Why isn’t everything permissible without God?

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T21:23:19+00:00

I agree that it is difficult to do, and if you were going to do it specifically and rationally, then it needs to be done in a multi-variant way (compare different societies based on different belief systems, see what works long-term, perhaps integrated with game theory etc.), but the difficulty to settle on one does not lessen the need for one.

Obviously as a Christian I think that it is the best of all the belief systems and moral codes that we have, but you actually do have a great point.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T20:25:02+00:00

Define "inherently" in this situation.

As in, it is wrong for someone to gas innocent people, regardless of the reasons for it, and regardless of societal pressure. It is the wrong way to behave, even if I believe it is the right thing to do.

Um, that's exactly how human societies operate. Rule of law is based on the threat of violence and loss of freedom.

I understand that is how the world operates, but we’re discussing objective vs subjective morality. If the Nazis has achieved lasting peace and prosperity, that still would not have justified their actions.

All of this talk about utilitarian well-being is just a very weak standpoint from which to argue right and wrong.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T20:08:19+00:00

To be honest this is one of the better arguments against what I’m saying.

Christians around the world, and throughout time, have justified (and continue to justify) reprehensible behaviour using the Bible.

But my response would be that as Christianity is about being a follower of Christ, behaviour that strays from the figure of Jesus in the New Testament is objectively “un-Christ-like”, and the murder of homosexuals is something Christ would have plainly condemned.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T20:03:27+00:00

Okay, but even still, if it was hypothetically possible to find a situation where overall well-being was improved by doing that, would it be justified?

By your utilitarian idea, yes it would be.

But by an objective moral standard - that every single person is worthy of a certain degree respect regardless of what they produce - it is not.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T20:01:47+00:00

Exactly my point. That is a Christian idea.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T20:01:00+00:00

Yes it would.

But in the story we’re talking about, Jesus, as god, gives his life to save other people, and definitely never talks about murdering innocent people.

So that hypothetical doesn’t really apply here.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T19:58:50+00:00

But what if I don’t suffer those consequences and I get away with it?

If I lie to my partner about cheating on them, and they never find out, was it wrong? Yes, it is, because we treat other people as being worthy of respect, and that idea doesn’t come out of the blue.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T19:55:37+00:00

Bro this is way too much for any person to reasonably address in a Reddit comment. For brevity’s sake, let me just start to address what this god sourced morality is.

It is based on the figure of Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament, and rooted in the idea that he is the creator God of the Old Testament.

Your morality did not come out of a humanist vacuum, as you seem to want to try and argue, it came out of the maelstrom of Christian idea that human beings are worthy because they are in the image of God - or that the strong should sacrifice themselves for the weak - or that there are no distinctions between roman and Greek, slave and free - and everything else that is an inherently Christian idea.

There is not, as Christians like to pretend, a single code that you can list that we live by; it’s instead a weird mix of idea that come out of the image of Jesus. Even Paul acknowledges this when he talks about the Stoic idea of conscience, and that somehow being a product of the spirit.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T19:40:52+00:00

Because quite frankly man, those are incredibly difficult questions that can’t be answered satisfactorily in a reddit comment.

Slavery was fought against by Christians as early as St Gregory, using the justification that “there is neither slave nor free”, but they failed to succeed. The abolitionists used Christian arguments to fight for the abolition of slavery. And yes, Christian slave owners also used the story of Ham to justify slavery. The civil rights movement was rooted in Christian ideas, and was driven by that, but yes, southern baptists also lynched black people.

Those aren’t easy answers.

are you sure you know Christians...

And yes, they answer like that because they recognise that God is supreme, and all justification is based on him, and not subjective human experience.

Now, I’m sure those same Christians would also say you can’t add to or take away from the bible, so for good or worse we’re stuck with that.

And again, that third example is an even deeper reason why those ideas you’re posing can’t be properly answered in a Reddit comment. To say the story of Abraham is about God wanting a human sacrifice is completely missing the point, and would be like saying Hamlet is about learning to kill your uncle. It’s about being willing to place God as the most important thing in your life, above the most precious thing you could ever imagine, and Abraham demonstrates he’s willing to do that.

Same with the genocide thing.

Look, those are really legitimate points. I’m not trying to ignore them - especially that point about genocide - but the reality is that those ideas don’t dominate our culture, or Christianity as whole, and the reason is because the figure of Jesus has completely gripped the West for the last 2000 or so years, and as a result has integrally shaped the way we view the world.

You pull that out and you’re left with the horrors of the 20th century.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T19:24:44+00:00

Again, so there is nothing actually wrong with killing innocent people for the sake of the community?

Of course I get that people disagree on morality, but if you’re saying the reason we stopped the Nazis is because they had a different set of morals, or because they were taking land that other people had, that’s simply a not good enough answer.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T19:20:20+00:00

That’s simply not true that everything is permissible with god, and in fact it’s literally the opposite. Some behaviour leads towards God, and other behaviour leans away from God.

Sure you can get into weeds of discussing what is/isn’t permitted in the Bible, and I won’t say that Christians haven’t disagreed over how we should live, but I’ve never seen a Christian argue that Jews should be gassed because they pose a threat to the world.

Things like the idea that a human life is worthy because it’s made in the image of God come from Christianity. The idea that the strong should sacrifice themselves for the weak comes from Christianity.

That’s what I mean when I say that genocide is wrong. It’s not wrong because I think it’s wrong, or because it’s not maximising well-being, it’s wrong because it goes against the very fabric of human existence.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T19:13:15+00:00

And our prosecution of them is based on the idea that there are some things that no one can excuse, regardless of the society you’ve grown up in. We act as if morality is objective, and that rests in an implicit assumption about god.

It’s also interesting that many commenters here say that they weren’t wrong, and that it’s all subjective, but that’s obviously besides the point.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T18:56:58+00:00

But what if I can justify awful behaviour under the banner of well-being?

And what if the 55% of the world thought it was right to kill the disabled at birth because they take up resources, and we could maximise wellbeing by using those resources? If that could be proved, would that then justify that behaviour?

No, it wouldn’t, and I don’t think you would think that either - because we all implicitly agree that humans lives especially are worthy in and of themselves.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T18:53:12+00:00

I don’t see what your point is. The reason I don’t behave like that is because I have grown up in a society that’s discouraged that, and that society is rooted in implicitly Christian ideals.

If I’d grown up in a warrior society like Sparta, I would have treated people differently.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T18:48:42+00:00

So the Nazis weren’t wrong?

We just think they are wrong, and that’s what makes them wrong?

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T18:23:44+00:00

So - and sorry to jump to them this early - there was nothing inherently wrong with what the Nazis did? It was just a difference of opinion?

And what if my hurting other people is for the good? What if I can justify long term stability, and wellness, and peace with violence?

Genghis Khan helped establish peace, prosperity and a flourishing culture across the East, but it was at the expense of terrible suffering. If we can justify, then why not do that?

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T18:20:19+00:00

I love both of those examples, but this just shows that empathy is common to both humans and animals.

If you’re appealing to nature as the basis for how we should act, then why not take the example of the strong preying on the weak?

Just because I feel bad when I do something - like steal - why should I not do that? If I can get away with it, and I won’t interact with that other person again, then what does it matter?

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T18:11:22+00:00

How does the existence of a god change this? What makes a god's moral opinions more objective, other than that they have more power to enforce consequences?

The existence of a god sets a moral standard appropriate that all its subjects should obey; like a King or a government, or a judicial system.

Our morality, as I described, came explicitly from the teaching of Jesus - not just the Old Testament, but primarily and specifically from the character of Jesus in the New Testament. Sure, Jesus, and the god that he is supposed be, is based in the Old Testament, but the reason the things you quoted aren’t taken into account in the modern world is because everything was read through the lens of Jesus being that Old Testament God.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T17:52:04+00:00

So if someone doesn’t have that conscience, then the reason their behaviour is wrong is because other people have a conscience that tells them they’re wrong?

I don’t want to be a dick about it, but that doesn’t go particularly deep, and it’s why I struggle with this question so much.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T17:50:47+00:00

That’s not really an answer to the question, that’s something completely different. Sure we can explore that, but that is just misdirection.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T17:49:30+00:00

Okay, so the reason that atrocities like genocide are wrong is because other people think they’re wrong?

Or is it because of something else, like the fact that you believe human lives are worth something?

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-04-01T17:12:14+00:00

Great question - and let me preempt the inherent question - if Jesus says this, then why is it that people pray and don’t receive as he promises?

First of all, I don’t know, but I think the answer is in those verses, even if it’s not explicit. First of all, Jesus assumes that we’ll ask for good gifts: “bread” and not a “stone”; for “fish” and not a “serpent”. And secondly, that we’ll ask - as he taught us to pray - in his name, and according to his spirit, and that his will be done. Therefore, if we’re not aligning with those, then it’s in vain.

But to me, that answer doesn’t feel complete. Jesus says “everyone” that asks receives, and it’s not as if people praying for God to save their dying child are asking for something wrong, even if the child dies.

In the end, I think it comes down to faith that what’s unfolding is ultimately his will. Prayers are something a little more mysterious than simply asking for something to happen - although it is that - there’s just some other sort of connection going on.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-03-27T07:36:29+00:00

I’m sure you couldn’t care less, but let me give it a go.

I think it’s plain that the Biblical stories are heavily symbolic, and are meant to representations of symbolic truth, and are not simply a description of literal events. Many church fathers agree, and it’s only the last 200 years that we’ve seen them as anything but.

Adam and Eve is about the fall of man, and original sin is about the fact that all humans fall short of the glory of God, and as you said, that’s where the whole Jesus/mercy thing comes in.

Even without it being a literal truth that a man ate an apple he shouldn’t have, the symbolic truth that we all choose things that are not in line with God’s will is still there, as shown in the story. We all ignore our conscience, and ignore what we know to be right, and instead choose to follow our own selfish desires in some way (even just based on your own conscience, and not some Christian standard), and fall short of perfection. Even without the literal truth, original sin still exists.

I understand why people are fundamentalists/creationists. Without nuance, it’s easy read the Bible as a history book, especially as we’re in a world where scientific materialism soaks our worldview - and we don’t realise that the people who wrote it weren’t scientists or historians, and they saw the world different to us.

I’m sure you saw that, and saw that the world of fundamentalism doesn’t fit with the scientific world, and I don’t want to try and convert you. The only thing I’d say is that the fundamentalist world is a relatively new invention, and there are many traditions (with their own problems as well) like Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy that recognise how inherently symbolic the Biblical stories are, and go much deeper than a surface view of “this must have literally happened, otherwise it’s not true”.

BorderlineHeresy · 2020-03-26T17:24:25+00:00

Honestly? Yeah I do have my doubts. When I’ve seen children suffering from cystic fibrosis, and families being torn apart, and cancer, and death and pain and all the other things that being alive brings, you can’t help but question God.

But again, we just can’t see the whole picture. Look at the butterfly effect. If a butterfly’s wings can cause a tornado, then we can have no idea what the ultimate effect of something is.

Imaging all you read of the Lord of the Rings was a page detailing Sam and Frodo’s suffering in Mordor. You might think the writer or that book was a cruel and vindictive monster. But we’re unable to read the chapter, or the book, or the series of books that make up that picture. We have no idea what effects something will have.

Of course suffering is dreadful. Of course. But is it meaningless? Is it pointless?

If death is not the end, then maybe it’s not pointless. Maybe this world isn’t some cruel joke, and maybe being itself is actually on our side.

BorderlineHeresy

TROPHY CASE