| DélioPT said:
First of all, i hope everything is good on your side. Hope you and your love ones didn`t get affected by the riots. |
Thanks for the concern. Luckily I had no problem as I am not near London and my family is in France.
| So, in your view, God and man should be judged alike to avoid moral relativism, even if they aren`t the same? |
Yes. Women and men are different but we apply the same morality to both because there are no reason to apply different moral standard. If we applied a different moral standard to god because he is more powerful then the same logic could be applied to use a different moral standard for men as they are (on average) more powerful (as in muscular strength) than women and the logical consequence would be that men can morally beat the crap out of women. I reject that line of thinking. If we applied a different moral standard to god because he gave us life then the same logic could be applied to use a different moral standard for women as they give life to their children and the logical consequence would be that women can morally kill their children (she giveth and she taketh away to paraphrase Job). I also reject that line of thinking.
Does that mean that there are no situations where god (if he exists) can know things that influence his judgement? Of course not as if he exists with the powers described in the bible he can read minds (hearts). But I claim that any such judgement, to be moral, should also be considered moral if taken by a human who had the same information available to him. For example a judge might be able to morally take a man's liberty away from him (by sentencing him to jail) when I might not because I would not have the same information that the judge does to be able to make such a judgement.
But in such a case it would be the situation that would make the action moral (or at least morally defensible as not every thing is black and white in morality) but in no case can it be the identity of the person that makes the action moral.
That's why I say that things like the mass murder of Jericho's population, the whole of Job's story and the flood are immoral; because the same acts undertaken by a man would be deemed immoral and it is only people that accept to give god a blank check to commit any immorality he wishes that claim that it is moral.
| God, nor me, has two standards for man and Himself in the way that you are trying to pass. It`s an impossibility to see them as one, when they are different. |
The only question is "do you apply the same moral standard to god as you do to humans?". If the answer is no then no matter the reason ("they are different") you still are a moral relativist and are jsut arguing why you are one. If neither god nor you have two standard for man and himself then you should not be able to say that "god defines morality" only at most that he is so perfect that he follows morality perfectly (though I would disagree with that assessment too).
| if God created life and therefore decides who lives and who dies |
Your mother created your life. Does she gets to decide whether you live or die? Of course not, if she did it would be seen as being immoral. If god created us then thanks for the gift, and our bodies eventually degrade and die naturally; but if he decides to take that life before its natural end then it is no more moral than your mother deciding to take your life before its natural end.
| who am i to say that me or someone else should have the same power as to avoid moral relativism? |
I am not saying that you should have the same power. Actually, I am not talking about power at all but about the morality of an action, which has nothing to do with the power to do said action. You have the power to decide who live or die; you could use guns, knives, clubs or your bare hands but unless you have a physical handicap then you definitely have such a power, but no amount of you having such a power would make it moral for you to decide who lives and who dies. Similarly, if god exists then he also has such a power (magnified of course) but simply having such power does not mean that him exercising it is necessarily moral as you still need to examine the situation to see if the action is morally defensible.
| Moral relativism between man can be avoided because we are all the same, the same doesn`t apply to us and God. That`s why i don`t call it moral relativism. |
Even if it couldn't be avoided (though I have no problem avoiding it myself) it still would be moral relativism. You are just changing the name to avoid the reality of it but as they say "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" and moral relativism by any other name would stink just as much.
| Because, even though we share the same "morality" we can`t, given our natures, live it or apply it the same way. |
It goes back to the "judge" example from above. But if we do have the same morality then a man giving the order to kill every man, woman and child in Jericho (with the exception of the family of the woman who betrayed her city) under the exact same circumstance that god did (to steal the land from its inhabitants and give it to the Hebrews) would be acting morally. So the logical consequence is that Julius Caesar (one of many examples possible) was acting morally when he invaded Gaul to give it to Rome.
I obviously disagree with that and think that all wars of conquest are immoral. If god had acted morally but still wanted to keep the Hebrews separated from other nations he could have made them settle in the Sinai desert, after all he is powerful enough to transform it from a desert to a land flowing with milk and honey. Instead he chose the genocidal route of exterminating the Canaanites; a clearly immoral act.
| About your "possibility", the problem with reason is that, in the realm of possibilities everything looks and feels the same. But to know what`s real or at least in what they differ, you have to look at reality itself. |
In that case you cannot look at the reality of whether god ordered something or not as it would entail knowing god's mind.
If you want to say "god wouldn't do that because he is good" then you are not defining morality in term of god but doing the opposite: defining god in terms of morality (which as you seem a good person is what I suspect you do despite your belief in the opposite).
But if god defines morality then there is no reason for him not to do that as him doing it would automatically make it moral.
So no matter how evil an act appears to be there is the possibility, however remote, that it was done with god's approval which means in your belief that there is a remote possibility that such an apparently evil act might be moral. If you declare any act as strictly immoral (as opposed to apparently/probably immoral) then you are saying that it is not possible that god could make that act moral, which contradict your belief in morality deriving from god.
| Is Satan actually God? No. And i can honestly say that given the Bible and apparitions. |
First, note that I used their name rather than their functions as god is generally defined as "creator of the universe" and satan is defined a "god's adversary" (satan means adversary/opposer).
Second, I am not claiming that Lucifer is god, I am posing a hypothetical world in which he is and exploring the logical ramifications of your belief that "god defines morality". In such hypothetical world, Lucifer being the creator of that world and thus being called god (still in that hypothetical world) could make murder moral in that hypothetical world. That is the logical consequence of your belief.
If you still don't get it, think in terms of video games (this is a video game site isn't it). Somebody write a game and in the world of that game the creator of the world is a being that we would more readily identify as Lucifer than as Yahwe. The consequence of your belief that the creator of the universe defines morality is that in that video game's world the creator of that video game's universe (who is a lot like Lucifer) could define murder as being moral. If his saying that murder is moral does not make it moral in that video game world even though he is the created the world in the video game then it means that merely creating the universe is not enough to be able to claim that you define morality.
In this world I am perfectly aware that your religion claims that Yahwe created it and Lucifer rebelled but it does not prevent us to imagine other worlds that are sligthly different and see if our beliefs still make logical sense.
| Can i say that something actually is immoral? Well, until someone tells that God told them to do this or that, i can say it`s contrary to God. |
No, you can say you think it's contrary to god. You can say that unless you can prove that god approved of it we have to assume that on the face of it it is immoral but you cannot say that it is contrary to god as if you do you are claiming to know god's mind, including that that particular act is not one of the exceptions that he chose to make moral.
| Those terrorists never claimed that God appeared to them to to what they did. They just told they were themselves that in the name of God, as in, for He`s sake. |
It doesn't matter what they claim or not as even if they had claimed an apparition (as opposed to an interpretation of their holy texts) you still wouldn't have accepted it as proof of god ordering them.
The important part is that even though it is highly unlikely that god told them to do it it is still a possibility and that possibility is enough, combined with your belief, to mean that their actions might have been moral.
If it makes it easier for you to understand you can replace those muslim terrorists with the inquisition as they were Catholics and the church sanctioned their use of torture.
Today, you probably believe that their actions were immoral but there is the possibility that they were right and that god wanted them to torture people as not only did they believe that they were doing god's work but they were confirmed in that belief by the approval of god's church. This would mean that their actions, according to yoru belief, could have been moral. (sarcasm on) After all why would there be a moral problem with torturing people before death that are going to be tortured after death anyway, especially as you might save them (sarcasm off).
| If you judge based solely on someone`s actions you are bound to overlook why such thing was done. |
Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing.
| Can you comprehend God in absolute way to call it yourself immoral? |
I do not need to understand him in an absolute way any more than a judge needs to understand a suspect in an absolute way to determine if he did an immoral thing.
There might be cases were we do not have enough information to make such a call but to declare that god is not perfectly moral (and thus cannot define morality) we only need to find one case where he did something obviously immoral, like order the mass murder of men, women and children of a city or condoning the killing of a man's children and servants in order to win a bet (which he lost incidentally). The bible claims that he did such obviously immoral things (thought it claims them to be moral of coruse) and that is enough to shatter any semblance of moral perfection that god claims without needing to understand him in an absolute way.
| What i said was that what comes from God is good. Which reflects more than morality. Which has been your only concern. |
You might want to look up the definition of morality: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct
If it is good then it is moral and if it is bad then it is immoral. Of course, as the world is complex it is not always easy to discern what results in good things and what result in bad things but you cannot say "this is good and is more than morality". For it to be more than morality then it needs to be outside of morality and for it to be outside of morality it needs to be neither good nor bad as if it is good it is part of morality and if it is bad it is outside of it.
| "You start life on the sidewalk" This shows two ways in which we don`t agree. You start life not on the safe side |
The sidewalk is not the safe side, the park is the safe side. The sidewalk is the neutral place you are at birth where only your actions are necessary to gain you heaven/hell (in your belief). The street is the dangerous place you can either go to if you commit bad actions and thus must believe in Jesus to be redeemed from them or are "pushed" by being told of god and thus must now also believe in Jesus.
| but amidst a possibility, or risk as you call it: heaven or hell will be yours, there`s no escaping that. So that is where you start. |
But the requirement for attaining heaven is different on the sidewalk (good behaviour) than on the street (belief to go back to the sidewalk and good behaviour once back on the sidewalk). It is because you action of talking about god add the requirement of belief that it is akin to pushing on the street.
| In that sense, everyday of your life, you do choose your path: either you go on the sidewalk or you go to the road. Of what`s given to you to choose/decide/accept - i spoke of decisions but not in a rational way - where you want to walk. |
But your belief is that a person that does not know god needs only do good actions to be saved (they are on the sidewalk) whereas a person who does know of god also needs to believe-in/accept Jesus (they are on the street and believing gets them back on the sidewalk). That is the difference that matters.
|
Another day comes, more choices you have to make, you keep deciding where to walk. No one, ever, throws you to the road or the sidewalk. Your risk is nothing but a possibility. You aren`t putting no one in the road or the sidewalk, you are giving them something to act upon, without leaving your place. |
If they put you in a position where you have to do an extra action (get off the road/believe) that you did not have to do before then they "pushed" you in that position.
| What you accept, etc., is what makes you go one way or the other. I speak about God: he/she decides/accepts/chooses to embrace it or not. |
But on the sidewalk they had no need to accept god, now that you pushed them on the road they need to accept him on top of all the other stuff so the situation is different.
| Giving someone a possibility, is just that. In the face of it you choose. |
If somebody is pushed on the street they also have a possibility and they still can choose to get off it but it doesn't mean it was moral to push them in the first place.
| About salvation for the good of heart, it actually is referred to in the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A14-16&version=NIV |
Thanks, I had forgotten about that passage (it has been a long time since crystallised my theological position and I haven't had much need to extensively study the bible since so I forget some passages).
However it contradicts the combination of Romans 1:18-20 and Mark 16:16 as according to Roman 1:20 god's existence is plain to everybody since creation and according to Mark 16:16 you need to believe to be saved so it would leave nobody not knowing about god to be saved by their own actions alone like Roman 2 claims.
| You say it`s cronyism for two reasons: first you downplay faith as a factor; second, you still base salvation on the fact it should rely just on morality. |
Faith is a factor in making you god's buddy but once you are god's buddy it matters not how you came to be.
As for salvation if it relied exclusively only on morality then it would not be cronyism but since it doesn't then it is cronyism.
| Faith and morality are important. Both of them. In God rewards you based on that. God favours no one. To me that`s justice and being fair because it`s open to everybody, which isn`t the case with cronyism. |
If he only rewarded on the latter then it would not be cronyism. Requiring the former (which means that you are his buddy) makes it cronyism.
Faith is not actually open to everybody as you do not choose to have faith or not, you either have it or you don't. You can reread my previous post where I talked about that in more detail.
| Faith is not the same as having a favourite colour, and yes, you are in control of it. |
Could you, if you wanted, choose not to believe in god? Of course not, because you believe in him and choosing not to believe in him when you do is impossible.
Could you, if you wanted, choose to believe in Brahma? Of course not, because you don't believe in him and choosing to believe in him when you do is impossible.
|
Faith is a gift for those who open their hearts. If you want God and heaven, you do need to open up your heart first. That`s how you are entitled to salvation. |
Faith is belief. Even if you open your heart and try to believe does not mean that you will believe. If you open your heart to Santa Claus does that mean that you are definitely going to believe in him? I mean the guy seems like a nice dude, giving gifts to good children and all. But the reality is that no matter how much you might wish that Santa Claus exists (i.e. open your heart to him) if you do not believe then you won't. If you end up believing it is not because you wished he existed but because something caused you to believe.
| Hell and heaven are a result of God`s justice. |
If it was about justice then it would be about who is good and who is bad, not about who is good and believes (possibly with some exceptions) and who is either bad or good but does not believe.
That is not justice.
| You had your life to choose and follow Him or not. What comes as a result, is the consequences of your actions. |
That doesn't mean that the way to judge the consequence of one's action is just. If he chose to reward heaven to those that chose to hop on their left foot on wednesdays and to send to hell those that did not you would still be going to heaven or hell as the consequence of your actions but the way to judge what the consequence is would be totally unjust.
| I said this: "who says that God doesnt`t punish you or that He doesn`t try to help you change?" That being, who says that this conversation isn`t God trying to show you the way? I might be doing a bad job though! :D |
You are doing a very bad job, but then so am I in the other direction. Luckily for me though I am not so much trying to convince you (no chance here) as trying to get you think about the morality of your belief instead of taking their morality for granted (unlikely to happen but a much more reasonable goal).
There is also the possibility that this conversation is god trying to show YOU the way. How you might ask as I do not believe in god? Well, while I do not believe in god because I have no reason to as it is very improbable that he exists, I believe that the existence of a god is possible (emphasis on "a" as opposed to "the") and one of the possibilities is the following hypothesis:
"There is a god and he inspired not only the bible but also the koran, the vedas and every other religious texts. However, unlike what their followers believed he did not inspire them as guides to morality and transcendental truths but as tests of people's morality and credulity.
For this he filled them both with moral precepts (Though shall not kill, the golden rule...) and immoral precepts (most of leviticus, the various mass murders god is said to have done, destroying job's life for a bet...).
Those that believe in the morality of such texts uncritically do not have a good enough moral compass to deserve life after death and thus are left to oblivion at death.
Those that have the moral fortitude to reject the immoral parts despite the dreadful threats of everlasting torture after death (and sometimes torture and/or persecution before death) have passed the test and are intrinsically moral enough to deserve of life after death."
I obviously have no evidence for it but when the mystical part of me gets going this is what I lean toward as it is the kind of divinity that I can respect, whether it exists or not.
If god exists in such a form then I would be the one god sent to show you the way of developing a critic of morality that could save you instead of your current way of uncritically accepting your religion's morality that dooms you to not be saved at death and you would be sent to tempt me away from critical morality.
You might try to quote from the bible or from some apparition or other miracle to justify your belief but all those things are part of the test... which you failed.
To go back to what I just quoted, you forgot the punishment part, which, if you go back to the post that started it, is what I was complaining about. The lack of obvious punishment for transgressions is the problem. When you raise a child you punish them for bad behaviour and tell them why they are punished to make them understand that it is a bad behaviour. You do not admonish them and do nothing then come back years later and punish them with a vengeance. That's lousy parenting yet it is what god does.
One problem I had with my father growing up was that sometime he would punish me and say "you know why you are punished" when I asked why. If I asked it was because I did not know that I had done anything wrong. But how was I to improve and avoid further punishment if I did not know what I needed to avoid doing? At best, this is what god does as even if he punishes then you are left to guess as to why you are punished.
Katrina destroyed New Orleans? Oh, it must be god's punishment. Punishment for what? Don't know, probably because of the gays or not supporting Israel or America not being Muslim... All these have been advanced as causes for it (see here).
Even if any of them were true how could the New Orleanians or the Americans know which one it was that was true? And not knowing which was the cause how could they then improve?
How about an example closer to your home (but farther in time): the Lisbon earthquakeand tsunami of 1755.
I will quote Barbara Ehrenreich as she put it much better than I could:
"A tsunami hit Lisbon in 1755, on All Saint's Day, when the good Christians were all in church. The faithful perished, while denizens of the red light district, which was built on strong stone, simply carried on sinning. Similarly, last fall's hurricanes flattened the God-fearing, Republican parts of Florida while sparing the sin-soaked Key West and South Beach."
Is that an example of god punishing us before our death? If so what is his message about what we should avoid? It sounds like he is telling us to avoid churches and go to whorehouses instead.
| Taking what is said above, so now God is responsible for your lack of faith and possible damnation? That`s the first time i heard this. |
I doubt it. Have you never heard of Epicurus' famous saying:
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"
The traditional theistic argument is that he is able but not willing because he gave us free will and preventing evil would be interfering with it. But that argument does not hold any more in the light of yourclaim that your prayers can sway god in making people believe as he now is interfering with free will and is thus not only responsible for the disbelief that he is not willing to change but also for all the evil in men's heart that he is not willing to change.
This modifies Epicurus' saying thus: Is he is able, but not willing even though he is willing to interfere with free will? Then he is malevolent.
| God lets us have a say in the salvation of people and you still criticize Him? Blamed if He does something, blamed if He doesn`t. |
It is his lack of consistency that creates the additional moral problem.
If he was never interfering with free will then he would still be responsible for torturing people for things that not only they don't control but do not deserve anything like one day of torture, let alone an eternity of it.
If he always interfered with free will to make people believe then there would be no problem with the belief requirement of heaven as everybody would then fulfill it.
But that he is willing to interfere with some people's free will to make them believe while leaving most people not believing and thus condemned to torture is even worse as he is now picking and choosing those he will torture for disbelief (and as I pointed out earlier it is also worse because now he does not have the excuse of "not interfering with free will" to prevent him from stopping evil).
|
It`s not stroking an ego, that`s what you would say if it applied to humans, and even then you might be wrong. That`s just your interpretation. |
It applies to gods too. Most if not all human religions (including yours) are full of ego-stroking, vanity flattering worship. Any decent god should be beyond wallowing in such displays.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
