At times atheists may raise a moral relativity argument in terms of God's role as the foundation of moral axioms. In other words If good is based upon what God says then God could declare sin holy tomorrow and it would be so. In fact some Christians support this view which is called "Divine command theory." I think the unchanging nature of God is the answer to that argument. But in addition Morality is based upon the good andthegood upon God's character. It's not just an arbitary pronounceent that God could change anytime.But God is the basis of the standard.
[1] "Moral Realism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.First published Mon Oct 3, 2005; substantive revision Tue Feb 3, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
22 comments:
"Feelings? Those are governed by culture."
In what way are feelings governed by culture?
Joe: In What would atheists ground their axioms? Feelings? Those are governed by culture. Brain chemistry?
There are, I think, two different issues here. The first is what is right and what is wrong. The second is how do we determine what is right and wrong.
To illustrate the difference, let us say hypothetically that God invents the rules (and I know neither of us hold to this position). The answer to the first issue is then that what is right and wrong is decided by God. The answer to the second might be that we consult his sacred text.
So now going back to your question, I would say there are actually two questions there.
The first is what determines what is right or wrong. My view is that there is an abstract objective morality. Morality is like laws in maths; they exist in the abstract waiting to be discovered. I think that, for example, torturing babies is intrinsically wrong. That is not opinion, it is not cultural, it is not wrong merely because someone says it is wrong. It is absolutely, and objectively wrong.
The second question then is how we determine what is right and wrong? That is where the feeling come in, I would also suggest a consideration of the consequences.
Yes, feeling are governed by culture. At one time slavery was accepted as morally okay; now it is not. How do I explain that? Because our culture has improved, and is getting closer to the abstract objective morality.
Joe: While the skeptic asks, does God command it because it's good? yes of course. Or is it good because God commands it? If as I think the basis of the good is God's love the question is meaningless, God is the source of all love, He created it it's from his character,which does not change according to the Bible.
Does God choose to be good?
If not, then in what sense is he a moral agent? If he is not capable of choosing evil (which is different not be capable of it, but never doing so), then he is not capable of making a moral choice.
On the other hand, if God does choose to be good, then good against what standard? His own standard? Or some higher standard?
Is torturing babies wrong because it is intrinsically wrong? Or do you believe it is wrong because God makes it wrong, and in the absence of God torturing babies would be morally acceptable?
Pix
"Feelings? Those are governed by culture."
In what way are feelings governed by culture?
"Governed" was the wrong word I should have said "affected by."
Anonymous said...
Joe: In What would atheists ground their axioms? Feelings? Those are governed by culture. Brain chemistry?
There are, I think, two different issues here. The first is what is right and what is wrong. The second is how do we determine what is right and wrong.
Those are key issues.
To illustrate the difference, let us say hypothetically that God invents the rules (and I know neither of us hold to this position). The answer to the first issue is then that what is right and wrong is decided by God. The answer to the second might be that we consult his sacred text.
So now going back to your question, I would say there are actually two questions there.
The first is what determines what is right or wrong. My view is that there is an abstract objective morality. Morality is like laws in maths; they exist in the abstract waiting to be discovered. I think that, for example, torturing babies is intrinsically wrong. That is not opinion, it is not cultural, it is not wrong merely because someone says it is wrong. It is absolutely, and objectively wrong.
In what is that grounded? This is deeper than just how do we know, it's what makes it so?
The second question then is how we determine what is right and wrong? That is where the feeling come in, I would also suggest a consideration of the consequences.
Consequentialism or teleological ethics has the same problem. Nothing to ground axioms. Merely asserting is not proof.
Yes, feeling are governed by culture. At one time slavery was accepted as morally okay; now it is not. How do I explain that? Because our culture has improved, and is getting closer to the abstract objective morality.
Which is just floating around in the Platonic realm with nothing to make it so right?
Joe: While the skeptic asks, does God command it because it's good? yes of course. Or is it good because God commands it? If as I think the basis of the good is God's love the question is meaningless, God is the source of all love, He created it it's from his character,which does not change according to the Bible.
Does God choose to be good?
No. He choses to be consistent with his character,
If not, then in what sense is he a moral agent?
he is not a moral agent he is the standard to which moral agency aspires.
If he is not capable of choosing evil (which is different not be capable of it, but never doing so), then he is not capable of making a moral choice.
I didn't say that, That I don't know. but Hebrews 6:18 says.."two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie..."
On the other hand, if God does choose to be good, then good against what standard? His own standard? Or some higher standard?
God himself is the standard
Psalm 89:35
Verse Concepts
“Once I have sworn by My holiness" Pslm 89:35
Is torturing babies wrong because it is intrinsically wrong? Or do you believe it is wrong because God makes it wrong, and in the absence of God torturing babies would be morally acceptable?
It's wrong because it contradicts love, God's character He does NOT make arbitrary rules
Joe: In what is that grounded? This is deeper than just how do we know, it's what makes it so?
I am not sure I really understand what you mean by grounded if my statement does not explain. But let me ask you: What makes you think morality is grounded?
Joe: Consequentialism or teleological ethics has the same problem. Nothing to ground axioms. Merely asserting is not proof.
That was kind of my point. Consequentialism is a way to find what is right or wrong, it is not the grounding for it.
Joe: Which is just floating around in the Platonic realm with nothing to make it so right?
It works fine for laws of mathematics.
Joe: he is not a moral agent he is the standard to which moral agency aspires.
So then he is not good. Being good is choosing right over wrong, being a moral agent.
Joe: It's wrong because it contradicts love, God's character He does NOT make arbitrary rules
So if it is wrong because it contradicts love, we do not need God for it to be wrong.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: In what is that grounded? This is deeper than just how do we know, it's what makes it so?
I am not sure I really understand what you mean by grounded if my statement does not explain. But let me ask you: What makes you think morality is grounded?
What makes right right and wrong wrong?
Joe: Consequentialism or teleological ethics has the same problem. Nothing to ground axioms. Merely asserting is not proof.
That was kind of my point. Consequentialism is a way to find what is right or wrong, it is not the grounding for it.
That's the same thing. But what is it? you can't just say the consequences make it right, why?
Joe: Which is just floating around in the Platonic realm with nothing to make it so right?
It works fine for laws of mathematics.
You can demonstrate with eggs two plus two is four, you can't demonstrate that selfishness is wrong,
Joe: he is not a moral agent he is the standard to which moral agency aspires.
So then he is not good. Being good is choosing right over wrong, being a moral agent.
Wrong. A moral agent has moral obligation the standard of the good has no obligation. It's stupid to say he's not more he's the basis of morality. How could the good not be moral?
Joe: It's wrong because it contradicts love, God's character He does NOT make arbitrary rules
So if it is wrong because it contradicts love, we do not need God for it to be wrong.
God is love. You couldn't have love without God.
Joe: What makes right right and wrong wrong?
The abstract objective morality.
Same as what makes all the internal angles of a triangle adds up to 180deg.
Joe: That's the same thing. But what is it? you can't just say the consequences make it right, why?
I am not saying that. Remember the two questions? The abstract objective morality makes it right. The consequences can be used by us to try to work out what that is.
Joe: You can demonstrate with eggs two plus two is four, you can't demonstrate that selfishness is wrong,
Then what makes you think it is wrong?
Joe: Wrong. A moral agent has moral obligation the standard of the good has no obligation. ...
That seems to be agreeing with me.
Joe: It's stupid to say he's not more he's the basis of morality. How could the good not be moral?
What is your reasoning here?
We can use a stopclock to measure time. Is a stopclock a long time or a short time? Neither, the stopclock itself is not a length of time.
Every nation has a set of laws that good citizens should abide by. Is that set of laws a good citizen? Of course not.
I am not saying either of these is exactly like God; I am pointing it is complicated and just declaring your position is right is not going to cut it.
Joe: God is love. You couldn't have love without God.
What does that mean? To me it seems like a glib phrase for Christians to trot out. I am sure you do not mean "God" and "love" are synonyms, so in what sense is God love?
Pix
Joe: "God is love. You couldn't have love without God."
Why not?
Joe: "The point of objective morality is to ground axioms in something not liable to vanish with shifting sands of culture."
Assuming that "something" is God, how do we arrive at those axioms and how do we assess that grounding? It seems to me our understanding of God has changed over time and so has our morality.
Cuttlebones said...
Joe: "God is love. You couldn't have love without God."
Why not?
Love is from God's character
Joe: "The point of objective morality is to ground axioms in something not liable to vanish with shifting sands of culture."
Assuming that "something" is God, how do we arrive at those axioms and how do we assess that grounding? It seems to me our understanding of God has changed over time and so has our morality.
We understand moral axioms based upon thee Bible and Jesus' teachings. Our understanding of God has not change to the extent that we can't understand how God grounds our moral axioms
12:41 AM
Anonymous said...
Joe: What makes right right and wrong wrong?
The abstract objective morality.
Same as what makes all the internal angles of a triangle adds up to 180deg.
false. Moral axioms have no physical analogue. They have no concrete reality
Joe: That's the same thing. But what is it? you can't just say the consequences make it right, why?
I am not saying that. Remember the two questions? The abstract objective morality makes it right. The consequences can be used by us to try to work out what that is.
If you are saying it's rights because we define it so that is meaningless. One can just change the definition.
Joe: You can demonstrate with eggs two plus two is four, you can't demonstrate that selfishness is wrong,
Then what makes you think it is wrong?
Because the Bible tells us so. I think there is a role in there for intuitive sense as a confirmation, That in and of itself is not adequate.
Joe: Wrong. A moral agent has moral obligation the standard of the good has no obligation. ...
That seems to be agreeing with me.
How so?
Joe: It's stupid to say he's not moral* he's the basis of morality. How could the good not be moral? [*I said not "more" I meant moral so I changed it]
What is your reasoning here?
Morality is based upon God's character. morality is about the good, so God's character must be good. I break down good to mean an extension of love. thus God is love. he can't be other than moral. His character matches morality because it's the basis of it.
We can use a stopclock to measure time. Is a stopclock a long time or a short time? Neither, the stopclock itself is not a length of time.
Argument from analogy is fallacious. But God is not just a measurement of good but the repository of it, the enabaler of it.
Every nation has a set of laws that good citizens should abide by. Is that set of laws a good citizen? Of course not.
Bit analogous. Gods not Just another moral actor but he is morality itself. he basis upon which morality exists,
I am not saying either of these is exactly like God; I am pointing it is complicated and just declaring your position is right is not going to cut it.
Dues not apply
Joe: God is love. You couldn't have love without God.
What does that mean? To me it seems like a glib phrase for Christians to trot out. I am sure you do not mean "God" and "love" are synonyms, so in what sense is love?
the same thing I mean when I say God is being itself. God is the good itself. Can't have love without God' we are just advanced apes. Why should society have love? It could have been just some rudimentary favoritism, why do we have the sort of elevated concept that Gandy and Jesus and the moral teachers have taught? I don't believe that's possible without being the product of a creative force that made the universe and that loves,
Joe: false. Moral axioms have no physical analogue. They have no concrete reality
They are abstract, like the laws of maths, as I said, so not physical.
Joe: If you are saying it's rights because we define it so that is meaningless. One can just change the definition.
I said nothing like that.
Joe: Because the Bible tells us so. I think there is a role in there for intuitive sense as a confirmation, That in and of itself is not adequate.
That would be more credible if the Bible was a good guide to morality.
It says chattel slavery is allowed (for gentile slaves)
It condones genocide
It prohibits the wearing of cloth made of two different threads
It prohibits any work on a Sunday, and even condones executing those who disobey
It is homophobic
It tells us women are inferior to men, little better than possessions
It advocates elitism (you have to be of the right family to be ruler or priest)
It stands against the basic human right of freedom of religion
You might feel tempted to object that some of these are cultural, but if you do, you lose. You cannot hold the Bible us as a morality for all people and all times if it is mired in the culture in which it was written.
You might feel tempted to say some of these are ritual laws, not moral, but then you need to explain how we can tell which is which. Both observing the sabbath and the prohibition on murder are part of the ten commandments, so why should I suppose one is moral and one is ritual.
Joe: How so?
I am arguing God is not a moral agent, and hence not good himself. You said "A moral agent has moral obligation the standard of the good has no obligation", i.e., God has no obligations, so is not a moral agent.
Joe: Morality is based upon God's character. morality is about the good, so God's character must be good. I break down good to mean an extension of love. thus God is love. he can't be other than moral. His character matches morality because it's the basis of it.
Why should I think any of that is true?
Joe: Argument from analogy is fallacious. But God is not just a measurement of good but the repository of it, the enabaler of it.
Sure, I was just pointing out your reasoning is flaw. You said "How could the good not be moral?" Why should we suppose a standard for good has to be good itself, given these analogies.
Joe: the same thing I mean when I say God is being itself. God is the good itself. Can't have love without God' we are just advanced apes. Why should society have love? It could have been just some rudimentary favoritism, why do we have the sort of elevated concept that Gandy and Jesus and the moral teachers have taught? I don't believe that's possible without being the product of a creative force that made the universe and that loves,
A. None of that tells me what you mean by "God is love". If you mean that God created love, why not just say "God created love" instead?
B. Show that all of that is true.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: false. Moral axioms have no physical analogue. They have no concrete reality
They are abstract, like the laws of maths, as I said, so not physical.
they are a lot ore ephemeral than math because it's hard to establish them beyond debatable subjectivity,
Joe: If you are saying it's rights because we define it so that is meaningless. One can just change the definition.
I said nothing like that.
good just wanted to be clear
Joe: Because the Bible tells us so. I think there is a role in there for intuitive sense as a confirmation, That in and of itself is not adequate.
That would be more credible if the Bible was a good guide to morality.
the problem is the dubious nature of what you would use to ground the axioms you are using. It all comes down to feelings, opinion, and theory. so we have intuitive moral sense that X is right and the opposite is wrong it seems important. Yet there's no way to prove it. Why we have to appeal to God as the orbiter.
It says chattel slavery is allowed (for gentile slaves)
It condones genocide
It prohibits the wearing of cloth made of two different threads
It prohibits any work on a Sunday, and even condones executing those who disobey
It is homophobic
It tells us women are inferior to men, little better than possessions
It advocates elitism (you have to be of the right family to be ruler or priest)
It stands against the basic human right of freedom of religion
what do you use to ground the axioms you are using on those assertions?
I agree with you about those points but in relation to the bible we don't have to understand the OT that way. Did you know the Canon of the OT wasn't closed until the AD 90s? Right after Paul's death, It was not closed by Christians. That means the list of books making up the OT was chosen after Paul's death and not by Christians.
You might feel tempted to object that some of these are cultural, but if you do, you lose. You cannot hold the Bible us as a morality for all people and all times if it is mired in the culture in which it was written.
That would be true if I claimed that the OT is 100% valid as a moral authority. The authority is Jesus. The values are grounded in Jesus so they are filtered through Jesus.
You might feel tempted to say some of these are ritual laws, not moral, but then you need to explain how we can tell which is which. Both observing the sabbath and the prohibition on murder are part of the ten commandments, so why should I suppose one is moral and one is ritual.
i am nit tempted to say that
Joe: How so?
I am arguing God is not a moral agent, and hence not good himself. You said "A moral agent has moral obligation the standard of the good has no obligation", i.e., God has no obligations, so is not a moral agent.
You are confusing moral agency ad obligation with moral excellence or virtue. Saying God has no obligation is not the same as saying God has no virtue. God is moral due to his virtue but he's not obligated to measure up to any standard.
Joe: Morality is based upon God's character. morality is about the good, so God's character must be good. I break down good to mean an extension of love. thus God is love. he can't be other than moral. His character matches morality because it's the basis of it.
Why should I think any of that is true?
It's logical given the premise of who and what God is.
Joe: Argument from analogy is fallacious. But God is not just a measurement of good but the repository of it, the enabaler of it.
Sure, I was just pointing out your reasoning is flaw. You said "How could the good not be moral?" Why should we suppose a standard for good has to be good itself, given these analogies.
I just said why God is not a measuring device
Joe: the same thing I mean when I say God is being itself. God is the good itself. Can't have love without God' we are just advanced apes. Why should society have love? It could have been just some rudimentary favoritism, why do we have the sort of elevated concept that Gandy and Jesus and the moral teachers have taught? I don't believe that's possible without being the product of a creative force that made the universe and that loves,
A. None of that tells me what you mean by "God is love". If you mean that God created love, why not just say "God created love" instead?
God is the source of love. Before there is a humanity much less human love there was God's love that gives us the ability to love because he created us gave us the ability, God love is eternal it's the basis of all love.
B. Show that all of that is true.
Go back to the five God arguments that I dealt with a couple of weeks ago, if God exists and God is eternal necessary and being itself the rest has to follow,
Joe: they are a lot ore ephemeral than math because it's hard to establish them beyond debatable subjectivity,
Agreed. That is the nature of morality.
Christians debate morality, eg homosexuality, so this is a problem for all.
Joe: the problem is the dubious nature of what you would use to ground the axioms you are using. It all comes down to feelings, opinion, and theory. so we have intuitive moral sense that X is right and the opposite is wrong it seems important. Yet there's no way to prove it. Why we have to appeal to God as the orbiter.
So how has God arbitrated on the issue of homosexuality? Or abortion? Or freedom of religion?
It is a problem, but as far as I can see a problem for you too.
Joe: what do you use to ground the axioms you are using on those assertions?
Me? I use consequantialism to try to determine if something is right or wrong. How about you? Do you use the Bible, and think that picking up sticks on a Saturday deserves a death sentence? Or do you use some system to filter the Bible's moral code? If the latter, how are you any better than me?
And if the former, well, in my view you are far worse than me - morally anyway.
Joe: I agree with you about those points but in relation to the bible we don't have to understand the OT that way. Did you know the Canon of the OT wasn't closed until the AD 90s? Right after Paul's death, It was not closed by Christians. That means the list of books making up the OT was chosen after Paul's death and not by Christians.
That is pretty dubious, as John is dated to AD 90 to AD 120, but in any case so what?
Joe: That would be true if I claimed that the OT is 100% valid as a moral authority. The authority is Jesus. The values are grounded in Jesus so they are filtered through Jesus.
So tell me how you determine what is right and wrong. Jesus' own words make up a tiny part of the Bible. What did he say about slavery, women' rights, freedom of religion, abortion? How do you decide what is morally right with regards to these issues?
I strongly suspect that ultimately you do the same as me. The difference is you then use religion to rationalise it afterwards.
Joe: You are confusing moral agency ad obligation with moral excellence or virtue. Saying God has no obligation is not the same as saying God has no virtue. God is moral due to his virtue but he's not obligated to measure up to any standard.
How can something that has no moral agency be virtuous? Surely virtue is consistently choosing to good, when you could potentially do bad. There is nothing virtuous about a rock that never has lustful thoughts.
Joe: It's logical given the premise of who and what God is.
Why are you declaring it is logical, rather than showing the logic?
I can assure you my position is logical. Does that mean I win?
Joe: I just said why God is not a measuring device
I said a "standard for good", which is not quite the same. And I did so because you previously said "God himself is the standard" (towards the end of your first reply to me).
Perhaps you need to decide one way or the other, and we can proceed from there.
Joe: God is the source of love. Before there is a humanity much less human love there was God's love that gives us the ability to love because he created us gave us the ability, God love is eternal it's the basis of all love.
That is just a bunch of assertions. Why should I even think love needs a source?
Joe: Go back to the five God arguments that I dealt with a couple of weeks ago, if God exists and God is eternal necessary and being itself the rest has to follow,
I had a quick look (basically searching your posts for "love") and could not see it.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: they are a lot ,more ephemeral than math because it's hard to establish them beyond debatable subjectivity,
Agreed. That is the nature of morality.
Christians debate morality, eg homosexuality, so this is a problem for all.
That is the challenge of being an ethicist but some of my favorite professors were ethicists. Both gone now. From Perkins the great Fred Carney and from UTD the lesser known but equally fine processor Victory Worsefold. He was from Scotland and talked like Scottie on Star Treck.
Joe: the problem is the dubious nature of what you would use to ground the axioms you are using. It all comes down to feelings, opinion, and theory. so we have intuitive moral sense that X is right and the opposite is wrong it seems important. Yet there's no way to prove it. Why we have to appeal to God as the orbiter.
So how has God arbitrated on the issue of homosexuality? Or abortion? Or freedom of religion?
Bible flatly condemns Gayness as sinful. The passage that comes close to abortion implies that it's not wrong. Pregnant woman's child killed en eurterio was killed by men fighting and crashing into her; the penalty was a fine. Freedom of religion implied in statement by Paul condemning the robbing of temples of other faiths.
It is a problem, but as far as I can see a problem for you too.
Yes but I think there are solutions
Joe: what do you use to ground the axioms you are using on those assertions?
Me? I use consequantialism to try to determine if something is right or wrong. How about you?
That still requires initial grounding so you know if a given consequence is good or bad.
Do you use the Bible, and think that picking up sticks on a Saturday deserves a death sentence? Or do you use some system to filter the Bible's moral code? If the latter, how are you any better than me?
Christians are nit under law but Grace, so working on Sabath is not a issue for us. I don't see the Bible as a rule book I use it as a source of knowledge to understand issues of morality light of God's will. I use a combination of Bible, great theologians, social convection and intuitive sense, Prayer.
I don't think I'm better than you just smarter. ;-)
And if the former, well, in my view you are far worse than me - morally anyway.
For those who know Christ salvation is assured. Of course we make mistakes but we live under grace not law.
Joe: I agree with you about those points but in relation to the bible we don't have to understand the OT that way. Did you know the Canon of the OT wasn't closed until the AD 90s? Right after Paul's death, It was not closed by Christians. That means the list of books making up the OT was chosen after Paul's death and not by Christians.
That is pretty dubious, as John is dated to AD 90 to AD 120, but in any case so what?
John is not in the OT I was speaking of OT canon. The up shot is we can see it a cultural addendum, background for NT. OT can be non obligatory and sometimes mistaken,
Joe: That would be true if I claimed that the OT is 100% valid as a moral authority. The authority is Jesus. The values are grounded in Jesus so they are filtered through Jesus.
So tell me how you determine what is right and wrong. Jesus' own words make up a tiny part of the Bible. What did he say about slavery, women' rights, freedom of religion, abortion? How do you decide what is morally right with regards to these issues?
I don't approach it as a list of rules but as a guide to principles that can be applied to any situation,
I strongly suspect that ultimately you do the same as me. The difference is you then use religion to rationalize it afterwards.
No definatley not. I don't claim that there never any moral ambiguity, of course there is. But we aren't following a rule book, It's a matter of principles.
Joe: You are confusing moral agency and obligation with moral excellence or virtue. Saying God has no obligation is not the same as saying God has no virtue. God is moral due to his virtue but he's not obligated to measure up to any standard. he is the standard.
How can something that has no moral agency be virtuous? Surely virtue is consistently choosing to good, when you could potentially do bad. There is nothing virtuous about a rock that never has lustful thoughts.
fir humans, we are pantheistic, we have sin natures. God's character is the standard that created morality.
Joe: It's logical given the premise of who and what God is.
Why are you declaring it is logical, rather than showing the logic?
I just did.
I can assure you my position is logical. Does that mean I win?
I don't think of this as a context. I think in terms of learning from a worthy dialogue partner. then it's easier to kick your ass..;-)
You could nit assign a winner from discussion as thus. i think it a valuable exercise and helps clarify ideas.
Way back in undergrad college we had a friend from Iran who discussions were contests. We would talk for hours in coffee shop he would get combative. My brother used to make fun of him saying (mimicking his accent "we will have intellectual discussion I will beat you."
Joe: I just said why God is not a measuring device,
I said a "standard for good", which is not quite the same. And I did so because you previously said "God himself is the standard" (towards the end of your first reply to me).
A tire gage is not a standard. a tire gage may tell you if you are nearing a standard
Perhaps you need to decide one way or the other, and we can proceed from there.
I think I just clearifiedit
Joe: God is the source of love. Before there is a humanity much less human love there was God's love that gives us the ability to love because he created us gave us the ability, God love is eternal it's the basis of all love.
That is just a bunch of assertions. Why should I even think love needs a source?
I've already covered that. that thing people fell that get's mixed up with sex is not the issue. The idea of God's love is an elevated concept. Most people have trouble just sorting out the former feelings.
Joe: Go back to the five God arguments that I dealt with a couple of weeks ago, if God exists and God is eternal necessary and being itself the rest has to follow,
I had a quick look (basically searching your posts for "love") and could not see it.
I will look
Joe: Bible flatly condemns Gayness as sinful. The passage that comes close to abortion implies that it's not wrong. Pregnant woman's child killed en eurterio was killed by men fighting and crashing into her; the penalty was a fine. ...
Nevertheless, these are issues that cause heated disagreement within Christianity. How can that be the case if they have God telling them what is wrong and what is right?
Joe: .... Freedom of religion implied in statement by Paul condemning the robbing of temples of other faiths.
Freedom of religion is very much contradicted by what Jesus calls the greatest commandment - to love God. And also when he says whose he failed to do so will go to eternal fire for punishment.
Joe: Yes but I think there are solutions
I think there are too, and like you I am not going to say what they are. So I guess we are even on this.
Joe: That still requires initial grounding so you know if a given consequence is good or bad.
So?
Joe: Christians are nit under law but Grace, so working on Sabath is not a issue for us.
And yet observing the sabbath is one of the big ten! How do you decide which of the Ten Commandments still apply and which do not?
Joe: I don't see the Bible as a rule book I use it as a source of knowledge to understand issues of morality light of God's will. I use a combination of Bible, great theologians, social convection and intuitive sense, Prayer.
Looks to me like a lot of it is the same as me then.
Joe: For those who know Christ salvation is assured. Of course we make mistakes but we live under grace not law.
Sounds to me like you reject the rules of the Bible in favour of deciding for yourself what is right and wrong. Just like me.
Joe: John is not in the OT I was speaking of OT canon.
Okay, my bad.
Joe: The up shot is we can see it a cultural addendum, background for NT. OT can be non obligatory and sometimes mistaken,
The problem then is that there are so many issues not addressed in the NT.
Joe: I don't approach it as a list of rules but as a guide to principles that can be applied to any situation,
So in the same situation as me, more-or-less.
Joe: No definatley not. I don't claim that there never any moral ambiguity, of course there is. But we aren't following a rule book, It's a matter of principles.
If the principle is as simple as "love your neighbour" or "do unto others..." then again you are no better off than me. We are both trying to work out what is right and wrong, and both doing it as we see it according to one simple principle, and the ethics we end up with is probably very similar.
Joe: You could nit assign a winner from discussion as thus. i think it a valuable exercise and helps clarify ideas.
I was not being serious. I was mocking your assertion that your position is logical without the supporting logic.
Pix: I said a "standard for good", which is not quite the same. And I did so because you previously said "God himself is the standard" (towards the end of your first reply to me).
Joe: A tire gage is not a standard. a tire gage may tell you if you are nearing a standard
What is your point? I said "standard", not "gauge".
Joe: I think I just clearifiedit
No you did not. You compounded the confusion by talking about gauges. This is about STANDARDS.
Is God the standard for good or not?
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Bible flatly condemns Gayness as sinful. The passage that comes close to abortion implies that it's not wrong. Pregnant woman's child killed en eurterio was killed by men fighting and crashing into her; the penalty was a fine. ...
Nevertheless, these are issues that cause heated disagreement within Christianity. How can that be the case if they have God telling them what is wrong and what is right?
I answered that several times you missed it. The point of saying it's not a lot of rules but opens up to prickles that answers it. How could God tell us every issue in 2000 years? A list of rules becomes legalistic and narrow. List of rules doesn't change a person's inner understanding. principles do.
Joe: .... Freedom of religion implied in statement by Paul condemning the robbing of temples of other faiths.
Freedom of religion is very much contradicted by what Jesus calls the greatest commandment - to love God. And also when he says whose he failed to do so will go to eternal fire for punishment.
He tell us how to know the truth and to come to God in a personal relationship you see that's stifling religious freedom! That is like saying preventing someone from blowing his brains out stifles self expression,
Joe: Yes but I think there are solutions
I think there are too, and like you I am not going to say what they are. So I guess we are even on this.
The things I've said are obviously the solution
Joe: That still requires initial grounding so you know if a given consequence is good or bad.
Joe: Christians are not under law but Grace, so working on Sabath is not a issue for us.
And yet observing the sabbath is one of the big ten! How do you decide which of the Ten Commandments still apply and which do not?
We don't have to approach it with that kind of legalism,
Joe: I don't see the Bible as a rule book I use it as a source of knowledge to understand issues of morality light of God's will. I use a combination of Bible, great theologians, social convection and intuitive sense, Prayer.
Looks to me like a lot of it is the same as me then.
I guess you need to study and learn more about the faith. Looks simple to me,
Joe: For those who know Christ salvation is assured. Of course we make mistakes but we live under grace not law.
Sounds to me like you reject the rules of the Bible in favour of deciding for yourself what is right and wrong. Just like me.
You don't know what legalism is? You don't know what Grace is? I grew up in a very legalistic church. It's very damaging and soul crushing. It can screw people over. You need to learn about Grace, it's neat concept
Joe: John is not in the OT I was speaking of OT canon.
Okay, my bad.
Joe: The up shot is we can see it a cultural addendum, background for NT. OT can be non obligatory and sometimes mistaken,
The problem then is that there are so many issues not addressed in the NT.
Principles rather than rules
Joe: I don't approach it as a list of rules but as a guide to principles that can be applied to any situation,
So in the same situation as me, more-or-less.
Sure, although you have a special problem, living among all those English people ;-)
I have it worse being a Texan.
Joe: No definatley not. I don't claim that there never any moral ambiguity, of course there is. But we aren't following a rule book, It's a matter of principles.
If the principle is as simple as "love your neighbour" or "do unto others..." then again you are no better off than me. We are both trying to work out what is right and wrong, and both doing it as we see it according to one simple principle, and the ethics we end up with is probably very similar.
There's a bit more to it than that. There is nothing in rules or principles that changes human nature. Its nature we struggle against where sin is concerned. It is God's grace that gives us the power to overcome sin.
Joe: You could not assign a winner from discussion as thus. i think it a valuable exercise and helps clarify ideas.
I was not being serious. I was mocking your assertion that your position is logical without the supporting logic.
Really? I think the logical nature of my ideas is self evident.
Pix: I said a "standard for good", which is not quite the same. And I did so because you previously said "God himself is the standard" (towards the end of your first reply to me).
I don't see the problem
Joe: A tire gage is not a standard. a tire gage may tell you if you are nearing a standard
What is your point? I said "standard", not "gauge".
I think you said something about Measuring
Joe: I think I just clearifiedit
No you did not. You compounded the confusion by talking about gauges. This is about STANDARDS.
No I was reacting to something you said. I am not going back to look I don't think its that important to my overall position,
Is God the standard for good or not?
Jesus is the role model for that.
Joe: He tell us how to know the truth and to come to God in a personal relationship you see that's stifling religious freedom! That is like saying preventing someone from blowing his brains out stifles self expression,
A basic human right is the freedom of religion. Are you stating that people should not have that freedom, but should only be allowed to be Christian?
Furthermore, your previous comment was "Freedom of religion implied in statement by Paul..." so what you say here is a complete reversal of your position!
Joe: The things I've said are obviously the solution
Same for me!
Joe: We don't have to approach it with that kind of legalism,
Right, we just need a principle to apply.
Like consequentualism.
Joe: Really? I think the logical nature of my ideas is self evident.
Same for me!
Joe: I think you said something about Measuring
Sure, way back in the argument. Then you said God was the standard for good, so I talked about the standard. Are you going to stick with God being the standard?
Pix: Is God the standard for good or not?
Joe: Jesus is the role model for that.
Is that a yes or a no? Sounds like a no, but previously you said he is.
Pix
Joe: Love is from God's character
So just an assertion? No real reason we couldn't have love without God.
Joe:
We understand moral axioms based upon the Bible and Jesus' teachings. Our understanding of God has not change to the extent that we can't understand how God grounds our moral axioms.
What teachings of Jesus? What did Jesus teach that we didn't have before?
It seems to me you are not grounding moral axioms in God but in the Biblical rendering of God. Without actual access to God, what we are grounding our axioms in is a human ideal. Now you can make the claim that God imbued us with that ideal but we are still simply basing our morals upon that ideal.
Joe said: As I intimated we probably would have feelings of association and attachment but it would not be the same lofty concept.
You don't see a reason for why there is love, therefore God? Love provides the grounding for pair bonding and child rearing. It's an enhanced form of attachment. What makes it "lofty" other than our appreciation of it?
What is the need for it in association with God? Surely some kind of attachment would also be sufficient.
Joe: Do you not get how Jesus is regarded? do you not get people of other faiths like him a lot? Gandhi liked him a lot, they all regard his teachings as superlative. Why do they have to be Unique? Paul says the moral law is written on the heart, so we all know what Jesus taught but it's not usually made explicit. When it is it resonates.
What does it matter how the Jesus is regarded? Isn't that just an argumentum ad populum?
Which of his teachings are superlative? Why should I care what Paul said?
If the moral law is written on our hearts then why do we need Jesus?
It seems you are just making Jesus a flagbearer for something that humans understand already.
Joe: Jesus said he is giving us the Holy Spirit. Direct connection to God. So if we follow the leading of he Holy Spirit the power of God is in our lives, provided we give our lives to God.
This so called biblical rendering of God is commutated by the Holy Spirit You have to do something in yourself, you have place faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross. But the Bible is more than just words on paper.
The moral law is a partly innate, partly learned understanding of the human social contract that we adhere to as a means of fostering survival.
If the "moral law" is written in my heart, Then I don't have to do anything other than conform to it. I already have all I need.
The "Holy Spirit" is just a product of belief. It's psychological.
The Bible is more than words only in the minds of believers.
Post a Comment