Christian, Morality, and Materialism

Dymanic wrote:
I certainly agree with you that Christianity is a 'control system', and yes, degradation of the victim is a technique commonly used by those in the business of dominating others.

You are giving opinios according to your worldview, I understand that.

Every system has the element of control in it. Human create systems that are highly controlled. If not, it degrades.

Your position seems clear enough:

"the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines."


That's not what I mean, I mean that I will begin to give you my understanding of stuff. So, before you attack it, please only restate it, as I can understand you got what I'm trying to say in this new question of yours.

But I thought we'd agreed that incest may not be immoral in some circumstances?

When incest is immoral, it has always negative external consequences.
 
Originally posted by Christian

That's not what I mean, I mean that I will begin to give you my understanding of stuff. So, before you attack it, please only restate it, as I can understand you got what I'm trying to say in this new question of yours
.....uh, so you're saying that before you will answer my questions, I must agree to...uh...
restate your understanding of stuff...
so you can get a better understanding...
of my understanding...
of your understanding.
Right?

That seems so complicated. What I put in quotes above was my best effort at meeeting your 'condition', as I understood it. Do you agree with the statement: the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines or not? If so, are we not ready to proceed?

These questions are simple:
1)Is slavery moral, or immoral?
2)Is slavery moral, or immoral according to the bible?

Maybe once you have made at least some attempt to answer, we'll be better able to explore the recursive nuances of our respective understandings.

Since the question I asked earlier (about consequences for Christian adulterers) is a little more complicated, I'll continue to ignore that one for now (as you have done).
 
Dymanic wrote:
.....uh, so you're saying that before you will answer my questions, I must agree to...uh...
restate your understanding of stuff...
so you can get a better understanding...
of my understanding...
of your understanding.
Right?


Something like that.

That seems so complicated. What I put in quotes above was my best effort at meeeting your 'condition', as I understood it. Do you agree with the statement: the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines or not? If so, are we not ready to proceed?

Ok.

These questions are simple:
1)Is slavery moral, or immoral?
2)Is slavery moral, or immoral according to the bible?

Maybe once you have made at least some attempt to answer, we'll be better able to explore the recursive nuances of our respective understandings.


No, they are not simple, and it worries me, when you say they are simple because, I have to think of the hill I have to climb first to explain to you why your framework is all wrong. (I'm assuming your framework from the way you posted the question the first time.

So, I'm debating (with myself) is it worth the effort to first have to explain a foundation, then answer satisfactorily the question.

I can't answer the question, if first I'm not sure we are going to agree on reference material that is indispensible to answer the question.

But, I will give it a try with one such reference material.

Slavery is an economic system. It was the first successful full blown economic system humans invented.

There was a time when the survival of society depended on this system.

So, when the survival of society has no other recourse but to depend on slavery, it is not only moral to have and use slaves, it is indispensible.

When the survival of society is not dependent on slavery, it is immoral to have such a system.

Is killing immoral? When someone attacks me and my survival depends on killing the attacker, it is moral to kill him. It is immoral to kill him, if no such condition exists.


I have no idea if I'm getting accross here.

Since the question I asked earlier (about consequences for Christian adulterers) is a little more complicated, I'll continue to ignore that one for now (as you have done).

What question?, I missed it, I've been writting a lot.
 
Christian said:
...snip...

When incest is immoral, it has always negative external consequences.

Help me out here Christian! This does look like you are saying that incest is neither immoral nor moral and it is the circumstances that make it immoral or not.

Or are you saying that any "immoral" action (as described by one of the Christian Bibles) will always have negative consequences even if those consequences can only be known once you are dead and have left the "material" world and entered the "immaterial" world?
 
Christian said:
But, I will give it a try with one such reference material.

Slavery is an economic system. It was the first successful full blown economic system humans invented.

There was a time when the survival of society depended on this system.

I cannot think of the time period you are speaking, where abolition of slavery would have doomed the human race. Would you care to specify what documentation you are taking this from?

As far as I'm aware, people have always been CAPABLE of doing their OWN work... just sometimes not WILLING.
 
Darat wrote:
Help me out here Christian! This does look like you are saying that incest is neither immoral nor moral and it is the circumstances that make it immoral or not.

Yes, exactly. If the only people left in the world to procreate be brother and sister, then it is a moral duty for them to procreate.

Or are you saying that any "immoral" action (as described by one of the Christian Bibles) will always have negative consequences even if those consequences can only be known once you are dead and have left the "material" world and entered the "immaterial" world?

I believe immoral actions have external consequences here on earth.

scribble wrote:
I cannot think of the time period you are speaking, where abolition of slavery would have doomed the human race.

Because you are thinking with a 21 Century mind where everything is connected. A particular tribe or set of people would be in jeopardy if they did not use slaves.

Think of all the ancient empires, they were all built on the economic system of slavery. That was a necessary step in human history. Cause and effect.

Capitalism, with it's horrible consequences (it creates enormous inequalities) is indispensable today. Maybe in 100 years, with a more advanced economic system, some ignorant people (of such matters) of our process will judge us immoral to allow such inequalities. (actually a lot of people already do, those nuts activists)

Would you care to specify what documentation you are taking this from?

Hey, man, you gotta read your history. Ok, maybe a simple link will give you a hint that slavery is a huge topic.

Slavery

As far as I'm aware, people have always been CAPABLE of doing their OWN work... just sometimes not WILLING.

Yep, you've said it. As far as you are aware.
 
Originally posted by Christian

Slavery is an economic system. It was the first successful full blown economic system humans invented.
At most, I could concede that slavery might be a component of an economic system, as might robbery, murder for gain, prostitution, gambling, or shamanism. Which of these came first is probably not important for the purpose of this discussion. Are you saying that the moral implications of these things change if enough people depend enough on them for a livlihood?

When the survival of society is not dependent on slavery, it is immoral to have such a system.
Where in the bible does it say that? Since you have stated -- in no uncertain terms -- that the bible is the rule book, it seems logical to assume then that you have some scriptural basis for this assertion. If it's simply a judgement call on your part, how is this any different from such a call made by an MA?

What question?, I missed it, I've been writting a lot.
My response to this statement by you:

A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action..

I won't repost it. It's the third post on the third page of this thread.
 
Christian said:
Darat wrote:
Help me out here Christian! This does look like you are saying that incest is neither immoral nor moral and it is the circumstances that make it immoral or not.

Yes, exactly. If the only people left in the world to procreate be brother and sister, then it is a moral duty for them to procreate.

...snip...

So morality is just relative?
 
Dymanic wrote:
At most, I could concede that slavery might be a component of an economic system, as might robbery, murder for gain, prostitution, gambling, or shamanism.

So, as you can see, before diving into any discussion of the slavery as immoral or moral. First, we have to agree on the fact if slavery is an economic system and the role it has played throughout history.

For this you need a history curriculum, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, etc.

But maybe some light will get through if you think about the Great Pyramids. How did the Egiptians build them?

The other curriculum to study is economic theory. If you are equating robbery to slavery, then there is a knowledge gap about the subject.

Do you know that there are a lot of book about that economic system in America? There are some authors that argue that the US would not have prospered beyond the rest of the continent without slavery. Whether we accept the argument or not, these book shed light on the dynamics of slavery and its economic impact on a society.

Are you saying that the moral implications of these things change if enough people depend enough on them for a livlihood?

And then we come to the subject of Anthropology. In many tribes, it is expected that the mother kill her own offspring if it is borned with a deformity.

This is done because it is essential to the survival of the tribe. Is this behavior immoral. I say not.

If you take and anthropogy course, you will come across the term "ethnocentricity". It describes the mental process of judging other cultures or societies based on the standards of yours.

For example, in many tribal societies (according to the geographic situation), women are very, very important to the survival of the tribe.

So, they are used for exchange. I give a you woman, you give me 20 cows.

Where in the bible does it say that? Since you have stated -- in no uncertain terms -- that the bible is the rule book, it seems logical to assume then that you have some scriptural basis for this assertion.

1 Corinthians 7 NIV
21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Now, to understand the context of this passage, one must know a little about Roman Law. If you study Roman Law you will see that slave could win their freedom precisely because slavery was an economic condition. And based on economic rules, you could buy your freedom.

It is completely logical to go through the mental process of determing that once all economic conditions have been met, there should be no slaves.

It was illegal for a Roman citizen to deny freedom to a slave who had already met the requirements for freedom.

If it's simply a judgement call on your part, how is this any different from such a call made by an MA?

Not at all.

My response to this statement by you:

A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action..

I won't repost it. It's the third post on the third page of this thread.


I missed it or thought was being answered by the Loki exchange.

By Dymanic
Are you saying that the Christian adulterer faces consequences in heaven -- in addition to the earthly consequences both he and the atheist adulterer face?

I think that is true. He could face consequences in heave as well.

Matthew 6 NIV

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Prayer

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Fasting

16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Treasures in Heaven

19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


Darat wrote:
So morality is just relative?

Just like physics.
 
Originally posted by Christian

First, we have to agree on the fact if slavery is an economic system...

For this you need a history curriculum, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, etc...

The other curriculum to study is economic theory...

And then we come to the subject of Anthropology...

Yes, I understand what you're saying here, and I couldn't agree more. Meanings can so easily get twisted when something is lifted out of a particular cultural frame of reference (the 'rod' in Proverbs 13:24, for example, refers to a common shepherd's implement, used to guide -- not beat -- sheep). And that's not even counting difficulties with translation.

But assume for the moment that I know little or nothing about history, economics, anthropology, political science, etc. (ah...you seem already to have done so...excellent). So, I'm just a regular ordinary, every day guy. How is the bible going to do me any good as a guide to moral principles when I can't understand half of what I read in it, and half of the half I do understand I understand wrong?

He could face consequences in heaven as well.
The passages you quoted didn't seem particularly relevant to this, other than the use of the plural, 'treasures'. You agree that morality is relative. Do you consider grace to be relative also?
 
Dymanic wrote:
Yes, I understand what you're saying here, and I couldn't agree more. Meanings can so easily get twisted when something is lifted out of a particular cultural frame of reference (the 'rod' in Proverbs 13:24, for example, refers to a common shepherd's implement, used to guide -- not beat -- sheep). And that's not even counting difficulties with translation.

Ok.

But assume for the moment that I know little or nothing about history, economics, anthropology, political science, etc. (ah...you seem already to have done so...excellent).

I haven't assumed this.

How is the bible going to do me any good as a guide to moral principles when I can't understand half of what I read in it, and half of the half I do understand I understand wrong?


Just like with anything that is vast and complex. You study.

Someone can study physics, for example, in many ways, depending on his style of learning. Some people study by themselves, some go to school.

Now, there is an added guide to Christian. This is God.

The passages you quoted didn't seem particularly relevant to this, other than the use of the plural, 'treasures'. You agree that morality is relative. Do you consider grace to be relative also?

It is very relevant to what you asked.

Morality is relative only in the sense that the specific rules may change but not the principles that govern them. Just like physics.

Gravity is a universal force, but depending on what planet you are in, that's the force you are pulled toward it.

Is that a yes or no Christian? Or do you need to elaborate a bit more?

The specific rules may change, this is what can be relative. The principles do not.

The Bible teaches that human are the supreme creation fo God. This is a driving principle.
 
Originally posted by Christian

Just like with anything that is vast and complex. You study.
You're right. I do. The problem I have with Christianity is that it made a lot better sense before I started to do that -- when I was relying a lot on...enthusiasm on the part of others, I guess.

Morality is relative only in the sense that the specific rules may change but not the principles that govern them
I agree completely. And I realize that I missed a post of yours on page 1:

I had said:
I have learned to operate under the assumption that one of these immutable laws is that whatever you do becomes a part of you; every choice carries a consequence.

You responded:
Be careful here, you are arguing that there are universal rules of moral conduct.

And, yes, I am. Although 'rules' isn't really quite the right word. The law of gravity isn't a rule which objects may either obey or violate; it is an observation about the way things work. So if I suggest that one of the immutable laws of nature is the 'law of consequences', I mean it in that sense. As has been mentioned here, Christianity (well, Judaism actually) didn't invent these universals, it just co-opted them.

Whether moral principles exist in a Platonic sense (i.e., independent of human thought) is a question I continue to find fascinating and unresolvable. But there is certainly no question that there are certain rules of moral conduct that are universal among all humans. They did not emerge exclusively among tribes of middle-eastern herdsmen.

I had said:
How about negative internal consequences?

You responded:
Can you give me examples of negative internal consequences?

"...with the measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". See...as an atheist, I don't believe in the soul. This is it. My little slice of eternity is happening right now. Whatever I make myself (through my actions) is all I will ever be. Whatever I do, I get to be that. Effective immediately. Now, there are things about me that I like, and things about me that I don't like, and they struggle inside me (just as Paul describes in Romans 7). No one but me knows what those struggles are, or how often I win (or even what that means, for me). But I know. I either choose to do what I think is right (when I'm strong) or what I think is wrong (when I'm weak), and the choice I make carries the consequence that I get to be either something I like, or something I don't like. What I don't get to do is choose what I think is right and what I think is wrong. Those may change, but that's a different process, one which takes place slowly, and not entirely by my own volition. I don't get to choose when to feel shame.
 
Christian said:
...snip...

The specific rules may change, this is what can be relative. The principles do not.

The Bible teaches that human are the supreme creation fo God. This is a driving principle.

...snip...


We are both using English but I think we aren't communicating. (Not unusual for us :) )

I still don't understand if your answer to "So morality is just relative?" is yes or no.

We have both agreed that sometimes depending on the circumstances incest may not be immoral and indeed may even be moral.

How is that different from saying that morals are therefore relative and not absolute?
 
Christian,

Somewhat surprisingly, we seem to be converging here - you seem to be (now) saying pretty much what I believe! You said :

Morality is relative only in the sense that the specific rules may change but not the principles that govern them.
As best I can tell, you are really asserting only one unchanging "principle" - that a specific cause will generate a specific effect. If we repeat the cause exactly, we repeat the effect exactly. If the details of the cause change, the details of the effect change.

If incest occurs in manner 'x' (an immoral act), it will produce effect 'y' (a negative result). If we reproduce 'X' at some later time, we will also get 'Y' again. However, if we change 'X' slightly, then 'Y' will change slightly. If we change 'X' sufficiently, then incest occuring in manner 'X+z' becomes moral (!), and the effect 'Y+z' becomes neutral, or even positive.

I fail to see how this differs in any significant way from my own opinions...I guess we agree?
 
Dymanic wrote:
So if I suggest that one of the immutable laws of nature is the 'law of consequences', I mean it in that sense. As has been mentioned here, Christianity (well, Judaism actually) didn't invent these universals, it just co-opted them.

I understand what you say.

Here is the thing. Saying that there are universal principles of that govern morality opens a can of worms for MA.

If you want, when we get done with this thread you can join the thread where I will explain why I think that is.

Whether moral principles exist in a Platonic sense (i.e., independent of human thought) is a question I continue to find fascinating and unresolvable.

If they are not independente of human thought, then by definition, they can't be universal. Do you see why there could be a possible contradiction in the MA view?

Darat wrote:
We are both using English but I think we aren't communicating. (Not unusual for us )

I still don't understand if your answer to "So morality is just relative?" is yes or no.

We have both agreed that sometimes depending on the circumstances incest may not be immoral and indeed may even be moral.

How is that different from saying that morals are therefore relative and not absolute?


It is different because MA believe that moral are relative to the individual, they equate this to circumstances.

I equate circumstances to physical properties in the environment being different.

Gravity makes the body of a human behave differently in the Moon than the Earth, but bodies behave exactly the same on earth.

I don't know if I'm getting across. I'm trying to explain it.

Relative is a relative term. Maybe if I use something from the world of statistics, economics. etc. There is a term in latin that is used to mean "if all other variables are kept constant" then this will always be the result.

That is where the absolute part of morality comes from.

So, with confidence, I can say that adultery is immoral regardless if the couple are in an open or closed relationship. It is immoral regardless they agree or consent to the action.

This is a fundamental difference between the MA view and the Christian view. If I were a MA, there should be no reason why I would believe that consentual adultery is immoral.

Loki wrote:
As best I can tell, you are really asserting only one unchanging "principle" - that a specific cause will generate a specific effect. If we repeat the cause exactly, we repeat the effect exactly. If the details of the cause change, the details of the effect change.

I think the difference is the scope. Your "change" can be anything, including mindset. My change has to be huge (figuratively from the Earth to the Moon).

If incest occurs in manner 'x' (an immoral act), it will produce effect 'y' (a negative result). If we reproduce 'X' at some later time, we will also get 'Y' again. However, if we change 'X' slightly, then 'Y' will change slightly. If we change 'X' sufficiently, then incest occuring in manner 'X+z' becomes moral (!), and the effect 'Y+z' becomes neutral, or even positive.

And you do include the word SLIGHTLY in your explanation. I hope you see the difference.

I fail to see how this differs in any significant way from my own opinions...I guess we agree?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just explaining that the view is opposite.
 
Christan,

I think the difference is the scope.
Well, I'd still see that as we have agreed on the basic framework, but are disagreeing on the details. In other words, we both think morals are relative, but you think they are relative over a samller range than I do. This surprises me, and appears to contradict some of your earlier statements. Perhasp I've misunderstood you from the beginning, and you are actually a closet humanist!

And you do include the word SLIGHTLY in your explanation.
I hope you grapsed my meaning in that paragraph - I was attmepting to explain that it appears to me that you believe that the "effects" of moral actions is a sliding scale from 'imoral with severe consequecnes' all the way up to "not immoral at all".

Perhaps I should aks for clarification! Is morality a scale, or a binary condition?
 
Loki wrote:
I hope you grapsed my meaning in that paragraph - I was attmepting to explain that it appears to me that you believe that the "effects" of moral actions is a sliding scale from 'imoral with severe consequecnes' all the way up to "not immoral at all".

Perhaps I should aks for clarification! Is morality a scale, or a binary condition?


I believe it is a binary condition (good phrase, I like it).
 
Originally posted by Christian

I believe it is a binary condition
That doesn't seem consistent with what you have been saying.

And grace? Sliding scale, or binary? I've asked this several times now. Did I miss your answer?
 
Dymanic wrote:
That doesn't seem consistent with what you have been saying.


Why?

And grace? Sliding scale, or binary? I've asked this several times now. Did I miss your answer?

Can you elaborate what you mean by grace. Do you mean this:

Ephesians 2 NIV
7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
 

Back
Top Bottom