Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we're going to have to do better than "a christian said it" to decide that we're discussing "christian morality" with such a description. What is discernably or conceptually christian about biological subjectivism?

[Deesse23]

That is the corruption of the flesh. Repentance is forgoing what is false, ...

That is bullsh-sorry-it

[Deesse23]

I've been told on this forum that I'm not supposed to talk about the more intellectual view because...

Thus said the pseudo-intellectual.

If you have to shout "i am the king!", you are most probably not the king. If you have to point out you are the intellectual....

[Deesse23]

The only people being unreasonable are those who blame God for human choices. Consider a family vacation. The parents decide where to go, how to get there, and when it will happen, and plan fun activities. Everything happens as planned but the children whine and complain. The kids play on their phones instead of taking advantage of the activities, etc. One way or another the vacation happens but the parents cannot force the kids to have a good time. Similarly, it is illogical blame God because He gives you choices within foreordained events and does not program you to always make specific choices.

That god would be neither allknowing, nor allmighty. Why call him god still, instead of "Don"?

[Angrboda]

Yes, it's a rationalization.  If things aren't going as if there was a god, one needs an explanation for why this inconsistency is occurring, or else the belief in God is wrong, because all things happen according to his plan.  But the only actual source for how things should go is revelation, so even with the rationalization, it's not a rational stance.  A theist cannot acknowledge that there is evidence that God does not exist, even if he or she has to appeal to unreason to deny it.  Unreason can lead to the formation of religious belief, but it is also essential in maintaining it in the face of obvious truths.

The only people being unreasonable are those who blame God for human choices. Consider a family vacation. The parents decide where to go, how to get there, and when it will happen, and plan fun activities. Everything happens as planned but the children whine and complain. The kids play on their phones instead of taking advantage of the activities, etc. One way or another the vacation happens but the parents cannot force the kids to have a good time. Similarly, it is illogical blame God because He gives you choices within foreordained events and does not program you to always make specific choices.

Pro tip: God doesn't give you anything.

[emjay]

So what if you did all that... tried to live a virtuous life according to your conscience, but not in reference to God, because you did not believe in God, what then?

I can answer this according to what Dante explains in the Divine Comedy. And since Dante is about 99% in accord with Thomist ethics what he says is fairly standard for Christian theology. 

According to these people, human beings all have an essence, or human nature, which is common to us all. Living a virtuous life is living in the way that is best for this nature, and allows the greatest flourishing for ourselves and others. 

Here Christian theology agrees with Plato, who wrote that we all desire what is best. We have a natural desire to live well and flourish. This is all about love, and living morally is ultimately loving the proper things in the proper amount. 

The clearest analogy is with a healthy diet. Science can tell us what is best for us to eat. This is not something we can choose for ourselves, or that differs according to society. Just because you happen to like potato chips more than anything else, and the TV commercials are telling you to eat potato chips to the exclusion of all else, doesn't mean it's healthy. Your physical nature can't be changed according to your personal taste or cultural differences. People are people. 

Ideally, we would love to eat a balanced healthy diet. I've heard people claim that if we were left alone, without advertising or artificial flavorings or whatever, we would just naturally choose all the best foods. I don't know if this is true or not, but as an analogy to Platonic ethics it's pretty good. If our personalities are not misinformed or deformed, we naturally desire to live well. 

As with a diet, other kinds of behavior have a natural balance which is determined by what human beings just are. Living morally means aiming your behavior toward that natural best outcome. Though there will be variations according to place and time, there is in fact one set of behaviors which suits human flourishing best. We are still in an ongoing debate as to many of the details. 

Immoral behavior is loving an unhealthy thing too much (as in Neo's example of sugar) or in loving healthy things too little (for example as someone who never exercises at all). Christian ethics is about loving passionately the proper things. 

People who live this way are living as "God wants." This last is in scare quotes, because it isn't really true to say that God wants anything. God is fully complete, with no lack, and so wants nothing. "God wants X" is allegorical language which means "X aims you toward what is best." 

From this you can see that people who aimed their lives toward what is best will be living in a Godly way, whether or not they've ever heard of God. Dante says specifically that when we wake up on Judgement Day, a lot of Christians are going to be surprised by who's ahead of them in line. 

As always, this theological view of things is different from the popular view of God as sky-daddy giver of arbitrary law. I've been told on this forum that I'm not supposed to talk about the more intellectual view because supposedly all the evil Christians in America don't know it. But if Dante said it so clearly then I don't think it's wrong to say that it's genuinely Christian.

I don't deny the value of virtue ethics and suchlike as a philosophy in and of itself but how would you relate that sort of view to the Bible though?, as it's undeniable to me that the Bible does indeed contain a lot of arbitrary and immutable laws/rules. And what about context? 'Honour your father and mother' may make sense as a general rule, but not as an absolute rule; ie if hypothetically someone's parents are abusive, should they still honour them without question? It seems to me that, at best, the Bible can reflect some of morality/conscience, just as any other discussion about it could, but not in itself dictate it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The only people being unreasonable are those who blame God for human choices. Consider a family vacation. The parents decide where to go, how to get there, and when it will happen, and plan fun activities. Everything happens as planned but the children whine and complain. The kids play on their phones instead of taking advantage of the activities, etc. One way or another the vacation happens but the parents cannot force the kids to have a good time. Similarly, it is illogical blame God because He gives you choices within foreordained events and does not program you to always make specific choices.

That god would be neither allknowing, nor allmighty. Why call him god still, instead of "Don"?

Meh, God knows everything it is possible to know and can foresee all potential consequences for every concievable choice. To me, that satisfies the notion of all-knowing. If you want to insist that God must know what cannot be known, you can do so but it does not seem reasonable to me.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That god would be neither allknowing, nor allmighty. Why call him god still, instead of "Don"?

Meh, God knows everything it is possible to know and can foresee all potential consequences for every concievable choice. To me, that satisfies the notion of all-knowing. If you want to insist that God must know what cannot be known, you can do so but it does not seem reasonable to me.

Then it’s not unreasonable to posit that God must know what choice I will make in any given situation. Kinda shoots that whole ‘free will’ thing in the foot, dunnit?

Boru

[arewethereyet]

That god would be neither allknowing, nor allmighty. Why call him god still, instead of "Don"?

Meh, God knows everything it is possible to know and can foresee all potential consequences for every concievable choice. To me, that satisfies the notion of all-knowing. If you want to insist that God must know what cannot be known, you can do so but it does not seem reasonable to me.

I'm a little confused about the concept of god knowing all the possibilities and god knowing all.  Which one is it?

I was taught that god knows what you are going to do and even if it's a screw up he lets you do it anyway so you have to repent and possibly pay an eternal price.

Makes me think that god is sitting back with a cup of coffee watching his creations screw up for some sort of entertainment and the eventual begging for mercy.

[arewethereyet]

---

I can answer this according to what Dante explains in the Divine Comedy. And since Dante is about 99% in accord with Thomist ethics what he says is fairly standard for Christian theology. 

According to these people, human beings all have an essence, or human nature, which is common to us all. Living a virtuous life is living in the way that is best for this nature, and allows the greatest flourishing for ourselves and others. 

Here Christian theology agrees with Plato, who wrote that we all desire what is best. We have a natural desire to live well and flourish. This is all about love, and living morally is ultimately loving the proper things in the proper amount. 

The clearest analogy is with a healthy diet. Science can tell us what is best for us to eat. This is not something we can choose for ourselves, or that differs according to society. Just because you happen to like potato chips more than anything else, and the TV commercials are telling you to eat potato chips to the exclusion of all else, doesn't mean it's healthy. Your physical nature can't be changed according to your personal taste or cultural differences. People are people. 

Ideally, we would love to eat a balanced healthy diet. I've heard people claim that if we were left alone, without advertising or artificial flavorings or whatever, we would just naturally choose all the best foods. I don't know if this is true or not, but as an analogy to Platonic ethics it's pretty good. If our personalities are not misinformed or deformed, we naturally desire to live well. 

As with a diet, other kinds of behavior have a natural balance which is determined by what human beings just are. Living morally means aiming your behavior toward that natural best outcome. Though there will be variations according to place and time, there is in fact one set of behaviors which suits human flourishing best. We are still in an ongoing debate as to many of the details. 

Immoral behavior is loving an unhealthy thing too much (as in Neo's example of sugar) or in loving healthy things too little (for example as someone who never exercises at all). Christian ethics is about loving passionately the proper things. 

People who live this way are living as "God wants." This last is in scare quotes, because it isn't really true to say that God wants anything. God is fully complete, with no lack, and so wants nothing. "God wants X" is allegorical language which means "X aims you toward what is best." 

From this you can see that people who aimed their lives toward what is best will be living in a Godly way, whether or not they've ever heard of God. Dante says specifically that when we wake up on Judgement Day, a lot of Christians are going to be surprised by who's ahead of them in line. 

As always, this theological view of things is different from the popular view of God as sky-daddy giver of arbitrary law. I've been told on this forum that I'm not supposed to talk about the more intellectual view because supposedly all the evil Christians in America don't know it. But if Dante said it so clearly then I don't think it's wrong to say that it's genuinely Christian.

---

I don't deny the value of virtue ethics and suchlike as a philosophy in and of itself but how would you relate that sort of view to the Bible though?, as it's undeniable to me that the Bible does indeed contain a lot of arbitrary and immutable laws/rules. And what about context? 'Honour your father and mother' may make sense as a general rule, but not as an absolute rule; ie if hypothetically someone's parents are abusive, should they still honour them without question? It seems to me that, at best, the Bible can reflect some of morality/conscience, just as any other discussion about it could, but not in itself dictate it.

This was a tough one for me and a big part of the reason that belief didn't take.  Both my parents were abusive but I was supposed to honor them?  I begged, as a child, for god to either make them stop or to tell me what I had to do to make it stop.  It didn't stop.  It still hasn't stopped with my mother.  Dad and I made amends toward the end of his life but the scars still cause pain.  

Honoring someone who abuses you seems to be the core of religion.