What Defines Morality?

[Greatest I am]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.

Very nice and not just because I have had similar thoughts.
A darn good way to kill the notion that morality comes from God.
After all, he is just one and was alone for God knows how long before developing all the need that he is said to have and a bitch of a temper if we do not produce and fill those needs.



Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Hi David,

The one huge flaw I see in your statement of Jesus being "the greatest example of a human and the greatest moral authority" is the fact that nowhere in all his teachings does he ever condemn all the moral atrocities contained in the Old Testament that were ordered by his father, Yahweh. How could greatness, or morality be attributed to anyone who condones by silence the murder of babies and the rape of women? Keeping that in mind the Dali Lama is a far greater example of a human life than Jesus.

All the best,
Rose

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmm. Jesus having to learn to obey would mean that he disobeyed at some point in time. Tsk tsk.

I hear David saying -----Out of context.
I hear that a lot.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You comment about "animal minds" reminds me that animals do indeed have "minds" and that seems to undercut the foundation of Cartesian mind/body dualism which many people take for granted because they assume their phenomenological self-perception is accurate (not unlike the ancients who thought the sun rose and set).

Ouch. You just hurt my French and Franglais mind with that word.
I started reading phenomenolog-------then passed out from lack of air.
I surprised myself by knowing what it meant though.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Did you agree to the terms? If so, what is your obligation? Is your word on paper the same as your spoken word to agree to something?
Was it a commitment on your part? Did you violate the terms you agreed to?



What would Jesus do?



Do you believe that the OT Laws still apply? Do you believe that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God? Do you believe in repentance from sinful behavior? Do you believe it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?

For by Grace are we saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. We are all sinners Richard, you know this as well as anyone. You were once living your life in darkness, and then, the eyes of your understanding were opened and you recognized your state before a holy and just Creator. You can never go back. Once born again, you have that new life within you. For that reason we have the scriptural phrases reciting the words; "twice dead" and "second death".

As always, God's best to you Richard.

John

Please allow a hit and run.

You say we are all sinners yet I just saw a quote where God says Job was perfect. That would be sinless in my book. What about yours?

As to Gays. Scripture says an eye for an eye. Not a life for a piece of ass.
If an eye for an eye is correct or close to God's justice then I want to see God doing more than his usual.

[Inappropriate image deleted by moderator]

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Did you agree to the terms? If so, what is your obligation? Is your word on paper the same as your spoken word to agree to something?
Was it a commitment on your part? Did you violate the terms you agreed to?

I couldn't recall the exact terms (I was a confused teenager at the time I signed it) so I Googled it and found this which fits well with my recollection:



No one who signed the "contract" can be held to it because it has a clause that begins "Being of sound mind" -

Anyone who signed it was obviously NOT of "sound mind" and so cannot be held responsible for signing it.

And there really was no "commitment" other than to abide by the rules of the group "for the next billion years."

What would Jesus do?

That's the problem! He didn't say a word against the moral abominations attributed to the god he called his "father." The contrast is so great that Marcion tossed out the OT altogether and most of the NT. But if you do that, then Christianity crumbles, so Marcion was rejected as a heretic. So now folks just try to rationalize that the people in the OT times were so bad that they deserved to be murdered, raped, and enslaved. It's one of the great ironies to listen to Christians assert that there would be no "moral absolutes" without God even as they deny that infanticide, genocide, and slavery are "immoral" (because God commanded such things). You really should watch the debate between Hector Avalos and Keith Darrel called Is the Bible a Moral Code for Today? (click the link for the thread where it is being discussed).

Do you believe that the OT Laws still apply? Do you believe that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God? Do you believe in repentance from sinful behavior? Do you believe it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?

When I was a Christian, I believed the OT laws were given to Israel alone and were not intended for Christians except as types and examples (1 Cor 10:11). They did not apply to Christians or Gentiles because the Gentiles have not the law (Rom 2:14) and love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:10).

Yes, all have sinned if we mean done bad things, but I don't use that term anymore. I never think of people as "sinners."

As for the "glory of God" - what does that mean? What do you think of when you read the word "glory?" Most people think of a big bright ball of light or something like that. The term is not well-defined as far as I know.

I do believe in repentance - you bet! And I like the Greek word for it - metanoia - a change of mind. That's what happened to me. I repented of my errors regarding Christianity and now am free from dogma. Indeed, when I woke this morning I realized that I no longer think "superstitiously." It was a sudden realization. For over two decades I have lived with the feeling that everything that happened was directed by God. So if I got a flat tire, it meant that I wasn't praying enough. If something good happened, God was telling me that I was doing well. This kind of "magical thinking" saturated my mind. And this morning I suddenly realized it has evaporated. I don't think that way anymore. It just sort of faded away after I began freeing myself from dogma over the last couple years.

You asked "it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?" As noted above, I don't use the word "sinful." It carries religious connotations rich with implicit dogmas. But no, I don't think it is possible to be perfect and to never do anything wrong. And that's fine! The concept of perfection is flawed. There is nothing perfect in this world, least of all humans. But I do think that the Christian doctrine that we are intrinsically sinful and that we constantly sin "in word, deed, and thought" is absurd. And I thought it was absurd when I was a Christian because it destroyed the distinction between good and bad. That's the problem I've always had with excessive piety that says any good I do is because of God whereas any evil I do is all my fault.

For by Grace are we saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. We are all sinners Richard, you know this as well as anyone. You were once living your life in darkness, and then, the eyes of your understanding were opened and you recognized your state before a holy and just Creator. You can never go back. Once born again, you have that new life within you. For that reason we have the scriptural phrases reciting the words; "twice dead" and "second death".

As always, God's best to you Richard.

John

Thanks for the good words John. I have absolutely no fear or worries of any kind about my rejection of Christianity because I know in my heart that God wouldn't care if I believed dogmas taught in the Bible. And besides, everyone is so confused about everything in the Bible that it is impossible to think that God would care what intellectual proposition I finally picked from that mass of confusion as "true."

Are you a Calvinist? If so, you are correct that nothing I do could get me unsaved if I've been saved. But there's a dark side to that doctrine since it also says there's nothing an unsaved person can do to get saved. It is total fatalism.

In any case, I really enjoy our conversations. I hope you continue to contribute.

Richard

[David M]

Hello Rose and DL

since I am being responded to in both your posts I will make my reply to you both.

Originally Posted by Rose
Hi David,

The one huge flaw I see in your statement of Jesus being "the greatest example of a human and the greatest moral authority" is the fact that nowhere in all his teachings does he ever condemn all the moral atrocities contained in the Old Testament that were ordered by his father, Yahweh. How could greatness, or morality be attributed to anyone who condones by silence the murder of babies and the rape of women? Keeping that in mind the Dali Lama is a far greater example of a human life than Jesus.

All the best,
Rose

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmm. Jesus having to learn to obey would mean that he disobeyed at some point in time. Tsk tsk.

I hear David saying -----Out of context.
I hear that a lot.

Regards
DL

Thanks DL for citing the verses in Mark and Hebrews. When Jesus said he was not good, he was humble enough to know he was not equal to his Heavenly Father, hence my thread on 'Jesus is not God'. Jesus also knew that in this body of flesh and blood, he was tempted to sin though he did not succumb to the temptation. Jesus would know of the incorruptible body that he would be given after his death and resurrection. Hence Jesus was made perfect being given an incorruptible body. The fact that he remained sinless and overcame the 'devil in the flesh' meant that victory in him made him perfect also.

As it was in the life of Jesus, he remained sinless and in terms of doing his Father's will, he was perfect. You wrongly conclude that Jesus disobeyed at some time, you have no evidence to support that and God does not lie or fudge the matter so Jesus was perfect in doing his Father's will. Haven't you learned not to do something and have not done it , or have you done everything you have been advised not to do? Jesus learned from his Heavenly Father, it is a pity if we do not learn the lessons Jesus learned.


Hello Rose
I have explained that it was not necessary for Jesus to make the condemnation of God that you want to do often and repeatedly. All you are doing by way of reply is to say the same old thing.

All the best to you both,


David

[David M]

Good morning David,

Your comments miss the meat of the video. What do you think about the five moral foundations Haidt listed?

1. Harm/Care
2. Fairness/Reciprocity
3. In-Group Loyalty
4. Authority/Respect
5. Purity/Sanctity

What do you think of his research that showed how liberals and conservatives rank the importance of those five categories? Did you see yourself in the research results? I know I did.


Great chatting,

Richard

Good morning Richard

There was a lot of good comments that the speaker made and though I picked up on the points you make in your reply, I was not intending to comment on the whole of his talk, just the points I wanted to make. The graphs he presented looked interesting and I have no objection to that type of information. The results have no relevancy to me though I appreciate they might have to you. That is our different perspective on these matters. I do not have to put myself in either of the two groups presented.

As to all your other questions you raised in your reply, I do not propose to continue this discussion on the video presented. Overall, it was a good video and I learned something from it.

Once again, it is interesting to read your reply and thank you for that. Others are free to answer any remaining questions I have not answered.

Regards
David

[David M]

I couldn't recall the exact terms (I was a confused teenager at the time I signed it) so I Googled it and found this which fits well with my recollection:



No one who signed the "contract" can be held to it because it has a clause that begins "Being of sound mind" -

Anyone who signed it was obviously NOT of "sound mind" and so cannot be held responsible for signing it.

And there really was no "commitment" other than to abide by the rules of the group "for the next billion years."


Richard

Good morning Richard


That sounds like CATCH 22

No court would rule that is a contract anyone could be held to.


David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard


That sounds like CATCH 22

No court would rule that is a contract anyone could be held to.


David

You got that right David. There really wasn't anything in the contract other than a promise of intent to remain a member of the group "for a billion years." It shows how over the top Ron Hubbard could be with the crap he invented. The amazing thing is that anyone would ever believe it. My only excuse is that I was a troubled teenager at the time with no parents. I grew up with my father after he and my mother divorced when I was a baby, and he committed suicide when I was 14 so I had a lot of "issues" that made me vulnerable to a cult like Scientology that promised super-powers to it's members.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmm. Jesus having to learn to obey would mean that he disobeyed at some point in time. Tsk tsk.

I hear David saying -----Out of context.
I hear that a lot.

Regards
DL

Mark 10:18 has always presented a challenge to those who hold that Jesus was God. The standard explanation is that Jesus was answering a person who didn't believe or understand his divinity. They suggest he was saying "Why do you call me good if you don't think I'm God, since only God is good?" The text says nothing like that , of course, so only a person committed to conforming Scripture to a preconceived doctrine would believe that explanation.

As for Hebrews 5:8, I hadn't thought of that implication before. A person can't "learn obedience" if they already know how to obey. I would guess that most Christians would say "learn" in this context means "acquire experience in" which does not necessarily imply that there was a time when he was disobedient. And given that the same author says Christ was without sin in the immediate context (Heb 4:15), it seems unlikely that he understood what he wrote in the way you suggest. So David would probably be justified if he said your meaning does not fit the context.