- Local time
- Yesterday, 19:11
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 44,796
Good Intentons
- Thread starter Pat Hartman
- Start date
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:11
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 28,251
Interesting articles. However,...
The problem with the question about Murder is that it assumes that only a god provides morality. This is not true.
The "golden rule" came before Jesus and before Judaism. It is so simple. If you don't want something specific done to you, don't do it to someone else. Murder can be justified by a numbers game, as "Would it have been wrong for a time traveler to come back in time and kill Hitler?" But the simplest test is "do you want it done to you?" If the answer is no, God never enters the picture. Heck, even Jesus is reputed to have said that the Commandments (including the one about murder) could be derived from the golden rule. And in that context, it is godless since it would apply equally to atheists, communists (see "Road to Hell" article), Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and pantheists.
The problem with the question about Murder is that it assumes that only a god provides morality. This is not true.
The "golden rule" came before Jesus and before Judaism. It is so simple. If you don't want something specific done to you, don't do it to someone else. Murder can be justified by a numbers game, as "Would it have been wrong for a time traveler to come back in time and kill Hitler?" But the simplest test is "do you want it done to you?" If the answer is no, God never enters the picture. Heck, even Jesus is reputed to have said that the Commandments (including the one about murder) could be derived from the golden rule. And in that context, it is godless since it would apply equally to atheists, communists (see "Road to Hell" article), Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and pantheists.
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Yesterday, 16:11
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 9,654
This was one of the many techniques apologist and Christian CS Lewis used to explain why peoples' attempts to justify firm moral rules was futile without admitting that those rules came from somewhere other than popular whim.
It's impossible.
The Golden Rule is, (in my opinion), not relevant. And God's commandments are much more than the golden rule, although that's an oft-quoted tiny portion of Biblical teaching.
The Golden Rule doesn't work in many situations. How about the high school coach who wants to be sexual with a 17 yr old girl?
He may well decide that he would be fine with that if the roles were reversed. Yet, society deems it illegal.
In relationships this failure becomes especially obvious. Many is the time my wife or I have justified our actions toward the other by thinking (or saying), "Well, I'm fine with that" [going both directions]. Well, the other person may find it hurtful nonetheless.
It doesn't even work for Murder. A person may walk up to a drug dealer and shoot them in the head, saying to the watching crowd: "Are you kidding? Heck yeah - if I ever become a drug dealer, shoot me in the head".
It just doesn't work.
History makes this clear too. The whims of the majority has never been sufficient to eliminate bad actions. The current mood or opinions of society is probably one of the worst basis, and has been over time, that can even be imagined. In fact those majority opinions have perpetrated some of the worst things in history.
I think this discussion is more easily had with unbelievers when we simply limit the terminology a bit - if the "God" word is problematic, I use "Absolute Truth" instead - because that opens the door to the other person choosing whatever their conception of that absolute power may be (yes I know there are some who will say there is none, but it gets closer to something people may agree on, or at least run out of rationalizations against).
That is, civilization just doesn't work very well without absolute truth. Not your truth, not my truth, not the truth of the guy who may think killing people is fine in certain circumstances (and is happy to have the same rule applied to him):: just THE truth.
Without a belief in absolute truth, it is impossible to effectively claim one is moral, or has good moral values. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that "good moral values" simply means what the people around you have been persuaded to agree "good" means - in that particular month, year, decade, nation, tribe, gender, power level, class, or group. Rather than calling that "I have good moral values", it would be much more accurate to say "I conform to the current opinions". A bit less noble, indeed!
Without an absolute, unchanging Truth, there is no Truth. How can Truth be Truth if each person defines their own? It defies logic by anyone's standards!
I can't even imagine the odds of a book by 40 authors coming together over 1500 years and be in perfect harmony literally making more sense than anything else on Earth. Not a single fact has ever been disproven.
I'm putting all of my eggs in one basket
It's impossible.
The Golden Rule is, (in my opinion), not relevant. And God's commandments are much more than the golden rule, although that's an oft-quoted tiny portion of Biblical teaching.
The Golden Rule doesn't work in many situations. How about the high school coach who wants to be sexual with a 17 yr old girl?
He may well decide that he would be fine with that if the roles were reversed. Yet, society deems it illegal.
In relationships this failure becomes especially obvious. Many is the time my wife or I have justified our actions toward the other by thinking (or saying), "Well, I'm fine with that" [going both directions]. Well, the other person may find it hurtful nonetheless.
It doesn't even work for Murder. A person may walk up to a drug dealer and shoot them in the head, saying to the watching crowd: "Are you kidding? Heck yeah - if I ever become a drug dealer, shoot me in the head".
It just doesn't work.
History makes this clear too. The whims of the majority has never been sufficient to eliminate bad actions. The current mood or opinions of society is probably one of the worst basis, and has been over time, that can even be imagined. In fact those majority opinions have perpetrated some of the worst things in history.
I think this discussion is more easily had with unbelievers when we simply limit the terminology a bit - if the "God" word is problematic, I use "Absolute Truth" instead - because that opens the door to the other person choosing whatever their conception of that absolute power may be (yes I know there are some who will say there is none, but it gets closer to something people may agree on, or at least run out of rationalizations against).
That is, civilization just doesn't work very well without absolute truth. Not your truth, not my truth, not the truth of the guy who may think killing people is fine in certain circumstances (and is happy to have the same rule applied to him):: just THE truth.
Without a belief in absolute truth, it is impossible to effectively claim one is moral, or has good moral values. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that "good moral values" simply means what the people around you have been persuaded to agree "good" means - in that particular month, year, decade, nation, tribe, gender, power level, class, or group. Rather than calling that "I have good moral values", it would be much more accurate to say "I conform to the current opinions". A bit less noble, indeed!
Without an absolute, unchanging Truth, there is no Truth. How can Truth be Truth if each person defines their own? It defies logic by anyone's standards!
I can't even imagine the odds of a book by 40 authors coming together over 1500 years and be in perfect harmony literally making more sense than anything else on Earth. Not a single fact has ever been disproven.
I'm putting all of my eggs in one basket
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:11
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 28,251
Consider, then, the absolute morality of enslaving the wives and children of the Amalekites and killing the men. Consider the absolute morality of sending bears to ravage children whose only crime was disrespect of an elder. Consider the morality of the man who offered his daughters to an angry mob because he thought his house guest was in some way divine. Consider the morality of taking the firstborn children of Egypt even though that included newborns who had no knowledge of religion yet, and newborns of commoners who had nothing to do with the choices made by Pharaoh. Consider the results of absolutism as applied to victims of the Spanish Inquisition. That is what absolutes give you. AND...
There are those religions who differ from Christianity yet believe THEY are right. And you can't prove they are wrong any more than they can prove YOU are wrong. Where is the absolute reference for THAT little problem?
Consider that there is medical evidence that homosexuals are BORN that way. <<Lady Gaga singing in the background...>> Yet absolutists scorn and attack homosexuals.
Absolutism leaves you NO chance for mercy. It leaves you no chance to forgive. I'll have none of those absolutes, thank you very much.
