Originally posted by JS357
I appreciate your extensive thoughtful comments. This only reinforces my feeling that there is an unbridgeable gap between our understandings of the Bible, and I will therefore with all due respect refrain from further 'debate' on this topic with you. But I will continue to pay attention to your posts since they show a great deal of thought and study being applied.
I appreciate your extensive thoughtful comments. This only reinforces my feeling that there is an unbridgeable gap between our understandings of the Bible, and I will therefore with all due respect refrain from further 'debate' on this topic with you. But I will continue to pay attention to your posts since they show a great deal of thought and study being applied.
Sorry I cannot communicate on the level you wish to. Maybe some day I will be more skilled at that, maybe not.
But I don't think the "horrific God" goes over with quite such impact as initially thought when the details of the actions are carefully considered in total.
It is still a thorny issue for me. There is only one God in the whole Bible. I do have to consider that the God leading Joshua into Canaan is the same one as that manifest in the Son Jesus in the New Testament.
That is not always easy to grasp.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritOkay. And bbarr filled it out twice. Here is bbarr's second ranking which is more according to the actual LIFE LIVED rather than just teaching taught ( we might say ).
actually, two have responded.
20 Highest Level of Morality
19
18
17
16 Jesus Christ
15
14
13 bbarr
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
1 Lowest
Actually, Jesus taught what HE WAS. He just talked about Himself as He had lived for 30 plus some years. That is why it says that He taught not like religionists but as one having authority.
" And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astounded at His teaching, For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes." (Matthew 7:29) The crowds were "astounded" because He apparently was not living differently from what He taught. It is quite easy for a man to simply speak out of what he is in life.
But here's what I would like you to think about. Though I have forgiven bbarr, he took the name of this MAN, whom bbarr admits on one grid lived a moral life superior to his own. And he used that name as a two part curse word.
I forgive him. But think about that. Why would a man take the name of someone who he recognizes as better, morally superior, perhaps "holier", certainly cleaner, certainly more pure, at least to be a model, at least to be held in high regard ... and drag it down to the dirt to CURSE with that name ?
Bbarr wrote to me "Jesus Christ, jaywill .... thus and such, thus and such !!"
In his exasperation he was driven to pull the name of Jesus Christ down into the gutter and CURSE with that name, to make it seem vile, dirty, unworthy of respect -
"Jesus Christ, jaywill ... get with it !! " so to speak.
I forgive him. I asked him not to do that. But can you see that something is wrong in us. If in anger we feel we have to pull such a righteous and even glorious name down to CURSE with it.
What drives men to do that ? Do you hear people CURSE with the name of Jesus Christ almost daily ?
I never heard anyone curse with the name Buddha.
I never heard anyone curse with the name Mohammed.
I never heard anyone curse with the name Confucius.
I have heard people curse saying ether Jesus Christ or saying someone somehow associated with Jesus Christ ( Mary perhaps).
But I don't know why it occurs to a person to grasp at a name which he admitedly acknowledges as morally high[er] than oneself, and utter cursing with that name in frustration.
What had Jesus Christ done to bbarr to invoke such a expression of contempt ? There is something wrong with us.
Originally posted by whodey
Interesting. So what do you attribute your lack of "goodness" if you have the knowledge to be "good"? In fact, isn't that everyones struggle?
Interesting. So what do you attribute your lack of "goodness" if you have the knowledge to be "good"? In fact, isn't that everyones struggle?
Exactly. And this is why it is hard for me to jump too eagerly on the "horrific God" bandwagon.
I KNOW what is the good I should do. But I lack the life power to do it, far far too often for comfort. Therefore I know also that I am guilty of failure.
God knows too. But God has made provision for my guilt, to remove it, to justify me even before I was born. He made provision for my justification EVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.
"God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began." (2 Timothy 1:9)
I have to think about the fact that God had a sphere, a realm prepared - in Christ Jesus for a provision for my salvation in case I transgress His law. He prepared it for me before I was born. He prepared it for me before the creation of the universe - "before the world began" .
This is the "horrific" God ? This is the heartless monster ? This is the loveless sadist of heaven ?
He manifests His hatred towards sin in sometimes extreme examples. Yet when all is said and done it is revealed that He has made eternal provision for the sinners in the realm of Christ Jesus. And that He did before the world began.
This is not so easily a God to dismiss, Dawkins style, Hitchens style, as a horrific monster, a despot, a bully. He is our Savior God.
... saving us from the horrific consequences of transgressing of our will His PERFECT moral being. He made provision for the horror of being in emnity with the Eternal One in the realm of Christ Jesus before the creation of the world.
Originally posted by jaywillI doubt many of the moderns "owe" their wisdom to Christianity. You might as well say they owe their wisdom to Plato (which is probably closer to true, though still grossly inaccurate). Obviously they all studied the Bible, and most were at least nominally Christians. They did, of course, inherit the cultural background we all do. But you can read the moderns and understand them without having any deep knowledge of the Bible.
Well, Jesus never read Mill, nor Hume, nor Kant, and perhaps not even Aristotle. So I'd probably start with Greek ethics, then go on to the moderns, then head into some contemporary ethical theory.
How many of the "moderns" do you think owe their wisdom to some aspect of the enfluence of the teachings of Jesus ? Especially in post is too long. But I will bring this back to the "horrific God" issue latter.
I wanted to be clear. Why do you think that's wanting to play it safe? I tend to try and clarify things so they make sense. If you ask a question that uses a term like 'moral sensibility', and it's clear that you could mean any number of things by that term, and equally clear that you have no particular meaning in mind, and also clear that you'll just slide between meaning this or that depending on what you're rhetorical needs are at the time, and also clear that instead of actually responding to my argument you'll opt to employ this equivocation in some sideshow of recrimination, then, yes, I'll try to clarify.
In any case, as to your post directly above, I'll use the name 'Jesus Christ' however I see fit. If you don't like it, then stay out of the fora. If it offends you, then grow up or stop reading. The language doesn't belong to you, Jaywill.
I'll be back once you indicate which premise of my argument you reject, and why.
Originally posted by rwingettHonestly, I'm not quite sure what '20' even refers to here. But suppose it just means 'moral perfection'. I don't know anybody that's morally perfect. That may say less about morality than who my friends are. I think supererogation is creepy, so I don't like maximizing views of morality. But perfect virtue is certainly difficult. I think it's good to have a system with ideals; a system that helps us to aspire and forces us to reflect. I don't think it's good to have a system that is so rigorous and hard to live up to that one gets discouraged and resentful. But there doesn't have to be that big a gap between doing morally well and doing morally excellently.
So, for all intents and purposes, a '20' is unattainable. Do you think any moral system should set a standard that is unattainable by even its most ardent practitioners? Do you think it benefits society in the long run to adopt such a standard?
Originally posted by bbarrFor me, its about motivation. In most moral systems there is:
Sometimes I get short-tempered, self-centered, or whatever. Sometimes I'm tired and don't think clearly about what would be best. Sometimes I take people for granted. You know how it is. I could always be better, and I have a pretty good sense of just how often I fail, and to what degree. I'm much better when I meditate every day, and when I have some time to myself. It's all just typical stuff.
1. morally negative: eg you go out of your way to harm others for no real benefit to yourself.
2. Morally neutral, or morally debatable: eg you abstain from helping others where it would be costly to you to do so.
3. Morally positive: you help others at cost to yourself.
Generally, to higher on the morality scoreboard, you need to do more 3s.
Many of us, recognize that harming others is wrong and most of us try not to, but we don't necessarily see any strong motivation for helping others in need when it will cost us something to do so. We do recognize that it is morally good, and applaud others who do so, but the only real motivation for doing so ourselves is the feeling it gives us and the knowledge that it is morally good.
Originally posted by rwingett20 was defined as highest level of morality, which implies a level of moral reasoning and
So, for all intents and purposes, a '20' is unattainable. Do you think any moral system should set a standard that is unattainable by even its most ardent practitioners? Do you think it benefits society in the long run to adopt such a standard?
practice that it is impossible to top.
Now if you think that there is an absolute best moral code that applies universally to all
situations and can't be improved upon then it might be possible for someone to achieve that
level of moral reasoning and understanding.
However there is nothing implicit in the idea of a moral code that says that such a moral code
exists, or that if it does, we would ever be able to attain it.
Morality is a function of society and situation, its a guide of how you interact with other beings
and the world around you, and as the people and world around you change then so should the
morality.
There is no need to consider the morality of stem cell research, before the invention of the technology
that makes such research possible.
It's possible that someday the technology will exist to be able to create an exact image of someone's
brain state, and recreate it in a compute simulation, or in another body, and that people could have
a device implanted in the base of their brain that keeps an up-to-date recording of their mind state
and in the event they are killed, this device stores a copy of their mind that could be instilled in a new
body.
The possibilities of what you could do with that level of technology are breathtaking, and incredibly morally
complex. And what's more, the exact moral implications are likely to depend on precisely what is possible
and how the technology works.
We can't know this yet, because the technology (if its even possible) has yet to be invented.
Thus we can't yet devise the moral norms that would govern such technology and how we use it.
More prosaically, we have today medicine that can keep people alive for much much longer than was
previously possible. While this is in general a great improvement on the past, it does bring with it new challenges,
including degenerative age related diseases that nobody in the past had to deal with.
For those that we have no cure, some people want to end their lives, before their suffering becomes to much
for them to bare, they want to die on their own terms, with dignity.
And so we now have a moral debate over the issue of suicide/assisted suicide, of terminally ill patients.
This is a situation that couldn't have been (wasn't) foreseen by peoples before the onset of the technology
that makes it possible/relevant.
This is why moral codes need to be flexible and adaptable, and can be corrected when shown to not work.
And it is also why I don't think any moral code can ever be perfect.
It also allows for the possibility of different, but equally valid moral positions, There may be more than one
'right' answer to a particular problem.
For these reasons I don't think you can pin morality down to a 20 point scale.
Originally posted by bbarrSo you should be able, then, to point to someone and say that so-and-so is a 20. Or at least a very close approximation of a 20. To come up with a 1 to 20 scale of morality and then be unable to come up with anyone who tops a 16, as you say, is merely setting people up for discouragement. It is a moral system where no one is worthy. I'm sure we're only too well aware of the damage that particular moral outlook has had upon society.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what '20' even refers to here. But suppose it just means 'moral perfection'. I don't know anybody that's morally perfect. That may say less about morality than who my friends are. I think supererogation is creepy, so I don't like maximizing views of morality. But perfect virtue is certainly difficult. I think it's good to hav ...[text shortened]... have to be that big a gap between doing morally well and doing morally excellently.
Originally posted by rwingettHuh? Why should I be able to point to somebody who is a close approximation to moral perfection? I could point to a few 18's that I personally know. Would that make you feel better? In any case, you should know that these rankings are ridiculous. I'm playing along for fun, but moral goodness isn't amenable to being ranked. There are so many criteria, so many dispositions that constitute virtuous character, so much knowledge of others and the world that is required to consistently act appropriately or excellently... How should these be factored and weighed? Meh. Why bother? But, just spitballing, I know some 18's. They're exceptional people!
So you should be able, then, to point to someone and say that so-and-so is a 20. Or at least a very close approximation of a 20. To come up with a 1 to 20 scale of morality and then be unable to come up with anyone who tops a 16, as you say, is merely setting people up for discouragement. It is a moral system where no one is worthy. I'm sure we're only too well aware of the damage that particular moral outlook has had upon society.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAt the risk of arousing your wrath yet again, I am going to select this particular paragraph for scrutiny, for it is the critical failing of technological society (in my none-too-humble opinion).
The possibilities of what you could do with that level of technology are breathtaking, and incredibly morally
complex. And what's more, the exact moral implications are likely to depend on precisely what is possible
and how the technology works.
We can't know this yet, because the technology (if its even possible) has yet to be invented.
Thus we can't yet devise the moral norms that would govern such technology and how we use it.
Because, as you contend, any technology precedes the moral norms for its usage, technology will always shape the morality that follows in its wake. Instead of humanity taking a morally proactive stance on the appropriate development and usage of technology, the technology is developed first and then morality is adapted to encompass it. The wrong partner in this dance has taken the lead. In the long run this is crucial in determining whether technology will ultimately be emancipatory or enslaving. You obviously (and I would say naively) believe the former to be the case, whereas I maintain it will be the latter.
Originally posted by bbarrWell, out with it, man. Who are they?
Huh? Why should I be able to point to somebody who is a close approximation to moral perfection? I could point to a few 18's that I personally know. Would that make you feel better? In any case, you should know that these rankings are ridiculous. I'm playing along for fun, but moral goodness isn't amenable to being ranked. There are so many criteria, so m ...[text shortened]... ? Meh. Why bother? But, just spitballing, I know some 18's. They're exceptional people!
Originally posted by rwingettas we have no absolute to draw from, it's very difficult to quantify moral character based on the subjective nature of morality. what it comes down to is opinion.
So you should be able, then, to point to someone and say that so-and-so is a 20. Or at least a very close approximation of a 20. To come up with a 1 to 20 scale of morality and then be unable to come up with anyone who tops a 16, as you say, is merely setting people up for discouragement. It is a moral system where no one is worthy. I'm sure we're only too well aware of the damage that particular moral outlook has had upon society.
i think the chart is a very good idea since i have a similar [private] charts of 'acceptability' or chart of 'certainty' but in all of the charts, the top should be reserved for the 'conceptual ideal' which no being can attain.
for example, in my chart of 'acceptability' the only things that occupy the top are axioms, or defined ideals. my charts usually use a 100 scale, and 99 is something i have personally experienced with my own senses and 0 for logical fallacies.