What is the point of morality if you're a theist?

[Esquilax]

What are you talking about? Soceity is currently based on moral relativism. The fact that just with in one generation there had been a drastic paradyme shift on the views and understanding of marriage, says that 'pop morality' is not based on an unchanging standard, but what ever soceity deems as being moral at the time.

Yes, that process is called self correction, but that doesn't mean that every moral tenet is completely based upon the whims of the majority. We do have certain absolutes, based upon our position as physical beings in a physical universe. The process isn't perfect- hence the need for correction- but doomsaying over moral relativism misses the point entirely, and also misdefines what actual moral relativism is.

And when 'soceity' deems it nessary to infringe on the rights and practices of others, then what? Who is moral then?

The same basic things that were moral before; the actual concepts don't shift, the actions do. A change in society can either repair an issue that was immoral before, or turn a moral situation immoral, but the concepts themselves aren't fluid and based entirely on majority approval, because the universe we live in doesn't change according to that either.

-Or is there some greater reason that our 'morality' is better or more complete than the stuff they are peddeling?

The third option: nobody has it entirely right, but we're learning, and hopefully making the right decisions.

The laws of God were issued so that we may see our short commings and seek out the attonement we need for eternal life.

And any uses those commandments had in the physical world weren't intended at all?

Indeed. Self perservation is always the driving force to any soceity's morality. The questions I ask are to get you all to see the trivial nature of what this soceity deems to be 'moral.'

To think beyond regaurding your current 'morality' as being an absolute. If you can learn to question your foundations then you can learn to be free from your soceitial limitations.

But you don't act entirely biblically either, do you? You're restrained by common morality more than the biblical stuff.

[Drich]

Yes, that process is called self correction, but that doesn't mean that every moral tenet is completely based upon the whims of the majority.

then please give an example that is not.

We do have certain absolutes, based upon our position as physical beings in a physical universe.

Again please give examples..

The process isn't perfect- hence the need for correction- but doomsaying over moral relativism misses the point entirely, and also misdefines what actual moral relativism is.

which is?

The same basic things that were moral before; the actual concepts don't shift, the actions do. A change in society can either repair an issue that was immoral before, or turn a moral situation immoral, but the concepts themselves aren't fluid and based entirely on majority approval, because the universe we live in doesn't change according to that either.

Great philosphy, the only problem it does not reflect the examples of History that I provided.

I gave 3 examples of entire soceities shifting their morality/santity of human life, from holding to everyone having a right to live, to a majority section of the soceity turning on a minority and trying to wipe them out. Each time the majority dehumanized those being slaughtered and little to no mercy was shown.

This happened or when on unchecked in North america and was spun in a positive light, (children even made games of it) where in other parts of the world this practice was stopped and the people who did these very same things were villified. The difference? popular opinion, and the domination of our culture over theirs. Thus giving us the right to be hipocritical as we want to be.

From then to now there has been a core shift in pop morality to say all life is now sacred, unless youre an unwanted child. Then all one need do is change your classification from child to fetus, and then this soceity will happily look the otherway while thousands are killed daily.

The third option: nobody has it entirely right, but we're learning, and hopefully making the right decisions.

But 'we' aren't. We are making the right desisions for us, all the while crushing out everyone elses culture, or in some cases villifying it, so when war does come 'we' can feel 'right' about forcing a nation of weirdos like North Korea to adopt our brand of life.

And any uses those commandments had in the physical world weren't intended at all?

How did you come to this conclusion?

But you don't act entirely biblically either, do you? You're restrained by common morality more than the biblical stuff.

How do you mean?

[davidMC1982]

But 'we' aren't. We are making the right desisions for us, all the while crushing out everyone elses culture, or in some cases villifying it, so when war does come 'we' can feel 'right' about forcing a nation of weirdos like North Korea to adopt our brand of life.

Yet by any conceivable measure, our lives and the lives of most on the planet are improving. The world is becoming less violent, less homophobic, less racist, less mysogonistic, healthier, better educated, less ignorant. Because information flows more freely now, the concept of right/wrong is becoming more homogenised. It will surely take more time for things to even out and cultures to realign their morality, but I would argue the world is becoming more moral despite religion, not because of it.

[Esquilax]

then please give an example that is not.

Murder: even in murderous regimes, murder is still an immoral act. That's why you so often see a campaign of dehumanization going along with it; the best way to make a large group of people swallow the idea of that level of violence is to remove the humanity of your victim group, and distance them from the idea that they could be murdered.

Also, you seem to be mistaking the action with the morality of it; I don't believe we live in an entirely relative moral framework, and so it's possible for a society to say they're going to do a thing, and even carry out that action, without making the requisite moral case for it. In part, that's why we need the ability to self correct; we're humans, we can make mistakes with our moral determinations, and without correcting them, we'll never improve.

Again please give examples..

Well, we all experience stimuli essentially the same, and so those tend to inform our morality in a concrete way; we don't enjoy pain, and so causing injury is, within the majority of contexts, considered an immoral act. This is modulated by necessity- self defense and so on- of course, but in the main, hurting people is bad, and that's a stable moral principle. We don't like being dead, or at least we'd prefer to be alive in most cases, and so murder is wrong, and even when it's justifiable it's still not considered one's plan A, so to speak.

which is?

That morality is solely determined by majority opinion, and can shift depending on that. I disagree; morality is informed by more than what we can justify to ourselves.

Great philosphy, the only problem it does not reflect the examples of History that I provided.

I gave 3 examples of entire soceities shifting their morality/santity of human life, from holding to everyone having a right to live, to a majority section of the soceity turning on a minority and trying to wipe them out. Each time the majority dehumanized those being slaughtered and little to no mercy was shown.

I know, but that's not moral relativism because those actions they were taking were immoral independent of their own justifications for them. Who can deny the suffering those societies caused, whether it was considered justified or not? The stable constant here is that the minority being persecuted was in pain, and it's the pain itself that makes the act immoral, not the views of the people perpetrating it.

From then to now there has been a core shift in pop morality to say all life is now sacred, unless youre an unwanted child. Then all one need do is change your classification from child to fetus, and then this soceity will happily look the otherway while thousands are killed daily.

Leaving aside your emotive language, you seem to be agreeing with me that morality changes, you're just using different words for it. To me, these changes constitute an amending of morality to fix past mistakes; instead of the definitions of morality changing, we're learning that certain acts we'd gotten away with for too long were always immoral, and seek to change them. This comes from society because society is made up of people, and people are all there is when it comes to determining morality.

But 'we' aren't. We are making the right desisions for us, all the while crushing out everyone elses culture, or in some cases villifying it, so when war does come 'we' can feel 'right' about forcing a nation of weirdos like North Korea to adopt our brand of life.

I disagree: it's about stopping moral wrongs, when we can. There is an objectively correct moral path to take on certain decisions, and in terms of something like North Korea, the suffering of the people within those borders outweighs the government's right to keep control, since they've displayed an inability to do so in a way that doesn't cause suffering to the people in the favor of a privileged few.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I didn't, hence the question mark: I'm asking you whether you believe the real world benefits of god's commandments were a design choice on his part, or an unintended consequence of rules he'd issued due to his nature.

How do you mean?

I'd assume you're against slavery on principle, and would want those slaves in other countries to be free? If so... well, the bible says for those slaves to obey their masters.

[max-greece]

"Well, we all experience stimuli essentially the same, and so those tend to inform our morality in a concrete way; we don't enjoy pain, and so causing injury is, within the majority of contexts, considered an immoral act. This is modulated by necessity- self defense and so on- of course, but in the main, hurting people is bad, and that's a stable moral principle. We don't like being dead, or at least we'd prefer to be alive in most cases, and so murder is wrong, and even when it's justifiable it's still not considered one's plan A, so to speak."

This is the weakest part of the argument for me. In that there are some people who enjoy pain (giving and receiving) then its safer to conclude that we don't all experience stimuli in the same way. Therefore "hurting people is bad, and that's a stable moral principle" does not apply in all cases.

There are, of course, also examples of people who would choose to be dead, given the chance - Dignitas for example.

[Esquilax]

This is the weakest part of the argument for me. In that there are some people who enjoy pain (giving and receiving) then its safer to conclude that we don't all experience stimuli in the same way. Therefore "hurting people is bad, and that's a stable moral principle" does not apply in all cases.

Yeah, I probably should have amended that to mean that pain without consent is immoral; I'm aware that sadists and masochists exist, but generally speaking- not to reveal too much with my knowledge here- the people that are into that really prize consent and keeping things safe, for precisely that reason, that they understand their kind of pain is different from the bad kind.

It's worth noting that you can still give masochists the bad kind of pain; I know a woman whose- now ex- dom decided not to take her limits into consideration and pierced her with a needle during play. That put an end to that really quick. It's a context thing, really. Same with sadists; the sane ones don't want to hurt someone who doesn't want it back, really. The insane ones... well, we all know what we do with them.

There are, of course, also examples of people who would choose to be dead, given the chance - Dignitas for example.

I try to always note that these are generalities that need to be modulated according to context, but sometimes I forget. It's sort of more about the practicalities of these things than the individual cases: we're assured of only one life that we can confirm, and since death is the potential waste of that, we would prefer, all things being equal, that we stay alive. Pain is a sensation designed to warn the body of injury, injuries are bad in that they lead to death, and so we don't want them either.

[DLJ]

...
is the fact that if you base your 'morality' on soceity [sic], then any form of debauchery is possiable [sic].
...

Phew!

That's a relief. I was getting worried there for a minute.

[Drich]

Murder: even in murderous regimes, murder is still an immoral act.

The word murder is, but the act it self is not. That is why they change the classification of certain people. If murder was always wrong then the act would be classifed as murder despite properganda. But, because 'morality' is a pop culture based standard all one has to do is change the classification of an indivisual or a group of people then 'morality' will allow for their murders.

That's why you so often see a campaign of dehumanization going along with it; the best way to make a large group of people swallow the idea of that level of violence is to remove the humanity of your victim group, and distance them from the idea that they could be murdered.

Your proving my point for me: Baby has been changed to fetus. It is not ok to kill babies, but it is ok to kill a fetus.

Also, you seem to be mistaking the action with the morality of it; I don't believe we live in an entirely relative moral framework, and so it's possible for a society to say they're going to do a thing, and even carry out that action, without making the requisite moral case for it.

No, i believe I have been saying this very thing over and over again. i have just been using honest terminology. In stead of saying: "carry out that action, without making the requisite moral case for it."

I said: if one based his morality on the culture, then his peers get to determin what is right and wrong. This standard is simply based on what a given soceity is willing to accept.

In part, that's why we need the ability to self correct; we're humans, we can make mistakes with our moral determinations, and without correcting them, we'll never improve.

Unchecked 'self correction' is an issue. Every single oppressive soceity the world has ever known had the ablity to 'self correct' without having to answer to anyone. This isolation always leads to self righteousness.

The evidences of self righteousness can be found throughout western soceity. Easiest to identify and the hardest to argue is the 'intolerance of the intollerant.' You've seen or are one of these people. They defend diversity so rigerously they become intollerant of all cultures who do not accept their doctrines of tolerance. This form of self righteousness starts out in a idealistic morality, but quick becomes self righteousness (I am right because I do 'X' and you are wrong because what you do does not look like 'X'.) This self righteousness does not allow indivisuals the freedoms to be truly unique nor honor any heritage that does not pay tribute to the intollerance of the intollerant.

Why else is it so wrong for a Christian to say it is a sin to be gay? This means nothing to anyone except those who are christian or wish to be. So why the intollerance of the classification of this sin, if soceity does not allow for this specific brand of self righteousness? Again the issue here is the 'uncheck self correction' of a given soceity, not what you think about a given sin.

Again please give examples..

Well, we all experience stimuli essentially the same, and so those tend to inform our morality in a concrete way; we don't enjoy pain, and so causing injury is, within the majority of contexts, considered an immoral act. This is modulated by necessity- self defense and so on- of course, but in the main, hurting people is bad, and that's a stable moral principle. We don't like being dead, or at least we'd prefer to be alive in most cases, and so murder is wrong, and even when it's justifiable it's still not considered one's plan A, so to speak.

except when it serves the greater good then all bets and 'morality' are off. We saw this most recently after 9/11 when the 'freedom act' allowed for things like hot boxing and water boarding, then inflicting pain became a comodity, and the information it yield was not discarded by countries who said these acts were wrong. Western soceity in the last decade or so as done nothing but reap the benfits from bring pain and oppressing certain classifications of 'people.' So we know that a soceity's right to bring people pain is not a the unchanging 'moral' pillar you believe it to be.

As far as death goes, anyone who sins against the soceity past the soceity's given limit will and always have forefeit their life for that transgression.

So your two pillars "causing pain to others, and killing people." can be justified if you oppose this soceity or even certain rules with in this soceity.

Regaurdless if we have been taught to make these exceptions, the acts of bring people pain and killing people in of themselves have no 'moral value.' if they did and the value was intrinsic with in the act itself then these acts would always be wrong no matter what, and we all would be a bunch of dirt foot granola eating hippies. As they stand it is the soceity whole gets to determine who get tortured and who is killed. If one is bound to soceity then all the leaders of said soceity have to do is follow the formula they have already preprogramed into you to identify the next Al Qaeda type threat and we will mercylessly hunt down torture and kill anyone who does not align themselves with the 'good guys.'

Which when left unchecked is what spawns situations like nazi germany.

No, an absolute is always wrong or always right. God provides absolutes, but because we change His absolutes become threats to how people in the west want to live their lives. It will only be a matter of time before unchecked self righteous doctrine like intollerance of the intollerant becomes manditory, and those who do not think as the 'greater good' thinks will be deemed a 'threat to national seceurity.'

That morality is solely determined by majority opinion, and can shift depending on that. I disagree; morality is informed by more than what we can justify to ourselves.

I hate to keep beating the 'gay drum', but this example is a very recent major shift in 'morality.' One based on nothing more than what the majority wants for themselves. If what you said was true then what had been wrong would still be wrong, but because the majority of soceity deemed it immoral to say being gay was wrong, there was a major shift to support what was considered to be morally wrong just one generation ago.

This is where the danger lies in basing your 'morality' on what soceity says is moral. For if self righteousness consumes a soceity then anything can be justified. Without God to be an absolute in that soceity we by the very defination of the word 'Self Righteous' will be consumed by a righteousness based on what we 'our selves' think is right. which will be based on what we think 'we' need when we need it.

I know, but that's not moral relativism because those actions they were taking were immoral independent of their own justifications for them.

Those acts Are the very example of moral relitivism. This philosphy says that all POVs are valid given a specific culture and context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

"these actions' were only deemed immoral because the soceities that valued them have since passed into history.

Who can deny the suffering those societies caused, whether it was considered justified or not? The stable constant here is that the minority being persecuted was in pain, and it's the pain itself that makes the act immoral, not the views of the people perpetrating it.

Pain is not an indicator of immorality, in some instances Pain is perceived as good, or even a right of passage in some cultures. even in our culture to cause pain and suffering (with the purpose of purging weakness and forging leaders) is still a welcome practice.

Leaving aside your emotive language, you seem to be agreeing with me that morality changes, you're just using different words for it. To me, these changes constitute an amending of morality to fix past mistakes;

Yes, but without the absolutes or some sort of immoveable point of reference there is nothing stopping a soceity from going too far. The only check or balance to this is a bigger badder soceity that imposses it's will, or the hedonistic soceity crumbles and falls under it's own self righteousness as per the examples of the Greeks and Romans.

instead of the definitions of morality changing, we're learning that certain acts we'd gotten away with for too long were always immoral, and seek to change them. This comes from society because society is made up of people, and people are all there is when it comes to determining morality.

But can't you see with out some sort of absolute you/we are doomed to serve our own self intrests despite what maybe moral...

Instead of harping on the morality of gay-dom, let look at something that is still currently immoral. Sex with minors. The way our TV shows and Movies keep pushing the sexualization of under age children it will only be a matter of time before someone influencial decides to challenge the current laws. they will sight some obscure european practice in some weird country, and with a little peer pressure say 'we' are barbaric or prudish because we do not let our children choose for themselves if they wish to have sex with an adult. Again without some sort of absolute we are doomed to follow where ever the soceity leads.

I didn't, hence the question mark: I'm asking you whether you believe the real world benefits of god's commandments were a design choice on his part, or an unintended consequence of rules he'd issued due to his nature.

designed for our benfit.

I'd assume you're against slavery on principle, and would want those slaves in other countries to be free? If so... well, the bible says for those slaves to obey their masters.

I'm not against biblically outlined slavery. At it's core we have taken the principles and renamed them to make them more palletable. without them our soceity would not work. Then we have taken the term 'slavery' changed it's meaning to only mean or repersent what was done in America durning the 17th and 18th centuries, thereby villifying anything that retains that name. Because the bible could not change it's terminology to a P/C term the very mention of the word in the bible disqualifies it as a source of 'modern morality.'

The biblically supported defination defines anyone who is bound to another or a way of life as a slave. it is anyone who must yield his will to the will or authority of another. according to the bible we are all slaves to one degree or another as such there are rules that govern the different types and aspects of slavery. I know you instinct is to goto OT Judaism, because to you that is all you understand the word to mean. If you are willing to open your mind to something a little more repersentive to what Christians have been charged to do, then you will see that being to to remain a slave is to akin to me telling you that you are to find contentment with what you have. to do your job to the best of your ablities and not be distracted with what you want or what you think you should be entitled to.

[DLJ]

...
I'm not against biblically outlined slavery. At it's core we have taken the principles and renamed them to make them more palletable. without them our soceity would not work. Then we have taken the term 'slavery' changed it's meaning to only mean or repersent what was done in America durning the 17th and 18th centuries, thereby villifying anything that retains that name.
...

I'll make allowances for your dyslexia but not your content.

Who is this 'we' of which you speak? Biblical apologists?

[StuW]

Your proving my point for me: Baby has been changed to fetus. It is not ok to kill babies, but it is ok to kill a fetus.

The biblically supported defination defines anyone who is bound to another or a way of life as a slave. it is anyone who must yield his will to the will or authority of another. according to the bible we are all slaves to one degree or another as such there are rules that govern the different types and aspects of slavery.