Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:Which question was that?

You asked me what I thought of the rich, young ruler passage, and I asked what you thought he "ruled". I had a much fuller line of explanation in mind, one that I think might have fully dealt with that. However, let that be as it may.

But here's the thing....you yourself said that we are all sinners. So under those rules above he wouldn't want his name associated with any of us. A sin is a sin is a sin...why is your sin less than theirs?

There are sins we have that we are unwilling to admit or ashamed to disown. With those, God has no association. Then there are the sins of which we are ashamed and so we admit them and ask His mercy on His terms, not our own. For those, He forgives us.

My sins are as great as anyone's. I am absolutely no better person than anyone, by nature -- and perhaps a good deal worse than many, by nature. But I am forgiven: and I freely admit that any advantage I have in any regard is entirely due to God's kindness, not my deserving. And in truth, I have but one advantage over any others: namely, that I know Him.

Would you say, "God would not want his name associated with me?" If you weren't thinking and said or did something sinful? " what if that day you were just cranky and full of sinful thoughts that you opened you mouth for all the world to hear?

There are two problems with me. One is that I do sin (like becoming cranky and full of improper thoughts): but the second is that I am the kind of person who does that kind of thing. The first is a problem of my actions, and the second of my character. I need forgiveness for both, and a great deal of help with the second, to become a different kind of character. I'm grateful that God is not surprised by my failings, and has provided so that I am forgiven for them while I'm learning to be less of a jerk.

Would you be embarrassed by your behavior if you realized how you sounded to God?

We all ought to be. Yes, of course I would.

Would you think yourself less of a Christian?

No: because it would not change what I am, only reflect that I was not as far in the transformational process as I ought to be. It would be a slam on my current character, for sure, but not any impediment to the One who does the arduous and thankless work of making me a better person, which by His grace I shall be one day. My failure is no stop to Him. He knows what I was when He found me, and it is He, not I, who sustains the process.

Think of it this way: a person angers and upsets his father or mother, he/she is not for that reason any less a son or daughter. And the Bible speaks of us being constituted as God's children -- when that's what we choose to do. "...as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the children of God..." (John 1)

That was my way of asking for the answer. I was being honest about not remembering ...and not understanding the point you were making.

Well, you had posted on a public philosophy site, on the Philosophy of Religion strand in particular, calling out Christians in particular to respond as to what they (as Christians) thought of your proposed test of morality. I was assuming you were actually interested in an answer to what we thought, and was trying to supply you with what you requested. But somehow, my taking your seriously seems to have vexed and wearied you, and I'm at a bit of a loss to account for that.

marjoram_blues wrote:M: Dear God, of course there is a reality 'out there' about which anyone can think, either in a subjective or objective way. Or both. I am not 'channelling' anything - just thinking out loud.

Oh, fair enough, then. There are comparatively few people around these days who are Realists -- either in the epistemological or moral realms -- in fact, almost everyone I end up talking to on a philosophy site either seems to be some sort of Relativist or is heavily influenced by Relativism. So I assumed you were coming from that view, or some variation on that theme.

But you're a Realist. Good. You and I agree about that, then.

M: I didn't ask you what you think 'moral' or 'immoral' means. I asked for examples of this 'objective moral truth'. How would this tell anyone what is right or wrong in any given situation.

Ah. You mean objective commandments. The ultimate moral truth is, of course, the character of God. Objective moral commandments come from that which is grounded in the nature of God. For example, "You shall not commit adultery" is a commandment not merely because it's a bad idea, or merely because it's harmful to people, but also ultimately because faithfulness is a character trait of God. So when God tells us "You shall not be unfaithful," He's saying, "You shall conform your character to Mine, because that's the only way you can be in relationship with Me, which is your ultimate good."

Clearer? I hope so.

M: It seems to me that it does follow, if you only allow for 'objective truth' in deciding moral issues. Creative and critical thinking is what is required in thinking through actions/behaviours and consequences.

Yes, a lot of people think that, so I understand your point. But if you press thought a little further, you'll probably realize there's a difference between statutory law and applied law. Statutory law is, so to speak, "in the books," written into the legal codes. Applied law takes the idea behind the written law and decides how it impinges on real-life situations.

Statutory law is pretty straightforward: just read it, and it tells you things like, "Premeditated murder is against the law." But in application, one still has to ask how that is to be converted into action in the midst of specific situations. For example, is euthanasia a form of premeditated murder, or a justifiable homicide? Or is abortion premeditated murder or the elimination of a cluster of cells? What about suicide? How culpable is the premeditation part, when compared to the action of murder? How is the mental state of the perpetrator to be determined? What extenuations of circumstance are allowable...and so on.

There's a great deal of creative work always to be done in application, even when one has the right statute in mind. So you needn't worry that having a few rules will eliminate that sort of ethical deliberation. It's going to be necessary anyway.

M: Flexibility of thought has both strengths and limitations. There is a personal reasoning process which might be correct or faulty. Just as any moral guidelines or objective set of imperatives.

Yes, quite so: with a caveat, though. There might be nothing wrong with the guidelines or imperatives themselves. The tension might lie in the fact that we human beings have trouble listening to and thinking through such things in application, since we have our own inclinations and motives. I think that's common enough.

It's been an interesting discussion. We are talking about 2 different value systems and guides: the religious and the secular moral. They can both co-exist and have similar values.

They can. But secularism cannot justify its own morality.

Now, I'm infinitely thankful that atheists can behave morally. What I've never yet found is an atheist who can tell me what imperative compels that morality. In other words, they can be "good" people: but they cannot tell me why they MUST be good people rather than "bad" ones. Usually, when I ask, they just try to escape the words "good" and "bad" altogether, thought personal or social relativism of some kind.

The former appear to ground their moral thinking on various scriptures, with varying interpretations. The latter based on what?

Ah, yes...so perceptive of you. There indeed is the question.

Perhaps, we can call it ethical self-creativity. Still a work in progress...rationality based on what is 'out there'...very human and yes, fallible - just like scriptural interpretations. We have obligations and responsibilities - developed over time.

Yes, but I'm certain someone of your perspicuity will quickly recognize that "creativity," "rationality," and so on are not specifically moral properties, and that the fact that we happen to have "obligations" or "responsibilities" does not tell us whether any of these are actually morally necessary or legitimate...and that the addition of "time" doesn't change anything, in this regard. You are thinking out loud -- I understand. But as you keep thinking, these thoughts will certainly occur to you.

The problem with religious scripture, as I see it, is that it is static. Some take comfort from that and use it as a defence for what others might deem 'immoral' action/beliefs.

Well, again, having a static commandment gives one an axis around which to circulate one's moral thought: it does not give one the whole world on a platter. There's a lot of thinking to be done between statute and application, and a great deal of range for human moral response-ability (to coin a phrase).

Thanks again for provoking thought. I am hoping to bow out of this now -

Very well. Thank you, too. Very insightful contributions.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, you had posted on a public philosophy site, on the Philosophy of Religion strand in particular, calling out Christians in particular to respond as to what they (as Christians) thought of your proposed test of morality. I was assuming you were actually interested in an answer to what we thought, and was trying to supply you with what you requested. But somehow, my taking your seriously seems to have vexed and wearied you, and I'm at a bit of a loss to account for that.

You are at a loss to account for that? I wish so much I could invite you into my head, because I think the problem we are having is that you believe me to be a non Christian, and so you feel you have to be the antithesis to my "bad boy". This is the huge problem I see with Christianity. When Jesus said,

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.…"

He did not make a note that he was talking about Christians here. You say God wants you to judge other Christians by what they say and do...okay, I will go along with that for the time being. But there is another part of that I think Christians entirely miss the point of....and that is, how they react to non Christians.

There is not a consideration given to the "fruits" non Christians bear, they are, off the bat, considered 'unholy' to Christians. So right there Christians turn their back on at least a few people who bear good fruit. No where does it say that you must only walk with other Christians, as God made it crystal clear that only he knows what is in someones heart. The fact that you close your eyes so tightly to the beautiful most innocent blatantly Christian ideal in my OP, tells me that you don't respect me because I profess to be non Christian. It can only be for that reason, as Jesus has said as much in everyone of his teachings!

You are very mistaken when you are leary of me...as the title 'Christian' or Christianity has little to do with God or Jesus and everything to do with society and man. In the bible Christianity was a new thing...the church leader was Jesus..and his heart was pure. Now, very few follow the teachings of Jesus, instead they follow the teachings of man made Christianity. Which has diluted 'goodness' into something unrecognizable. No one on Earth is equipped to make the distinction Christian/non Christian, because that distinction is made by God and Jesus only. Christianity is in our hearts...by God...not by man.

You do a great disservice to non Christians by closing your eyes so tightly. Some hold dear the teachings of Christ in their hearts and nothing can break their unwavering dedication to knowing 'right' from 'wrong' ...Jesus style. Holding your head up, in front of God, when you are on moral ground and lowing your head in front of God when you have done wrong and are asking for forgiveness, is a no brainer, as you can't fool him.

And while he may not forgive, at least the personal responsibility for your actions will be honest. And that too is in keeping with the lord's word.


“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Immanuel Can wrote:

AS wrote:But here's the thing....you yourself said that we are all sinners. So under those rules above he wouldn't want his name associated with any of us. A sin is a sin is a sin...why is your sin less than theirs?

There are sins we have that we are unwilling to admit or ashamed to disown. With those, God has no association. Then there are the sins of which we are ashamed and so we admit them and ask His mercy on His terms, not our own. For those, He forgives us.

My sins are as great as anyone's. I am absolutely no better person than anyone, by nature -- and perhaps a good deal worse than many, by nature. But I am forgiven: and I freely admit that any advantage I have in any regard is entirely due to God's kindness, not my deserving. And in truth, I have but one advantage over any others: namely, that I know Him.

My question is, in what way is your sin, and ultimate forgiveness by God, different from your fellow Christians? What gives you the right to judge them when they too, do exactly as you do?

AS wrote:Would you say, "God would not want his name associated with me?" If you weren't thinking and said or did something sinful? " what if that day you were just cranky and full of sinful thoughts that you opened you mouth for all the world to hear?

There are two problems with me. One is that I do sin (like becoming cranky and full of improper thoughts): but the second is that I am the kind of person who does that kind of thing. The first is a problem of my actions, and the second of my character. I need forgiveness for both, and a great deal of help with the second, to become a different kind of character. I'm grateful that God is not surprised by my failings, and has provided so that I am forgiven for them while I'm learning to be less of a jerk.


My question is, in what way is your sin, and ultimate forgiveness by God, different from your fellow Christians?What gives you the right to judge them when they too, do exactly as you do?

AS wrote:Would you be embarrassed by your behavior if you realized how you sounded to God?

We all ought to be. Yes, of course I would.


My question is, in what way is your sin, and ultimate forgiveness by God, different from your fellow Christians?What gives you the right to judge them when they too, do exactly as you do?

AS wrote:Would you think yourself less of a Christian?

No: because it would not change what I am, only reflect that I was not as far in the transformational process as I ought to be. It would be a slam on my current character, for sure, but not any impediment to the One who does the arduous and thankless work of making me a better person, which by His grace I shall be one day. My failure is no stop to Him. He knows what I was when He found me, and it is He, not I, who sustains the process.

Think of it this way: a person angers and upsets his father or mother, he/she is not for that reason any less a son or daughter. And the Bible speaks of us being constituted as God's children -- when that's what we choose to do. "...as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the children of God..." (John 1)


My question is, in what way is your sin, and ultimate forgiveness by God, different from your fellow Christians? What gives you the right to judge them when they too, do exactly as you do?

You asked me what I thought of the rich, young ruler passage, and I asked what you thought he "ruled". I had a much fuller line of explanation in mind, one that I think might have fully dealt with that. However, let that be as it may.

I would be much appreciative if you would give me a fuller line of explanation. Maybe the explanation would make me see how wrong I have been. If their is something I am missing, I would appreciate a head's up in this matter.

marjoram_blues wrote:Grüß Gott, AS

Awww man...I looked this up on Google hoping to learn a new cuss word and what did I find?! It's just an 'Aloha" God style? WTH?

Anyway, thanks for being a part of this thread. It was fun while you lasted!

artisticsolution wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:Grüß Gott, AS

Awww man...I looked this up on Google hoping to learn a new cuss word and what did I find?! It's just an 'Aloha" God style? WTH?

Anyway, thanks for being a part of this thread. It was fun while you lasted!

And again, always a pleasure - up to a point.
The little I do manage to contribute takes up more time, energy and mental effort than appearances might suggest.
Ciao

I'll pick one comment to try and respond to:

IC wrote : Now, I'm infinitely thankful that atheists can behave morally. What I've never yet found is an atheist who can tell me what imperative compels that morality. In other words, they can be "good" people: but they cannot tell me why they MUST be good people rather than "bad" ones. Usually, when I ask, they just try to escape the words "good" and "bad" altogether, thought personal or social relativism of some kind.

I'm sure that you have had many conversations of this type before and no response has been adequate.

I don't know that there is a single imperative that compels atheists ( an individual or some collective set of 'non-believers' ) to behave morally. Why would you think there should be one?

It is about taking right action in any given circumstance, taking into account whatever code of conduct one is operating within. Trying to differentiate intentions, decisions and actions between those considered 'good' or 'right' and those that are considered 'bad' or 'wrong'.

Examples of such ethical codes include professional - military, health, environmental...which attempt to guide action according to moral values, such as integrity. This doesn't, of course, mean that people MUST follow any guide-lines which may be faulty and not updated to account for new knowledge.

As you say, this is about ethical deliberation, a circulation of moral thought around a not-set-in-stone guide; not an imperative which MUST be followed at all costs. It too 'doesn't give the whole world on a platter...thinking between the statute and the application...a range of human responsibility'. It includes questioning the status quo. Also, weighing up potential benefits v harm.

Do you see how a secular framework differs from a religious one in that there is no appeal to a God to assist in moral decision-making. There is no single imperative handed down from on high. It is not about 'escaping' using 'good' or 'bad' - it is tackling difficult decisions straight on. This can mean taking into account all kinds of values: moral/economic - personal/professional/societal.

I know that I fall short of providing an adequate explanation that might persuade you. I have not spent as much time in academic study and going the rounds with others. I don't have the one and only answer...which might satisfy your soul or mind.

Like I said to AS, there is a point at which I must stop - that is about wellbeing and knowing both strengths and limitations.
Thanks again -

'How can a body tell right from wrong?'

Being one of those amoral (and paranoid and violent) atheists, I think it's a nonsensical question, but I'll offer an answer anyway...

What's 'right' is what I do to preserve me and mine against predation by 'you and yours'.

What's 'wrong' is compromising me and mine to give 'you and yours' a leg up.

What's ideal is when me and mine and you and yours align so that all are preserved...like most ideal circumstances, this is not the normal state of affairs.

One keeps an eye open for the ideal (and a loaded shotgun on hand for the other 99% of the time).

artisticsolution wrote:I wish so much I could invite you into my head, because I think the problem we are having is that you believe me to be a non Christian, and so you feel you have to be the antithesis to my "bad boy"...There is not a consideration given to the "fruits" non Christians bear, they are, off the bat, considered 'unholy' to Christians...You are very mistaken when you are leary of me...as the title 'Christian' or Christianity has little to do with God or Jesus and everything to do with society and man. In the bible Christianity was a new thing...the church leader was Jesus..and his heart was pure. Now, very few follow the teachings of Jesus, instead they follow the teachings of man made Christianity...You do a great disservice to non Christians by closing your eyes so tightly...

Honestly, I don't really "get" any of this as personally applicable, nor of its putative application to the Christians I know. I can only think you're reacting to some phenomenon known to you but outside my present experience. The views you attribute to me, I don't happen to hold; and the views you attribute to Christians I don't recognize. So I'm quite at a loss as to know how to get a handle on all this. A lot of it seems deeply felt but also not well-organized or fully articulated yet. I'm happy to wait until you can get your thoughts together and decide what you want to say, but I really don't know what the required response is here.

My question is, in what way is your sin, and ultimate forgiveness by God, different from your fellow Christians?

The forgiveness one has from God when one asks is always different from the forgiveness people don't have when they don't even want to ask for it. That's fairly transparent, I think.

What gives you the right to judge them when they too, do exactly as you do? [/color]
Who are "they"? And what is it that you, who have never met me, think I "do"?

I would be much appreciative if you would give me a fuller line of explanation. Maybe the explanation would make me see how wrong I have been. If their is something I am missing, I would appreciate a head's up in this matter.

Sorry...now I'm completely lost. What is it you want me to explain?

marjoram_blues wrote:I'm sure that you have had many conversations of this type before and no response has been adequate.

I'd settle for anything even remotely relevant. The answers I've received from others have been merely evasive, so far.

I don't know that there is a single imperative that compels atheists ( an individual or some collective set of 'non-believers' ) to behave morally. Why would you think there should be one?

Well, not "should," since that word implies some state of "oughtness" that atheists by definition do not believe in, so I can't ask that. So it's a hard question to pose to them.

But I'll say this as a basis for concern: without an objective morality we have a) no basis for laws, except for raw power, b) no warrant for human rights, c) no basis of appeal for justice or equity, d) no basis for a correctional system, a criminal code or incarceration to prevent evil, e) no positive values that ground either blame our praise and make sense of them, f) no warrant for identifying "good" actions and extolling them, and g) no way of even diagnosing what's wrong with our society, and no basis for delighting when it goes "right".

I think it's fairly generally recognized among philosophers that without moral agreements, societies cannot function: but what's the basis of agreement, when there's no objective truth to be had? Merely provisional detentes that disappear as circumstances change? Then there's nothing defensible about any morality, and nothing sustainable about any society. We do need something to arbitrate our moral decisions and shape our agreements: but absent any mutually-compulsory moral values (such as "Don't steal"), what would that be?

Examples of such ethical codes include professional - military, health, environmental...which attempt to guide action according to moral values, such as integrity. This doesn't, of course, mean that people MUST follow any guide-lines which may be faulty and not updated to account for new knowledge.

Yes, I know these codes have been made. Nietzsche said they were all just disguised forms of "the will to power," and thus could be...and should be...denied or overthrown by superior power, if you could muster it. I guess my question about that would be, from a secular perspective, what shows Nietzsche was wrong?

Also, weighing up potential benefits v harm.

"Harm" as defined by the perp or the victim? "Benefits" as defined by the person receiving them, or by the person jealous of the one receiving them? You see, the "no harm" standard is awfully malleable, awfully shifting, terribly open to manipulation in the interests of one side to the excusing of this or that action.

Do you see how a secular framework differs from a religious one in that there is no appeal to a God to assist in moral decision-making. There is no single imperative handed down from on high. It is not about 'escaping' using 'good' or 'bad' - it is tackling difficult decisions straight on. This can mean taking into account all kinds of values: moral/economic - personal/professional/societal.

This sounds good, but such a person doesn't have a single moral tool for doing it. In it there are no objective measures, no way of defining what it means to "tackle" a decision well or achieve a "good" solution. What "solutions" appear can be, as Nietzsche said, nothing but a reflection of the fact that one sid of the debate had more force than the other -- not that anybody was "right".

I know that I fall short of providing an adequate explanation that might persuade you. I have not spent as much time in academic study and going the rounds with others. I don't have the one and only answer...which might satisfy your soul or mind. Like I said to AS, there is a point at which I must stop - that is about wellbeing and knowing both strengths and limitations.
Thanks again -

My thanks for your efforts. You've been very fair and generous in your thoughts.

henry quirk wrote:'How can a body tell right from wrong?'

Back and feisty...just the way we like him.

Immanuel Can wrote: But I'll say this as a basis for concern: without an objective morality we have a) no basis for laws, except for raw power, b) no warrant for human rights, c) no basis of appeal for justice or equity, d) no basis for a correctional system, a criminal code or incarceration to prevent evil, e) no positive values that ground either blame our praise and make sense of them, f) no warrant for identifying "good" actions and extolling them, and g) no way of even diagnosing what's wrong with our society, and no basis for delighting when it goes "right". .

We have this. They have this. And the answers have always been different. And in the entire history of civilisation we've had this, and all the while it was not "objective', it was relative. Relative to the culture and historical contingencies; ever changing with the view of society.
If it were objective, moral law; & right and wrong would have been unchanging, and uniform. If there was a single god, moral law would have been unchanging and uniform. Either their is no single god in the way I.Can wants there to be, or god doesn't care.

I. Can wants it to be objective, because he feels there is a single god with a constant moral law, that only he has managed to figure out.

"power"

Give the man a gold star

The application of power (a superior one, or, a more wisely applied inferior one) is the bottom line to all of it.

The only real gauge of the validity of that power...

How closely does it align with 'what is'? And, does it, in application, win?

The more insane the application (the less aligned it is with reality) the less likely such application is to succeed, over the long haul.

henry quirk wrote:
One keeps an eye open for the ideal (and a loaded shotgun on hand for the other 99% of the time).

I would rather never to have lived, than to worry 99% of the time that I need to take up arms against the world.

What type of fucked up life is that?

Someone get me Dalek!

henry quirk wrote:"power"

The more insane the application (the less aligned it is with reality) the less likely such application is to succeed, over the long haul.

So the good guys always win, Henry?

Is there some law of the universe that guarantees that? I know of none, apart from Divine Judgment.

If there's not, then it's only a matter of time until the bad guys win at least some of the time. After all, they keep trying, and the good guys are sometimes too late into the fight. Remember WWII? We almost lost that. And it was followed by the rise of the Soviet Union, and now Putin. Or look at Syria or North Korea right now: are the good guys in control there? Much of the world is pretty messed up: but most of us on this board just happen to live in some of those places where-- so far -- the good guys have won. I don't see any guarantees, though...certainly none from a secular perspective.

Power isn't a moral quality. It plays no favourites based on "good" and "bad." That's why Nietzsche thought we were "beyond good and evil" now. There's just power. Nothing else. Even secular morality, thought Nietzsche, is really just a power game cloaked in illegitimate moral language.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Honestly, I don't really "get" any of this as personally applicable, nor of its putative application to the Christians I know. I can only think you're reacting to some phenomenon known to you but outside my present experience. The views you attribute to me, I don't happen to hold; and the views you attribute to Christians I don't recognize. So I'm quite at a loss as to know how to get a handle on all this. A lot of it seems deeply felt but also not well-organized or fully articulated yet. I'm happy to wait until you can get your thoughts together and decide what you want to say, but I really don't know what the required response is here.

No, I am making sense...talking to you...and what you have said in this entire thread...not just what you have said here. You, through this entire thread, have eluded to the fact you think there is a way to tell if a Christian is a 'true' Christian. correct?

You, through this entire thread, have said that you believe when Jesus said ' you will know them by their fruits..." that he meant you can tell if a christian is a true Christian or not. by what they say and do. Correct?

What I am asking you is what makes you think you are different from you fellow Christians? How is their 'fruit' any different from yours that you may judge them by their 'fruits'...but then still think you are a "true" Christian, and not them? Couldn't they just as well look at your 'fruits' and say you aren't a "true" Christian since you admitted that you sin?

If both of you sin....and both of you are suspicious of each other...thinking each other are not 'true' Christians...then why do you think your sin is less than your fellow Christian's sin? If you look at them and they look at you...who is right?

There...I have tried to explain myself in every way I can think of. In the above I am saying the same thing over and over in different ways. If you don't understand what I am asking you, then hopefully someone in here will translate.

(M...do you see what I mean when I say I am not a good communicator!)

Help...is this thing on...hello. Anybody out there understand me enough to translate?