Perspective on Biblical Morality (teaching, Old Testament, difference, atheists)
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.
You like to portray societal morality is just random whimsy like we make up new stuff daily but it isn't about what is liked or easy, it is about what is beneficial or harmful to the society.
You and the rest of the world likely takes it very seriously. I'd hardly call it whimsy. But our society has certain morals, a different society has different morals. A different society in a different time has different morals. Ultimately, it's based on what someone thinks is moral or immoral, whatever they may mean by those words.
Quote:
Personal moral decisions are me judging the benefits or harms of a particular action to others, myself, and society -- now, in the future -- as best I can without a crystal ball.
And based on that system, you seem like a very moral, good, upstanding person. Now explain how THAT system is the one system to use for all time. Explain why morality MEANS that.
Quote:
You are asserting that morality is random unless imposed on you by fiat. If behavior is just a matter of obeying orders, it has no interest in helping others or avoiding harming them; it is just compliance to the whims of the rule maker (which, I suppose, has the benefit of sparing you any tough moral choices -- or indeed any choices at all). On the other hand, if it is judged by beneficial or harmful outcomes for which the individual must ultimately accept appropriate responsibility, then it is relatively objective and accountable.
It really isn't what I'm saying. The fact that you can't grasp this is telling. Try thinking in the abstract. Consider where the concept of morality comes from.
Quote:
What is Christian's problem with taking responsibility for their decisions in life?
There is a massive culture ware going on in our society right now among Christians saying we should take responsibility, while the culture wants to do otherwise.
Quote:
The Bible, after all, isn't a detailed ethics manual for every decision you make. It doesn't tell you which way to unwind the toilet paper, whether to accept a job offer, or whether it's a sin to go 5 mph over the speed limit when virtually everyone else is and in decades you've never gotten a ticket for doing so. What do Christians do in those situations? Well if it's a matter that's remotely consequential, logically, you would assess whether the thing you're considering is beneficial or harmful, thoughtful or inconsiderate to you or to others, preferably in both the short and long terms. But no, you pray to god and ask him to enlighten you as to his will. Or you ask yourself what would Jesus do. Because then it is God's responsibility, not yours. And this is a problem, because we've seen all sorts of awful things done in the name of god. Like a pedophile rationalizing molesting a child as showing them god's love (yeah it's happened).
Yes. Our God does tell us to love him, and love others as ourselves. By nature, the Christian does not harm others, but love them as we seek to live out our faith.
That said, this is a bigger question. I'm asking you to explain how morality even came about without using a human standard that is subject to humans, and is different depending on which set of humans you speak to.
Quote:
Another problem with this supposed objective and immutable morality is that it can't evolve with new information or understanding. At one time, society reckoned a black person as 3/5 of a person for certain purposes. Today we see what was once a pragmatic compromise about personal property as a repugnant denigration of human dignity, and that assaulting any other human being for any reason is wrong. We were able to change our morality with new understanding and information. This is a feature, not a bug. It is not the bogeyman of "moral relativism" it is the virtue of constantly improving moral sensibility.
Yes. Society reckoned that. It wasn't the Bible. The Bible tells us all are created in God's image, and all deserve to be treated with love as image bearers of God.
I'm asking you to explain how morality even came about without using a human standard that is subject to humans, and is different depending on which set of humans you speak to.
Morality, being a human construct, has to be explained in terms of human needs and concerns. And like I said, that morality evolves and so isn't the same in different eras is a feature, not a bug.
Your objection is like complaining that I can't explain how cars work without resorting to discussion about automotive technology. It simply can't be done. Cars don't work because, say, Henry Ford commanded them to and also controls how they should be used, and also makes sure that cars never evolve for example from manual to automatic transmissions or from internal combustion to electric -- no matter how much someone might want or need that to be true or can't conceive of how it could work without Henry's oversight or could be legitimate if we aren't still driving Model T's.
Morality, being a human construct, has to be explained in terms of human needs and concerns. And like I said, that morality evolves and so isn't the same in different eras is a feature, not a bug.
Your objection is like complaining that I can't explain how cars work without resorting to discussion about automotive technology. It simply can't be done. Cars don't work because, say, Henry Ford commanded them to and also controls how they should be used, and also makes sure that cars never evolve for example from manual to automatic transmissions or from internal combustion to electric -- no matter how much someone might want or need that to be true or can't conceive of how it could work without Henry's oversight or could be legitimate if we aren't still driving Model T's.
BF can dress it up anyway he wants to, but it seems to me that what he is basically saying is that if you don't believe in the same version of morality that he does, then you're immoral.
BF can dress it up anyway he wants to, but it seems to me that what he is basically saying is that if you don't believe in the same version of morality that he does, then you're immoral.
Sure -- he has the One True Morality. Same problem as having the One True God -- everyone else has to be wrong.
BF can dress it up anyway he wants to, but it seems to me that what he is basically saying is that if you don't believe in the same version of morality that he does, then you're immoral.
No I think he says that his God can be the only source for morality and if you do not believe in his God you have no way for knowing what is moral and what is immoral.
No I think he says that his God can be the only source for morality and if you do not believe in his God you have no way for knowing what is moral and what is immoral.
...
Not sure if I see that as really different, but okay.
No I think he says that his God can be the only source for morality and if you do not believe in his God you have no way for knowing what is moral and what is immoral.
In point of fact, fundamentalists have no way of knowing because they just take orders from god without any effort to assess the harms or benefits of any given choice. To listen to them, you'd think they would not know how to (or want to) investigate the pros or cons for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I am still unsure if 2+2=4 is moral or immoral
It is just a mathematical fact. I'd regard it as morally neutral. But that's not BF's point. He wants morality to be a formula much like a mathematical formula. For any given life choice, apply the formula and you always get the same answer as to the right course of action. Further, any other person applying the formula would get the same answer, in any place or time.
Unfortunately he can't tell us what the formula is. He has a holy book with some specific instructions for some scenarios and some general principles, but when it comes down to the vast majority of day to day decisions, particularly in the modern era, all his desire for objectivity goes out the window and they are praying for guidance, an activity notorious for giving inconsistent results on a good day. Whatever this magic formula is, he and his fellow believers are not getting identical answers.
Indeed, if you had a time machine and went back to 1925 you would find fundamentalists on about the sinfulness of radio and movies, skirts above the ankles, flappers, and reefer madness. Apart from weed, modern fundamentalists indulge all that plus TV and social media for the most part, and though they generally still have too much of a broomstick up their patooties to dance, that activity doesn't seem to be particularly concerning to most of them anymore; they've found other bogeymen. So BF's desire for a timeless morality that never changes over time also fails.
I'm reminded, too, of the Amish, who believe that "modern technology" is a snare of the devil. That's a different morality for a different set of Christians. The irony is, what is modern technology? Obviously they have no problem with technology per se. They use wheels, levers, plows, horses and buggies and run sawmills. I've seen Amish children playing on trampolines in their yards. They just don't have automobiles, telephones, electricity or computers. My guess is that the Amish will have all those things and more in 200 years but will consider spacecraft, flying cars and android servants to be the new snares of the devil.
In point of fact, fundamentalists have no way of knowing because they just take orders from god without any effort to assess the harms or benefits of any given choice. To listen to them, you'd think they would not know how to (or want to) investigate the pros or cons for themselves.
It is just a mathematical fact. I'd regard it as morally neutral. But that's not BF's point. He wants morality to be a formula much like a mathematical formula. For any given life choice, apply the formula and you always get the same answer as to the right course of action. Further, any other person applying the formula would get the same answer, in any place or time.
Unfortunately he can't tell us what the formula is. He has a holy book with some specific instructions for some scenarios and some general principles, but when it comes down to the vast majority of day to day decisions, particularly in the modern era, all his desire for objectivity goes out the window and they are praying for guidance, an activity notorious for giving inconsistent results on a good day. Whatever this magic formula is, he and his fellow believers are not getting identical answers.
Indeed, if you had a time machine and went back to 1925 you would find fundamentalists on about the sinfulness of radio and movies, skirts above the ankles, flappers, and reefer madness. Apart from weed, modern fundamentalists indulge all that plus TV and social media for the most part, and though they generally still have too much of a broomstick up their patooties to dance, that activity doesn't seem to be particularly concerning to most of them anymore; they've found other bogeymen. So BF's desire for a timeless morality that never changes over time also fails.
I'm reminded, too, of the Amish, who believe that "modern technology" is a snare of the devil. That's a different morality for a different set of Christians. The irony is, what is modern technology? Obviously they have no problem with technology per se. They use wheels, levers, plows, horses and buggies and run sawmills. I've seen Amish children playing on trampolines in their yards. They just don't have automobiles, telephones, electricity or computers. My guess is that the Amish will have all those things and more in 200 years but will consider spacecraft, flying cars and android servants to be the new snares of the devil.
Just a thank you for returning to the forum, mordant. Your insights into fundamentalist thinking are invaluable!
That is your assertion. Now, make that case please. Prove it. I'm going to keep calling you on this. You can't just make a statement, and assume it's true. That's called "begging the question". It's a logical fallacy.
The issue is that you are making unfounded statements and basing your entire argument on it. It's easy to "win" an argument when one simply changes facts to fit their side.
That is your assertion. Now, make that case please. Prove it. I'm going to keep calling you on this. You can't just make a statement, and assume it's true. That's called "begging the question". It's a logical fallacy.
The issue is that you are making unfounded statements and basing your entire argument on it. It's easy to "win" an argument when one simply changes facts to fit their side.
You know how you said earlier that what I believe really doesn't matter to others? Those are your morals. You made that up.
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.
Just a thank you for returning to the forum, mordant. Your insights into fundamentalist thinking are invaluable! 
