What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

You have an extremely narrow view of what "interpret" means.

You have already interpreted the Bible by choosing to highlight this one phrase instead of many others on the topic:

Exodus 21:24 - "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Leviticus 24:19-20 - "Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
Deuteronomy 19:21 - "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Psalms 137:8-9 - "O daughter Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
2 Thessalonians 1:6 - "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you."
Revelation 6:10 - "They called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?'"
Luke 22:36 - "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'"

Each of these verses has to do with justice. I agree, justice should be done. If someone steals, then recompense should be paid. If someone murders, they should be sentenced to death or life in prison. None of that is contrary to what I said. I said that if I think someone is going to kill me tomorrow I will not go kill them today. I also said that I value others' lives over my own. None of that contradicts any of those verses.

Where does what I said contradict any of those verses? You may do justice with love. In fact, often the reason that justice is done is out of love. As for turning the other cheek, that also does not contradict that. Turning the other cheek has to do with forgiveness, but it does not mean that justice is not also enacted. Notably, some of those verses mention God doing justice, and justice will be done by God for each grievance, even if it is not repaid by humans, and even if it does not occur on Earth.

You don't have to interpret anything here. Nothing contradicts, so you may simply read it and follow it as it is given.

Likewise, your claim seems to be that "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" has only one possible interpretation and that it is comprehensive moral advice. But this is obviously untrue. Even if they agree on the centrality of Matthew 3:43-44, different Christian traditions and individual Christians will all give you a different answer if you ask them what "love" requires and how you should show "love" to your enemies.

I recommend to you to read 1 Corinthians 13 and Romans 12, which outline some of what love entails. Also, in John 15:12, Jesus says: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." Following Christ's example of sacrifice for others is what love is.

Once again, these give very clear instructions. Sure, not specific to every possible scenario, but certainly applicable to all.

Now even if you feel you can resolve these issues for all of Christendom with your superior literalist reading of the Bible, how does Matthew 5:43-44 actually solve any real moral quandies without a ton more subjective interpretation? I no doubt think that you have an answer to each of the moral issues I have listed below, but I want to get you to consider that *your* answer to these questions cannot simply be informed by a simple non-interpretive answer from the Bible because of the contradictions in the Bible's moral advice:

What contradictions?

Self-Defense vs. Non-Violence: If an individual is threatened with violence, does the principle of loving and praying for enemies (Matthew 5:43-44) prohibit any form of self-defense? How does this reconcile with the instruction in Luke 22:36 to be prepared, even to the point of buying a sword?

I lead you back to John 15:12, in which love is defined as following Jesus' example. That means sacrifice of oneself for the sake of others. Be prepared, yes. Prepared to defend others. If violence is threatened against me, and none others, then I will defend myself, but not to the point of taking a life. If violence is threatened against myself and others, then I will have no hesitation in taking the life of one who would take the life of others.

Justice System and Punishment: How should a Christian approach the justice system? Should they advocate for retributive justice, echoing the "eye for eye" principle from Exodus 21:24, or should they push for a system that focuses more on rehabilitation and forgiveness, in line with Jesus' teachings in Matthew?

Forgiveness does not mean retribution or restitution is ignored.
As Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Justice for all wrongs will be done, whether on Earth or after death. However, that does not mean it is ours to do. The government has a role in justice (Romans 13), and each individual has a responsibility to protect those around them, but all will be meted out to correct justice by God.

War and Military Action: In a situation where a nation must decide whether to engage in war or military action, which principle should guide the decision? Should they follow the path of peace and love for enemies, or is there a time when the more aggressive stances, as seen in passages like 1 Samuel 15:3, become necessary?

Defensive military action, to save the lives and well-being of one's citizens, is always justified. This is due to the responsibility of a government to protect it's citizens, and the responsibility of each individual to protect those around them. The verse in 1 Samuel was a specific commandment to the Israelites, and does not imply that we should go about attacking whomever we please.

Dealing with Oppressive Regimes: How should one respond to oppressive governments or regimes? Is praying for them and showing love sufficient, or does justice require active opposition, possibly even to the point of violence, as suggested in some Old Testament passages?

If the government commands you to do something against the law of God, the law of God is a higher authority. Thus, if a government is acting immorally, it is the individual's responsibility to protect others, even with their own sacrifice.

Responding to Personal Betrayal or Harm: When someone faces personal betrayal or harm, how should they reconcile the command to love and forgive with the natural desire for justice or retribution? Does loving an enemy mean foregoing all forms of personal justice or accountability?

As I have already stated, forgiveness does not necessitate a lack of restitution. That said, it is not one's individual responsibility to be a vigilante, meting out justice where and when they see fit. Justice in civil matters is a function of the government, and in fact is the very purpose of the government (again, Romans 13).

National and Personal Security: How should a Christian balance the need for national and personal security with the imperative to love and not to harm others? Where is the line between prudent self-protection and a violation of the principle of loving one’s enemies?

Once again, an individual has the responsibility to protect others.
Loving others and harming others are not mutually exclusive; sometimes the most loving thing you can do for someone is to incapacitate them to stop them from doing evil. Loving your enemies does not mean allowing them to do evil.

Forgiveness vs. Enabling Harm: When dealing with individuals who repeatedly cause harm, how does one balance the command to forgive with the need to prevent further harm? Does loving an enemy include allowing them to continue harmful behaviors unchecked?

As I said, loving someone does not mean allowing them to do evil. To enable the doing of evil is not loving, either to the victim or the one who does it.


I think the trouble here is that you have not been taught what Biblical love is. Once again, I recommend you read Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 13, as well as 1 John 4.

You'll find that love is not just letting people do what they want. It is protection, sacrifice, kindness, patience, and many other things.
Christians are commanded to love as Christ loved, which means sacrifice, empathy, and yet also not allowing evil to continue.

All of this is determined simply by reading the Bible.
The fact that there are different interpretations does not mean that the Bible is not objective truth. If someone has a different interpretation and says it is Biblically based, then let us discuss it. Perhaps I am wrong about some of these, and I may well be. The only correction I will receive as moral truth is correction that is clearly based in the Bible. Why? Because the Bible is consistent with itself, and is ultimate moral truth.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I was worried you'd take this approach Fritz. Instead of engaging in good faith on the obvious conflicts between the Bibles advice re: forgiveness and retribution you just state a personal preference for capital punishment that to me sounds deeply anti-Christian lol.

Yes there's more to read about love in the Bible. None of it will tell you explicitly how to love your neighbor in all sorts of modern circumstances. It's a good place to start, but not an infallible guide to morality without some additional non-scriptural moral reasoning.

I actually won't even engage with the "all this is determined by simply reading the Bible" because that's just so obviously untrue. You won't be convinced by me, but maybe other Christians can talk some sense into you on this point. Crazy Anglican made some interesting points recently about how a community debating biblical principles is a necessary part of thr process to reveal its moral guidance.

[mOctave]

As I said, loving someone does not mean allowing them to do evil. To enable the doing of evil is not loving, either to the victim or the one who does it.

True.

I think the trouble here is that you have not been taught what Biblical love is. Once again, I recommend you read Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 13, as well as 1 John 4.

The trouble here is that Biblical love can be interpreted. There are enough seeming contradictions in the Bible that they can't all be factually true. Many of them are figures of speech, but which ones? I doubt God wants us all to buy swords, but what if he does? Obviously, a lot of what Jesus says goes against some of the stricter Old Testament traditions and beliefs. Does that mean that there are other traditions or beliefs that don't matter anymore? If so, which ones?

You'll find that love is not just letting people do what they want. It is protection, sacrifice, kindness, patience, and many other things.
Christians are commanded to love as Christ loved, which means sacrifice, empathy, and yet also not allowing evil to continue.

The interpretive part here is in which of these three is most important. Some people would argue that all wars are wrong because even by waging a just war you indirectly hurt innocent people. The Bible provides these guidelines, but doesn't deal very well with the edge cases.

All of this is determined simply by reading the Bible.

No. All of this is determined simply by reading the Bible and being CaptainFritz. Everyone presumes different things. If reading the Bible was all it took, then why did we have Crusades? Obviously, the religious (and secular) leadership in Europe was fallible and may not have been acting in accord to their Bible-centric morality, but what about the common people? Lots of them had read (or been read) these passages from the Bible, but they saw nothing wrong with going to war anyways.

The fact that there are different interpretations does not mean that the Bible is not objective truth.

It does? The existence of the Bible, even if it is only a collective hallucination, is objective. Everything else requires a certain starting set of axioms. With your axioms, you can easily prove it to be true. With mine, maybe not. With some atheists', it is obviously objectively false.

If someone has a different interpretation and says it is Biblically based, then let us discuss it. Perhaps I am wrong about some of these, and I may well be. The only correction I will receive as moral truth is correction that is clearly based in the Bible.

How different is this perspective from, say, a murderer refusing to stop killing people because they haven't seen anything on TV that told them that murder was bad?

Because the Bible is consistent with itself...

Ah, so you should love thine enemies and also commit mass genocide? There are several places in the Bible where this command is present, such as with the Canaanites (who didn't really do too much to Israel to deserve it, if I remember correctly). Maybe God had a bigger purpose in mind than love would have provided for, but this is still a contradiction.

... and is ultimate moral truth.

This is also your opinion. I'm sure you have good reason to believe that the Bible is ultimate moral truth, but so far all the logic I've seen you use is circular: the Bible tells you to love people, therefore love is moral. Then, because love is good and the Bible agrees with you, the Bible is a perfect source of morality.

To conclude, I have three questions for you:
1. What are your axioms?
2. Without referencing the Bible, what proof do you have that it is the "ultimate moral truth"?
3. If the Bible was never written, would there still be morality?

[mOctave]

The standpoint from which Atheism operates is that there is no God. That's all there is to it. What that implies for the rest of the worldview is rather interesting.

Sort of? Atheism is a lack of belief in a God who created the world and is still hanging around ruling things and interacting with people. That doesn't necessarily mean that an atheist doesn't believe that some power created the universe, just that that power no longer exists in a human-accessible form (if it ever did), and is not worthy of worship. This is the classic definition of a god, but it isn't exactly what your next arguments are based on.

MOctave, I think atheists often get confused about what to call what they believe. You don't believe in a a God that created the world and hangs around and helps the Catholic colleges win basketball games. That's fine. But that is not necessarily atheism. I think all it means is that you are not a Christian, Jew or Moslem. You can still believe in God. Just a different God that the monotheists talk about.

Deists, like Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, didn't believe in the Bible one bit. They believed that God created the world, and then left, but God perhaps was not an entity like us, but something we cannot comprehend. Not someone who reads our thoughts and judges us, but some Thing that did the Big Bang (if you believe in that) and that is it. The universe is an expression of God, and I think Deists believe we are too.

You can be a pantheist who believes that God is in all things. Kinda like consciousness is in all cells of your body, not just the brain. God is the spirit that animates us.

I guess we were just going off of different definitions. By my definition, an atheist can still believe in God and be religious, but deistic instead of theistic. It seems like this is an uncommon definition, though, so I'll take your point.

[CaptainFritz28]

Merriam-Webster - "Worldview"
"a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint"

Oh dear... so close and yet so far. The operative word is comprehensive, and atheism alone isn't generally comprehensive. Atheists generally tend to believe in something, and this is part of their worldview too, not just their disbelief in a theistic God.

Atheism is a specific standpoint which informs a comprehensive conception. The singular belief that God does not exist applies to a great majority of one's worldview.
However, as I have acknowledged previously, many Atheists point to standards of their own. My contention is simply that Atheism does not provide a way to reconcile conflicts of these individual standards.

Sort of? Atheism is a lack of belief in a God who created the world and is still hanging around ruling things and interacting with people. That doesn't necessarily mean that an atheist doesn't believe that some power created the universe, just that that power no longer exists in a human-accessible form (if it ever did), and is not worthy of worship. This is the classic definition of a god, but it isn't exactly what your next arguments are based on.

Merriam-Webster - "Atheism"
"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

What you described, being that there was a creator god that now has no power over humanity, is Deism, which is separate from Atheism.

You could argue that accepting a millennia-old text that was never really designed to be perfectly factually accurate is also pure conjecture. Not that there isn't truth in Genesis, but that truth probably isn't literal in the way we read things now.

Besides, what created God? From a logical standpoint, that's just as hard to explain as a Big Bang.

What evidence do you provide that the Bible was never designed to be factually accurate?
What evidence do you provide that we read things now so differently than when Genesis was written that it can no longer be counted as literal?
Without support, those claims are rather unfounded.

Nothing created God. That's the very essence of His being God. Yes, it's circular. Any explanation of the beginning of the universe is. It is no less logical than any other explanation.

Of course there isn't an explanation of purpose. It's not a complete worldview.

Which is my very point. Because Atheism is an incomplete worldview, it must rely entirely on subjective opinions or ideas of morals and purpose.

This is true, atheists have to adopt other moral standards.

And what do we do when those standards contradict each other?

This is a fair point, actually. We have no proof of God or science, but we can believe either way that the world we interact with actually exists. If there's a God, then presumably God wouldn't lie to us in such a way. If there's science, then it stands up. If there's neither, we might as well commit suicide to save the world from the control of the evil brain farmers who are tricking us into believing in our world.

I would agree that too many people take science for granted. But at the same time, we can observe the things we do and draw conclusions that might be wrong but stand up if we accept either science or God.

My point here was simply to say that believing in God is no less logical than believing in science, but yes, you are correct.

Well, it explains different things. After all, does God ever tell us how he/she/it made humanity? Science does, just not why we were made.

I mean in terms of an ultimate standard. If science is to be our ultimate standard, or the creator of the universe, then it must explain morality, why we exist, etc. Belief in God explains this, and allows for the belief that God created science, but believing in science without God doesn't get us any further than scientific discoveries themselves, and doesn't explain anything to do with morality, our purpose, or ethics.

Also, if God doesn't exist, then science is no more of a human construction than God! Your argument only stands up here if God does actually exist.

Fair point. I suppose at this point we are predicating the existence of science itself, and the legitimacy of our observations, off of God's existence. This would mean that God must exist, then, since there are observable scientific laws of the universe that are constant and, well... scientific. So if science exists, so does God. Science exists. Therefore God exists.

[CaptainFritz28]

Ah Fritz, I thought we were getting somewhere.

1.) You are picking things from the Bible too. It's literally impossible not to do some amount of pick and choose. You haven't given any of us the secret insight into how your interpretation is somehow not an interpretation.

2.) You missed the point re: the brain entirely. What that suggests is that even your moral absolutism is probably the result of genes and environment, just like the rest of us. That doesn't mean all moral reasoning is subjective or faulty, but it should induce some amount of humility about how we are coming to moral conclusion (which is hard for you when you think you speak for God itself).

If by "getting somewhere" you mean my renunciation of the Bible as the ultimate source of objective morality, then you have only done the opposite.

1) By picking things from the Bible, I mean choosing to believe some things that are in the Bible but not others. I believe the entirety of the Bible. So sure, I am picking things to quote specifically, but I am not saying that some of it is true and other parts aren't. Because the Bible does not contradict itself, it can be believed entirely, allowing for it to be objective truth. If someone chooses to believe some things in it, but not others, then they are placing their own authority above the Bible. That would make their view of the Bible subjective to their own authority, when in reality the Bible, coming from God, is ultimate authority.

2) I'm not speaking for God himself. What I say can be faulty, untrue, or downright anti-Biblical. Don't put heresies in my mouth. What I am saying is that while I might not have it wholly right, the Bible does. While my subjective view might be wrong (and everyone's view is subjective, because it comes from the self), the Bible, being objective, is always true. Do you see the difference? The Bible's truth does not operate off of our views of the Bible. The Bible's objectivity does not operate off of our subjective interpretations. The moral objective truth of the Bible is wholly and completely detached from our views.

Regarding the point about the mind, I understood the point. You are saying that the Bible cannot be truth because it might just be some amalgamation of genetic tendencies. So what you are doing is saying that there really is no truth, because what we see as truth might just be our genetic presuppositions. That is about as subjective as it gets. Your conclusion here implies that all moral reasoning is subjective, even if you don't realize it. What I'm saying is that regardless of your genetics, or your mind, or the environment you grew up in, truth is truth, and what determines that truth is God. He communicates that truth to us in the Bible.

[CaptainFritz28]

I spent a little too much for a checked bag on a flight to the in laws and felt a little disgusted by the waste. Shouldn't I have given the money to the food bank instead?

Maybe I shouldn't have traveled at all given all the hardship in the world that could have been solved with the price of the airfare (even sans check bag). But I felt some good was done for others by my trip. We stayed with a widowed family member, hung out with a socially awkward uncle who lived alone, and helped treat new-ish immigrant friends to their first Canadian Christmas dinner. These things seem good, but are certainly less good than the bed nets and diarrhea medicine we could have provided instead.

And then today I encountered a homeless woman who had a seizure on the crosswalk of a busy street. Me and several other passers-by lifted her to the curb and I called 911. It felt imperative to ensure she was medically well, but her boyfriend (and later she herself, when she came too) were extremely averse to being seen by the ambulance. Despite mine and others' protests they went on their way before being seen by the EMT. Me and one other guy followed them for a block or two to keep a watchful eye before deciding that, at some point, this was someone else's problem. How forcefully should I have insisted they stay? She said she had to pee when she came to — what if i obliged her to stay for care and she suffered the humiliation of wetting herself? What was their right to refuse treatment? How many blocks should I have followed them, if any? At what point is it really a problem for yet another passerby somewhere down the road if she suffers another episode?

I made each of these decisions without a ton of forethought. Go on the trip, talk to the weird uncle, turn back to check on the siezing person. I have a story about how each action was moral, but I have very low certainty that the decision I took was *the* moral decision.

There's no real point to this story other than to highlight the weirdness and subtlety of real-time moral decision making. I don't have the strong impression that I'd find good answers to my questions in any particular religious or philosophical tradition. I feel grateful to have been raised and/or to be of a temperament to have made choices that seem mostly okay and that I don't regret deeply.

You bring up a good point here, and it is one which I think I've been unclear about. Following the Bible's commandments means doing what is in your power to do. You won't be able to solve all the world's problems. Sure, giving money to charitable organizations is good. I suggest you do that. However, love comes down to doing the most good in the environment in which you find yourself. You would not have been able to aid the person in the midst of a seizure or done the good you did at your relatives' had you not gone on the trip. Was the trip itself the most morally good thing you could do? Maybe not. But after you make a decision like that, you must go on and do the best you can do in each scenario, wherever you find yourself.

The Bible tells us to be patient, loving, kind, compassionate, self-sacrificing, honorable, joyful, and a multitude of other virtues. And the Bible gives us the example of Christ to follow, who gave up His life, both in death and in the way He lived, for those around Him. The Bible doesn't tell us what to do in each exact scenario we come across. So sure, if that's what you mean by subjective, then there is subjectivity to it. I think, however, that we've been talking about subjectivity and objectivity in two different ways. So I'll explain what I view of the Bible in both ways:

Everything in the Bible is true. No matter what we do with it, no matter how we use or misuse it, no matter what we say about it, it will always be true. In that sense, it is the ultimate moral objective standard, which is the most authoritative standard.

That said, the Bible does not give us a play-by-play of how to live our lives. It is up to us to discern what the correct thing to do is based on the virtues of the Bible, example of Christ, guidance of the Holy Spirit, and prayer. In that sense, there is an aspect of subjectivity to it. So when it comes to living your everyday life, each Christian will be different in the way they follow God's commands.

I'll put it this way: The Bible gives us a set of moral instructions that culminate in the example of Jesus. However, there is room within those instructions for discernment among Christians. So is murder ever good? No. There is no room for murder among the Bible's teachings. But is deciding to go on a trip, in which you know there will be opportunities to love others, instead of giving to a charity, wrong? For some, yes. For others, no. This is where there is room for discernment. The Bible does not expressly state "don't go on a trip if you can give to charity" and there is nowhere in the Bible that clearly indicates that the choice you made was wrong. The Bible does say to love others, and either option could lead to loving others.

Do you see what I mean, now, when I say that the Bible is objective? I don't mean that it tells you exactly what to do in each and every daily scenario. I don't mean that there is no ambiguity whatsoever between two choices in everyday life. But I do mean that no matter what you choose to do each day, you should do it with the goal of following the virtues and example of Jesus Christ, as displayed in the Bible, because that is true and good, regardless of what you do.

[DougJoe]

This is a fair point, actually. We have no proof of God or science, but we can believe either way that the world we interact with actually exists. If there's a God, then presumably God wouldn't lie to us in such a way. If there's science, then it stands up. If there's neither, we might as well commit suicide to save the world from the control of the evil brain farmers who are tricking us into believing in our world.

I would agree that too many people take science for granted. But at the same time, we can observe the things we do and draw conclusions that might be wrong but stand up if we accept either science or God.

My point here was simply to say that believing in God is no less logical than believing in science, but yes, you are correct.

Well, it explains different things. After all, does God ever tell us how he/she/it made humanity? Science does, just not why we were made.

I mean in terms of an ultimate standard. If science is to be our ultimate standard, or the creator of the universe, then it must explain morality, why we exist, etc. Belief in God explains this, and allows for the belief that God created science, but believing in science without God doesn't get us any further than scientific discoveries themselves, and doesn't explain anything to do with morality, our purpose, or ethics.

Also, if God doesn't exist, then science is no more of a human construction than God! Your argument only stands up here if God does actually exist.

Fair point. I suppose at this point we are predicating the existence of science itself, and the legitimacy of our observations, off of God's existence. This would mean that God must exist, then, since there are observable scientific laws of the universe that are constant and, well... scientific. So if science exists, so does God. Science exists. Therefore God exists.

I'm somewhat confused here, CF, by what you mean by "believing in science".

It sounds like you are making a solipsistic argument to say that "science" doesn't exist because we can't trust our observations to be "real" (it's just your mind imagining the universe) and then using the existence of God as a counter to the solipsistic viewpoint - Reality is not just my brain and I can observe things only because God exists - and that seems like a weird argument to make.

I don't think the scientific method (which is what the word science really refers to) is meant to be an "ultimate standard" as you call it. It's simply a process for trying to discover things about the world around us. Come up with an idea, figure out a way to test it, draw conclusions based on the results of the tests. Test as much as you want, have others do so as well to confirm.

That process can be used to try to figure out *why* people behave in one way or another but I don't believe it's responsible for dictating morality or ethics as you suggest.

Anybody here ever play the computer game _Ultima IV_ or watch the TV show _The Good Place_?

[CaptainFritz28]

What I mean is that if there is no God, one of the assertions that has been made is that we know things are morally good or bad because of evolutionary biology, genetics, etc. When I say "believing in science" I mean believing this, that our standards of morality exist because we have empathy or something like it, which is given to us by science.

What I am saying is that, as mOctave pointed out, if there is no God, then science is no more than a construct of our minds.
Thus, if science truly does exist, if the laws of physics, biology, etc. do exist, and are not merely mental constructs, there must be a creator of them, being God.

[Jamiet99uk]

What I mean is that if there is no God, one of the assertions that has been made is that we know things are morally good or bad because of evolutionary biology, genetics, etc. When I say "believing in science" I mean believing this, that our standards of morality exist because we have empathy or something like it, which is given to us by science.

What I am saying is that, as mOctave pointed out, if there is no God, then science is no more than a construct of our minds.
Thus, if science truly does exist, if the laws of physics, biology, etc. do exist, and are not merely mental constructs, there must be a creator of them, being God.

You're still committed to this circular argument, eh...

[Crazy Anglican]

Going back to the original point. Is morality a standard to which we can aspire and grow toward?

It just seems we might need to sort some things out rather than issuing screeds about our own experiences. It seems a bit disingenuous to have a group of people each proposing their own particular brand of morality and then conveniently saying everything is okay except for that one.

For my part:

Morality is a standard and it can be moved toward or away from.

Thus I am not a moral relativist, because I see morality as a thing that circumstances can mitigate; but the basic rules of morality are fixed.

[Johnny Big Horse]

The moral guidance of the Bible is clearly incomplete. I suspect we'd agree that the Bible guides us to give charitably, but how much and to which charities requires an awful lot of moral reasoning that won't come straight from the book itself. It still isn't clear to me at all whether the Bible says emancipate slaves, or ensure they submit to their masters. It's likewise unclear whether to resist a totalitarian state, or to give Ceasars his due. That contemporary and historical Christians come to wildly different conclusions on these and other moral questions suggests to me that, even if the Bible has some perfect morality within it, it's functional unknowable for humans. I live in a country where "love your neighbor" was a justification for taking Indigenous children from their parents to be raised (and abused) in boarding schools — that a modern Christian can condemn this easily doesn't negate the fact that well-intentioned Christians reasoning from the same Bible justified an outrageous atrocity.

This is really good!

[Johnny Big Horse]

A couple of points that may help here.

Both science and spirituality are two different ways to perceive the world, and both are incomplete. Science tells much of the how, and spirituality tells much of the why. A unified approach is a mature approach.

Still, believing in the Bible is not necessarily a spiritual approach. This can be an intellectual exercise instead. One can memorize the Bible and try to lives one's life according to what it says, and still never feel God or touch God.

Martin Luther stated it well when he say something like: Reason is the devil's whore.

Meaning, religion cannot stand up to the scrutiny of reason. Nor can spirituality either. But that does not make religion or spirituality wrong, instead, just incompatible with reason, which itself is flawed. I believe Hume proved that Logic itself was illogical.

But here it the ultimate conundrum that many have written about throughout the centuries. In fact Simon Magus made this argument to St. Peter, Julian the Apostate (one of best Roman emperors ever) made this argument in a pamphlet. Here it is.

How can an ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL and ALL LOVING God create man knowing in advance that he would eat the apple, and be cast out of the garden, and suffer for generations as a result. Would a loving God set up man to fail and suffer like this? No. Would an all powerful God create such an imperfect failure of a creature? No. Would an all knowing God do this? Either God didn't know, God was incompetent, or God was cruel. What kind of God is that?

Ok, then to alleve the suffering of men in hell that God condemned us to, he sends his Son to "die for our sins" yet even this didn't work, since the majority of us still go to hell. What kind of half measure was this? So then was the Jesus stunt a failure? This is not the act of an all powerful or all knowing or all loving god.

I am not blaming God here.

So my thinking is that the theology is a mess, a total incoherent mess. The theology was made by imperfect men for other imperfect men. I believe in God, and God is the best and worst of all things, but these fantasies of theology are laughable. It is crazy to me that generations of men have succumbed to this. It demonstrates how stupid a race we are.

[Crazy Anglican]

How can an ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL and ALL LOVING God create man knowing in advance that he would eat the apple, and be cast out of the garden, and suffer for generations as a result. Would a loving God set up man to fail and suffer like this? No. Would an all powerful God create such an imperfect failure of a creature? No. Would an all knowing God do this? Either God didn't know, God was incompetent, or God was cruel. What kind of God is that?

A God who cares enough about His creations to allow them to reject Him rather than force Himself upon them. He allows free will so that we can grow and choose to abide in His grace.

I guess the point here would be you could embrace this as true, but for Christians it obviously isn't the way we think about God.

It borders on a strawman? There are implicit limitations on God's knowledge, power, and love presented in it. For instance,

1) Maybe God knows all possible futures and always has. If He knows the paths of all possible choices that seems a bit more all knowing than the God that you presented who only knows the path that we chose?

2) God in His omnipotence has made a universe quite finely tuned to allow life, but still makes eternity the aim. It even makes room for Neil DeGrasse Tyson's, "No this is a universe that is actively trying to kill us."

3) God allows free will so that we can grow and our existence here have meaning even if it means that some will reject Him. Like any good suitor, who want's to be chosen, He will accept no as an answer.

Ok, then to alleve the suffering of men in hell that God condemned us to, he sends his Son to "die for our sins" yet even this didn't work, since the majority of us still go to hell. What kind of half measure was this? So then was the Jesus stunt a failure? This is not the act of an all powerful or all knowing or all loving god.

I’m not aware if any census results being released from Hell? How did you come by the assertion that the majority of us go there as a basis for your less than glowing review of the “Jesus stunt” (can’t fault us on publicity though, eh?). I think it is the act of an all knowing , all powerful, and all loving God due to the above rebuttal.

As you said, Christians have been answering this particular argument since the very first Christians; yet still there are lots of us.

[Crazy Anglican]

A couple of points that may help here.

Both science and spirituality are two different ways to perceive the world, and both are incomplete. Science tells much of the how, and spirituality tells much of the why. A unified approach is a mature approach.

Agreed

Still, believing in the Bible is not necessarily a spiritual approach. This can be an intellectual exercise instead. One can memorize the Bible and try to lives one's life according to what it says, and still never feel God or touch God.

Well, yeah. That's just the parable of the seeds there. I don't think anyone claimed that only reading the Bible was necessary though. It's a solid and complete guide to living a moral life. Many, many people have used it as such, but even memorizing it doesn't help if you refuse to live it.

Martin Luther stated it well when he say something like: Reason is the devil's whore.

Meaning, religion cannot stand up to the scrutiny of reason. Nor can spirituality either. But that does not make religion or spirituality wrong, instead, just incompatible with reason, which itself is flawed. I believe Hume proved that Logic itself was illogical.

The 99 Thesis guy? That's not what he meant at all. He's warning me that arguing with you isn't bringing me closer to God. There is a reason that the scientific revolution happened in Europe when it did. It sprang up from an environment where people believed that the universe was created by a Being who made it abide by laws, and thus those laws could be discerned.

[Crazy Anglican]

It's 95 theses, isn't it? I always get that wrong :-/

[Crazy Anglican]

@JBH

So my flippancy aside, I meant no offense. As to Luther's "Reason is the Devil's whore" it doesn't seem to follow that someone who was both a man who was originally meant to be a lawyer and then became a priest would make a statement that means that Religion (faith, etc.) wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. It has been my experience that it stands up quite well. I think that it was more that there are articles of faith (ie. God exists. For that to be a fact that could be proven by reason would be to reduce God in some way to something that could be studied and dissected. Thus not God.). While the way we order our lives within a Christian existence can benefit perfectly well from reason and order. So, for instance, in this thread. Christian Morality and it's basis (if indeed that's the focus here) can stand up to scrutiny quite well.

[Crazy Anglican]

The moral guidance of the Bible is clearly incomplete. I suspect we'd agree that the Bible guides us to give charitably, but how much and to which charities requires an awful lot of moral reasoning that won't come straight from the book itself.

Choosing the right charity seems more of an economic question than a moral one. Nevertheless, I don't see the moral imperative of giving charitably to be incomplete. On the contrary it is quite explicit and well understood.

It still isn't clear to me at all whether the Bible says emancipate slaves, or ensure they submit to their masters. It's likewise unclear whether to resist a totalitarian state, or to give Ceasars his due. That contemporary and historical Christians come to wildly different conclusions on these and other moral questions suggests to me that, even if the Bible has some perfect morality within it, it's functional unknowable for humans. I live in a country where "love your neighbor" was a justification for taking Indigenous children from their parents to be raised (and abused) in boarding schools — that a modern Christian can condemn this easily doesn't negate the fact that well-intentioned Christians reasoning from the same Bible justified an outrageous atrocity.

If you think the Bible is addressed specifically to you, I think that may be the problem?

I see the Bible as being written for all believers in all times.
1) Yes, abolitionists and slave owners (you're right, both Christians) used Biblical arguments to support there claims. In my opinion, the right side won. Not only in one country by the way; it was a societal shift. That's before the rise of secularism. I think that is evidence of the Bible working as a guide. Meeting people where they are and moving them forward from there only makes sense. In the Roman Empire, suggesting that the slave was your brother was ground breaking.

2) I'm pretty secure in my choices to pay my taxes and vote against Trump.

3) Yes, I already said it was a common ground for debate among believers. That debate shows over and over Christians moving in the right directions. Far from being incomplete, it's talking to people of all walks in ages. That's the definition of complete.

I agree that you're allowed to think there's a living God, but no one Christian or non-believer will accept the authority of a claim like "God spoke to me and said commandments 3-6 trump commandments 8 and 9 any time they come into conflict", and these are the sorts of clarifications that would be necessary to genuinely apply God's law on earth.

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

That comes from Jesus. So, it seems pretty definitive.

[Johnny Big Horse]

@JBH

So my flippancy aside, I meant no offense. As to Luther's "Reason is the Devil's whore" it doesn't seem to follow that someone who was both a man who was originally meant to be a lawyer and then became a priest would make a statement that means that Religion (faith, etc.) wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. It has been my experience that it stands up quite well. I think that it was more that there are articles of faith (ie. God exists. For that to be a fact that could be proven by reason would be to reduce God in some way to something that could be studied and dissected. Thus not God.). While the way we order our lives within a Christian existence can benefit perfectly well from reason and order. So, for instance, in this thread. Christian Morality and it's basis (if indeed that's the focus here) can stand up to scrutiny quite well.

For what it is worth, I am writing a book that touches on this stuff.... Here is a snippet. The tone is different, more bookish, but the ideas are cool. It addresses what we are speaking of.

------------------

If you apply human reason to Christianity, you are forced to conclude that either there is no God, or that God is unjust. Take a look around, why is it that the unjust appear to prosper and the just suffer? Reason will tell you that this is evidence that the world is not following any divine plan. No God would allow this. As John Carroll so eloquently writes: “In her presumption she [Reason] seeks to measure God, thus reducing his authority. … Once reason is given the authority to investigate the ways of God, the battle is over. Its authority is already equal to that of God.” But there can be only one ultimate authority. In the end, reason will condemn God. This is why Luther called “Mistress Reason” the “Devil’s whore.” “She is seductive, deceiving, offering a moment of pleasure in order to seize the whole soul.”

This distrust of reason didn’t only reside in the Christian world. Five hundred years before Luther’s condemnation of reason, Al Ghazali (c. 1056-1111), a Sunni Moslem philosopher, theologian and mystic, wrote: “Reason leads to universal doubt, intellectual bankruptcy, moral deterioration, and social collapse.”

Atheists and agnostics often confound God and religious institutions. As I wrote in an earlier essay, religions are made by flawed people, and much, perhaps the most important parts, of the original message of the founding peakers were lost or garbled by the non-peakers that followed them. One can easily apply reason to the religious institutions of mankind and find them lacking.

But reason has no business addressing God and the original revelations of Jesus and the other great mystics. Reason will always find fault with them and proclaim itself superior.

[CaptainFritz28]

What I mean is that if there is no God, one of the assertions that has been made is that we know things are morally good or bad because of evolutionary biology, genetics, etc. When I say "believing in science" I mean believing this, that our standards of morality exist because we have empathy or something like it, which is given to us by science.

What I am saying is that, as mOctave pointed out, if there is no God, then science is no more than a construct of our minds.
Thus, if science truly does exist, if the laws of physics, biology, etc. do exist, and are not merely mental constructs, there must be a creator of them, being God.

You're still committed to this circular argument, eh...

Have I not stated it already? Yes. It is circular. Any ultimate standard is circular. But at least it explains why there is order in our universe, as opposed to random chaos.