Black and white vs gray (relativism/perception) (church, atheist, priest)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If God exists and is the truth, then his Moral Law must be true and there can't be a relativist/perception based truth that contradicts God. There can't be 2 truths to morality.
If God doesn't exist, then there really is no moral law, just some man created illusions, fluid with changes in societal norms, time periods, etc... Murder, rape, etc... Are 'bad' but not wrong as their is no true moral Authority besides man, in which case it is one opinion vs another, no matter how heinous one may view that other opinion.
If God exists, right and wrong, black and white vs gray, must be the correct law as God is supreme, pure, and indefinite in his laws.
We can choose to ignore his laws, and we often do, but it doesn't change the law. Additionally, we can't define those laws as they are immutable: we can only discover them. Like the laws of math or physics, they were in place before us, we just discovered them (2+2 = 4 before and after man in this universe). Also, every society has defined those Moral laws the same: murder, deceit, rape, etc... So either God imprinted those moral laws on all humans or...??? One can semantics evil, but not define it. Like love. They are undefinable but we know it when we see or feel it (slavery or the Jewish holocaust ex. Of evil, love of a child example of love). All attempts to define are just examples of actions on behalf of the feeling/emotion.
I think, 10 years ago when we bantered black/white/gray, I had the argument right (philosophically), and you had the Moral Argument right. My actions were more relativistic whereas yours were black/white.
I do believe in God. Doesn't give me a right to judge others and these days, I'd rather listen than debate. Doesn't mean my ego doesn't scream to do the latter... That's why I pray so much
I would have to say that your basic premise is flawed: that a system of rules would be applicable in all times and all situations if there were a God. I suggest that what is immutable is the principle from which the rules may be derived as guides to specific behavior, and that principle is concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation. That such a concern has to be worked out in application of the rules in any individual situation, and all applicable background information considered.
If God exists and is the truth, then his Moral Law must be true and there can't be a relativist/perception based truth that contradicts God. There can't be 2 truths to morality.
If God doesn't exist, then there really is no moral law, just some man created illusions, fluid with changes in societal norms, time periods, etc... Murder, rape, etc... Are 'bad' but not wrong as their is no true moral Authority besides man, in which case it is one opinion vs another, no matter how heinous one may view that other opinion.
If God exists, right and wrong, black and white vs gray, must be the correct law as God is supreme, pure, and indefinite in his laws.
We can choose to ignore his laws, and we often do, but it doesn't change the law. Additionally, we can't define those laws as they are immutable: we can only discover them. Like the laws of math or physics, they were in place before us, we just discovered them (2+2 = 4 before and after man in this universe). Also, every society has defined those Moral laws the same: murder, deceit, rape, etc... So either God imprinted those moral laws on all humans or...??? One can semantics evil, but not define it. Like love. They are undefinable but we know it when we see or feel it (slavery or the Jewish holocaust ex. Of evil, love of a child example of love). All attempts to define are just examples of actions on behalf of the feeling/emotion.
I think, 10 years ago when we bantered black/white/gray, I had the argument right (philosophically), and you had the Moral Argument right. My actions were more relativistic whereas yours were black/white.
I do believe in God. Doesn't give me a right to judge others and these days, I'd rather listen than debate. Doesn't mean my ego doesn't scream to do the latter... That's why I pray so much
Relativist vs absolutist. Perception means what one can perceive. I don't believe anyone will perceive an absolutist outlook on a regular day.
Murder, rape, and some others are in fact what are called moral abolutes. These are an exception to the norm, as cultures in general do not condone. There isn't much justification for murder.
On the other hand, what most of us come into contact with are moral relatives. As in, not working hard at one's job and putting in the hours is great but there are other considerations (like spending time with one's family, making time for a social life, hobbies, and pursuing self actualization). Sometimes it would be a greater issue to neglect those things. Theft is actually another one, typically it's viewed as wrong, but if a person cannot find a job and it's steal or die, most people would prefer to live.
Your logic is flawed. God exists, that's fine. There is no proof that the moral law, however, isn't in fact written by humans. In fact, I have a good example of such. I am transgender, and for years, I was worried that I was doing something horribly wrong by being in women's clothes. Then I discovered that if I went outside, nobody would judge me. If God really cared about that, wouldn't I be struck down by lightning? Actually, I've found the opposite trend true, that those closest to God appear to be more accepting, not less.
Btw, this is precisely why much of the blame directed towards a deity that most people at odds with religion (who call themselves atheists even though we know they blame God for everything). You could be blaming the people who wrote religious laws, instead you are blaming a God you assert does not exist. Right.
We do not need moral absolutism. But we do not need complete moral relativism either. Rather our laws should always be in favor of justice, freedom, and love. If they are in favor of social control, oppression, or hatred, **** them they are not moral.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 01-27-2016 at 09:31 AM..
Therein lies the issue: one persons view of oppression or hatred, etc... Are relative in an of itself.
Is there a difference in Moral Truth vs. breaking the law? (The stealing for survival example). Yes. Is it still wrong morally to take a possession that one does not own? Yes. The alternative is the end justifies the means, even if the ends are of a worthwhile goal (survival for example).
Relativist vs absolutist. Perception means what one can perceive. I don't believe anyone will perceive an absolutist outlook on a regular day.
Murder, rape, and some others are in fact what are called moral abolutes. These are an exception to the norm, as cultures in general do not condone. There isn't much justification for murder.
On the other hand, what most of us come into contact with are moral relatives. As in, not working hard at one's job and putting in the hours is great but there are other considerations (like spending time with one's family, making time for a social life, hobbies, and pursuing self actualization). Sometimes it would be a greater issue to neglect those things. Theft is actually another one, typically it's viewed as wrong, but if a person cannot find a job and it's steal or die, most people would prefer to live.
Your logic is flawed. God exists, that's fine. There is no proof that the moral law, however, isn't in fact written by humans. In fact, I have a good example of such. I am transgender, and for years, I was worried that I was doing something horribly wrong by being in women's clothes. Then I discovered that if I went outside, nobody would judge me. If God really cared about that, wouldn't I be struck down by lightning? Actually, I've found the opposite trend true, that those closest to God appear to be more accepting, not less.
Btw, this is precisely why much of the blame directed towards a deity that most people at odds with religion (who call themselves atheists even though we know they blame God for everything). You could be blaming the people who wrote religious laws, instead you are blaming a God you assert does not exist. Right.
We do not need moral absolutism. But we do not need complete moral relativism either. Rather our laws should always be in favor of justice, freedom, and love. If they are in favor of social control, oppression, or hatred, **** them they are not moral.
Btw, I applaud you for disclosing you are TG. God, as I understand Him (not to gender assign as I don't think God has a gender, but 'it' is rather bland) doesn't really seem to worry about ones gender assignment, or preference. Those are human conceptions as exhibited through religion.
God to me (and his imprint of Moral Law) on humans deals with right/wrong based on the concept of love, compassion, and mercy... Not a relative human judgement about this or that (individual or societal).
There is a book called The Church of Sinners and Saints. The priest is giving her sermon after the SandyHook shooting. She ran it past her friend, a very conservative vs her liberal personality, where she wanted to state the 22 victims. Her friend said there were 23 victims... The shooter being the 23rd. She didn't want to be agreed, God would probably even consider the shooter worthy of the 'Abdolutist Love'.
ThAts the Moral Law, as imprinted on us, as I understand it.
And by moral law, I simply mean this: those things we do that humanity as a whole would condemn if viewed. Murder, rape, deceit... There are few justifications for those acts we see we know are wrong. We can feel mercy and forgiveness for those acts, and it is definitely not me to pass judgement.
That is why I believe in black/white. For if there is no intrinsic right/wrong, the only alternative is relativism. Individual examples can be used to prove/disprove this or that, and semantically, maybe moral law is a poor word choice. However, any human definition will fall short of an Infinite God and their love.
I'm also not trying to persuade... Just stating my understanding of truth, which is absolute, logically (and not all human actions fall under that Moral Law... Actually, I think very few do. The rest is left to us, as a society, culture, and civilization, to determine based off those few Moral Principles).
Thats the Moral Law, as imprinted on us, as I understand it.
And that summarizes the problem. Moral law might be "imprinted" ("written on our hearts"), and it might be objective ... and even granting that for the same of argument ... it is still subjective because it is and must be "as I understand it".
I don't see an externally bestowed, objectively determined morality mattering even if it existed for this exact reason. At the end of the day all morality is subjective and contextual and individually determined. The source or backing authority for any morality is irrelevant unless it can somehow be directly replicated along with the necessary understanding to each individual. Clearly this can't be happening or all individuals would agree on moral questions and priorities.
It's appealing to be able to get away from the messy realities of human interaction, but alas and alack ... we are what we are. Limited mortal beings in a great big beautiful impersonal universe who are full of illusions and ego inflations and pursing at all costs, escape from our dread of death and insignificance.
This is not a pretty picture but it is not a hopeless one. The answer to the human condition is not unearthing some esoteric universal moral code, it is becoming increasingly aware of our illusions and limitations, always questioning our assumptions, always relentlessly forcing ourselves back into contact with an increasingly understood and quantified reality, no matter how uncomfortable that may at times and in ways be.
If God exists and is the truth, then his Moral Law must be true and there can't be a relativist/perception based truth that contradicts God. There can't be 2 truths to morality.
There are many gods. To which god are you referring?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
If God doesn't exist, then there really is no moral law,...
But, of course, there is.
Morality is objective, existing whether a god exists or not, and whether humans exist or not.
Morality is objective, existing whether a god exists or not, and whether humans exist or not.
This is an interesting idea. Can you elaborate on how you got here?When I tried to think through this issue, I actually ended up at the entirely opposite conclusion, that morality, at least as we understand it, is an entirely human construct.
Part of the reason I came to this conclusion, is when I tried to come up with morality without a moral actor, a mind who can make choices, I seemed to get absurdity. Is this somethign you have an answer for? Can you describe what morality looks like, if you postulate a reality containing nothing but rocks, for instance?
There are many gods. To which god are you referring?
But, of course, there is.
Morality is objective, existing whether a god exists or not, and whether humans exist or not.
How is morality objective? See other places for 'which God'. That's a very boring question when one is not trying to preach nor convert another to a specified religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
