A thought about our significance

[oxmixmudd]

Huh? Who says that is the choice?

Exactly. These are very difficult passages for anyone wrestling with whether or not the Bible is the word of God. There is a sort of "God would have known what was best and we trust that is what this was all about" that gets banterred about in more conservative circles. It is a technical argument that you can't really argue with on one level (God is after all "all knowing" so one always has to allow for the fact He knows more than we do and can make choices like that).

The real problem there is that IF there are theoretically justifiable reasons for Genocide, then whether we like it or not it paves the way for a person to find they also have "heard from God" and should proceed with some heinous act. This is in fact the sort of reasoning extremist Muslims and certain anti-abortion clinic bombers use to justify their actions. There is nothing that can clear a conscience of its resistence to the commission of a horribly immoral act than the belief "God told me to do this". I believe this is one reason Jesus allowed for NO excuse for voilence in his name. And all attempts to 'fight for him' he refuted - vigorously. In fact the only record we have of Him becoming aggressive was in clearing those that would use people's devotion to God as a means of manipulating them from the Temple itself.

I struggle with these passages myself Carpedm9587. And I do not have a really good answer for them.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

There is no surprise that the bible has stories of the Jews laying waste an enemy: man, woman, child, etc. It was a common practice in war in that age, and largely intended to avoid the problem being faced today: that the young will grow to become the next-generation enemy. That can't happen if they are all dead. It's called genocide. So I am not surprised it occurs in the bible, or any writings from that age, and I am not surprised it is described as being "an order from god." Clearly the people of that age would justify such actions in such terms.

I AM surprised by people in 2018 justifying that kind of war and that kind of action. THAT is a little bit scary, actually.

It doesn't come from a desire to do such acts. It comes out of a desire to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable saying "God ordered genocide" on the one hand and "God loved us so much he came and died for us to set us free from Hell and Death". The two ideas, one of a God of unlimited love, and the other of a God who orders the extermination of an entire people just can't really coexist in the same mind without some sort of explanation that reconciles them. Some relegate the passages to accomodation to the culture or even perhaps a cultural mythology, others search for explanations the retain the concept of inerrancy and/or literal history and true revelation and that usually end saying the people were so evil they were receiving Gods righteous judgement, which when taken to children and babies requires some so of 'they were better off dead' caveat.

As I said in my previous post, I struggle with these passages myself. There are no simple answers I know of that do not also undermine a simplistic view of how we can regard the Bible as inspired or inerrant.


Jim

[JimL]

The argument from the theistic perspective seems to be that morals are both objective and subject to change, aka god.

[seer]

It doesn't come from a desire to do such acts. It comes out of a desire to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable saying "God ordered genocide" on the one hand and "God loved us so much he came and died for us to set us free from Hell and Death". The two ideas, one of a God of unlimited love, and the other of a God who orders the extermination of an entire people just can't really coexist in the same mind without some sort of explanation that reconciles them.

Jim

Jim I'm not really sure what your problem is, Jesus was pretty clear on what would happen to the "children of the devil." And it is not pleasant.

The real problem there is that IF there are theoretically justifiable reasons for Genocide, then whether we like it or not it paves the way for a person to find they also have "heard from God" and should proceed with some heinous act.

We don't need God to justify genocide, just ask the Stalinist or Maoist.

[carpedm9587]

Pretty much in that society, yeah it was. They were the left overs of a war. They could not leave potential enemies behind to attack them later - or worse to die slowly in the desert. So they would either have to take them prisoner (slaves) or kill them. Remember these were basically the terrorists of the time. The Amelekites raided the Israelites while they were on the road, killing their women and children.

As I said, Sparko - false Dichotomy. The approach to terrorism of "destroy them all," is clearly not functional in this era, and it was not functional then. The history of wars throughout that regions throughout that last two millenia is adequate testimony to that.

If you think otherwise, then feel free to make the choice in the dichotomy you have established. I will not.

[carpedm9587]

Exactly. These are very difficult passages for anyone wrestling with whether or not the Bible is the word of God. There is a sort of "God would have known what was best and we trust that is what this was all about" that gets banterred about in more conservative circles. It is a technical argument that you can't really argue with on one level (God is after all "all knowing" so one always has to allow for the fact He knows more than we do and can make choices like that).

The real problem there is that IF there are theoretically justifiable reasons for Genocide, then whether we like it or not it paves the way for a person to find they also have "heard from God" and should proceed with some heinous act. This is in fact the sort of reasoning extremist Muslims and certain anti-abortion clinic bombers use to justify their actions. There is nothing that can clear a conscience of its resistence to the commission of a horribly immoral act than the belief "God told me to do this". I believe this is one reason Jesus allowed for NO excuse for voilence in his name. And all attempts to 'fight for him' he refuted - vigorously. In fact the only record we have of Him becoming aggressive was in clearing those that would use people's devotion to God as a means of manipulating them from the Temple itself.

I struggle with these passages myself Carpedm9587. And I do not have a really good answer for them.

Jim

"Struggle" is a good place to be with these passages. Ultimately, I came to see them as the writings of a people documenting a blend of history and theology. That these wars of decimation occured is beyond dispute. Ultimately, placing the authority for the decimation on god (i.e., god told us to do it) is a theological response to a historical attrocity. I don't think a god ordered this, of course, but I didn't think that was the case even when I was Christian. Many of the attributes of god, as reported in the OT, are simply not consistent with an all-good, all-powerful, all-just being. And I have never subscribed to the idea "if god does it, it's just." What I used to subscribe to was the notion that "god only does what is just." So eventually I came to believe that the god reported in the OT was god as he/she/it was seen in the early phases of Isreal's theological development. In other words, we were "seeing god" through the eyes of the Isrealites. I came separate the historical parts of the OT from the theological/legendary/mythological parts. Eventually, I reached the point where the only "direct" intervention I believed in was the person of Jesus himself. Then, eventually, that changed too.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim I'm not really sure what your problem is, Jesus was pretty clear on what would happen to the "children of the devil." And it is not pleasant.

The problem is that when people believe themselves to be the instrument of God's judgement, there is little difference between what they do and what Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot did.

However, when people believe themselves to be the instruments of God's grace, compassion, mercy, and love - then the world becomes a better place.

We don't need God to justify genocide, just ask the Stalinist or Maoist.

No, but claiming and believing God is one's ally in committing unspeakable evil silences all debate against the action itself. And it closes the door to redemption from that evil, and repentance. That is its danger. Stalin was evil. Hitler was evil. But convince a good man God wants him to do evil and you take an otherwise good person and turn them into instruments of evil. Is that not the ultimate evil - to turn what is good into an instrument of evil? And if one accepts God commanded Israel to do just that, how do you keep someone from thinking that God today might be asking them to do the same thing?

And that is the theological difficulty of the passages. Why does God not ask us to do similar things to evil people in the world today*? And many people have become convinced He does call them to similar acts. And some of them blow up abortion clinics. And some of them drag gay people behind trucks till they have no skin left on their bodies. And so on.


Jim

*is the answer really only that Christ has come and the law is fulfilled? I that the reason God doesn't ask people to do things like that today and nothing else?

[oxmixmudd]

Correct.



Correct.



In "absolute" terms, correct.



By outlining what we value and why, and how that leads to the moral position we hold.



Actually - I do.



To him - not to me.



It is really wrong, in my moral framework, to kill children. Ergo - I will defend the rights of children always.

Again, Sparko, your objection reduces to "subjective moral framework are not objective." We already know that. That's what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean. Yu still have not made a case for why subjective morality fails. I observe it is how ALL morality functions, even those who claim to be "objective." That still has not been addressed.

Ultimately, I believe that a subjective formulation for morality must eventually fail, because in the end morality must be that which supports and encourages a civilization to grow and prosper. That is, in much the same way that one cannot argue that the power of gravity to take your life jumping off a cliff is a matter of opinion, so one can't argue that a human community where random murder is perfectly acceptable can in fact survive. The universe itself has laws. And for a community to live and to grow certain basic constructs must be a part of it. Those constructs are in fact the base absolutes of morality, and in fact, most of us are born imbued with such basic moral elements. Even the youngest children understand (even if they don't necessarily follow) the concept of fairness. In such young ones it is generally all about them of course, but they still know when another kid gets 'more' than them. And they can easily grasp that is is 'fair' (if not what they want) to split a candy bar in half with their friend.

So I do not think that morality is subjective. It is based on certain absolutes without which a stable society simply can't exist and which become fleshed out within a cultural matrix.

Those absolutes I believe are well codified in the 10 commandments/ code of Hammurabi and similar sets of laws common to nearly all truly successful civilizations.


Jim

[JimL]

Ultimately, I believe that a subjective formulation for morality must eventually fail, because in the end morality must be that which supports and encourages a civilization to grow and prosper. That is, in much the same way that one cannot argue that the power of gravity to take your life jumping off a cliff is a matter of opinion, so one can't argue that a human community where random murder is perfectly acceptable can in fact survive. The universe itself has laws. And for a community to live and to grow certain basic constructs must be a part of it. Those constructs are in fact the base absolutes of morality, and in fact, most of us are born imbued with such basic moral elements. Even the youngest children understand (even if they don't necessarily follow) the concept of fairness. In such young ones it is generally all about them of course, but they still know when another kid gets 'more' than them. And they can easily grasp that is is 'fair' (if not what they want) to split a candy bar in half with their friend.

So I do not think that morality is subjective. It is based on certain absolutes without which a stable society simply can't exist and which become fleshed out within a cultural matrix.

Those absolutes I believe are well codified in the 10 commandments/ code of Hammurabi and similar sets of laws common to nearly all truly successful civilizations.


Jim

Agreed, and those objective morals are relative to the world in which they exist and have to do with human behaviors that are in the best interests of, or what is good for society, and need have nothing to do with God or any other sort of objective source.

[seer]

The problem is that when people believe themselves to be the instrument of God's judgement, there is little difference between what they do and what Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot did.

Except some people are actually instruments of God's judgement, at least in the Old Testament.

However, when people believe themselves to be the instruments of God's grace, compassion, mercy, and love - then the world becomes a better place.

I generally agree.

No, but claiming and believing God is one's ally in committing unspeakable evil silences all debate against the action itself. And it closes the door to redemption from that evil, and repentance. That is its danger. Stalin was evil. Hitler was evil. But convince a good man God wants him to do evil and you take an otherwise good person and turn them into instruments of evil. Is that not the ultimate evil - to turn what is good into an instrument of evil? And if one accepts God commanded Israel to do just that, how do you keep someone from thinking that God today might be asking them to do the same thing?

I'm not sure what you mean Jim, God certainly did use one group of men to attack or destroy other groups of men. And that is not necessarily evil, unless you deny those texts.

And that is the theological difficulty of the passages. Why does God not ask us to do similar things to evil people in the world today*? And many people have become convinced He does call them to similar acts. And some of them blow up abortion clinics. And some of them drag gay people behind trucks till they have no skin left on their bodies. And so on.

Christians are under a New Covenant following the law of Christ.

*is the answer really only that Christ has come and the law is fulfilled? I that the reason God doesn't ask people to do things like that today and nothing else?

Agreed.

[carpedm9587]

Ultimately, I believe that a subjective formulation for morality must eventually fail, because in the end morality must be that which supports and encourages a civilization to grow and prosper. That is, in much the same way that one cannot argue that the power of gravity to take your life jumping off a cliff is a matter of opinion, so one can't argue that a human community where random murder is perfectly acceptable can in fact survive.

Of course it cannot - which is why you are unlikely to ever see a society or culture where "random murder" is considered a moral good. "Subjective" does not mean "stupid" and it does not mean "anything can become moral." It is moronic not to value life, and very few humans end up "not valuing life." Since morality springs from what we value, the vast majority of us will see "random killing" as a moral evil.

The universe itself has laws. And for a community to live and to grow certain basic constructs must be a part of it. Those constructs are in fact the base absolutes of morality, and in fact, most of us are born imbued with such basic moral elements.

The universe has physical laws which are essentially inviolate (at least in this universe). The principles that govern the operation of a society are not quite the same, because they are not equally inviolate, but there is likewise an observable predictability to them. If you want to call these "absolutes," I suppose you can. Indeed, you've come far closer to suggesting the basis for an "absolute" than Seer has ever done. A society that does not value life is going to tend to be self-destructive, and therefore is not going to be a particularly healthy society. But while that reality is a predictable basis, and is an observable reality, the moral code that springs from that reality is still individually defined. I don't see how you get away from morality being subjective.

Even the youngest children understand (even if they don't necessarily follow) the concept of fairness. In such young ones it is generally all about them of course, but they still know when another kid gets 'more' than them. And they can easily grasp that is is 'fair' (if not what they want) to split a candy bar in half with their friend.

I'm going to guess you don't have kids.

Kids are all over the map on this, largely because they begin as being completely centered on self. So they recognize fairness largely when someone else has more than they have, but not when they have more than someone else. The concept of reciprocity (i.e., the golden rule) which is the basic social contract that causes us to extend our moral framework outside of ourselves to others has not really happened for them because they are not yet truly capable of moral reasoning.

So I do not think that morality is subjective. It is based on certain absolutes without which a stable society simply can't exist and which become fleshed out within a cultural matrix.

Those absolutes I believe are well codified in the 10 commandments/ code of Hammurabi and similar sets of laws common to nearly all truly successful civilizations.

Jim

I think you are confusing "the things we value and why they are valued" with "the moral codes we derive as a result thereof." The ten commandments codifies some of the most commonly held moral principles western society has derived. But they ar eby no means absolute. I commonly use the commandment about stealing as an example. Stealing is only a concept in a culture that has the principle of "personal property." In a culture in which everything is held communally (and there are such cultures), there is not usually even a word for "stealing." The idea is foreign to such cultures. And the concept of "coveting they neighbor's wife" is only an issue in cultures with traditional, fixed, marriage relationships. In cultures that do not have such a social structure, the idea is foreign as well. There are other examples. So the ten commandments documents a subjectively derived set of moral principles common to a very particular type of culture(s).

[oxmixmudd]

I'm going to guess you don't have kids.

Kids are all over the map on this, largely because they begin as being completely centered on self. So they recognize fairness largely when someone else has more than they have, but not when they have more than someone else. The concept of reciprocity (i.e., the golden rule) which is the basic social contract that causes us to extend our moral framework outside of ourselves to others has not really happened for them because they are not yet truly capable of moral reasoning.

Actually - I do have kids. Four of them. But I anticipated this response, in part because it is hard to properly phrase a statement so that one can understand the point I'm making. I tried with my parenthetical clauses to help qualify the element I'm discussing. People from a young age are aware of fairness. They usually apply it to themselves first and then learn to apply it outside themselves, but we understand when something is not fair. Many elements of our moral codes draw from that sense of fairness coupled with the capacity to empathize - another inborn human trait that most of us possess. In fact, when a person doesn't have an inborn capacity to empathize it produces very destructive (to society) sorts of personalities. Now I am not minimizing the role of culture and education in amplifying and molding this basic elements into a cultural morality, but what I'm saying is that these basic components are absolute, for the most part inborn (instinctive) and when we violate them we participate in destructive acts either to ourselves or to those around us. I would liken them to primary colors. Many varied and different pictures can be produced with them, but not if one ignores or denies their fundamental properties and characteristics.


[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing "the things we value and why they are valued" with "the moral codes we derive as a result thereof." The ten commandments codifies some of the most commonly held moral principles western society has derived. But they ar eby no means absolute. I commonly use the commandment about stealing as an example. Stealing is only a concept in a culture that has the principle of "personal property." In a culture in which everything is held communally (and there are such cultures), there is not usually even a word for "stealing." The idea is foreign to such cultures. And the concept of "coveting they neighbor's wife" is only an issue in cultures with traditional, fixed, marriage relationships. In cultures that do not have such a social structure, the idea is foreign as well. There are other examples. So the ten commandments documents a subjectively derived set of moral principles common to a very particular type of culture(s).[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with you in principle. "Thou shalt not steal" is an application of basic fairness and empathy within a context where we have the capacity for ownership. Where we disagree is whether or not there can be a society where some sort of ownership never exists. Within whatever elements of ownership exists, the concept of stealing exists. And I would hazard to guess that while societies may exist that are 'more' communal than our own, there are still applications where the concept of stealing has meaning, and such societies would still develop from basic principles some expression of the fact it is wrong to do that. One area where I can not imagine it would be possible to avoid some sense of ownership would be children. We have evolved male and female. And there are certain instinctual elements to the bonding of a women to the child I would expect would need to be respected for a society not to be dysfunctional in some way.


In the end I would expect the 10 commandments to express a 'best' outworking of those moral 'absolutes' within the context of the original world and cultural context Israel form within, and perhaps that it would be a best minimal outworking universally.

JIm

[carpedm9587]

Actually - I do have kids. Four of them. But I anticipated this response, in part because it is hard to properly phrase a statement so that one can understand the point I'm making. I tried with my parenthetical clauses to help qualify the element I'm discussing. People from a young age are aware of fairness. They usually apply it to themselves first and then learn to apply it outside themselves, but we understand when something is not fair. Many elements of our moral codes draw from that sense of fairness coupled with the capacity to empathize - another inborn human trait that most of us possess.

I disagree. The "fairness" you refer to is nothing more than the social contract we all enter into within a society. It is a re-expression of what is called the "golden rule." But the golden rule is not a moral precept in and of itself. Instead, what it does is extend our moral code outside of ourselves to the larger community. The "golden rule" tells us how to apply our moral precepts. So if we value "personal possessions" then we see as moral acts that protect those moral possessions. But the "golden rule" social contract tells us if we expect the larger society to act in a way to protect our personal posessions, then we maximize that by modeling the same behavior in return, and teaching our children this rule, and encouraging this rule within the society at large.

In fact, when a person doesn't have an inborn capacity to empathize it produces very destructive (to society) sorts of personalities. Now I am not minimizing the role of culture and education in amplifying and molding this basic elements into a cultural morality, but what I'm saying is that these basic components are absolute, for the most part inborn (instinctive) and when we violate them we participate in destructive acts either to ourselves or to those around us. I would liken them to primary colors. Many varied and different pictures can be produced with them, but not if one ignores or denies their fundamental properties and characteristics.

You were doing good until you got to "absolute." Yes, there are dynamics that are well-established norms for how cultures and societies operate. The concept of reciprocity, being one. The role of empathy being another. But then you destroy your "absolute" by noting that it is not universal or absolute at all: there are some who derive different moral codes because they value differebtly, or they lack the ability to empathize, or perhaps even lack the ability to reason. I can agree with you that societies tend to operate on the concept of reciprocity, and that is highly dependent on a functional empathy. But then you are trying to leap from that reality to a moral code arrived at through reasoning on these elements coupled with core values, and the fact is we do not all value identically, nor do we place the same emphasis on what we value.

I don't disagree with you in principle. "Thou shalt not steal" is an application of basic fairness and empathy within a context where we have the capacity for ownership. Where we disagree is whether or not there can be a society where some sort of ownership never exists. Within whatever elements of ownership exists, the concept of stealing exists. And I would hazard to guess that while societies may exist that are 'more' communal than our own, there are still applications where the concept of stealing has meaning, and such societies would still develop from basic principles some expression of the fact it is wrong to do that. One area where I can not imagine it would be possible to avoid some sense of ownership would be children. We have evolved male and female. And there are certain instinctual elements to the bonding of a women to the child I would expect would need to be respected for a society not to be dysfunctional in some way.

Even if you were right about ownership (and I know you are not because we studied such a culture in my anthropology class in college - but I am not able to remember their name of find a reference ot them online, so I cannot defend that position beyond my memory), it still does not make "though shalt steal an "absolute." It is simply a moral precept rooted in the concept of valuing personal property. How that ranks int he hierarchy of valuing will alter how the moral precept emerges. And even if you were right about a society that does not have the concept of "personal property" not existing, such a society is not logically contradictory in any way: it COULD exist, and it would simply not have the concept of stealing at all because it would not value personal property. It is practically true that all humans breathe air (gas), but it is not theoretically true; a human can also survive breathing an oxygen-rich liquid as well. Indeed, somewhere on earth there are probably a handful of deep-sea divers doing that at this moment. Likewise, somewhere on earth, there are communes that do not have the concept of "personal property." It's not logically necessary to have it - so it is not absolute/universal to have the concept of theft.

In the end I would expect the 10 commandments to express a 'best' outworking of those moral 'absolutes' within the context of the original world and cultural context Israel form within, and perhaps that it would be a best minimal outworking universally.

JIm

The ten commandments reflect a set of moral norms, most of which were documented in other venues both before and after the ten commandments were written. Some were not (i.e., not all moral codes have the concept of revereing a god and not having other gods before it). They are common because, though they are not absolute/universal, they are widely found in most societies and cultures. They are widely found because they are outgrowth of human valuing and reasoning. Hmans share a great deal in common with one another, so it is not surprising to find a great deal of parallelism in th emoral codes of individuals and societies, and to find common themes in the documented moral codes of many cultures and religions. That doe snot make them "absolute" or "universal." It just makes them very common.

Michel

P.S. I have to say that I admire your tone in all of this. I suspect you and I may not agree, but I respect the fact that you are able to articulate your beliefs, argue for them, defend them, and disagree with me without engaging in ridicule, condescension, or animosity. It speaks very well for the kind of person you obviously are.

[37818]

I have been pondering this since you asked. How significant is the electron? Now if mankind is absolutely unique in our known universe that would be significant in another way different than the electron. We seem to know about the electron. Revelation (Genesis 1:26) or not (religious fiction) we have no way to know our significance beyond a sparrow (Matthew 10:29). As far as we know we are unique, but we also do not in fact that we are unique.

[Scrawly]

Guys, I think we can all agree that this guy has literally figured out the meaning of life (damn it I gotta stop trolling):