What is Morality?

[Crazy Anglican]

Why do I have to have one? I am not sure how the universe began, if indeed it had a beginning at all.

Just because I am not certain of the origin of the universe does not make your theory right. Your theory makes no sense to me, because it relies on special pleading.

You don't have to have any idea at all about the subject at all, I just thought you might since you brought it up.

You're right. If you have no idea about the beginning of the universe, it has no bearing on the consistency of theory at all, neither positive nor negative. As to special pleading, okay if I have committed this particular fallacy in my responses to you, please point out were.

Where did God come from and how did God just happen to come together in the way you describe?

I believe that this was answered more than once. That's when you said you didn't understand the answer because it was nonsense, but didn't attempt to show any flaw in the logic of the answer.

[CaptainFritz28]

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

Then stop telling me I'm imagining him wrong!

Either what I imagine God to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!!

So... what you are telling me is that either you are right about everything or else God doesn't exist.
The thing is that we are basing our views of God on an objective written account of God's actions and attributes, whereas you are basing your views on... your own views. So yours is entirely circular. Ours at least has a standard outside of ourselves, which standard comes from God.
Are you claiming to know everything about God perfectly? That certainly seems to be what you are claiming.

[CaptainFritz28]

Consider this:

I can conceive of the concept of a Roman Emperor. I have never seen one, nor heard, smelt, tasted, felt, or otherwise observed in any empirical sense a Roman Emperor. However, I have written accounts of such Emperors' actions, words, and character. Now then, if I say "Roman Emperors were perfect people" whilst ignoring the source from where I take my conceived idea of a Roman Emperor, you would call me ludicrous. You would say "No, look at these written accounts of the Roman Emperor which killed such and such Gallic tribe, or look at these accounts of how the Roman Emperors oppressed freedom of religion and speech and crucified their political opponents!" To which, if I were using Jamie's logic, I would reply "If the Roman Emperors existed, then stop telling me I am imagining them wrong! Either what I imagine Roman Emperors to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!" If I were further presented with the aforementioned writings, again using Jamie's logic, I would claim that "they were written thousands of years ago, and the closest manuscripts we have are dozens of years or centuries after the events, so they can't be accurate and my version is still the correct one."

Do you see the problem? You can have your own view of God, sure. But you are trying to argue against the God of the Bible by claiming attributes of Him that are entirely un-Biblical. If you are going to address the matter of the God of the Bible, then use the God described in the Bible to do so. Using your own version to try and disprove the Biblical God's existence won't work, since it's an equivocation of your own conception of God with the Bible's written descriptions of God.

[Crazy Anglican]

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

You have every right to conceive of God in any way you see fit, but that's your concept. It doesn't have to be mine. The problem is in telling other people what they believe in order to assert that they are wrong. I am happy to defend my own thoughts; I don't need to defend your misrepresentation of them.

[Jamiet99uk]

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

Then stop telling me I'm imagining him wrong!

Either what I imagine God to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!!

So... what you are telling me is that either you are right about everything or else God doesn't exist.
The thing is that we are basing our views of God on an objective written account of God's actions and attributes, whereas you are basing your views on... your own views. So yours is entirely circular. Ours at least has a standard outside of ourselves, which standard comes from God.
Are you claiming to know everything about God perfectly? That certainly seems to be what you are claiming.

Of course I'm not fucking claiming that.

I don't know anything about God, clearly. This is not a huge problem for me because I don't imagine that God exists.

[CaptainFritz28]

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

Then stop telling me I'm imagining him wrong!

Either what I imagine God to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!!

Then what on earth did this mean?

[Crazy Anglican]

I don't know anything about God, clearly. This is not a huge problem for me because I don't imagine that God exists.

Okay, first Awesome. You've moved from not being able to conceive of God to simply not imagining He exists. That's movement in the right direction. Good deal.

For someone who doesn't know anything about God though (and it may have been a sarcastic remark, I'm not 100% sure.) You seem to make a lot of statements about Him, and you're not really receptive to anyone else's counter proposals about Him. I've met very strict Christians who are more yielding to diverse ideas than you appear to be on this one.

[Jamiet99uk]

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

Then stop telling me I'm imagining him wrong!

Either what I imagine God to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!!

Then what on earth did this mean?

It means that this entire conversation is a complete waste of everyone's time.

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't know anything about God, clearly. This is not a huge problem for me because I don't imagine that God exists.

Okay, first Awesome. You've moved from not being able to conceive of God to simply not imagining He exists. That's movement in the right direction. Good deal.

For someone who doesn't know anything about God though (and it may have been a sarcastic remark, I'm not 100% sure.) You seem to make a lot of statements about Him, and you're not really receptive to anyone else's counter proposals about Him. I've met very strict Christians who are more yielding to diverse ideas than you appear to be on this one.

Whatever. I'm tired of these games.

There's no God, and if there was, he would be an abusive parent not worthy of worship.

I'm done.

[Crazy Anglican]

I don't know anything about God, clearly. This is not a huge problem for me because I don't imagine that God exists.

Okay, first Awesome. You've moved from not being able to conceive of God to simply not imagining He exists. That's movement in the right direction. Good deal.

For someone who doesn't know anything about God though (and it may have been a sarcastic remark, I'm not 100% sure.) You seem to make a lot of statements about Him, and you're not really receptive to anyone else's counter proposals about Him. I've met very strict Christians who are more yielding to diverse ideas than you appear to be on this one.

Whatever. I'm tired of these games.

There's no God, and if there was, he would be an abusive parent not worthy of worship.

I'm done.

No problem, it was a bit of a tangent anyway.

God is definitely worthy of worship and there is literally two thousand years worth of Christian theology, philosophy, and debate to back up my claim. Like I said though, not that you need my approval, you're welcome to whatever opinion you have on the topic. I was just addressing the Christian side of the issue. No offense intended.

[CaptainFritz28]

I don't know anything about God, clearly. This is not a huge problem for me because I don't imagine that God exists.

Okay, first Awesome. You've moved from not being able to conceive of God to simply not imagining He exists. That's movement in the right direction. Good deal.

For someone who doesn't know anything about God though (and it may have been a sarcastic remark, I'm not 100% sure.) You seem to make a lot of statements about Him, and you're not really receptive to anyone else's counter proposals about Him. I've met very strict Christians who are more yielding to diverse ideas than you appear to be on this one.

There's no God, and if there was, he would be an abusive parent not worthy of worship.

I'm done.

You may retire from the conversation at any point, no issue at all.

Clearly you take your views of God from somewhere else than the Bible. It is obvious that whatever source of information from which you have drawn your conclusions of His attributes is not one which worships the God of the Bible.

To be clear, I have no anger or hatred towards you. Your refusal to explore the possibility of the Bible's truth is not my loss, but yours, and for that I am sorry.

The God that I know is one of love, mercy, and grace. He created us with free will because He loves us and wanted to give us the ability to love Him and each other, rather than being emotionless machines forced to follow His every command. He knew that we would sin, but He also knew that it was a better option for us to be allowed free will and sin than for us to be devoid of the ability to love. He also is a God of justice, and knows that there are consequences for sin. Because of this, there needed to be a sacrifice, perfect and without sin, made to pay what we cannot.
So not only did God provide that sacrifice, He himself came to Earth in the physical form of a human, lived the perfect life that is impossible for us to live, and died, of a crucifixion, innocently, as the perfect sacrifice needed for our forgiveness. He then rose to life again, proving His ability to overcome the punishment of death.
He is willing to forgive us of every time we disobey Him, every wrong we have done Him, and every evil we have done which otherwise would have a rightful punishment of eternal death. He gave of Himself entirely so that we can have eternal life. It is an entirely free offer, with no strings attached.
Romans 10:9
"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Christianity provides purpose for humanity. Christianity provides a solution to morality, a direct set of moral laws from God. Christianity explains the purpose of suffering and evil. Christianity provides hope of eternal life after death. Without God, none of this has an explanation, and yet they are questions that every human must determine an answer to.

Perhaps you think it's all nonsense, but you have brought no logic to bear against it. Sure, the idea of God is circular, but so is everything else. Christianity is no less logical than any other worldview, but it also answers questions that nothing else can, and provides unparalleled joy, love, and hope to those who believe. If at the end of this you come out with the same conclusions as before, then I pity you all the more, for you have heard the truth and denied it. But if you have changed, even a bit, to recognizing the legitimacy of the Bible, then I am overjoyed to have brought you a step closer to eternal life. I love you, Jamie. Not in the sense of the world's romantics, but simply because you are human, and because God has loved me. I hope you one day receive such love as God has shown me.

[mOctave]

Clearly you take your views of God from somewhere else than the Bible.

May I propose once again that the Bible is subjective? The God you have been taught about and that is supported by the Bible is a good and loving one, true, but there are also plenty of ways to interpret the Bible that imply a hateful God who isn't worthy of worship. After all, God suggests that if we live a good life or believe in his Son, then we will spend eternity in happiness with him and apparently without any more free will. Why should we willingly choose to sacrifice our free will in exchange for eternal, happy, life being manipulated by someone else?

This isn't necessarily an accurate reading of the Bible, but it is a reading, and to suggest that such a view of God doesn't come from the Bible is offensive. It does come from the Bible, just not your perception of it.

You have said over and over again that everything you say is backed by the Bible, and that the Bible is objective, but it isn't. When you read the Bible, presumably you read a translated, transcribed, and edited version originally written by imperfect human beings who supposedly had divine guidance. The Bible may well be true in the way you believe, and the God that you write about may well exist, but the Bible itself does not provide proof that it is meant to be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it. If Jamiet isn't taking their views of God from the Bible, than neither are you: you are taking your views of God from your family, religious mentors, and role models. If everyone's idea of God came purely from the Bible, then we would all have an identical idea of God. We don't. Your idea is different from my idea which is different from Jamiet's idea.

Of course, Jamiet probably does have a very incomplete understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that yours—or anyone's—is perfect.

[CaptainFritz28]

No, mine is not perfect. I probably have lots of things wrong. However, if we want to debate the Christian Doctrine of God as per the Bible, I'm all for it. Present me a Biblical interpretation of God, and let's discuss. Crazy A and I have already gone over why we believe Jamie's is not Biblical.

[CaptainFritz28]

After all, God suggests that if we live a good life or believe in his Son, then we will spend eternity in happiness with him and apparently without any more free will. Why should we willingly choose to sacrifice our free will in exchange for eternal, happy, life being manipulated by someone else?

First of all, the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus death, resurrection, lordship, and forgiveness of sins. "Living a good life" will never get you into Heaven.
(John 14:6, Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:8-9)

Also, where exactly is it implied or stated that we lose all free will when we go to Heaven?

This isn't necessarily an accurate reading of the Bible, but it is a reading, and to suggest that such a view of God doesn't come from the Bible is offensive. It does come from the Bible, just not your perception of it.

If you admit that it isn't accurate, then why bring it up? A false interpretation is just that - false.
Some of Jamie's views of God are described similar to the Bible's description of God. Most of them are not. That's why I said that they don't come from the Bible. I can say that the President should have absolute power over the United States, and claim that my view comes from the Constitution, but that obviously isnt Constitutional. It's an interpretation, but it's a false one.

You have said over and over again that everything you say is backed by the Bible, and that the Bible is objective, but it isn't. When you read the Bible, presumably you read a translated, transcribed, and edited version originally written by imperfect human beings who supposedly had divine guidance. The Bible may well be true in the way you believe, and the God that you write about may well exist, but the Bible itself does not provide proof that it is meant to be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it. If Jamiet isn't taking their views of God from the Bible, than neither are you: you are taking your views of God from your family, religious mentors, and role models. If everyone's idea of God came purely from the Bible, then we would all have an identical idea of God. We don't. Your idea is different from my idea which is different from Jamiet's idea.

Again, if we want to debate my views' Biblical accuracy, I'm all for it. I'm sure I've been influenced by those around me and my experiences just like anyone else, but I believe my views are in line with the Bible's. If you believe they aren't, then by all means say why.

Of course, Jamiet probably does have a very incomplete understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that yours—or anyone's—is perfect.

No, not at all. But I have not seen anything that indicates that it is wrong. If something I have said is Biblically incorrect, I would appreciate correction.

[Crazy Anglican]

Jamie said that he was out of the conversation. I propose we respect that decision and move along.

[Crazy Anglican]

Clearly you take your views of God from somewhere else than the Bible.

May I propose once again that the Bible is subjective?

Sure, I guess my question is what do you mean by subjective? It looks like you mean subject to interpretation. I'd agree with that, of course. Any written document is.

[CaptainFritz28]

Jamie said that he was out of the conversation. I propose we respect that decision and move along.

Agreed.

[mOctave]

After all, God suggests that if we live a good life or believe in his Son, then we will spend eternity in happiness with him and apparently without any more free will. Why should we willingly choose to sacrifice our free will in exchange for eternal, happy, life being manipulated by someone else?

First of all, the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus death, resurrection, lordship, and forgiveness of sins. "Living a good life" will never get you into Heaven.
(John 14:6, Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:8-9)

Also, where exactly is it implied or stated that we lose all free will when we go to Heaven?

When I meant "living a good life" I probably had poor word choice. Maybe I should have said "living a perfect life"—after all, even if "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," that doesn't mean that it is technically impossible to live a perfect life, just humanly impossible. According to the Bible, Jesus did live such a life, therefore he got into heaven.

It certainly isn't explicit, but as I read the Bible, Jesus had to die in order that his perfection would be transferred to us and we could survive a close relationship with God. Now, if we are morally perfect in heaven, how can we have free will?

Now of course, I'm not convinced on this myself. Maybe in heaven we will still have free will, but who am I to know? I would suggest that both reading's are valid.

This isn't necessarily an accurate reading of the Bible, but it is a reading, and to suggest that such a view of God doesn't come from the Bible is offensive. It does come from the Bible, just not your perception of it.

If you admit that it isn't accurate, then why bring it up? A false interpretation is just that - false.

This isn't necessarily an accurate reading, is what I said. It could be an accurate reading, although it not being one is just as likely, possibly more so.

Also, I don't believe inaccuracy=falsehood. You can be factually wrong and still have truth in what you say; we don't live in a black-and-white world.

Some of Jamie's views of God are described similar to the Bible's description of God. Most of them are not. That's why I said that they don't come from the Bible. I can say that the President should have absolute power over the United States, and claim that my view comes from the Constitution, but that obviously isnt Constitutional. It's an interpretation, but it's a false one.

I guess here's where we disagree. At this point, I picture someone looking at the US constitution, but just the passage that says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Not only could that imply dictatorship, it also suggests that there is a time and place when, with most able-bodied people being drawn into a militia under the president's command, that the president would have to exercise a dictatorship, and that he would be right to do so, which it does.

On the other hand, you have a comprehensive understanding of our metaphorical Constitution-Bible. That doesn't mean that everything you say is perfectly accurate—if the American constitution was able to provide that, then why does the US have multiple political parties, at least four of which have a relatively major following at the national level, and two of which have very different views on almost everything and are constantly waging a nationwide political war?

An old, bearded, white man in the sky view of God comes from the Bible, just not a full reading of it. That reading of Genesis is a perfectly valid one (except for possibly the white part of it), if you don't know the context of Jewish culture and haven't read most of the Bible.

You have said over and over again that everything you say is backed by the Bible, and that the Bible is objective, but it isn't. When you read the Bible, presumably you read a translated, transcribed, and edited version originally written by imperfect human beings who supposedly had divine guidance. The Bible may well be true in the way you believe, and the God that you write about may well exist, but the Bible itself does not provide proof that it is meant to be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it. If Jamiet isn't taking their views of God from the Bible, than neither are you: you are taking your views of God from your family, religious mentors, and role models. If everyone's idea of God came purely from the Bible, then we would all have an identical idea of God. We don't. Your idea is different from my idea which is different from Jamiet's idea.

Again, if we want to debate my views' Biblical accuracy, I'm all for it. I'm sure I've been influenced by those around me and my experiences just like anyone else, but I believe my views are in line with the Bible's. If you believe they aren't, then by all means say why.

Of course, Jamiet probably does have a very incomplete understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that yours—or anyone's—is perfect.

No, not at all. But I have not seen anything that indicates that it is wrong. If something I have said is Biblically incorrect, I would appreciate correction.

Hopefully what I said above helps clarify some of what I meant. I think your views are Biblically correct, and I would definitely prefer to believe in a good and loving God such as you describe. At the same time, though, I don't think it's right to dismiss another version of a God out of hand.

Jamie said that he was out of the conversation. I propose we respect that decision and move along.

I'd like to explore the ideas this has brought up some more, but I agree that we don't need to continue the finger-pointing.

[mOctave]

Clearly you take your views of God from somewhere else than the Bible.

May I propose once again that the Bible is subjective?

Sure, I guess my question is what do you mean by subjective? It looks like you mean subject to interpretation. I'd agree with that, of course. Any written document is.

I'd say something is subjective when its true meaning is individualized and it has no singular truth.

(As an interesting side note, Oxford's definition of truth includes the word "fact," and their definition of fact includes the word "true." Same goes with "accurate," "correct," and truth. It seems like no one can easily define what truth is, which could make this conversation interesting.)

[CaptainFritz28]

When I meant "living a good life" I probably had poor word choice. Maybe I should have said "living a perfect life"—after all, even if "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," that doesn't mean that it is technically impossible to live a perfect life, just humanly impossible. According to the Bible, Jesus did live such a life, therefore he got into heaven.

It certainly isn't explicit, but as I read the Bible, Jesus had to die in order that his perfection would be transferred to us and we could survive a close relationship with God. Now, if we are morally perfect in heaven, how can we have free will?

Yeah, you're right. Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning.

Now of course, I'm not convinced on this myself. Maybe in heaven we will still have free will, but who am I to know? I would suggest that both reading's are valid.

Honestly, I'm not certain. The Bible doesn't explicitly state a lot about Heaven. I would say either could be correct, but it doesn't really matter for the rest of the theology. It may be that being in God's presence and glory is enough to sway our minds so totally towards Him that it's as if we didn't have free will?

This isn't necessarily an accurate reading, is what I said. It could be an accurate reading, although it not being one is just as likely, possibly more so.

Also, I don't believe inaccuracy=falsehood. You can be factually wrong and still have truth in what you say; we don't live in a black-and-white world.

Interesting. I suppose the question is: is the inaccuracy contradictory to the Bible? If so, then it is false (considering we are basing things on the Bible). So when Jamie said that God is cruel and unloving, that is false because the Bible demonstrates God's love and kindness. If we base our idea of God on something else, then sure, maybe Jamie is right that that God is cruel and unloving, but he was presenting that as an argument against the God of the Bible, and thus it must be accurate to the Bible.

I guess here's where we disagree. At this point, I picture someone looking at the US constitution, but just the passage that says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Not only could that imply dictatorship, it also suggests that there is a time and place when, with most able-bodied people being drawn into a militia under the president's command, that the president would have to exercise a dictatorship, and that he would be right to do so, which it does.

On the other hand, you have a comprehensive understanding of our metaphorical Constitution-Bible. That doesn't mean that everything you say is perfectly accurate—if the American constitution was able to provide that, then why does the US have multiple political parties, at least four of which have a relatively major following at the national level, and two of which have very different views on almost everything and are constantly waging a nationwide political war?

An old, bearded, white man in the sky view of God comes from the Bible, just not a full reading of it. That reading of Genesis is a perfectly valid one (except for possibly the white part of it), if you don't know the context of Jewish culture and haven't read most of the Bible.

I think we are actually in agreement here - you are saying that to understand a part of the Bible we must have a comprehensive view of the Bible, and look at each passage within its Biblical and historical context, just as we would the Constitution. I agree entirely.

Hopefully what I said above helps clarify some of what I meant. I think your views are Biblically correct, and I would definitely prefer to believe in a good and loving God such as you describe. At the same time, though, I don't think it's right to dismiss another version of a God out of hand.

I dont mean to dismiss it entirely, and if that is how I come across then that is a fault of my communicative skills; I simply mean to point out where it differs with the Bible, and correct it to the Bible. If we are going to have a discussion on the God of the Bible, then we should try to be as accurate to the Bible as possible.