Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Leela]

You can read your above post again. There is no order for slaughter. In Joshua 6:2, the order was to march around…not order to slaughter.

In Numbers 31, there was also no order for slaughter. The order was to take vengeance, no order of slaughter.

In Samuel, you would notice that the one talking there was not God himself. Clearly, God did not order a slaughter. Ancient historical figures may have killed many in the name of God, but that would not give rise to the conclusion that God ordered slaughter.

The truth still stands out, that Jesus is perfectly pro-life.

Hi Agangbern,

God command that they to to Ai what they did to Jericho:

Joshua 8
1And the LORD said to Joshua,(A) “Do not fear and do not be dismayed. Take all the fighting men with you, and arise, go up to Ai. See,(B) I have given into your hand the king of Ai, and his people, his city, and his land. 2And you shall do to Ai and its king as you did(C) to Jericho and its king. Only(D) its spoil and its livestock you shall take as plunder for yourselves. Lay an ambush against the city, behind it.”

And what did they do to Jericho that they were commanded that they must do to Ai?

“they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.”

Clearly God is not pro-choice as the examples of Soddam and Gomorah, the Great Flood, Jericho, and Ai among others demonstrate.

Best,
Leela

 

[grannymh]

Hi Oreoracle,

I’m back and you are probably gone for spring break.
It is amazing how many posts there are. I believe that this is where we left off in our conversation. If not, please bring me up to speed. Note: I hope you don’t mind that I am going to change the order of your paragraphs.

Oreoracle:

Catholics believe that there exists reasoning separate from emotion entirely. Looking inwardly at my own mental process, I can’t imagine that the mind is divided into sectors in this way.

I go along with your observation of your own mental process. In real life, humans are very complex with gifts of intelligence, intuition, emotions, curiosity, memory, spirituality, reasoning, creativity, instinct, idealism, etc., interrelated unequally. Fortunately, we have the capacity to put these gifts into some kind of useful order. At some point, we look at each gift separately and together. For example, through experience, a person may learn that his basic instincts prove successful. A hot blooded person may respect his reason. An intellectual may give into his emotions with people he knows.

The point is that none of our gifts or sectors, are a mutually exclusive “or”. In other words, there can be both instinct and reasoning, emotions and intelligence, etc. & etc. To say that “Catholics believe that there exists reasoning separate from emotion entirely” is not in tune with the reality of complex gifts or sectors. It would be more correct to say that Catholicism understands what reasoning is and what emotion is and how the two influence each other and how the two can work together and how the two can oppose each other.

we’ll have to agree to disagree until I understand more of your position. I know that our beliefs are fundamentally different when it comes to the understanding of the mind, or how decisions are made.

To me personally, it is not really important that we agree when it comes to the understanding of the mind. In the above examples of the complexity of gifts or sectors, I only demonstrated the use of two in a statement. In reality, a lot more is involved as you say below.

I believe that information is taken in, there is an emotional response to the information (by contrasting it with one’s values), there is a calculation of the emotional response (how much the item makes one suffer, etc.), courses of action are brainstormed based on what will make one happiest, and, if one is confident with their reasoning, they will will themselves to perform the action that they estimate will make them happiest.

All of the above is occurring within a person. Am I right?

I know that our beliefs are fundamentally different when it comes to the understanding of the mind, or how decisions are made.

In short, in decision-making, emotions and information work jointly.

I can agree that emotions and information work jointly when I am making a decision. I will also add that my memory of what happened with previous decisions plus some reasoning also play a role.

Where there is a fork in the road is when the subject matter of my decision-making regards moral values.

Utilitarianism allows people to determine if the subject of the decision making is in accord with values of happiness. For a lot of things that will work even if different groups of people have different values of happiness. That’s why Wal*Mart exists.

Where I stand firm is that some moral values pertain to all people regardless of individual opinions.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

Mill suggested that one pleasure is higher than another when the majority of people pursue it more often than the other pleasure. Now, the people he considered had to be “good judges.” He said that one may choose a lower pleasure if he considered it more convenient than a higher one (having sex is more convenient than staying in shape, for example, so more people do it). One may also be biased; they’ve lost feeling for other pleasures due to a fixation on a particular pleasure (drug addiction is a nice example). So a “good judge” is one who has the means to pursue all sorts of pleasures with ease and is not biased on any one in particular, due to an addiction over time.

This means that there’s not a set list of higher and lower pleasures. The majority preference wins out, but usually stays pretty consistent over time.

I am wondering if the “good judge” would consider both the immediate and the ultimate goals of my personal life. Would the “good judge” take into consideration the fact that I am both spiritual and physical with corresponding goals and responsibilities? Actually, I am not sure – am I the “good judge” or is someone else the “good judge”?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

That is an interesting take on the concept of self-sacrifice. I do sometimes wonder how I would feel if I could not look back upon a given situation and have the satisfaction of knowing I had aquitted myself to the best of my ability. I know there are certainly times where, when life or work seem too hard, the motivation to continue can come from asking onesself, “But how will you feel later if you don’t do this now?” And certainly, if one did not act according to one’s own ethical principles, particularly in a life-or-death situation, I imagine the sense of guilt could be very hard to live with.

Just a thought - I suppose in light of all this it could be argued that Christ was the ultimate utilitarian…

Questions-------

Do Utilitarians have a definition of Christ? How would an Utilitarian grapple with the God concept?
I have a clear memory of my moment of truth so I know it isn’t easy when one has to decide God’s existence totally on one’s own.

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[agangbern]

Agangbern

You misquoted me :tsktsk:

Oh, am sorry Quarles47. I did not know how it happened. Justafool must have done a trick in his post #388 which was the one I clicked. I hope the Admin would just delete my post#395 to erase its negative implication on you, Quarles47.

 

[grannymh]

That’s not really what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s impossible to make a choice without emotion (establishing and acting on an ethic). Simply gathering information is a different story. We don’t say that anyone decides that two plus two equals four, but we would say that someone decides that killing is wrong. A computer, despite computing and reasoning skills superior to humans, could not come to the conclusion that an act is wrong. This is because it is devoid of emotions and values for the emotions to correspond with.

Also, a computer does not understand the purpose of all human life. It can only apply its skills to what data is entered. Thus, it cannot have an universal outlook on life.
Nor can it deal with the complexity of life but can only go by the choice or whim of the computer technician. A computer knows the how but not the why.

Regarding the basic moral value that all human life is sacred, one has to understand complex data when deciding that killing is wrong. For example, respect for life also refers to one’s own life and family which is why killing is justified in order to protect one’s life and family. Often this is an individual judgment call which is most difficult.
Regardless, the basic right to life is like two plus two equals four.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

But I want you to know that when I say ethics are subjective, I’m not referring to subjectivism. Rather, I’m saying that God’s word may be objective, but “I should abide by God’s word” is subjective. The values required to come to that conclusion are not concrete.

Oreoracle, you are making an important distinction and I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. God’s word would be objective as long as it exists independently. It would be objective as long as it did not depend on anyone else’s opinion. Am I saying this right?

The sentence “I should abide by God’s word” includes the fact that you have the ability (called free will) to choose which action you will take. All kinds of things can come into play when you make that choice, intellect, emotions, instinct, etc.
Is that an o.k. way to say it?

Where there is a fork in the road is this sentence: “The values required to come to that conclusion are not concrete.” I can understand that the values used to make a choice may not be concrete. You can have a variety of reasons to “abide” or not “abide.” When I had to decide if God existed or not, my reasons for His existence were hilarious. No reasonable person would ever use them.

Here’s where the road divides or maybe we will choose the same branch. branch to the left: You are a competent individual who can choose actions according to whatever. No matter. God’s word being objective remains the same. No one can change it.

branch to the right: When you choose an action, God’s word changes to match your choice. When someone across the country chooses an action different from yours, God’s word changes to match that person’s choice. If you were deciding between two options, God’s word would match both options.

Two of the benefits of the left branch are the original Geneva Convention and The Hague, International Court of Justice which tries war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Blessings,
granny

Human beings have a right to life.

 

[Oreoracle]

The question of eternal salvation or damnation is ultimately going to be of utmost importance in our day-to-day decisions.

I don’t think so. Before I was introduced to the concept of Hell, the idea was absent in me. Also, I don’t think we have an inherent desire for salvation. As my biological structure dictates, I have an inherent want to live (a want that can be shaken). However, I don’t have an inherent want to live with God.

What this means is that the self-existent being (God) (the source of all other being, the uncaused cause) cannot be limited in any way. If the self-existent being was limited by some existent thing outside of itself, then the self-existent being (God) requires some form of existence outside of itself, which is contradictory to the nature of a self-existent being.

Two questions:

1. How could there be such a thing as an uncaused cause?
2. How does it follow that because God created me, he knows everything I’ll know, has power over all that I’ll create, etc.? I don’t see how him being the initial cause would grant him power and knowledge over all subsequent causes.

Judgment calls are not necessarily based on emotions. When I make the judgment call that I will believe God is good, I use reason to examine my experiences. Experiences are not synonymous with chemical emotions.

I never said they were. I know; you can form a valid syllogism or other deductive argument. The problem is that, if you have an ethical/ought conclusion, you also have at least one ought premise. Your argument is valid, possibly sound, but still subjective.

How do you define emotions? If you define emotion as simply subjective judgment calls, I agree that “emotion” is needed at some stage. While the moral law of God exists outside of man, and God reveals this law to us, every person needs to make a personal decision in regards to what they will observe as moral. This is a subjective choice, but it is a choice about objective laws. Furthermore, simply observing that people need to make a subjective decision about objective laws does not mean that we should let subjectivism serve as a replacement for the objective laws.

I agree that we must make a personal choice and judgment call as to what God’s will is and whether we will follow it, but I do not agree that this observation means that subjectivism should be our standard. We do have to reach the standard through subjectivism, but we should not replace the standard with subjectivism as Utilitarianism does.

Utilitarianism has a standard, along with rules. They’re just not ones you admire.

For clarification: do you mean subjectivism as a metaphysical or ethical doctrine? There’s a HUGE difference. I’m not pressing that reality is dependent on emotion. I’m saying that, since emotions guide all of my actions, they must be pretty important. If happiness did not exist, all animals would be like robots without programming; no actions would come about (save those that are purely biological).

If you define “emotions” as chemically induced feelings in the brain, rather than personal choices and judgment calls, then I will address this aspect as well.

I don’t know what they are, but I do understand that they prompt my choices, which is enough.

Emotions are not choices themselves; they’re what make the choices possible.

And what problem do you have with this response?

Edwin

What moral idea was eternal torture, as a symbol, meant to convey? At best, it’s useless, and the Bible seems like an odd text to place useless material.

 

[Leela]

That was not slaughter. There was no evidence of the presence of dead bodies of millions. At most, you would only have to imagine. But imagination is not fact.

God didn’t kill anyone in the Great Flood?

 

[severntofall]

You can read your above post again. There is no order for slaughter. In Joshua 6:2, the order was to march around…not order to slaughter.

In Numbers 31, there was also no order for slaughter. The order was to take vengeance, no order of slaughter.

In Samuel, you would notice that the one talking there was not God himself. Clearly, God did not order a slaughter. Ancient historical figures may have killed many in the name of God, but that would not give rise to the conclusion that God ordered slaughter.

The truth still stands out, that Jesus is perfectly pro-life.

Wow, you really can’t see the forest for the trees. God ordered the attack on Jericho and was pleased with the results. God ordered the attack on the Mideans and was angered when mercy was shown by his armies. God ordered the attack and slaughter on the Amelkites and demoted Saul when Saul failed to kill eveything and everyone. God destroyed all but eight humans and 99.9% of “breathing” creatures in a flood. It’s fun to pretend that your god was opposed to this, but your scriptures flatly deny this.

 

[grannymh]

But I think knowing what people in general want is a persistent question that is important to me.

Yes. Knowing what people in general want is good. It is also a reason to read. I recently reread Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and am now reading Harry Potter, book 5. Both authors provide deep insights into people’s wants. Nonetheless, you need to be aware that people want answers to the main questions of life–why am I here? and Where am I going? Because people in general have a sense of the spiritual, they look for God.

I’m a bit slow on the concept of God, so you’ll have to forgive me.

 

[severntofall]

That was not slaughter. There was no evidence of the presence of dead bodies of millions. At most, you would only have to imagine. But imagination is not fact.

Actually, you are correct as the global flood didn’t actually happen as depicted by the bible.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t think so. Before I was introduced to the concept of Hell, the idea was absent in me. Also, I don’t think we have an inherent desire for salvation. As my biological structure dictates, I have an inherent want to live (a want that can be shaken). However, I don’t have an inherent want to live with God.

You may choose not to live with God or follow His commandments. This doesn’t mean that the question itself is unimportant. The question of eternal damnation or salvation is ultimately going to be far more important than temporary questions or decisions. Your personal position on the question does not reduce the importance of the question.

1. How could there be such a thing as an uncaused cause?

Eternal regresses do not make much logical sense. Therefore, there has to be something that can break the chain of causes. Using logic (explained in the link), we can examine what such a being would have to be and determine that a spiritual-like entity is the only thing that could meet the bill.

1. How does it follow that because God created me, he knows everything I’ll know, has power over all that I’ll create, etc.? I don’t see how him being the initial cause would grant him power and knowledge over all subsequent causes.

God is infinite, which means He is unlimited in (metaphysical) perfection. If God did not know something, there would be potential for “improvement” in God, and thus He would be in some way limited. Due to God being self-existent, He cannot be limited. If there was something that we knew that was not part of God’s infinite, unchangeable, self-existent nature, this would mean that it is uncaused by God. This in turn would mean that God is not infinite!

For clarification: do you mean subjectivism as a metaphysical or ethical doctrine? There’s a HUGE difference. I’m not pressing that reality is dependent on emotion. I’m saying that, since emotions guide all of my actions, they must be pretty important. If happiness did not exist, all animals would be like robots without programming; no actions would come about (save those that are purely biological).

I have been using “subjectivism” to refer to personal judgment calls, nothing more. I am not arguing that our desires do not influence our actions. God has created the desire for Himself and following that desire is good. I suppose you could argue that this desire is an “emotional” desire that influences our actions. I suppose you could say that following our desire for God brings “happiness” in the sense of being spiritually fulfilled. Good desires should effect our actions because they draw us to the good. It seems to me like you have taken this observation and decided that there are no objectively good or bad desires in the world. In other words, desires should and do influence our actions, and thus any and all desire needs to be considered when determining what we ought to do. Is this an accurate characterization of your position?

 

[grannymh]

Also, I don’t think we have an inherent desire for salvation. As my biological structure dictates, I have an inherent want to live (a want that can be shaken). However, I don’t have an inherent want to live with God.

At last, Oreoracle, I’ve caught up with you. My replies start with post 401. I write this with my heart: Oreoracle, God loves you as you are today. He loves your curiosity, your questioning, your boldness in stating your views, your kindness toward others and all the beauty and good within you. He loves you from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head. This loving God is the One I know and love.

Having said that, I want to agree with you that one’s biological structure has an inherent want to live. In addition, one’s spiritual structure has an inherent want to live eternally since it is spirit and not matter.
We are both body and spirit, or body and soul. Unfortunately, society’s noisy business often drowns out the voice of our spiritual structure. Spring with its mystery of growth is a good time to quiet the world and listen to our inner souls.

1. How could there be such a thing as an uncaused cause?

 

[Oreoracle]

At last, Oreoracle, I’ve caught up with you. My replies start with post 401. I write this with my heart: Oreoracle, God loves you as you are today. He loves your curiosity, your questioning, your boldness in stating your views, your kindness toward others and all the beauty and good within you. He loves you from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head. This loving God is the One I know and love.

Thank you so much for your kind words. I will take a rare moment to say that I hope he does love me.

That being said, I’ll try to catch up with some of your posts today:

The point is that none of our gifts or sectors, are a mutually exclusive “or”. In other words, there can be both instinct and reasoning, emotions and intelligence, etc. & etc. To say that “Catholics believe that there exists reasoning separate from emotion entirely” is not in tune with the reality of complex gifts or sectors. It would be more correct to say that Catholicism understands what reasoning is and what emotion is and how the two influence each other and how the two can work together and how the two can oppose each other.

Sounds good.

All of the above is occurring within a person. Am I right?

Yes, all except for the objects that are there being perceived.

Where there is a fork in the road is when the subject matter of my decision-making regards moral values.

Is it your decision-making that’s different, or your stance on the matter? I’m guessing it’s the latter.

Where I stand firm is that some moral values pertain to all people regardless of individual opinions.

Would you say they exist regardless of any opinions? Have you heard of the ethical scenario called “the pig that wants to be eaten”?

It seems to me like all moral values are dependent on the minds of those that hold them. If all sentient life ceased to exist, all moral values would be obliterated along with our minds. It would be silly to say that they exist independently of our minds, as a tree does.

I’m sorry if I misjudged your position, I just don’t understand what the nature of objective ethics would be (keeping in mind that we tend to use the terms differently).

I am wondering if the “good judge” would consider both the immediate and the ultimate goals of my personal life. Would the “good judge” take into consideration the fact that I am both spiritual and physical with corresponding goals and responsibilities? Actually, I am not sure – am I the “good judge” or is someone else the “good judge”?

As I said, even in modern times, they would likely regard spiritual pleasure as being higher than most.

You’re both good judges (as long as, at one point in your life, you made opinions about many things while having the means to entertain each and were unbiased). The concept of “higher” and “lower” pleasures is meant to be used politically. In other words, “higher” pleasure means “generally higher” pleasure. If the majority of good judges disagree with you, your hierarchy doesn’t change to fit their own. A utilitarian leader would just choose to act given the knowledge of how many want something and how strongly.

 

[Oreoracle]

Do Utilitarians have a definition of Christ? How would an Utilitarian grapple with the God concept?
I have a clear memory of my moment of truth so I know it isn’t easy when one has to decide God’s existence totally on one’s own.

Utilitarianism is purely ethical and is largely unconcerned with metaphysics. A utilitarian would say that God’s rules hold no weight (other than the emotions they indicate), because we don’t obey an authority, we obey a principle (or two, depending on how you divide it).

If we had enough evidence to determine how God’s emotions work, he’d be factored in a utilitarian’s decisions as well. He probably wouldn’t make or break a decision since he’s only one being. The potency of one’s emotions (I assume you’d say his happiness is infinite) only goes so far. After all, making a large number of people happy as opposed to making a small group even happier is almost always optimal.

 

[grannymh]

Good morning, Oreoracle,
I’m reading your posts 415 and 414. Lots of good points for discussion and learning.

Oreoracle:

Would you say they exist regardless of any opinions? Have you heard of the ethical scenario called “the pig that wants to be eaten”?

I have not heard of “the pig that wants to be eaten.” My reaction is silly pig!
Can’t help it. Sometimes, my sense of humor …
Seriously, I would be interested in that scenario.

It seems to me like all moral values are dependent on the minds of those that hold them. If all sentient life ceased to exist, all moral values would be obliterated along with our minds. It would be silly to say that they exist independently of our minds, as a tree does.

Good points for discussion. I really wish I could stay and talk.

I’m sorry if I misjudged your position, I just don’t understand what the nature of objective ethics would be (keeping in mind that we tend to use the terms differently).

I like the way you debate because you focus on one’s “position.” To me, this is like putting one’s ideas, positions, theories, creative ideas, knowledge, curiosity on a table between us. Both of us can pick up anything, examine it, discard it, add to it without “attacking” the person. Acknowledging that there may be a misjudgment is an invitation to reexamination. Hopefully, you caught way back when I acknowledged that I was yielding to the idea of emotions being a greater influence than I previously considered. If I accidentally deleted that when I was editing, I am saying it now.Yielding is another invitation to reexamination.

Back to above quote and then I am out of here. I’m not sure what the nature of objective ethics would be. I don’t have a good grasp on where ethics fit in. I have some knowledge of medical/health care ethics and my own professional ethics as a former writer. Would you please take the lead on this discussion? And don’t forget that silly pig! I will return.

Blessings,
granny

Human life deserves to be examined and understood.

 

[agangbern]

God didn’t kill anyone in the Great Flood?

You have to prove the allegation that *God ordered slaughter.*This is the point of the discussion. And I say that God did not order slaughter.

 

[agangbern]

Wow, you really can’t see the forest for the trees. God ordered the attack on Jericho and was pleased with the results. God ordered the attack on the Mideans and was angered when mercy was shown by his armies. God ordered the attack and slaughter on the Amelkites and demoted Saul when Saul failed to kill eveything and everyone. God destroyed all but eight humans and 99.9% of “breathing” creatures in a flood. It’s fun to pretend that your god was opposed to this, but your scriptures flatly deny this.

We have read it. If the order to march around means to you as an order to attack, then it is an order to attack. But not an order to slaughter.

 

[Leela]

You have to prove the allegation that *God ordered slaughter.*This is the point of the discussion. And I say that God did not order slaughter.

So the great flood, soddom, and Gommorah don’t count because God did not order slaughter but instead actually carried slaughter out himself?

Anyway, as I said before, God commanded that Joshua do to Ai what he did to Jericho which was to kill everyone including women and children. Pro-life? Yeah, right.