God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Gordon]

Blue, Gordon, Trent...

Morality changes with time and community.

OK.

It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements.

Surely though the likes of 'social requirements', whatever these are, represent predetermined moral imperatives: if so, that raises two issues; a) the morality of those defining what these 'social requirements' are in the first place, and b) that compliance with these represents moral conduct.   

Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values.  So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.

You seem to be defining morality as conformance with whatever the prevailing 'tradition, culture and social requirements' require.

I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority.  Its a simple parental system.  God is the eternal father.

Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community).   This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.

So your view seems to be that obeying authority defines appropriate moral conduct yet you also recognise the moral zeitgeist that involves variations in the content of 'tradition, culture and social requirements' - what scope is there for people to act as moral agents in their own right?

In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?

[Robbie]

Gordon:"In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?"

Yes!

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon:"In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?"

Yes!

I have no doubt that Gordon thinks so too. It is a question about the implications of Sriram's position.

[Gordon]

Gordon:"In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?"

Yes!

I agree: however Sriram seems to think conformance with requirements is the name of the game, hence my asking him this question.

[Sriram]

I don't see what the difficulty is in understanding this.

Morality is based on time, community, tradition and culture. It could be different from region to region, and within the same religion. This obviously means that it also changes with time and social requirements and with mix and match. Cultures and religions evolve.

Morality is never constant...whether it is due to anyone challenging it or simply due to mixing of different cultures is a different matter. It can happen in many ways. I have already said how vegetarianism can tomorrow become a moral issue as more and more people become vegetarians. 

Enforcing morality is normally through authority.  And the ultimate authority in any traditional society is God. So...obedience to God translates to morality in most cases...in that society. What other people outside that community think of it is irrelevant.

[Udayana]

...
Enforcing morality is normally through authority.  And the ultimate authority in any traditional society is God. So...obedience to God translates to morality in most cases...in that society. What other people outside that community think of it is irrelevant.

But, as morality changes, there must be successful challenges to authority whether originating within or from outside the community.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Enforcing morality is normally through authority.

That's another tautology - for most people for most of the time no "enforcement" is necessary. We tend not to go round murdering each other not because we might be caught if we do, but for reasons of evolutionarily determined reciprocal altruism.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

That's another tautology - for most people for most of the time no "enforcement" is necessary. We tend not to go round murdering each other not because we might be caught if we do, but for reasons of evolutionarily determined reciprocal altruism.

I have mentioned many times that humanity is a spectrum. At one end we have mentally and emotionally evolved people who have disciplined their base tendencies. At the other end we have people who are largely influenced only by their base tendencies ...and most other people are somewhere in between.  So..it depends on where we are in the spectrum.

If police and courts disappear for a few years ...you will know how moral your society really is!!!

And...what do you mean...'tautology'?! Tautology means unnecessary repetition. You are arguing that enforcement is unnecessary!     

Anyway...G'night!

[Robbie]

You talk lot of sense sririam, from a believer-in-God point of view. Like your posts v much.

[DaveM]

On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.

Hi Torridon, 

Interesting question.  Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city,  So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.

[Dicky Underpants]

Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.

The subject of this thread has bugger all to do with 'the god of science' (which in any case, as has been pointed out, is a complete misrepresentation in any case). The question concerns how a certain aspect of Christian belief, revealed through the scriptures, can be explained and justified.
Furthermore, it also calls into question matters of the epistemology of belief, as succinctly noted by bluehillside to DaveM:

Lots of people know that they know that they know about countless gods that you think to be false. What makes your "knowing" right and their knowing wrong please?

Again, sod all to do with 'science'. How do you know what you 'know'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I have mentioned many times that humanity is a spectrum. At one end we have mentally and emotionally evolved people who have disciplined their base tendencies. At the other end we have people who are largely influenced only by their base tendencies ...and most other people are somewhere in between.  So..it depends on where we are in the spectrum.

Your problem here is in ascribing negative connotations to our "base tendencies". Depending on how you define Homo sapiens, our species has been around for some 150,000 – 250,000 years during almost all of which there were no laws, no policemen, no courts, no apparatus of enforcement as you describe. Yet we survived to see these things emerge. How? Because it turns out that our "base tendencies" are in large part altruistic, as indeed they are in many other species that have been studies, from elephants to vampire bats. Try reading some Bill Hamilton who did a lot of the pioneering work in this area.

If police and courts disappear for a few years ...you will know how moral your society really is!!!

How it "really is" would be different no doubt and not one in which I'd much like to live I suspect, but in all likelihood it would revert to more tribal structures that would self-regulate, for example by expelling miscreants from the group. 

And...what do you mean...'tautology'?! Tautology means unnecessary repetition. You are arguing that enforcement is unnecessary!   

Anyway...G'night!

Tautology when you describe the same phenomenon in slightly different terms - for example when a while back by "morally" you actually meant, "following the rules" - as in, "people follow the rules, therefore they follow the rules". Of course enforcement is necessary at least to some degree for the societies we have just now, but without it we'd probably arrange those societies differently rather than slaughter each other to extinction.   

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Torridon, 

Interesting question.  Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city,  So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.

And the reason he was dismissive of attempts to make reasonable explanation of the evangelising points being made, is that Jesus thought that the End of the World was just round the corner, so time was very short. Well, the End of the World was not just round the corner, and Jesus was wrong. Perhaps you might like to make some attempt to justify your position, or are you still banking on the idea that the 'End is nigh' and therefore blabbing on about your unexamined beliefs is sufficient 'witness'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinsosn,

You talk lot of sense sririam...

No he doesn't. For the most part he attempts new age mush in place of rational thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Interesting question.  Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city,  So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.

So effectively you're telling us that we should just take your word for it rather than provide challenges that could show you to be wrong.

Fine. Can I interest you in this bridge I have for sale?

[Dicky Underpants]

You are presumably referring to the passage in Matthew 25 known as the Judgement of the Nations. But I suspect that your understanding of the implications of this passage is too shallow.  It needs to be remembered that Christians do not come into judgement - they have already passed from death to life. Thus as there are no Christians present at this judgement, and since Christians are saved by grace and not by works. it is perhaps not surprising that grace does not feature here.  But there are other profound conclusions which can be gleaned from this passage when considered in conjunction with a number of other key passages.

There is absolutely nothing in the passage that indicates that this judgment does not apply to the whole of humanity. What you are doing is trying to reconcile the Pauline view of salvation by faith as a sine qua non, and apply it to a passage that directly contradicts that view. It may indeed be a view that has been traditionally accepted in your church, but that does not make it a particularly well-researched view derived from objective critical scholarship.
The gospels are composed to a large extent of what are known as 'pericopes' - collections of sayings, possibly made by the historical Jesus, possibly derived from other oral traditions. There is no hard-and-fast order in which these have been arranged (as can be seen from the differences between their arrangement in the three synoptic gospels). Trying to make a prophetic sequence out of them by trying to fit them into the completely different theological musing of St Paul is to my mind a fool's errand, irrespective of the innumerable different sects that have tried to do so.

[Walter]

You talk lot of sense sririam, from a believer-in-God point of view. Like your posts v much.

you have just condemned yourself, on this board at least.

[DaveM]

And the reason he was dismissive of attempts to make reasonable explanation of the evangelising points being made, is that Jesus thought that the End of the World was just round the corner, so time was very short. Well, the End of the World was not just round the corner, and Jesus was wrong. Perhaps you might like to make some attempt to justify your position, or are you still banking on the idea that the 'End is nigh' and therefore blabbing on about your unexamined beliefs is sufficient 'witness'?

You are wrong on all counts.  As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.

[Gordon]

You are wrong on all counts.  As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.

Leaving aside the obvious fallacy you've just committed, how do you know Jesus actually said this?

[ekim]

It might but it still leaves the question: why would signing up to a belief be a better way of selecting worthy recipients of an afterlife than judging them by their actions?

OK I can see I'm not getting through to you, probably because I am not explaining what I mean well enough.  I'll have one more go and leave it as your opening post was addressed to Christians which means a bias towards doctrine.  I am suggesting that your ideas of Christian doctrine need to be suspended when viewing my replies and to make it clearer I am not a Christian and neither was Jesus.

That fails on several levels:

First, if you want to use that analogy then you’d have to add lots of others telling you to go in different directions for your drink. How would you choose one over the rest?

Second, you’re attempting an argument from consequences. How desperate you are for something to be true tells you nothing about whether it is true. Essentially you’re attempting Pascal’s wager here.

Third, the glass of water would be material and thus investigable. How would I investigate the truth or otherwise of a promise of an immaterial reward?

First comment: All analogies are imperfect and are not meant to deal with all the variables that a scientific experiment might.  In this case it is a simple choice.  There is only you and one other and it is you who has to make the judgement call based upon whether you believe the other person and the strength of your motivation to, for example, sustain your life.
Second comment:  I am not attempting any argument as this is about a potential life experience not a head bound intellectual exercise, but, as regards consequences, in this analogy, yes you will only know the truth or otherwise by trusting the other person and making the journey.  If you stay where you are you will die in your ignorance.
Third comment:  If we are talking about a 'heavenly state of being' then it might be through the experience of inner overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc.  It is an enduring first hand experience rather than a second hand transient intellectual concept.

Not if the quote form John is to believed – that person is out of the game a priori no matter how good his actions in the here and now. 

Then don't believe John.

That’s not the difficulty at all. Whether or not that person is “knocked off his centre” the difficulty here is this: when confronted with a non-believer who behaved well and a believer who behaved badly, why would a just god pick the latter over the former?

God knows! 

[SusanDoris]

You are wrong on all counts.  As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.

There are no actual records of what Jesus  said. All is hear-say and written down only quite a bit later, having been translated, re-translated, etc..

One hears so often so many Bishops, Revs and others stating  what Jesus said. None of them ever remembers to say, 'we believe that..'and they get away with it too. I wish more presenters would challenge them, at least  occasionally.

[torridon]

Hi Torridon, 

Interesting question.  Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city,  So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.

This makes little sense to me.

Why would Jesus, himself prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save souls, expect his disciples to give up so easily ?

Even less sense, is the implication that all people in the same city would be judged, as if of a single mind and character.

[torridon]

You are wrong on all counts.  As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.

So, Dicky is wrong, why, because he is mistaken, apparently.  This is somewhat reminiscent of your earlier, I know, why because I know that I know. I see a pattern emerging here; the common denominator being an unwillingess to engage, settling instead for a bland dismissive attitude.

[Walter]

You are wrong on all counts.  As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.

I find it absolutely amazing that you know what Jesus actually said , how can you possibly know this ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

OK I can see I'm not getting through to you, probably because I am not explaining what I mean well enough.  I'll have one more go and leave it as your opening post was addressed to Christians which means a bias towards doctrine.  I am suggesting that your ideas of Christian doctrine need to be suspended when viewing my replies and to make it clearer I am not a Christian and neither was Jesus.

Well fine, but the question remains: would whatever god you do believe in favour the hateful theist who believed the offer, or the kind atheist who didn’t?

First comment: All analogies are imperfect and are not meant to deal with all the variables that a scientific experiment might.  In this case it is a simple choice.  There is only you and one other and it is you who has to make the judgement call based upon whether you believe the other person and the strength of your motivation to, for example, sustain your life.

But to work an analogy must bear some relationship to the reality it’s attempting to model. DaveM for example told us that he knows because he knows because he knows. That’s nice for him, but lots of other people with lots of different beliefs think they know because they know because they know too – so your analogy requires several such people all claiming to know the way to the glass of water.

Second comment:  I am not attempting any argument as this is about a potential life experience not a head bound intellectual exercise, but, as regards consequences, in this analogy, yes you will only know the truth or otherwise by trusting the other person and making the journey.  If you stay where you are you will die in your ignorance.

But that is Pascal’s wager – “it’s a free bet so you might as well take it. If the offer is real, happy days; if it isn’t, you’re no worse off than you are now” etc. It fails for several reasons that have been well-rehearsed on this mb, and whether you meant to or not that is the argument you’re making.

Third comment:  If we are talking about a 'heavenly state of being' then it might be through the experience of inner overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc.  It is an enduring first hand experience rather than a second hand transient intellectual concept.

It might be. And there might be tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Anything might be. What we’re trying to get here is to what's more probably is than isn’t.

Then don't believe John.

I don’t. As I understand it though, lots of Chrsitians do – hence the question.

God knows!

Oh great – why not have just said “don’t know” in the first place?