Morality

[Jenny in Atl]

I honestly have not read a single post that I thought was bad enough for me to send a negative rep. I guess I have enough negativity in my life, wish not to create more.

[nancypants]

Actually, these are the listed reasons for giving negative rep:

 

 

 

I don't see where it says to give negative rep just because you disapprove of someone's comment. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is one reason that the admins have said was not a good reason to leave negative rep.

 

Oh well. All I said was that it seemed to me, from your words, that you misunderstood Phred. I'm sorry that it bothered you so much.

 

I'm sorry that I took your post as a jab if it was not meant as one. It very much felt like it. And I very purposefully did not rep you anonymously. I did not neg. rep you because you disagreed with me. I neg. repped you because I felt that you were "sticking it to me" by suggesting twice in a row that I "just don't get it." I've been engaged in a decent and thoughtful discussion here and, though you may really not believe it, I really and truly do understand what Phred has said. Because I disagree with him on so many levels and in such a fundamental way, I suppose it might come across to those who do not agree with me that I don't understand his point of view when in fact I understand it quite clearly. I just heartily disagree.

 

Anyways, please forgive me for not hearing your post as you perhaps intended it. I will replace it with a positive rep. the next time I get a chance.

[genie]

I neg. repped you because I felt that you were "sticking it to me" by suggesting twice in a row that I "just don't get it."

 

 

I thought you misunderstood, but I didn't mean to imply that you "just don't get it" in some sort of derogatory way. Maybe I should have said that I thought you were misunderstanding how he was using certain terms. Oh well. I don't know how to say it in a way that won't sound wrong. I was enjoying the discussion as a lurker, and gaining some new perspectives on things, and I was just trying to point out something that I thought was becoming a hindrance in the two of you being able to further the conversation. I'll try harder to mind my own business next time. :o

[Julie Herbster]

I believe very clearly in right and wrong. Just not an absolute right and wrong. Something I may believe in very strongly one way others may believe in just as strongly the other way. And there are no rights or wrongs that everyone believes in either way.

 

 

I think what is missing from this conversation is a complete understanding of the Christian view of morality. It is impossible for a nonchristian to critique the Christian perspective without this understanding. I will try to explain what I mean...The only aspect of morality (from a Christian perspective) that has been alluded to in this discussion is that the Creator God has instilled in every human heart His laws...absolute moral values. Nonchristians take this bit of information and say that if this is true, then there should be moral behaviors (different than values) that are common to all people for all time. (Phred, please correct me at any time if I am misrepresenting your arguments thus far.) They then challenge Christians to produce evidence of moral behaviors that have been practiced by all people over all times in all cultures.

 

Such analysis is simplistic and incomplete, because there are other key concepts in the Christian view of morality that have not been taken into consideration. Here is a short summary of some of them; I certainly can't do them justice in this forum. Notice that I'm not trying to "prove" these ideas; I'm merely stating them as the Christian perspective, to be analyzed as such.

 

1. The Creator of all men has instilled within His creation--human beings made "in His image"--common moral understanding, sensitivities, and values, which have the potential of leading to moral behavior.

 

2. Man, the creation of God, has rebelled against Him...has sinned. Every person born into the world has a sinful nature--one that is self-serving and depraved. Man is a fallen creature. Because he is fallen, he is not only unable to be consistently moral, but also capable of all kinds of depravity. He is spiritually blind.

 

3. A person's moral sense does not exist in a vacuum. Having been born with a basic moral sense, a person develops this moral sense in a variety of ways. The moral sense can be either suppressed or encouraged, depending on a variety of factors. An obvious one would be how a person is taught from infancy on. Certain aspects of the moral sense can be inhibited, while others are emphasized. By the time a person reaches maturity, his moral sense has been "messed with," for lack of a better term. Hence, observable behaviors in an adult human do not conclusively support the existence or absence of a basic inborn moral sense.

 

4. The Bible teaches that it is possible for one to sear his conscience, "as with a hot iron," so that it no longer is sensitive to the moral code. Romans 1 mentions characteristics of those who know the laws which are written on their hearts, but choose to disregard them, acting in defiance to them.

 

There is much more that I could say. One can easily see that, given the condition of men's hearts (from the Christian perspective), "moral behavior" becomes very hard to analyze. Proving anything one way or the other with hard evidence is well nigh impossible, because such evidence is subjective at best. I do think that one can look throughout history and see common moral ideals held to. But that will not necessarily be enough to convince the skeptic...

 

In short, Christians do not spend much time wondering about the moral sense that is common to all humans. It is there; it's a given. The idea that is foundational to Christianity is not that all men are moral, but that all men are sinners in need of a savior.

[j.griff]

 

In short, Christians do not spend much time wondering about the moral sense that is common to all humans. It is there; it's a given. The idea that is foundational to Christianity is not that all men are moral, but that all men are sinners in need of a savior.

I am a Christian, and I do spend quite a bit of time pondering common morals, etc. That's why I participate in these discussions, ;)

[Peek a Boo]

moral vs. immoral does not require that everyone agree upon it, you're correct. For something to be an absolute... which is what we're skating around here. What we're trying to get to is that Christians want the Bible to be a source of ABSOLUTE MORALITY. Something that is so pure, so righteous that it cannot be questioned. But there is no absolute right or wrong. Nothing that is absolutely right or wrong morally. It. Just. Doesn't. Exist.

 

Now if we are talking about moral vs. immoral then we're talking about context, aren't we?

 

Just so everyone can get on the same page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

 

"A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the "absolute" morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called "absolute". So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are."

 

I don't "want" the Bible to be a source of absolute morality --I *know* it to be.

 

That you don't agree doesn't change how I view it.

Since you can't say -absolutely- whether I'm right or wrong, you can't say that there are No absolute morals --only that we have not come to an agreement on them.

 

GretaLynn, I tend to side more w/ Objectivist / Ayn Rand philosophy most of the time. I take issue w/ their view of abortion [obviously, lol].

==============

 

Phred---

 

when you make statements like "I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief". [except when it's YOU doing the diminishing to a religious person's views, eh? ;)] As in... I feel moral outrage when I see homosexuals being discriminated against by Christians simply because they believe they have a basis to justify their hatred in scripture."

 

oh! It's only morally outrageous if it's someone ELSE doing the discriminating. ok. got it.

 

and "You tell homosexuals they are less than the rest of us."

 

you show AGAIN that you choose to see "hatred" where there is none. You keep insisting that if we disapprove of someone we must be thinking they are "less" [than human??] somehow. You refuse to listen to times where people have said "but Phred, even other things done by all Christians are just as bad-- we don't approve of those either..." No matter how many times people will point it out, you will continue to insert a false bias where there is none. You insert a fallacy and untrue statement.

 

 

"You tell those with spinal cord injuries they just have to suffer because we can't do research that may help them. They are less than a ball of cells which you have promoted to be a human being. Tell the little girl with burns over 75% of her body that the ball of cells is more important. Religion, and your belief in a soul, has divorced you from reality."

 

Wrong --we have lots of ways of doing research that can help them. You are just stuck on ONE way --one that means a human life must be killed. You keep wanting to assign an arbitrary feeling to which developing human is worth more. You continue to assert that because we refuse to hold one human life over another that we are somehow seeing one life as more important than another. If there is no difference in their worth then one can not be held higher or lower than another. i don't have to do any promoting because I am not demoting a developing human like you are. I notice you are still hung up on "soul" too. maybe you should clarify why you keep bringing that up [three times that I've noticed] .... the whole "human being" vs "human in a specific stage of development" thing too while we're at it.

 

"That's where reason steps in with a reasonable argument backed by evidence."

 

Reason?? where?? i keep hearing lots based on FEELINGS, but nothing based on REASON. You want to assign an arbitrary value to a human life based on a number of cells or stage of development. Where is the reason in that? That's *emotion*, not reason. Evidence shows that those few cells are a developing human that is alive --until they die/ are killed. Evidence shows that the 'research' you want to perform requires more than just human tissue. Reason relies on evidence, yet you contradict that below:

 

"But it doesn't matter what I think. Yes, I think that mutilation of this sort is wrong. But the cultures that do it do NOT. Thus it is not absolutely wrong. While I can make a case to stamp it out and justify this with EVIDENCE I cannot just say, "It's wrong, let's go stop it because it's wrong." It's not morally right if it isn't supported by reason."

 

So you are going to now throw evidence --and reason-- out the door to rely on your "feelings" of what is wrong and right.

Since you FEEL that it is wrong to let someone suffer, you're going to march in and demand that human lives be killed. Your "evidence" is that someone is "suffering." You are going to insist that you "stamp out the suffering" by killing human lives. How is this using reason?

 

as a smart guy mentioned once:

It's not morally right if it isn't supported by reason.

 

*you* might not be ready willing or able to say or act on the fact that something is wrong.

Thank God there are others who will.

[Peek a Boo]

I am a Christian, and I do spend quite a bit of time pondering common morals, etc. That's why I participate in these discussions, ;)

Me too :)

 

but i probably don't wonder/ ponder like someone questioning Biblical principles does.

[nancypants]

I thought you misunderstood, but I didn't mean to imply that you "just don't get it" in some sort of derogatory way. Maybe I should have said that I thought you were misunderstanding how he was using certain terms. Oh well. I don't know how to say it in a way that won't sound wrong. I was enjoying the discussion as a lurker, and gaining some new perspectives on things, and I was just trying to point out something that I thought was becoming a hindrance in the two of you being able to further the conversation. I'll try harder to mind my own business next time. :o

 

 

Thanks, Genie. (Couldn't sleep for thinking about how I jumped to conclusions here and hurt you in the process...) I do now understand what you meant. Again, I am sorry that I took it the wrong way without asking for clarification. That was wrong of me. I should have assumed the best first... I suppose I got a bit sensitive. And really, you don't have to mind your own business on a public message board. :) It was my fault for not asking you to clarify what you meant.

 

Okay, now I think I can sleep...

[Julie Herbster]

 

I am a Christian, and I do spend quite a bit of time pondering common morals, etc. That's why I participate in these discussions, ;)

Right. I'm obviously thinking about these issues right now, too, which explains my presence here. But since I believe the items I listed in my previous post, I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever come to a resolution on this, for the reasons I mentioned. Someone who believes in morality "in a vacuum" will look at this issue differently than a Christian who believes that moral sense is affected by a number of other factors. j.griff, do you as a Christian affirm the things I listed?

[j.griff]

Not exactly. :)

[Phred]

I think what is missing from this conversation is a complete understanding of the Christian view of morality. It is impossible for a nonchristian to critique the Christian perspective without this understanding. I will try to explain what I mean...The only aspect of morality (from a Christian perspective) that has been alluded to in this discussion is that the Creator God has instilled in every human heart His laws...absolute moral values. Nonchristians take this bit of information and say that if this is true, then there should be moral behaviors (different than values) that are common to all people for all time. (Phred, please correct me at any time if I am misrepresenting your arguments thus far.) They then challenge Christians to produce evidence of moral behaviors that have been practiced by all people over all times in all cultures.

 

Such analysis is simplistic and incomplete, because there are other key concepts in the Christian view of morality that have not been taken into consideration. Here is a short summary of some of them; I certainly can't do them justice in this forum. Notice that I'm not trying to "prove" these ideas; I'm merely stating them as the Christian perspective, to be analyzed as such.

 

1. The Creator of all men has instilled within His creation--human beings made "in His image"--common moral understanding, sensitivities, and values, which have the potential of leading to moral behavior.

 

2. Man, the creation of God, has rebelled against Him...has sinned. Every person born into the world has a sinful nature--one that is self-serving and depraved. Man is a fallen creature. Because he is fallen, he is not only unable to be consistently moral, but also capable of all kinds of depravity. He is spiritually blind.

 

3. A person's moral sense does not exist in a vacuum. Having been born with a basic moral sense, a person develops this moral sense in a variety of ways. The moral sense can be either suppressed or encouraged, depending on a variety of factors. An obvious one would be how a person is taught from infancy on. Certain aspects of the moral sense can be inhibited, while others are emphasized. By the time a person reaches maturity, his moral sense has been "messed with," for lack of a better term. Hence, observable behaviors in an adult human do not conclusively support the existence or absence of a basic inborn moral sense.

 

4. The Bible teaches that it is possible for one to sear his conscience, "as with a hot iron," so that it no longer is sensitive to the moral code. Romans 1 mentions characteristics of those who know the laws which are written on their hearts, but choose to disregard them, acting in defiance to them.

 

There is much more that I could say. One can easily see that, given the condition of men's hearts (from the Christian perspective), "moral behavior" becomes very hard to analyze. Proving anything one way or the other with hard evidence is well nigh impossible, because such evidence is subjective at best. I do think that one can look throughout history and see common moral ideals held to. But that will not necessarily be enough to convince the skeptic...

 

In short, Christians do not spend much time wondering about the moral sense that is common to all humans. It is there; it's a given. The idea that is foundational to Christianity is not that all men are moral, but that all men are sinners in need of a savior.

Hi Julie. I thank you for putting this out there. Let's look at this from your point of view.

 

Behavior is not enough to convince one that these traits are wired into our programming. We have them, everyone has them. Some of us just choose to ignore them. This concept I understood completely. What Nan has been trying to get me to say is that even if a guy chose to eat my kid he must feel guilty about it. He must somehow know that he's doing wrong. There must be some acts, some behaviors that we can all agree upon, no matter who we are that we would find to be "wrong". This is because of those hardwired traits.

 

What I have yet to understand, from anyone, is what are those traits? What has been hardwired into us? What is burned into our "hearts" so that we have an internal compass? Fine, no one can give me an absolute moral behavior. But what are those absolute moral "traits" that a god has given us. (I won't go into the fact that even if they're there... there is an argument about which god put them there.)

 

So. A simple, straightforward question. What are the guides that God has burned into our hearts?

[Erica in PA]

Phred,

One easily observable common belief that God has imprinted on the human heart is that it is wrong to hurt an innocent person. Throughout this thread and others on this board, the common definition of morality that has been espoused over and over again is "I think it's wrong to knowingly hurt another person." Even those who are not willing to say definitively that almost anything at all is wrong, will insist that it's wrong to hurt another person. Throughout history, hurting other people has been considered wrong in most cultures. This does not mean that every one acts in accordance with this in practice, (which as Julie pointed out, does not surprise the Christian, because our worldview teaches that every one does fall short of God's standard) but very few mentally well people will assert that it is perfectly fine to knowingly hurt an innocent person.

 

Erica

[Phred]

I don't "want" the Bible to be a source of absolute morality --I *know* it to be.

Really? How?

 

when you make statements like "I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief". [except when it's YOU doing the diminishing to a religious person's views, eh? ;)] As in... I feel moral outrage when I see homosexuals being discriminated against by Christians simply because they believe they have a basis to justify their hatred in scripture."

 

oh! It's only morally outrageous if it's someone ELSE doing the discriminating. ok. got it.

As I've said all along and still stand by now... the difference between happiness and suffering drives our morality. I see what *some Christians* do to homosexuals and I feel their suffering. I stand up with them against the pain. I don't care why you cause them pain or what God you believe sends you to cause the pain. You're causing them pain. Stop it. There is no justification, not a holy being or and imagined one.

 

and "You tell homosexuals they are less than the rest of us."

 

you show AGAIN that you choose to see "hatred" where there is none. You keep insisting that if we disapprove of someone we must be thinking they are "less" [than human??] somehow. You refuse to listen to times where people have said "but Phred, even other things done by all Christians are just as bad-- we don't approve of those either..." No matter how many times people will point it out, you will continue to insert a false bias where there is none. You insert a fallacy and untrue statement.

Then stop causing them pain. When you stop I'll believe you have no bias. Until then I can only see that you use your belief as a justification for what you want to do. Not that you must do what you do because you have to. All you have to do is stop. Just stop it.

 

"You tell those with spinal cord injuries they just have to suffer because we can't do research that may help them. They are less than a ball of cells which you have promoted to be a human being. Tell the little girl with burns over 75% of her body that the ball of cells is more important. Religion, and your belief in a soul, has divorced you from reality."

 

Wrong --we have lots of ways of doing research that can help them. You are just stuck on ONE way --one that means a human life must be killed. You keep wanting to assign an arbitrary feeling to which developing human is worth more. You continue to assert that because we refuse to hold one human life over another that we are somehow seeing one life as more important than another. If there is no difference in their worth then one can not be held higher or lower than another. i don't have to do any promoting because I am not demoting a developing human like you are. I notice you are still hung up on "soul" too. maybe you should clarify why you keep bringing that up [three times that I've noticed] .... the whole "human being" vs "human in a specific stage of development" thing too while we're at it.

 

"That's where reason steps in with a reasonable argument backed by evidence."

 

Reason?? where?? i keep hearing lots based on FEELINGS, but nothing based on REASON. You want to assign an arbitrary value to a human life based on a number of cells or stage of development. Where is the reason in that? That's *emotion*, not reason. Evidence shows that those few cells are a developing human that is alive --until they die/ are killed. Evidence shows that the 'research' you want to perform requires more than just human tissue. Reason relies on evidence, yet you contradict that below:

 

"But it doesn't matter what I think. Yes, I think that mutilation of this sort is wrong. But the cultures that do it do NOT. Thus it is not absolutely wrong. While I can make a case to stamp it out and justify this with EVIDENCE I cannot just say, "It's wrong, let's go stop it because it's wrong." It's not morally right if it isn't supported by reason."

 

So you are going to now throw evidence --and reason-- out the door to rely on your "feelings" of what is wrong and right.

Since you FEEL that it is wrong to let someone suffer, you're going to march in and demand that human lives be killed. Your "evidence" is that someone is "suffering." You are going to insist that you "stamp out the suffering" by killing human lives. How is this using reason?

One is asking me what I feel, the other is asking me what the evidence suggests. They are two different things.

 

as a smart guy mentioned once:

It's not morally right if it isn't supported by reason.

 

*you* might not be ready willing or able to say or act on the fact that something is wrong.

Thank God there are others who will.

If I stood on a crowded pier hurling petri dishes into the sea, no one would stop me... no one would even question me. Yet, dish after dish would send five or ten blastocysts to the bottom where they would cease to exist. Were I to take an infant there and start to throw him into the water I'll bet I'd be stopped and quickly taken into custody. The real world doesn't play semantic games. Blastocysts are not human beings. They never will be unless implanted into a woman. The women than created them have had their children and these are leftovers, destined for either the random few (thanks to desperate folks making a point) that become "snowflake children" or are quietly discarded. A few of these would create new stem cell lines which would feed research for years. Yes, reality says these are not human beings. We should be using them instead of losing them. Your stand that these are human life... oh so wonderful. Can't crack the door to approving of abortion, can we? So in your world everything possible must be done to secure those hatches. Even if it means others must die. Your argument is ... obscene. There is no suffering, there is no abortion, there is no human being having his or her life cut short. There is no moral issue here. There is only a religious one. Be honest... it's not research you're against, or using these unwanted blastocysts. It's abortion. This just get's caught up in your righteous fury.

[Phred]

Phred,

One easily observable common belief that God has imprinted on the human heart is that it is wrong to hurt an innocent person. Throughout this thread and others on this board, the common definition of morality that has been espoused over and over again is "I think it's wrong to knowingly hurt another person." Even those who are not willing to say definitively that almost anything at all is wrong, will insist that it's wrong to hurt another person. Throughout history, hurting other people has been considered wrong in most cultures. This does not mean that every one acts in accordance with this in practice, (which as Julie pointed out, does not surprise the Christian, because our worldview teaches that every one does fall short of God's standard) but very few mentally well people will assert that it is perfectly fine to knowingly hurt an innocent person.

 

Erica

Now, here's my question for you Erica. Then how can we have the death penalty? We know that there's a chance, no matter how slim, that a person might be innocent. If, emblazoned in our hearts is the guideline, don't harm innocent people, then we should... by all possible measures, be working to avoid it. Yet here, in the U.S.A. One of the most Christian countries I can imagine, most of the heavily Christian states have the death penalty and most of the less Christian states do not.

[Julie Herbster]

There must be some acts, some behaviors that we can all agree upon, no matter who we are that we would find to be "wrong". This is because of those hardwired traits.

I'm sure there are some behaviors that we all should agree are wrong, but, due to the depraved, "tampered-with" condition of men's souls, we may not ever be able to find across-the-board agreement throughout all history/cultures, let alone individual people, on this. As I said, I think behaviors are the wrong things to begin with when analyzing this issue. Behaviors are not good indicators of moral sense, given that men can suppress that sense, and, indeed, are bent toward defiance against it. You expressed agreement with this statement when you said:

Behavior is not enough to convince one that these traits are wired into our programming. We have them, everyone has them. Some of us just choose to ignore them. This concept I understood completely.

 

What I have yet to understand, from anyone, is what are those traits? What has been hardwired into us? What is burned into our "hearts" so that we have an internal compass? Fine, no one can give me an absolute moral behavior. But what are those absolute moral "traits" that a god has given us. (I won't go into the fact that even if they're there... there is an argument about which god put them there.)

 

So. A simple, straightforward question. What are the guides that God has burned into our hearts?

I think this question is a much better one than the one about human behavior. Now we're getting somewhere. Again, I'll answer from the Christian perspective.

 

The Creator made humans "in His image." Most theologians over the ages have agreed that this phrase at the very least means that humans are like God in that they possess mind (cognition), will (ability to choose), and emotions. It probably means a lot more than that...It's an interesting topic to toss around among Christians. At any rate, we read in Genesis that men were created (like God) perfect or "innocent," not having experienced evil--indeed, not yet knowing the difference between "good" (alignment with their Creator) and "evil" (rebellion against their Creator). All was perfection. Earth was a paradise. Certainly, you are familiar with the story about the fall of man. It is interesting that the object God put before his human creatures to test them was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (exactly our topic here). When the humans chose to disobey their Creator, they then had knowledge of "good" and "evil." They felt, for the first time, "shame" at having done "wrong." Instead of following their regular routine of walking with God in the cool of the day, they tried to hide from Him. Their lives, and the lives of all of their offspring, were drastically altered. All men that were born into this now-fallen world knew the difference between "good" and "evil"...IOW, they knew the difference between alignment with the Creator and rebellion against the Creator. They were "moral" creatures.

 

BTW, I think another manifestation that man is made in God's image is that every person has a "sense of justice." (According to the Bible, God is just.) For example, let's take the action of punching someone in the gut. A guy who has just cussed someone else out feels differently when the other person punches him in the gut than a guy who is just walking down the street and gets punched in the gut by someone out of nowhere "for no reason." The first guy would admit later on that he had had it coming; the other would feel a sense of outrage ("righteous indignation") at the unjust treatment. Now, does this little example encapsulate the "definition" of morality? Not by a long shot; it's just one piece of the puzzle...a common sense throughout humanity that (to the Christian) is evidence of a common Source.

 

Now, as to the laws which are written on our hearts. Here's a quotation from Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

 

The "capital L" Law that Paul refers to here is the moral law given by God, aka the Ten Commandments recorded in Exodus 20 (not to be confused with the Jewish ceremonial/civic law, which fills the pages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So, what this Scripture is saying is that even the people who are not of the Jewish tradition--that is, people who have not been given the written moral law--show that they know the Law in their hearts. Not only do they know this law, but also it informs their consciences, and they judge themselves by it.

 

Here are the Ten Commandments--the moral Law to which Paul refers:

 

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol...to worship them or serve them.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy ("holy" here means "set apart"...IOW, we should rest from labor on one day of the week).

5. Honor your father and mother.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet.

 

Now, can one tear apart the Christian perspective because, "Well, I certainly don't have these moral sensibilities"...or..."It's manifestly obvious that not everyone has these sensibilities, because not everyone even believes in God!"...or..."After all, cannibals enjoy missionaries for dinner without compunction." Before one can so easily dismiss this viewpoint, he has to understand the whole Christian perspective, which, as I mentioned before, adds to the morality of man the depravity of man, and affirms the malleable nature of the moral sense.

 

ETA: I have a really busy day tomorrow, so I probably won't be around here. As it is, I'm already going to be burning the midnight oil for a lecture I'm giving tomorrow...WHY do I get involved in these discussions????

[Peek a Boo]

If I stood on a crowded pier hurling petri dishes into the sea, no one would stop me... no one would even question me. Yet, dish after dish would send five or ten blastocysts to the bottom where they would cease to exist. Were I to take an infant there and start to throw him into the water I'll bet I'd be stopped and quickly taken into custody. The real world doesn't play semantic games. Blastocysts are not human beings. They never will be unless implanted into a woman. The women than created them have had their children and these are leftovers, destined for either the random few (thanks to desperate folks making a point) that become "snowflake children" or are quietly discarded. A few of these would create new stem cell lines which would feed research for years. Yes, reality says these are not human beings. We should be using them instead of losing them. Your stand that these are human life... oh so wonderful. Can't crack the door to approving of abortion, can we? So in your world everything possible must be done to secure those hatches. Even if it means others must die. Your argument is ... obscene. There is no suffering, there is no abortion, there is no human being having his or her life cut short. There is no moral issue here. There is only a religious one. Be honest... it's not research you're against, or using these unwanted blastocysts. It's abortion. This just get's caught up in your righteous fury.

 

so how have I caused homosexuals *pain*??

what, cuz they might feel hurt cuz i don't like what they wanna do??

in that case, you are causing ME pain and suffering when you continue to talk about God the way you do.

so Stop it. Just stop it.

{are we even now?}

 

you still need to define pain and suffering.

 

you want to call scientific fact "semantics".

Abortion is just one tiny part of this issue.

There's a WHOLE LOT to the pro-life movement besides abortion.

Google Christian pacifists and Christians against the death penalty.

Try reading up on some secular reasons people are pro life.

 

you have not defined what a "human being" is.

Something non-religious would be nice. feel free to offer a link to a page that says what you already believe --it might save you alot of typing. I doubt it will be a scientific page tho.

What "reality" are you using that says a developing human is not a human being? The "being" is redundant. You can't even carry on a discussion about morality unless you define your terms: to WHOM should we be demonstrating moral actions? only people who can speak up or care [or are cared about? --oops, cared about by whom? i'm guessing any old outside party will do? or not- based on which side of the issues YOU are on]?

 

In your world, you want to do whatever it takes to secure the ability to be able to kill another based on subjective feelings of multiple types of "pain" instead of facts and evidence. And you call THAT morality? Or even REASON?

 

you want to keep blaming my religion for my view, but you have yet to offer secular scientific evidence to refute what a human is or how it develops.

 

There are some pretty basic criteria for determining if an organism is alive and whether it's human. you don't even hafta be a degreed biologist --just have a microscope handy.

Remember how evolutionists are always reminding those religious types that evolution does NOT necessarily mean chaos to order --it JUST means CHANGE.... any kinda change. well, a developing human JUST MEANS a developing HUMAN.

science doesn't pick and choose the value of something.

Reading the TONS of [secular] info out there on human embryology and development will reiterate that.

It knows better.

 

there was a time when we didn't even HAVE the ability to fertilize eggs outside the womb. now, not only are we starting them in labs, we're growing them to certain stages in labs. we are able to utilize only-dreamed-of life support systems, not just for the aged, but for thousands of kids who depend on critical medical advances on a daily basis JUST to live. We are saving developing humans at earlier and earlier stages of gestation. The only thing that determines "viability" is our technological advances.

Do you want to base a moral action on technological advances??

 

Your dependence on defining "human being" as someone "implanted in a woman" sounds pretty closed-minded, considering the expected advances in medical technology. If we can eventually grow an entire person in an artificial womb, will you then NOT consider them a human "being" [which you still really haven't defined....}?? or are you not prepared to think ahead of the game and want to continue being culturally entrenched in which human life is "ok" to kill and which ones are "worth" more?

 

you want to discriminate on various stages of human development because..... nobody [at least, nobody standing near you that might or might not know what you are actually doing] would stop you? got it. So as long as nobody realizes or cares what I'm doing, it's OK! That sounds real moral.

well, it was good enough for slave owners-- "nobody around here really cares about these "not-quite-as-worthy" unhuman notbeings, so I can do whatever i want with them that i consider 'useful.'....."

 

you want to discriminate on specific stages of human development and have the right to kill a human because.... someone somewhere is "suffering" according to some arbitrary definition that now includes "i feel hurt cuz someone doesn't like what i wanna do...."??? I hear Psychopaths use that defense a lot, but feel free to clarify so we aren't confusing you w/ a psychopath :)

 

You want to discriminate on stages of human development like a lot of Christians want to discriminate on how evolution works [or can't work]: you don't want to address the issue from a "real" science perspective and you have no solid "credible" scientists to back up your stance. but unlike us, you don't even have a faith that you can blame, just your own skewed thinking. wait, not thinking --that would imply logic and evidence and reason. It's just feelings that you are wanting to base your moral actions on.

 

The really funny part is that i have more scientific secular evidence to back up a pro-life stance than i do Bible verses. again, do a search on secular pro life stuff so you can get yourself out of this Blame The Mean Christians phase.

 

anyway, i know the Bible is the source of morality cuz God says so :)

 

But YOU are falling way behind on defining things, so you might wanna catch up, cuz a lot of people are wondering when you're gonna start offering something more concrete than feelings....

[nancypants]

Finished packing up for our little trip here but just came in again to see what was happening here. :)

 

I think Julie made some good points. The thing I wanted to add was that I was not trying to convince you of this:

 

that even if a guy chose to eat my kid he must feel guilty about it. He must somehow know that he's doing wrong.

 

I'm sorry if I made it sound as if that is what I was meaning... I'm not arguing that everyone feels deeply, behind all of their talk about its rightness, that what they are doing is wrong. I'm simply arguing that some things are wrong whether people feel guilty in their inner most souls or not. (Speaking of which... on the subject of the existence of a soul, if a person feels guilt, where does it take place physiologically in the absence of a "soul" or "heart?" Is there anything or anyone that a person can love with more than just his or her reasoning or intellect? I know I love my husband with more than just my hormones or my brain... it's much deeper and more inexpressible than that...)

 

Have you ever met someone (or heard about someone) who started out believing that something was wrong but then either became convinced by someone else, or convinced themselves that it was in fact maybe perhaps not so bad... or perhaps they were just driven to it by some emotion -- a moment of uncontrolled anger, fear, anxiety or maybe even just curiosity and then after they did it the first several times even, they may have felt truly guilty. (The thing that's going through my head right now is that of a man who beats his wife... it may start out as something that he just does in a moment of rage... and then he hates himself for it and feels guilty...) But then it happens again... and again.... and again and soon enough that feeling of guilt begins to be muffled, even to the point where, for some, it is snuffed out almost entirely. Sure, maybe they have moments of questioning... maybe the man who supported everything that Hitler ever said because he had become convinced of its rightness, though at first he was truly skeptical --- perhaps even shocked --- maybe as he worked shuffling people into the gas chambers he now felt that he was really doing the right thing for the world, even if his feelings maybe betrayed him now and again... or maybe they no longer betrayed him. Maybe he had grown so calloused that that distant feeling that this was wrong, that he had felt so long ago, was something he actually felt ashamed of now. And then he brought his ideology home to his child and did his best to make sure that his child knew that this was the right thing to do, helping to push down any possible doubt that might arise in the child's mind.

 

This suppression of the moral order is obviously not going to be equally applied to ever person, in every time, across every cultural barrier, which is why some of us (like you and I) still have a relatively healthy grasp on the facts that some things that are deemed okay or even good in some places or at some time or in some cultures are not really factually right or just or good.

 

This is why this statement,

 

There must be some acts, some behaviors that we can all agree upon, no matter who we are that we would find to be "wrong".

 

can never really be true... because some people have suppressed it until it's almost infinitesimal in degree. I believe we all do suppress it to some degree... Christians included. I can't count how many times I've heard Christians justify things that are clearly wrong. I can't count how many times I've done or said something or acted in a certain way... over and over and over again to the point where I no longer have any feelings of guilt (or very little and what is left I can take care of with a small dose of self-justification) about it, even if I should... I choose to call them "bad habits" or "That's just the way I am," rather than something I'm actually doing wrong... which is really not the case. They are wrong. And actions always start on the inside. Even if they are premeditated upon only for a split second, they start on the inside and then there is a conscious effort (though we usually don't have to try too hard -- at least I never have to make a concerted effort to be impatient with my husband or kids... but I still have control over it) to take them from motivations to actions.

 

So. A simple, straightforward question. What are the guides that God has burned into our hearts?

 

Do you feel any kind of guilt or sorrow when you know you've acted unjustly or uncharitably to your wife or children? Have you ever accidentally gotten upset with something you thought your child did... turns out they didn't... and then you felt the need to apologize to them for being hasty and possibly uncaring in your treatment of them? Do you feel sorry (eventually) when you and your wife have had a disagreement and you disregarded her feelings about something? Do you feel upset when someone harms you when you did nothing to provoke them? These are all feelings that would be associated with the fact that we know that we need to be kind to people... "Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

Do you feel a sense of indignation when something has been stolen from you? Do you feel that the person who did it, acted wrongly because they had no right to what was not theirs? "Thou shalt not steal..."

 

Do you prize the relationship between yourself and your wife so that you kind of like to have her sleeping with only you? "Thou shalt not commit adultery..."

 

Etc... These things are put on our hearts. We know them and we feel them (most keenly when we are the ones being wronged) even though we all weren't at Mount Sinai and even if we never come in contact with a Bible or a Torah, etc. in all of our lives... because they are hardwired into us... though most of us have tinkered with the wiring (or had it tinkered by others) to one degree or another. So certainly everyone will not feel equally strongly about their importance because of the whole suppression thing... the whole thing where you can either be convinced of somethings rightness over time -- even from infancy... where you can start out believing that stealing is wrong but then take up a life of crime (most burglars, ironically, do not like it at all when something they have stolen is stolen from them... their sense of justice suddenly rears its ugly head!)

 

Anyways... Hope that clears up some of the misunderstandings. Again, sorry if I came across as meaning that everyone must inevitably feel that something is wrong... perhaps I even said it... if I did, I am here clearing up my mistake. Sorry about the confusion if I caused it.

 

Okay, off to bed and then camping for several days!

[Erica in PA]

Now, here's my question for you Erica. Then how can we have the death penalty? We know that there's a chance, no matter how slim, that a person might be innocent. If, emblazoned in our hearts is the guideline, don't harm innocent people, then we should... by all possible measures, be working to avoid it. Yet here, in the U.S.A. One of the most Christian countries I can imagine, most of the heavily Christian states have the death penalty and most of the less Christian states do not.

 

But Phred, aren't you simply making an argument against the death penalty here? While it is certainly a grey area that can be debated (whether the death penalty is moral), that isn't the question at hand. The existence of a legal practice does not pertain to the concept of people innately believing that it is wrong for innocent people to knowingly be harmed. Look at the horrors of WW2 in Germany-- and yet these examples of innocents being killed do not prove that people do not have the truth placed in their hearts by God. Rather, they are examples of times when people have chosen not to follow that truth. The Bible teaches that everyone, Christian or not, chooses at times to disregard what they know to be right and true, and follow their own ways instead. This is the very definition of sin (James 4:17-So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin). But the existence of sin does not conflict with the fact that God put the concept of right and wrong into our hearts.

 

Don't you find it at all interesting that even in these very threads, the bottom line that so many seekers of truth have come to as a definition of morality, even after rejecting so much of Christianity, is the very heart that Jesus said was the most important of all?

 

Matthew 7:12

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

 

Here is a link which shows how all of the major religions of the world also promote this same belief (which they call the law of reciprocity): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Christianity

 

You may have legitimate questions about how Christians can condone a system of punishment that does sometimes result in the death of innocent people, but imo, that is a seperate topic.

 

Erica

[Phred]

I'm sure there are some behaviors that we all should agree are wrong, but, due to the depraved, "tampered-with" condition of men's souls, we may not ever be able to find across-the-board agreement throughout all history/cultures, let alone individual people, on this. As I said, I think behaviors are the wrong things to begin with when analyzing this issue. Behaviors are not good indicators of moral sense, given that men can suppress that sense, and, indeed, are bent toward defiance against it. You expressed agreement with this statement when you said:

 

Behavior is not enough to convince one that these traits are wired into our programming. We have them, everyone has them. Some of us just choose to ignore them. This concept I understood completely.

I'm not agreeing with this statement. I'm simply showing that I understand what Christians are saying. Onward -

 

I think this question is a much better one than the one about human behavior. Now we're getting somewhere. Again, I'll answer from the Christian perspective.

 

The Creator made humans "in His image." Most theologians over the ages have agreed that this phrase at the very least means that humans are like God in that they possess mind (cognition), will (ability to choose), and emotions. It probably means a lot more than that...It's an interesting topic to toss around among Christians. At any rate, we read in Genesis that men were created (like God) perfect or "innocent," not having experienced evil--indeed, not yet knowing the difference between "good" (alignment with their Creator) and "evil" (rebellion against their Creator). All was perfection. Earth was a paradise. Certainly, you are familiar with the story about the fall of man. It is interesting that the object God put before his human creatures to test them was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (exactly our topic here). When the humans chose to disobey their Creator, they then had knowledge of "good" and "evil." They felt, for the first time, "shame" at having done "wrong." Instead of following their regular routine of walking with God in the cool of the day, they tried to hide from Him. Their lives, and the lives of all of their offspring, were drastically altered. All men that were born into this now-fallen world knew the difference between "good" and "evil"...IOW, they knew the difference between alignment with the Creator and rebellion against the Creator. They were "moral" creatures.

 

BTW, I think another manifestation that man is made in God's image is that every person has a "sense of justice." (According to the Bible, God is just.) For example, let's take the action of punching someone in the gut. A guy who has just cussed someone else out feels differently when the other person punches him in the gut than a guy who is just walking down the street and gets punched in the gut by someone out of nowhere "for no reason." The first guy would admit later on that he had had it coming; the other would feel a sense of outrage ("righteous indignation") at the unjust treatment. Now, does this little example encapsulate the "definition" of morality? Not by a long shot; it's just one piece of the puzzle...a common sense throughout humanity that (to the Christian) is evidence of a common Source.

 

Now, as to the laws which are written on our hearts. Here's a quotation from Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

 

The "capital L" Law that Paul refers to here is the moral law given by God, aka the Ten Commandments recorded in Exodus 20 (not to be confused with the Jewish ceremonial/civic law, which fills the pages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So, what this Scripture is saying is that even the people who are not of the Jewish tradition--that is, people who have not been given the written moral law--show that they know the Law in their hearts. Not only do they know this law, but also it informs their consciences, and they judge themselves by it.

 

Here are the Ten Commandments--the moral Law to which Paul refers:

 

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol...to worship them or serve them.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy ("holy" here means "set apart"...IOW, we should rest from labor on one day of the week).

5. Honor your father and mother.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet.

 

Now, can one tear apart the Christian perspective because, "Well, I certainly don't have these moral sensibilities"...or..."It's manifestly obvious that not everyone has these sensibilities, because not everyone even believes in God!"...or..."After all, cannibals enjoy missionaries for dinner without compunction." Before one can so easily dismiss this viewpoint, he has to understand the whole Christian perspective, which, as I mentioned before, adds to the morality of man the depravity of man, and affirms the malleable nature of the moral sense.

 

ETA: I have a really busy day tomorrow, so I probably won't be around here. As it is, I'm already going to be burning the midnight oil for a lecture I'm giving tomorrow...WHY do I get involved in these discussions????

So I tried a little experiment. If the Ten Commandments were emblazoned upon my soul I should be able to feel them there. So I borrowed the kid's playdoh and made an idol. I kneeled before it and prayed to it. It was my god for a time. No compunction whatsoever that this was wrong. I then swore up an down using the words God and Lord and YWHW and Jehovah and Allah (just in case)... nothing. I worked on Friday and Saturday and Sunday. Nothing. (BTW... you're going to have serious trouble if you ever try and make people observe this one... NASCAR stops for no God.)

 

So that's three of the commandments that are supposedly burned into me. Nothing. I should at least feel a twinge here.

 

Why in the world would these things be the basis of human morality? 1-4 are religious in nature and not moral at all. 5 is simply basic... parents raise you, treat them right. 6, duh. 7... if this is true and Jesus' word are correct, then why are you a part of church that remarries people? 8, duh. 9, duh. 10... why? Nice car dude! Although I think you've edited it from the original.

 

And how in the world does this apply to the rest of humanity that isn't Christian?

[Phred]

so how have I caused homosexuals *pain*??

what, cuz they might feel hurt cuz i don't like what they wanna do??

in that case, you are causing ME pain and suffering when you continue to talk about God the way you do.

so Stop it. Just stop it.

{are we even now?}

Here is the moral question. What has a homosexual done that causes YOU any suffering?

 

you still need to define pain and suffering.

cause damage or affect negatively

 

Abortion is just one tiny part of this issue.<snip>It's just feelings that you are wanting to base your moral actions on.

And when I start, or when you choose to start, a thread on life or abortion then I guess we can get into this deeper. Excuse me if I choose not to at this time and place.

 

anyway, i know the Bible is the source of morality cuz God says so :)

And where does God say so? In the Bible. How.... circular of him.

 

The Bible as a source of morality... that's got to be you making a joke, right? Going back to the Ten Commandments... the first four forbid the practice of any non-Judeo-Christian faith, most religious art, utterances like, "God **** it!" and all ordinary work on the Sabbath... under penalty of death. DEATH!... how in the world is this a source of morality?

[Julie Herbster]

So I tried a little experiment. If the Ten Commandments were emblazoned upon my soul I should be able to feel them there. So I borrowed the kid's playdoh and made an idol. I kneeled before it and prayed to it. It was my god for a time. No compunction whatsoever that this was wrong. I then swore up an down using the words God and Lord and YWHW and Jehovah and Allah (just in case)... nothing. I worked on Friday and Saturday and Sunday. Nothing. (BTW... you're going to have serious trouble if you ever try and make people observe this one... NASCAR stops for no God.)

 

So that's three of the commandments that are supposedly burned into me. Nothing. I should at least feel a twinge here.

Phred, I think you may have missed (or misunderstood, or purposely glossed over) this part of my previous post:

 

Now, can one tear apart the Christian perspective because, "Well, I certainly don't have these moral sensibilities"...or..."It's manifestly obvious that not everyone has these sensibilities, because not everyone even believes in God!"...or..."After all, cannibals enjoy missionaries for dinner without compunction." Before one can so easily dismiss this viewpoint, he has to understand the whole Christian perspective, which, as I mentioned before, adds to the morality of man the depravity of man, and affirms the malleable nature of the moral sense.

 

In any case, you have not addressed those points. The Christian perspective has an answer for why a person can break the moral code without remorse (although I don't believe for a minute that you actually sincerely "worshiped" the Play-doh idol you made). You didn't really expect the figure to hear, answer, or accept your "worship," did you?

 

Why in the world would these things be the basis of human morality? 1-4 are religious in nature and not moral at all.

That they are not moral according to your personal definition of morality (whatever that may be) does not mean that they are not in fact moral. The fact that you assume "religion" and "morality" to be mutually exclusive ideas reveals a certain carelessness on your part in understanding, or at least defining terms.

 

5 is simply basic... parents raise you, treat them right. 6, duh. 7... if this is true and Jesus' word are correct, then why are you a part of church that remarries people? 8, duh. 9, duh. 10... why? Nice car dude! Although I think you've edited it from the original.

You have proved my point exactly. Even you, a Gentile who, as Romans 2 says, [does] not have the Law [does] instinctively (I believe your word was "duh") the things of the Law.

 

My question for you is this: Why "duh?"

 

I would venture to guess that if you killed someone in cold blood, your conscience would bother you. What do you think? But here we are again talking about behaviors, which are, as I said, poor indicators of the presence or absence of a moral sense, given the condition of men's minds.

 

if this is true and Jesus' word are correct, then why are you a part of church that remarries people?

 

You again exhibit carelessness in assuming that I attend a church that "remarries people" (I assume you mean divorced people). I have never witnessed at my church a marriage of divorced persons. I know that our pastor does not even believe that divorce itself is right, let alone the remarriage of divorced persons. There are, of course, Christians who interpret Jesus' and Paul's words differently.

 

And how in the world does this apply to the rest of humanity that isn't Christian?

Did I say that it does apply? "Apply" is not the word I would choose to describe how God's moral Law relates to nonchristians (see Romans 2:14-15).

[Phred]

Julie, are all men regardless of what they believe created by God?

 

If so, are all men created with ingrained morals as you have stated, the Ten Commandments?

 

What possible good does it do us to be discussing these things if they do not have any effect upon our behavior?

[Julie Herbster]

Julie, are all men regardless of what they believe created by God?

Yes.

 

If so, are all men created with ingrained morals as you have stated, the Ten Commandments?

I don't think that I ever used the words "ingrained morals." I did say that all men since Adam and Eve's fall know the difference between "good" and "evil," and, as the book of Romans says, instinctively do at least some of those things which are written in God's moral Law, and indeed judge themselves by that Law which is written on their hearts.

 

What possible good does it do us to be discussing these things if they do not have any effect upon our behavior?

I never said that the moral sense does not have any effect upon our behavior. In fact, the whole point of the Romans passage I quoted is that the moral sense does indeed affect behavior. I merely stated that behaviors alone are poor indicators of whether or not there are "absolute moral standards," given the other prevailing conditions of men's minds which also affect behavior (depravity, malleability of the moral sense, tendency to stifle the moral sense, etc.). Human behavior, as complex, subjective, and unreliable as it is, is the wrong place to start in analyzing this issue.

 

Phred, I have answered your questions. Care to answer mine?

 

My question for you is this: Why "duh?"

 

I would venture to guess that if you killed someone in cold blood, your conscience would bother you. What do you think?

[Peek a Boo]

Here is the moral question. What has a homosexual done that causes YOU any suffering?

 

 

They break God's laws. As do many Christians :)

 

cause damage or affect negatively

 

And when I start, or when you choose to start, a thread on life or abortion then I guess we can get into this deeper. Excuse me if I choose not to at this time and place.

 

"cause damage or affect negatively"??? so i affect them negatively because they affect me negatively, cuz..... wow. how....circular of you.

the whole point of morality is in discerning which people are worthy of moral action or not. Sounds like that basic question needs to be answered first, long before we ever get to whether a woman has the right to remove another human from her body. But I'll forgive your inability to answer a basic question. you have no credible answer. my entire previous post stands under your inability to answer a few basic questions.

 

 

And where does God say so? In the Bible. How.... circular of him.

 

 

well, when you're the Creator of Logical Thinking, everything's circular ;)

 

 

The Bible as a source of morality... that's got to be you making a joke, right? Going back to the Ten Commandments... the first four forbid the practice of any non-Judeo-Christian faith, most religious art, utterances like, "God **** it!" and all ordinary work on the Sabbath... under penalty of death. DEATH!... how in the world is this a source of morality?

 

LOL! no, the joke is that we can't even get a straightforward answer on what humans are worthy of receiving moral action. "I deem them not worthy, so they are not worthy." ayup. there's circular thinking if ever we saw it. ;)

[Phred]

Morality. What is it? That was the question that started this thread. Or at least the intent. My original thought was that our morality was defined by happiness and suffering. The concept of "absolute morality" is ... well in my view anyway... absurd. There is no absolute morality, nothing burned into our souls. I appreciate Julie's attempt to show me that the Ten Commandments are there... but to think that more than half the population of the world puts another god before the Christian god... without a qualm or moral compunction... no... that isn't burned into our souls and I see no evidence that it is. As to any other "absolute morality" the closest anything comes to an absolute morality is something that is there but nobody acts on it, nobody pays any attention to it... may as well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster absolutely burning into our souls that we should wear pirate clothing. Nobody does since man can decide not to but everyone should.

 

Morality is something we choose. Whether we choose to behave according to the Bible, to what we think is what God wants or what we find to be just the best we can be. What those moral choices are is open for debate.

 

Peek, you may believe that a homosexual is acting against your deity's wishes... but that causes you no harm. You are not the representative of your deity on this earth in charge of his retribution, are you? Then you have nothing to say when someone does something that you happen not to like except in your own name. You're free to stand up and speak for yourself... but not as God.

[Peek a Boo]

Morality. What is it? That was the question that started this thread. Or at least the intent. My original thought was that our morality was defined by happiness and suffering. The concept of "absolute morality" is ... well in my view anyway... absurd.

 

Morality is something we choose. Whether we choose to behave according to the Bible, to what we think is what God wants or what we find to be just the best we can be. What those moral choices are is open for debate.

 

Peek, you may believe that a homosexual is acting against your deity's wishes... but that causes you no harm. You are not the representative of your deity on this earth in charge of his retribution, are you? Then you have nothing to say when someone does something that you happen not to like except in your own name. You're free to stand up and speak for yourself... but not as God.

 

your view that morality be based on the very vague "happiness and suffering" has already shown to be a horrible way on which to base how you treat another person. You can't define who is allowed to feel pain and suffering. You can't define what really entails pain and suffering. You want to be able to kill humans based on your own arbitrary definition of pain and suffering.

Your idea of morality based on subjective emotional feelings is just proving to be, well, absurd. If you constantly want to change the ground rules based on how you feel at any given time then OF COURSE you would think "absolute morality" is absurd.

 

that I choose to disagree w/ what a homosexual may be doing causes THEM no *harm* --just like your constant assertions against God and Scripture causes ME *no harm*. I never said I was in charge of retribution --where in the world do you get that idea? You still want to use the same concept of "hate" and "retribution" instead of what God says on the subject. Your literary analysis is lacking when it comes to understanding what the Bible says.

 

There's a difference between speaking AS God and quoting what he has already said :) When my 12yos was quoting lines from a Harry Potter book he certainly wasn't "chanting spells" lol.

 

as to your "what those moral choices are is open for debate" is kinda what we're DOING here. But you can't have a real debate unless you're willing to answer the harder questions --which you won't. Your premise constantly comes back to your own undefined feelings about the worth of another human. I am comfortable with the Bible as a source of absolute morality, but I can discuss How to Treat Other People w/o mentioning God or the Bible --He is ingrained in everything and it will show through whether I specifically point it out or not.

 

You did miss Julie's point about this being a fallen world --God's absolute laws are still there, but all of us will ignore them to one extent or another.

 

So are you saying that you no longer wish to attempt a debate dealing w/ the nitty gritty of humans, actions, and definitions? Shoot, we can even leave religion outta the mix --altho that might be harder for you than for me ;)

 

PS: reference post #218 if you really want to continue the discussion.

[Julie Herbster]

I appreciate Julie's attempt to show me that the Ten Commandments are there... but to think that more than half the population of the world puts another god before the Christian god... without a qualm or moral compunction... no... that isn't burned into our souls and I see no evidence that it is...Morality is something we choose. Whether we choose to behave according to the Bible, to what we think is what God wants or what we find to be just the best we can be. What those moral choices are is open for debate.

Phred, then why "duh?" Have you perhaps betrayed that you actually do believe in absolute morals after all? Or maybe you've just now realized the obviousness of it all. Or what? Your silence on this point is resounding. In case you've forgotten what I'm asking, here are your own words about numbers 5 (honor father and mother), 6 (do not kill), 8 (do not steal), and 9 (do not bear false witness against your neighbor) of the Ten Commandments.

5 is simply basic... parents raise you, treat them right. 6, duh. 8, duh. 9, duh.

 

Peek a Boo mentioned that you missed my other point about the Christian perspective (see below). I'd love to get your take on it (but not until you answer my question above :)).

 

Now, can one tear apart the Christian perspective because, "Well, I certainly don't have these moral sensibilities"...or..."It's manifestly obvious that not everyone has these sensibilities, because not everyone even believes in God!"...or..."After all, cannibals enjoy missionaries for dinner without compunction." Before one can so easily dismiss this viewpoint, he has to understand the whole Christian perspective, which, as I mentioned before, adds to the morality of man the depravity of man, and affirms the malleable nature of the moral sense.