Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic - Why aren't the gay/lesb. ect. folks screaming?

Joined: 21 Dec 2010 Posts: 407

Frank,

I'll say, you have stamina, brother!

Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 36

frank wrote

snakearms wrote

I can't believe that I mentioned that I drew my morals from a number of sources and now you're comparing me to Hitler.

You made the statement "There's nothing wrong with developing your own morals". Then I gave you an example of someone who "made up their own morals" like Hitler and you accuse me of doing something inappropriate?? Would you like to retract your statement? Did you really mean to say "There's nothing wrong with developing your own morals as long as they agree with mine?"

No, that's not what I said at all. And I didn't say to "make up your own morals". I said develop your morals from your own experiences and various sources.
Not only that, but I cited evidence that said that humans are born with certain inherent morals, i.e., killing is wrong.
Now, I suppose if I had to cite an example of where my morals came from, it would be this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [who or whatever it may be] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Any violation of these unalienable rights is immoral, plain and simple.
Let's keep in mind that this sentence was a synthesis of the thoughts of many different men from many different sources... of them, the Bible, of course, but a number of political documents and philosophical texts as well. This is what I meant by developing your own morals.
On the post you made as I was writing this one, God is not needed to make moral decisions. Simple discernment is. An essay I cited earlier explained this process of discernment.

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

snakearms wrote

No, that's not what I said at all. And I didn't say to "make up your own morals". I said develop your morals from your own experiences and various sources.
Not only that, but I cited evidence that said that humans are born with certain inherent morals, i.e., killing is wrong.

First, are we really going to quibble over the difference between "develop" and "make up". You don't think Hitler "developed" his beliefs from his own experiences? Do you think he was just born believing that Jews were a poison to the rest of the human race?

As far as your "evidence" that humans are born believing that murder is wrong, I think all you need to do is pick up a newspaper to realize that there are a lot of folks out there who must have missed that article. In any case, I happen to believe that we are born with some sense of right and wrong. But it's a very imperfect and imprecise sense. In any case, you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that morality in inborn and inherent, and then in the next breath you are telling me that there is nothing wrong with "developing one's own morals". You are trying to embrace both moral absolutism and moral relativism at the same time. That is a complete contradiction.

Joined: 28 Jun 2008 Posts: 1335

Joelstevick wrote

Frank,

I'll say, you have stamina, brother!

...and he has the truth which gives him a great advantage in his very well placed argument. You see our christian faith and reason agree. Our God is the author of reason and logic. Atheists have come here thinking they will be having a cake walk. They are in for a rude awakening. It's called christian apologetics people.

Joined: 21 May 2011 Posts: 33

Here's the thing, Frank: having a religious conviction doesn't free you from taking personal responsibility for your moral judgments.

Let's suppose, for the moment, that we know God exists as the Bible describes him. Creator of heaven and earth, sent Jesus to die for our sins, etc. We know how he has commanded us to behave, and we know what he plans for those who do (and those who don't). Now the question: why should we follow God's moral compass?

I'm not just asking why God's morality might be better than a human institution. Certainly it's easy to see why a being with God's knowledge and power might - theoretically - have greater wisdom and purer motives than any of us. But even that doesn't make God's morality absolute, in the sense of being objective, or universal. In other words, it doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with God on a moral question is incontestably wrong. The ideas of "right" and "wrong" only exist in the form of judgments made by personal observers, and the idea that God's judgment is supreme is, itself, just another judgment. Part of the social contract, you might say, that Christians have with God.

I know that this kind of thinking probably goes against your instincts. But I think the most compelling counterexample is obvious: what if we lived in a world where God, omnipotent and omniscient, had evil intentions instead of good ones? Imagine a God who commanded us to steal, to lie, to think only of our own visceral pleasure and leave our souls to rot and the world to ruin. In this world, the choice to submit to God's will is surely reprehensible - yet for one who believes in the absolute supremacy of God, there are absolutely no grounds to oppose him.

You may respond by claiming that it is impossible for God-as-defined to be evil. But that is an article of faith. It is belief without evidence, because as mortals, we would have no way of knowing whether God is deceiving us - and without applying our own sentient judgment, we would have no countervailing morality to turn to for appeal. By choosing to believe in the content of the Bible, you are making a judgment not only about its truth, but about its normative value, and by extension, the value of the Quran, the Vedic texts, the Eightfold Path, and any other code which makes equally absolute claims. Whether it's actually true or not, your belief in its goodness must come of your own volition. And God is not responsible for that, except insofar as making a compelling case. Ultimately, the responsibility is yours.

Joined: 21 Dec 2010 Posts: 407

Frank,

As peters has suggested, there are many of us reading your posts and applauding, even though we are not posting anything, ourselves.

Keep it up, brother!

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

Kaelri wrote

You may respond by claiming that it is impossible for God-as-defined to be evil. But that is an article of faith.

You're right, it is an article of faith. I can't prove to you 100% that God is not really some evil monster who is playing one big gigantic trick on us by pretending he is good. But I do believe all the evidence points to the historical fact of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In order to believe God is faking his goodness, I'd have to believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died a torturous death on a cross all so he could play a trick on the human race. I can't absolutely prove that's not the case, but I find it so far fetched to be nearly absurd. If you define that as faith, then I guess that's what I have.

Joined: 15 May 2011 Posts: 154

I respect your faith. But that is what it is - a faith. I have different beliefs.

We both have to choose and exercise moral judgement.

Joined: 21 May 2011 Posts: 33

frank wrote

You're right, it is an article of faith. I can't prove to you 100% that God is not really some evil monster who is playing one big gigantic trick on us by pretending he is good. But I do believe all the evidence points to the historical fact of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In order to believe God is faking his goodness, I'd have to believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died a torturous death on a cross all so he could play a trick on the human race. I can't absolutely prove that's not the case, but I find it so far fetched to be nearly absurd. If you define that as faith, then I guess that's what I have.

Good - we agree on that, then. But let's go further now: if God's will is the absolute, supreme definition of what is "good," then isn't the idea of God "faking" goodness a contradiction in terms? In your worldview, anything that God believes is right is, by definition, right. If God's will is for you to be deceived, to suffer and eventually die without purpose, what grounds would you have to claim that this is wrong? How is that conclusion justified in a world where God disagrees?

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

Kaelri wrote

If God's will is for you to be deceived, to suffer and eventually die without purpose, what grounds would you have to claim that this is wrong?

I would have no grounds. Which is precisely my point. Unless there is a God who is good, all talk of morality, right, and wrong is meaningless. The only reason we CAN talk about morality and goodness (and have it mean anything) is because there is a God who is good and who defines goodness. Without that, objective morality is just an illusion.

In the end, one must have faith that God is good. But it's a reasonable faith based on reasonable evaluation of all facts in evidence. That's not the same thing as blind, shot in the dark faith which is how many atheists try to define Christian belief.

Joined: 21 May 2011 Posts: 33

frank wrote

In the end, one must have faith that God is good. But it's a reasonable faith based on reasonable evaluation of all facts in evidence. That's not the same thing as blind, shot in the dark faith which is how many atheists try to define Christian belief.

Exactly! A reasonable faith - a faith born of reason! You don't just just accept whatever theological claim manages to reach your ears, the way Harold Camping's followers do (or did). You evaluate the words and actions of God, and you make a decision to accept them as evidence of a moral creator. Which means that you necessarily possess a sense of morality which has it source, at least partly, in something other than God. Otherwise, the statement "God is good" would be tautological, like "water is wet." Your method of normative belief-forming is not different from mine; it is simply based on a different set of descriptive facts.

I do not believe that morality is an illusion. I believe it is a construct. Like money, or government, or tipping your waitress, I believe in morality as an institution that one embraces as a means of improving everyone's lives and approaching a state of being - an identity - which satisfies one's conscience. It's a way of becoming the people we want to be. And I believe this is the same offer that God, in your theology, has made to humanity. The only difference between me and God is that God has a much bigger carrot, and a much bigger stick. (Although I think you would probably agree that behaving morally only out of the fear of going to Hell has to be the weakest category of faith.) The act of creation does not endow God with an absolute correctness. It makes him worth listening to, perhaps, but it does not make him the embodiment of good.

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

Kaelri wrote

Which means that you necessarily possess a sense of morality which has it source, at least partly, in something other than God.

How did you jump to "something other than God". I believe our sense of morality comes from God. He gives us the very sense of morality that helps us understand that he is good.

Quote

I do not believe that morality is an illusion. I believe it is a construct. Like money, or government, or tipping your waitress, I believe in morality as an institution that one embraces as a means of improving everyone's lives and approaching a state of being - an identity - which satisfies one's conscience.

The problem here is with your last clause...."which satisfies one's conscience". I'm sure Hitler's conscience was quite satisfied with his extermination program for Jews. I keep bringing up these examples of "moral monsters" like Hitler because the most difficult examples often serve to demonstrate the moral questions at stake most starkly. But the atheists don't seem inclined to discuss these difficult examples much. Hitler was not some sadistic fiend. He honestly believed the Jews were the source of the world's problems and by eliminating them he could make the world a better place. If you read his writings it's quite clear he acted without the slightest twinge of conscience. And that's because he really thought he was doing the world a favor. So again, what right would you have to judge Hitler as immoral if his conscience was satisfied with his own behavior?

p.s. I do have to run now...my wife is getting a little irate at how much time I've been on the computer the past few days. If you wish, I'm certainly willing to pick up the conversation at a later time though....

Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 36

peterx wrote

Joelstevick wrote

Frank,

I'll say, you have stamina, brother!

...and he has the truth which gives him a great advantage in his very well placed argument. You see our christian faith and reason agree. Our God is the author of reason and logic. Atheists have come here thinking they will be having a cake walk. They are in for a rude awakening. It's called christian apologetics people.

I don't know where you're getting this notion that I'm here to stir up trouble, but it's seriously beginning to bother me and I would appreciate it if you would stop. I respect your beliefs and opinions and I would like if you would respect mine.

"As far as your "evidence" that humans are born believing that murder is wrong, I think all you need to do is pick up a newspaper to realize that there are a lot of folks out there who must have missed that article. In any case, I happen to believe that we are born with some sense of right and wrong. But it's a very imperfect and imprecise sense. In any case, you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that morality in inborn and inherent, and then in the next breath you are telling me that there is nothing wrong with "developing one's own morals". You are trying to embrace both moral absolutism and moral relativism at the same time. That is a complete contradiction."
It actually isn't, and you'll have to forgive me if my arguments seem mixed up.
Those who do kill people obviously have a screw loose - healthy, normal, functioning people do not commit murder. They have a misunderstanding of objective, absolute morals.
Now here's what you're calling a "contradiction": I said that there are certain moral grey areas. Same-sex marriage, for instance: I find it to be immoral because it infringes upon a person's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness; you find it to be immoral because the Bible says it is a perversion. It is in matters such as this that people begin to develop their own morals, and it ultimately rides on what you believe.

I am unmoved by your Biblical arguments, by the way, because, much like many people view historical documents, I do not find the Bible to be a source of infallible truth. Let's try to keep the argument away from that.

Oh, and I'm sorry if this is getting a little heated. That was honestly not my intention, lol. Talk to you later.

And, Peter, I'm sorry I lashed out at you. I was just in a fight with a friend and was feeling a little cranky.

Joined: 21 Dec 2010 Posts: 407

Snakearms,

I don't think you have to worry about hurting anybody's sensibilities on this forum, especially not Peterx or Frank , they have shown us some pretty thick skin over the past few months.

We are glad to dialog with you, friend.

Joined: 21 May 2011 Posts: 33

frank wrote

Kaelri wrote

Which means that you necessarily possess a sense of morality which has it source, at least partly, in something other than God.

How did you jump to "something other than God". I believe our sense of morality comes from God. He gives us the very sense of morality that helps us understand that he is good.

So you think you weigh the word of God against... the word of God? That's like asking a corrupt politician to investigate himself and expecting an accurate report. It doesn't solve the problem.

I repeat: if God is the sole source of your morality, then everything God does must be good by definition. There's nothing to understand, nothing to evaluate. By this logic, there doesn't need to be a reason why killing is wrong, or stealing is wrong - or why a man loving another man is wrong. It shouldn't matter to you what the data supports about homosexual parents; you are simply commanded to accept that they are sinful. And if the commandment was otherwise, you would have no reason or ability to challenge it. And if one day God commands you to strap a bomb to your chest and kill a bunch of heathens, you have no standing to refuse. That is a "blind, shot in the dark faith," and based on your statements here, I do not believe that is the character of your faith. You and I agree that God's moral validity cannot be self-defined without making Allah's, Buddha's, Vishnu's and Hitler's equally valid.

Your argument is that without a God who is good, "objective morality is just an illusion." The thing is, that's not automatically wrong just because we don't like the implications. Like free will, objective morality is a thing that we want to believe in because it makes life simpler, easier to understand. But that doesn't mean it's supported by logic or reality. The contradictions don't go away when you ignore them. Intuition is a powerful tool, and we have it for a reason. But sometimes it's just wrong.

frank wrote

The problem here is with your last clause...."which satisfies one's conscience". I'm sure Hitler's conscience was quite satisfied with his extermination program for Jews. I keep bringing up these examples of "moral monsters" like Hitler because the most difficult examples often serve to demonstrate the moral questions at stake most starkly. But the atheists don't seem inclined to discuss these difficult examples much... So again, what right would you have to judge Hitler as immoral if his conscience was satisfied with his own behavior?

Well, speaking of a stark demonstration, let me ask you this: what more right does God have to judge Hitler? He could threaten to send him to hell, but that's like the bully threatening to punch me if I don't give up my lunch money. He can claim the right to dictate to his own creations, but that's a statement of sovereignty, not moral authority. And if your case for the latter boils down to "God is good because he says he is," then he doesn't seem to have any qualifications that the rest of us don't, except for the recognizably human ones: knowledge, experience, perspective.

As for me, I don't feel that I need objective morality to make a case against Hitler. I can prove that his actions caused harm and suffering on a massive scale, and that his policies failed to accomplish their goals. I can show that his worldview was based on an arbitrarily tribalistic understanding of human history and sociology. I can point out its many contradictions, weaknesses, presumptions and violations of other accepted social contracts. This is more than enough to convince all but the most nihilistic minds, as long as their moral perspective is based, like yours, on reason and evaluation of evidence. And for those who aren't, well - if their fellow Christians couldn't tear them away from the soothing pathos of Family Radio, I doubt I could do better anyway.

frank wrote

p.s. I do have to run now...my wife is getting a little irate at how much time I've been on the computer the past few days. If you wish, I'm certainly willing to pick up the conversation at a later time though....

Heh, understood. Anytime, my friend. :)