17 Feb 13
Originally posted by OdBodI don't think our morals go out the window.
It's hardly splitting hairs , I think the point being morals go out the window when a situation gets bad enough.
What goes out the window is what we think (or tell others) our morals are.
Every moral we have has multitude caveats!
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeymmmm
What is at the root is the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus. Although it was around before he came on the scene, he established it as the universal morality.
Did the Golden Rule exist before anyone thought of it?
And just because you and I subscribe to it does it make it universally valid?
The Divine Conspiracy
Dallas Willard
"Recently a pilot was practicing high-speed maneuvers in a jet fighter. She turned the controls for what she thought was a steep ascent-and flew straight into the ground. She was unaware that she had been flying upside down."
I like the way Willard starts off his book, I think this addresses the question well.
If we don't have something, a clear standard by which to look at things, than there
isn't a real up or down, right or wrong. If there is and we miss it, our judgments
for all things good and bad will be off and wrong.
Kelly
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59I hate to be cynical , but I think even our "sense of morality" varies according to the consequences of breaking a moral code.For example the SS during the war who thought Germany to be superior and unbeatable. At the other end of the scale is the motorist who breaks the speed limit by 5MPH.
I don't think our morals go out the window.
What goes out the window is what we think (or tell others) our morals are.
Every moral we have has multitude caveats!
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by OdBodYou don't think that you can do something wrong that you seem to have gotten
I hate to be cynical , but I think even our "sense of morality" varies according to the consequences of breaking a moral code.For example the SS during the war who thought Germany to be superior and unbeatable. At the other end of the scale is the motorist who breaks the speed limit by 5MPH.
away with? If only consequences mattered than we can make kissing babies wrong
by beheading anyone who does it, and stealing from the poor good by giving them
more money for doing it. Getting caught, or punished, or rewarded may be a very
real consequence, but that doesn't make anything by itself good or bad, because
we can reward or punish anything we want to.
If there is a true good, it will be no matter what we do with it, accept it or reject it.
Kelly
17 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is true of some of the books the Hebrews wrote for themselves, like Leviticus. That book was a prime example of them saying "we can reward or punish anything we want to" and transgressions [i.e. purportedly 'immoral' actions] had "very real consequences", including being put to death - even though many of the rules in books like that had nothing to do with "good or bad"; they created an arbitrary and, in many ways, grotesque kind "morality".
Getting caught, or punished, or rewarded may be a very real consequence, but that doesn't make anything by itself good or bad, because we can reward or punish anything we want to.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you look back through history all of the examples you have given have at some time been morally acceptable . This can of course change ,but the force behind that change is usually political or economic.We alone define good and bad .
You don't think that you can do something wrong that you seem to have gotten
away with? If only consequences mattered than we can make kissing babies wrong
by beheading anyone who does it, and stealing from the poor good by giving them
more money for doing it. Getting caught, or punished, or rewarded may be a very
real consequence, but that doesn't make ...[text shortened]... there is a true good, it will be no matter what we do with it, accept it or reject it.
Kelly
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by OdBodThe thing is we are aware of good and bad, we justify our actions all the time that
If you look back through history all of the examples you have given have at some time been morally acceptable . This can of course change ,but the force behind that change is usually political or economic.We alone define good and bad .
we know look bad, and we pat ourselves on the back for that which we believe to
be good. Why would we ever feel the need to do either of those if it was all up to
us?
Kelly
Originally posted by FMFWhat I find amusing are atheists who try to attack the God of the Bible by attacking the morality in the Bible like you mention as if there is a universal morality that is the grounds for doing so.
This is true of some of the books the Hebrews wrote for themselves, like Leviticus. That book was a prime example of them saying "we can reward or punish anything we want to" and transgressions [i.e. purportedly 'immoral' actions] had "very real consequences", including being put to death - even though many of the rules in books like that had nothing to do with ...[text shortened]... "good or bad"; they created an arbitrary and, in many ways, grotesque kind "morality".
However, to avert any form of accountability themselves, they later insist that there is no universal morality whereby to hold them accountable for anything.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI have to disagree,for example,the SS believed they were doing the right thing at the time,the Romans positivity loved the entertainments in their arenas.What about human sacrifices ,burnings and murder,carried out by various religions . I believe the Crusaders were offered eternal salvation for the eradication of Muslims.These groups were told by a "higher" authority what was right and wrong and they believed it .On a side note, this is why I oppose any unquestioning faith based system of morals.
The thing is we are aware of good and bad, we justify our actions all the time that
we know look bad, and we pat ourselves on the back for that which we believe to
be good. Why would we ever feel the need to do either of those if it was all up to
us?
Kelly
17 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou have apparently missed my point. I didn't mention "the God of the Bible". I mentioned the Hebrews. I don't think all the ghastly nonsense in books like Leviticus represents a valid "morality" for anyone except those who choose to subscribe to it. Do you think it does?
What I find amusing are atheists who try to attack the God of the Bible by attacking the morality in the Bible like you mention as if there is a universal morality that is the grounds for doing so.
However, to avert any form of accountability themselves, they later insist that there is no universal morality whereby to hold them accountable for anything.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by FMFThis is also to some extent true of our laws, morals and manners. They range from things we have declared illegal and punishable by everything from fines to death, then onwards to the moral/immoral part of the spectrum (overlapping the legal/illegal spectrum) then on to manners (things we consider couth/uncouth). There is an interesting phenomenon called road rage where someone cuts us off or transgresses otherwise on the road, and our reaction is righteous rage.
This is true of some of the books the Hebrews wrote for themselves, like Leviticus. That book was a prime example of them saying "we can reward or punish anything we want to" and transgressions [i.e. purportedly 'immoral' actions] had "very real consequences", including being put to death - even though many of the rules in books like that had nothing to do with ...[text shortened]... "good or bad"; they created an arbitrary and, in many ways, grotesque kind "morality".
There are also the transgressions within an institution that will bring punishment, such as things that get the transgressor excommunicated, fired, suspended, etc.
An interesting area is athletics, where actions that would be felony assault and battery on the street, are in some cases allowed and in others get only a penalty on the team or ejection from the game or at most, a fine. Well, maybe at most you are banned from play and don't get into the sport's hall of fame where you otherwise would have. That's a sort of capital punishment where you are "dead" as far as the sport is concerned.
And we fans sit in the stands, righteously booing bad calls against our team but not those against our opponent. Relative morality?
There are fashion rules that are set by the crowd or by calculating retailers. Hairstyles. Dress codes.
All these different ways of defining and enforcing rules. Amazing.
17 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by OdBodI'm quite sure that your right there about much of what you said, but I think it
I have to disagree,for example,the SS believed they were doing the right thing at the time,the Romans positivity loved the entertainments in their arenas.What about human sacrifices ,burnings and murder,carried out by various religions . I believe the Crusaders were offered eternal salvation for the eradication of Muslims.These groups were told by a "higher" a ...[text shortened]... ieved it .On a side note, this is why I oppose any unquestioning faith based system of morals.
goes way beyond that! The belief system of both the Crusaders and all other
groups can be a "group" thing no doubt about it, but in all things we do we set
out to justify ourselves, from the littles things in life to the big ones. We could
for example make the claim that work really doesn't need all the ink pens they
have there so I can take some, or I know I told you I was going to do this,
but....
Being right or just is something we crave, people go on and on about this cause
or that one to wrap themselves in. It is in our very core that we do this.
example: "...this is why I oppose any unquestioning... "
Kelly
17 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThere are three distinct issues here. You have the morality of the people, the morality in Leviticus, and the morality of their God and how they are all interconnected.
You have apparently missed my point. I didn't mention "the God of the Bible". I mentioned the Hebrews. I don't think all the ghastly nonsense in books like Leviticus represents a valid "morality" for anyone except those who choose to subscribe to it. Do you think it does?
I have heard those of faith take two different approaches to books like Leviticus. Some approach it as purely man made doctrines and the other is that they were God inspired.
The problem I have with it being purely being man inspired is the continued assualt in the book regarding the morality of the people. The Torah is very harsh towards the morality of the people. In fact, even Moses, it's supposide author, sinned and was then denied access to the Promised Land as a result.
In Leviticus we have a book that contains a sinful people who enter a covenant with a holy God and a God that ultimately comes down to dwell with the people in their midst. Although we have a general sense of our "sinfulness", by in large from our vantage point we are not that bad. On some level we justify our actions and convince ourselves that harsh punishment is not indicated for those "sins". It then seems odd to me that a holy book written by a group of people is so self condemning, yet still offers hope of redemption.
Although you suggest that the Bible is "ghastly" for its punishments and for even perhaps its offenses, the bottom line is that these punishments were ultimately designed to erradicate sinfulness. Adam and Eve were the first to sin, but the penalty for this infraction seems "ghastly" to you no doubt. Is disobedience grounds for death? However, God saw that the infraction was like a cancer and would spread and would ultimately destroy us if he did not interceed. Then the Great Flood came to wipe away the sinfulness that was on the brink of destroying humanity. Make no mistake, according to the Bible had God not interceeded with the Great Flood, none of us would be here today.