Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If morality is relative then moral bankruptcy has no meaning

There's another saying: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

true. but, unlike our friend Russel, I happen to think that morality isn't relative, but instead deterministic in nature.

for details, see:
Objectivist ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know your last statement was intended humorously, but try and think what the world would be like if people folded in the face of adversity all the time.

I have purposely avoided this thread for some time due to my reluctance to discuss religion and/or politics on forums. However, I do wish to contribute. I always found it hard to believe in God. I relied on facts, science, and objective truth for understanding the happenings of the universe. I even had envy for those that believed in God, for I felt that they had hope or comfort in their lives that I could not find. However, something happened to me about three years ago that changed everything. I witnessed something so astonishing and unreal that it jolted my soul. I pondered on this for several months, trying to explain what had happened, but I couldn’t find a practical answer. Although I will not say what it was (because I’m still struggling with it), I will say that I feel as though it was a miracle/divine intervention. I still have some doubts about the Bible and of religious institutions, but this is something that I am still considering. I want to end here by saying that I do believe in God, and for all that’s it worth, I feel grateful and at peace for the first time in my life.

Hang on now, I haven't said that I believe morality to be relative. That was inferred from what I said (maybe in the creationism thread), but is not entirely what I meant.

Morality ought to be something that is innate and available to all persons with the ability to rationalize. Morality does have objective truths, one of which I firmly believe in is responsibility for one's own actions (i.e. it is always immoral to allow the transferring of guilt/shame/sin/crime/punishment onto a person that did not partake in the action).

Some things are subjective to the context of the situation, like if a doctor has a cure for a disease and only has enough for one person, but must choose between five different people, the morality of his decision is subject to the details about the five people, but it would be objectively immoral to just withold the cure all together.

So in that context, moral bancruptcy has the same meaning and my point holds true; to say that my salvation depends on the murder of another individual is wrong in any context.

sorry russell, wasn't trying to over-generalize.

If you're born a slave, someone might have to die for you to free you

"to say that my salvation depends on the murder of another individual is wrong in any context."

Unless it's true, in which case it isn't wrong. Look at what happened during the US civil war. Many slaves' salvation did depend on lives being taken.

Or do you mean morally wrong? In which case then what is morally wrong about someone else willingly laying down their life in order to try to save yours? The only moral wrong is that someone has justified owning you as a slave and that they're willing to kill anyone who tries to save you. It wasn't your fault, but you were powerless to free yourself. Even if you escaped, by law you had to be returned to your owner. Unless of course someone came along with the authority, the will, and the means to enforce a better way

It's not a problem, just wanted to clarify.

The issue certainly has some subtle details that can't always be articulated in their true form.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If you're born a slave, someone might have to die for you to free you

"to say that my salvation depends on the murder of another individual is wrong in any context."

Unless it's true, in which case it isn't wrong. Look at what happened during the US civil war. Many slaves' salvation did depend on lives being taken.

Or do you mean morally wrong? In which case then what is morally wrong about someone else willingly laying down their life in order to try to save yours? The only moral wrong is that someone has justified owning you as a slave and that they're willing to kill anyone who tries to save you. It wasn't your fault, but you were powerless to free yourself. Even if you escaped, by law you had to be returned to your owner. Unless of course someone came along with the authority, the will, and the means to enforce a better way

First off, yes, I meant morally wrong, we're having a discussion of morality not of factual events.

Secondly, the issue of morality arises when you say "this man died for your freedom" under the assumption that I was a slave, a notion imposed by the system that that man promulgated.

To continue your analogy of slavery, it would be as if the freedom fighters had enslaved the slaves, then died to free them again. The slaves, at that point, owe the dead freedom fighters no gratitude.

Religion perpetuates the idea of original sin, it's not imposed by an outside source.

(besides that, we're back to forming opinions of what an unknowable entity wants and believes, futility is really getting a workout on this one. )

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

...the assumption that I was a slave, a notion imposed by the system that that man promulgated...

...it would be as if the freedom fighters had enslaved the slaves, then died to free them again...

Religion perpetuates the idea of original sin, it's not imposed by an outside source.

(besides that, we're back to forming opinions of what an unknowable entity wants and believes, futility is really getting a workout on this one. )

Either you were a slave or you were not regardless of what man promulgated
It would be as if your parents had succombed to slavery and then you were born into it
Religion does all kinds of things, but you don't have any control over the choices other people make (try as it might)

But then someone will say, "I shouldn't be a slave just because of someone else's mistakes" and they would be right. I guess other people's choices can negatively affect your life though, whether you like it or not

And yes, this whole thread is a discussion on God, not necessarily a discussion on an unknowable entity. Futility, thy name is internet debates

To continue your analogy of slavery, it would be as if the freedom fighters had enslaved the slaves, then died to free them again. The slaves, at that point, owe the dead freedom fighters no gratitude.

Not quite right if you are refering to Christianity.

Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

It was (and still is) then man's decision whether to either obey God, or to dissobey God.

Craig,

Exactly, in the reference frame of Christianity, everyone is born a "slave".

In the reference frame of India untill the mid 1900's (not sure of it's prominence anymore), everyone was born into a caste.

Just because some reference frame makes a claim, it does not make it true. They are both conventional beliefs that are equally unsubstantiated.

Lee,

But the real solution would be to take the high road and absolve everyone because of their innate innocence and offer them support and blessing without the threat of punishment for refusing that support. The fact that it happens in real life does not make it any more unjust.