I understand your disbelief---you're just wrong...You do have a conscience, it's just not functioning.

I'm going to quote Gandalfs Beard to answer this:

If you say so TBG, it must be true.

In all seriousness though, answer this: if there are two options without logical basis to choose one, which is more logical to choose - the one that requires change of the one that does not? The one that elevates you, or the one that demotes you? The one that let's you do whatever, or the one that quite possibly wastes your life? The one that is natural, or the one that is not?

the one that requires change of the one that does not? The one that elevates you, or the one that demotes you? The one that let's you do whatever, or the one that quite possibly wastes your life? The one that is natural, or the one that is not?

Point taken: that's why I'd choose Christianity.

In all seriousness, I would rather live with purpose than with uncertainty, with virtue rather than with meaningless pleasure, with positive change rather than stagnation.

Let's put it this way: if I'm wrong, what have I lost? Nothing, really---I'll be none the wiser since I'll be dead and not care. I will have had an abundant and joy-filled existence in spite of everything the world has thrown at me. Don't see how that's any worse than endless existential angst over the meaninglessness of life.

I'm going to quote Gandalfs Beard to answer this

I'm not expecting you to believe it, just pointing out that there is more than one way to account for it.

TBG

if there are two options without logical basis to choose one, which is more logical to choose - the one that requires change of the one that does not? The one that elevates you, or the one that demotes you? The one that let's you do whatever, or the one that quite possibly wastes your life? The one that is natural, or the one that is not?

Logically?

The one that requires change, because change is good.

The one that demotes you, because the higher you rise, the harder it hurts when you fall.

The one that quite possibly wastes your life, because the choice with the greatest risks tends to be the choice with the greatest rewards.

The one that is not natural, because the natural choice only makes everything go as it naturally goes; only by doing the unnatural do especial results happen.

Mind you, those aren't even my reasonings, just possible, perfectly logical, reasonings a person might use to answer your questions.

My logical choices?

The one that requires change, because otherwise I become too predictable and others beat me too easily.

The one that demotes me, because it is possible to lead in lower positions, and I much like leading while serving.

The one that quite possibly wastes my life. Because if I'm just allowed to do whatever I want, I end up wasting my life for sure, as I find myself getting trapped if I have too many options as for what to do. Again, all I need to confirm this is to try playing a Wide Open Sandbox video game.

The one that is not natural. Actually, I take that back. The one that is both not natural and, at the same time, natural. Because natural is good, but what is with our culture always thinking the unnatural is bad? Unnatural things can be just as good, if not better, than natural things! So I want something that is both natural and unnatural.

There. You asked, I answered. If you don't understand my answer... well, have you understood any of my previous answers?

Edit: Actually, you know what? I'm going to link to a page that explains why I feel that, being allowed to do whatever I want, is more trapping than freeing. But as a warning, the site I'm linking to could quite possibly ruin your life completely. Read about the Quicksand Box here.

the site I'm linking to could quite possibly ruin your life completely.

Understatement of the decade! Ironic that you would talk about wasting your life and then link to TVTropes!

But seriously, Andrew, the option I would call meaningless is your existentialism. Seems a waste of time to look around and conclude that there is no right or wrong, no meaning, no purpose, even God's existence irrelevant. Really sounds boring.

TBG

Well stardf, those are all logical options perhaps, but not the only ones. It takes a pessimistic standpoint on everything, if you believe you are going to fall, you will. In your scenarios, you fail because you want to.

And as for your video game article; I've never liked the storyline gameplay, I've always been one to let my friends beat the game so I can do whatever I want, so it did not change my life. Nice article though

Seems a waste of time to look around and conclude that there is no right or wrong, no meaning, no purpose, even God's existence irrelevant. Really sounds boring.

I do not base my life around what is exciting (if I did, would I be a nihilist?) but what is true. That's my problem with some religions, you end up with followers like Puddleglum in The Silver Chair, who would be willing to deny reality because fantasy has a magic man in the clouds who makes them feel warmer and fluffier inside.

Let's follow that reasoning: kids who play Grand Theft Auto and take it to real life, killing people. People who jump off of buildings to see if they can fly like Superman. Extreme situations to be sure, but all have actually happened.

This is the problem with deciding moral rights and wrongs: where do they begin and end? You cannot define right without wrong, or good without evil. Unfortunately the stack of cards falls over when you ask why.

I have often wondered: if society did not tell us it was wrong to steal, rape and kill, would we value our items, sexual freedom and life? I'm not saying people should be allowed to go around stealing, raping and killing, just some food for thought.

if I'm wrong, what have I lost?

Everything you could have done with your life, not that it matters, sorry if I'm trying to save people from wasting their lives though.

In all this Huffling and Puffling about morality I hope people are actually taking that Bible example in context. I understand it was about Saul and the Amalekites, a bunch of people who hated the Israelites like poison and who couldn't leave them alone. Most likely they wanted to exterminate the Israelites themselves.

For once the Israelites were able to not only defeat them but also put an end to the problem. We aren't talking about technologically superior overseas people putting to death spear carrying natives in this instance. We are talking about numerically equal and mutual hostile desert peoples living in the same conditions. And in such conditions you can't kill the men off without killing the children and women too. Who is going to look after the children? Assuming they can survive without mothers they would grow up in dire conditions anyway. And the women would have a real grievance forced to live as slaves with their menfolk and children gone. And who would look after a bunch of women and children? They'd suffer needlessly. That by the way is desert law, whether you like to defend or oppose God.

What Saul did was the silliest thing possible. He couldn't bear the King to die because he looked such a fine fellow. The King????? Oh for heavens sake! The most guilty Amalekite of them all. The stupid idiot who got them into this predicament. Their leader, no less. If you are going to exterminate the people the one you really should have gone after is the King. And if you have to kill anyone at all, kill the King. That is the crux of the matter. But Saul was the Israelite king who thought the Amalekite king was so good?

No wonder God was displeased with Saul. Having had no choice the Israelites did demolish the Amalekites, so we only have the Bible references as to their existence. Please don't use anachronisms and keep your Biblical stories and examples within context, hey?

Well stardf, those are all logical options perhaps, but not the only ones. It takes a pessimistic standpoint on everything, if you believe you are going to fall, you will. In your scenarios, you fail because you want to.

Wait, what? Where in my scenarios have I talked about failing? Only in the first "promote vs. demote" one, which I said that wasn't my personal reason, just a possible one, and the "wide open quicksand box" example, which is widespread enough to have a video game corollary. All the others, as far as I see it, are more optimistic:

Change is good, not bad!
Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!
Do something out of the ordinary, and something might just happen!
Before you think about how you can ascend higher, think about how you can lead where you are now!
Why are only the natural things good? All things, natural and unnatural, are good! So why not have both?

So I don't know where you're getting that I want to fail, or that any of these are "pessimistic".

Oh, and aside from all that, yes there are other logical options. That said, when you first asked the question, whether you intended to or not, you were implying that the only logical answers were the "obvious" ones: don't change, promote yourself, don't take the chance of wasting your life, and do what's natural. I was just showing that there are other "logical" answers, without even having to dip into Christianity.

f I'm wrong, what have I lost?

Everything you could have done with your life, not that it matters, sorry if I'm trying to save people from wasting their lives though.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Before you go around claiming you're trying to save us from wasting our lives, do you even have any idea what our lives are actually like, and what we're doing? Are you going to be so bold as to claim you know exactly what our lives are like and that we're wasting them? Despite only knowing us over the Internet and having absolutely no knowledge of our true offline lives?

Not only that, but you claim that not only do you think we could be living our lives better, but also that in the end, it doesn't matter?

No offense, good sir, but I certainly don't want you to be the judge of whether I or anyone else here is wasting his/her life.

Seriously, though, you're really starting to border on disrespect here. By making the claims you make, you are saying that none of us are doing anything worthwhile, like training to defend the country (so you can do what you want to do and argue theology here), or serving for charity, or loving the people we love and making their lives better...

...oh wait. According to your belief system, that's all meaningless. So you just want us to... I suppose, do what we want such that we enjoy life.

Did I mention we all do that too?

Now, I'll be fair and acknowledge that I don't know much of your private life and I'm sure not going to be your judge of whether you're wasting your life. In fact, it seems that you are doing your fair share of what I would consider non-life-wasting things.

That said, if you would extend the same courtesy to us and not say we're wasting our lives, I guarantee you it will only help your case and reduce the massive amounts of eye-rolling your claims have otherwise instilled in the participants of this thread. Fair enough?

Your points assume that the other option would lead to stagnation or failure - they could, but not always will. Same with what you stated.

Also, you're taking my statement on life-wasting way out of context. It was not aimed at anyone in particular, certainly not here. If it offended you, I apoligize. I meant it in the context of, if you're going to follow a fantasy when reality is calling, that would be, from my point of view, a waste. If the God in the Bible was not existant, wouldn't you agree it would be a waste of time to serve him?

As I've said before, you are free to do as you will, I'm not the one to say you can't, and go ahead and give your point of veiw. That seems to be the point of discussion, eh?

Your points assume that the other option would lead to stagnation or failure - they could, but not always will. Same with what you stated.

Do they? I didn't intend them to assume so, but hey, I'm quite aware what I intend to write and what actually might come out might be different.

Maybe I should be fair, then, in my assessments? I don't feel the particular need to defend the first four as they're not mine to begin with (although I do think change is good... by the same token, I think not changing is also good... so clearly, we must have both!). So let me "fairly" assess my personal reasonings.

I said I wanted change because that would decrease my predictability and make me harder to take down. If you couldn't tell, that was mostly a joke. My real reason was mentioned in my parenthetical statement. Change is good because it keeps things fresh, and also opens up avenues for personal improvement (if you believe that sort of thing to be meaningful, which I do, and not only because without it I would be kicked out of the Navy by now). Not changing is also good, because, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So while both could be followed individually, I say, why not have both? Sure, that seems contradictory, but I can work with contradictions.

I said I wanted to be demoted as I like "leading" in the lower ranks. By no means do I mean that being promoted will necessarily lead to my being too big-headed or too incompetent (although I will admit I do sometimes have lack-of-confidence issues when I'm tasked with being the ultimate leader and that it's much easier if I have a direct person above me in the chain of command to report to), nor does it mean that for anyone else. However, from my point of view, what I do is serving. Whether in low or high ranks, I serve others. Even if I were to be promoted above someone, I would rather see myself as ultimately subservient to the very people I am ranked above. That's how I am.

I said I preferred risking wasting my life as opposed to being able to do whatever I want, due to the "quicksand box". The latter won't necessarily lead to failure, as clearly indicated by many who are able to play wide-open sandbox games, like you. However, in this particular case, I know myself, and I know being let out with a "do as you please" instruction isn't particularly fun for me; I personally need to have some idea of what I'm to be doing. That's just me, so if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you. Oh, and also, you said I might be wasting my life... well, as far as I see it, even if everything I believe in turns out to be false, I know I'm not wasting my life. The whole fantasy vs. reality thing doesn't apply for me there, you see. So the whole question is rather moot.

I said I preferred... that which is both natural and unnatural. Sure, just go for the natural if you want. At the same time, I see the unnatural as good, too, so I don't see why I can't have both. What? You say that would be contradictory? That's okay; I can work with contradictions.

There; I tried to be as fair as I could to both options. If that doesn't satisfy you... well, in order for logical reasoning to work, the lesser option must be shown to be lesser, right?

Besides, just as you claim I'm assuming my lesser options necessarily lead to failure and stagnation, I claim that you're assuming your lesser options are wholly illogical. So I say we're even.

I mean, really, I'm only being this fair to both options for your sake. If I were on my true reasoning grounds (which involve my Ultimate Authority), the "lesser options" wouldn't be treated fairly at all; they'd be torn to pieces. I'm only refraining from that because I know you do not nominally reside on those grounds, so it'd be somewhat pointless to present my reasonings there.

Also, you're taking my statement on life-wasting way out of context. It was not aimed at anyone in particular, certainly not here. If it offended you, I apoligize. I meant it in the context of, if you're going to follow a fantasy when reality is calling, that would be, from my point of view, a waste.

Well, now, you could have mentioned that from your point of view it was a waste, instead of directly stating it when responding to TBG's quote, making it seem like you were claiming it as absolute fact. And maybe you could have added on that if we felt we weren't wasting our lives doing such, that's fine with you, instead of making that comment about you wanting to save us from wasting our lives like you were some kind of proselytizer whose goal is to "de-convert" Christians... Out of context? Maybe, but when you don't give that context to begin with in the direct proximity of your statements, it's hard to tell there's context to begin with.

But I'll forgive you for unintentionally coming off as somewhat offensive to me. After all, saying what you mean to say on the Internet, without it coming out differently and possibly badly, is hard. Believe me, I would know. By the same token, I apologize if you feel I've wronged you in taking it out of context. I tend to take everything said on the Internet at face value, sometimes intentionally because I know others will do so unintentionally, and if I can sense different intentions, I try to warn people who say something that, when taken at face value, could mean something really bad, so that the... er, less mature folks who might be reading might not make a fuss out of it. Not that I can always sense those better intentions...

Oh well.

As for your first statements - I know they aren't how you feel, but I was answering what you said.

Oh, and also, you said I might be wasting my life... well, as far as I see it, even if everything I believe in turns out to be false, I know I'm not wasting my life. The whole fantasy vs. reality thing doesn't apply for me there, you see. So the whole question is rather moot.

First off, you need to understand that nothing here is personal for me. What is in the discussion, is in the discussion. Outside of the discussion I have nothing against you or anyone else here. In fact you, TBG, Elwin, Fencer and Gandalfs Beard (to name a few, just because you're all ones I've seen around or talked to outside this thread) are all great, interesting and intelligent people. But that doesn't mean I agree with you

Anyways, all I'm saying is: if your God is not real, you are wasting your time serving him. Of course the rules apply to me as well - if life has a purpose, I'm wasting alot of my time. But we can't know, but we choose to the best of our ability.

Out of context? Maybe, but when you don't give that context to begin with in the direct proximity of your statements, it's hard to tell there's context to begin with.

I agree, I could have been more vigilant in getting the right message across. I make mistakes sometimes, and I definitely made one here. Again, I'm sorry to anyone I offended.

Wagga:
Please don't use anachronisms and keep your Biblical stories and examples within context, hey?

With all due respect Wagga, I don't think there is any "context" to justify the behaviour described in the sections quoted.

In any case, the context I brought the issue up in was a comparison between the Morals of Yahweh and Zeus, and whether or not "defenders of the Faith" are exhibiting Moral Relativism despite claims to the contrary, NOT Bronze Age Tribal Warfare.

Humans are fallible critters often resorting to the most vile acts of Genocide, Rape, and Slavery in any Era, yet, generally speaking, we still have a sense of Right and Wrong (either Theistically ordained or Reasoned depending on one's position. Even Andrew has that sense even though he doesn't quite realize it, I agree at least that much with Doc R ). And, generally speaking, we've had that sense ever since humans have exhibited some sort of self awareness, despite endless justifications in the name of God or Self Interest.

Gods are supposedly held to a Higher Moral standard. Yet the reverse actually seems to be the case. The sections I quoted are allegedly examples of God's commands, not of Man's own making.

Consider it this way (particularly those of you that believe God actually commanded those acts ): If one day you heard God speak to you (assuming one's "Sensus Divinitatus" was supposedlly working) and He commanded you to commit the acts described in those passages, would you follow those commands? I doubt anyone posting on this forum would.

Rather, I think we would all question whether that Sensus Divinitatus was actually working. Some of us might believe Satan was trying to trick us, check into the nearest Church and pray for Guidance. Others (like me and a few others here ) would probably think we were losing our marbles and check ourselves into the nearest Psychiatric Ward.

And if it REALLY was God telling us to commit those acts, would we be wrong to refuse? I don't think so.

Live Long and Prosper

GB

PS: If one is doing "Good Deeds," I don't think it's a "waste of time" to believe in Jehovah, some other Deity, or none. It doesn't make a difference if it's a Fantasy or not, if it maximizes the potential for happiness.

Unfortunately the stack of cards falls over when you ask why.

Not if you say that God's nature is the ground of morality.

Everything you could have done with your life

That is one of the silliest criteria I've ever heard. If I used this as a criterion in choice, I would never choose anything, because all choices limit you. If I choose to be a lawyer, I give up the chance to go to medical school. If I choose to live in London, I have given up the chance to live in Oxford. I like to call this the paradox of free will.

sorry if I'm trying to save people from wasting their lives though.

Ok, what's wrong with "wasting" one's life, since "waste" carries moral connotations with it.

Your points assume that the other option would lead to stagnation or failure

What reason would I have to succeed under that option. For that matter, what reason would I have to do anything?

If one day you heard God speak to you (assuming one's "Sensus Divinitatus" was supposedlly working) and He commanded you to commit the acts described in those passages, would you follow those commands?

You forget that those commands were given in a specific time in a specific place to a specific people for a specific purpose. We cannot take God's one-time command out of context and ask that question. This is a case of what Kierkegaard calls a "teleological suspension of the ethical" (and no, I'm not endorsing everything Kierkegaard said).

And if it REALLY was God telling us to commit those acts, would we be wrong to refuse?

Absolutely---disobeying God is always wrong. Again, you assume that there is a standard higher than God's own nature (with which He is always perfectly consistent) and I maintain that there is no such standard.

TBG

TBG:
Absolutely---disobeying God is always wrong. Again, you assume that there is a standard higher than God's own nature (with which He is always perfectly consistent) and I maintain that there is no such standard.

If you are answering honestly (remember, you are answering the questions regarding those particularly creepy passages I quoted), then you and the Islamic Jihadist are welcome to each other. And for that I am truly sorry . I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but that sort of Justification for Intrinsically Evil acts like Rape and Genocide is exactly what I am opposed to under all circumstances. You see, those are MY Moral Absolutes.

Your "specific time, specific place, specific people, specific purpose" contradicts your proposition that your version of God is always consistent, and it is an ethical (and intellectual) dodge.

The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Kierkegaard has stated, "The story of Abraham contains a teleological suspension of the ethical." The Almighty had given a peculiar directive to the Patriarch. It is a directive which contains a number of investigative avenues. But the directive itself is quite puzzling. Some believe that God, the Holy One, would violate the very nature of His being by commanding Abraham to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him as a burnt offering because God was commanding Abraham to murder his son. This is an ethical puzzle. Would God tell Abraham to violate the Decalogue? It is readily acquiesced the formal law had not been given yet. But God’s holy character never changes. And since we know that God’s character is the direct mediation to the Law’s nature, we seemingly have a problem. How can God tell Abraham to premeditate a murder, when God has forbid this? Is there some kind of suspension of God’s ethics for a time? Kierkegaard has "wrestled" with this and has come to a conclusion that there must have been a suspension of the ethical law in order to fulfill the divine purpose in a way in which Abraham was not aware; to fulfill the telos – the purpose of the divine counsel. Kierkegaard maintains that true faith in God may be called upon to set aside normal canons of ethics and humanity before the command of religion. Abraham must be ready to sacrifice his beloved son at God's command, though the act is clearly immoral.

So you are indeed invoking Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical" (i.e. God being ethically inconsistent), thus proving my point .

I find it very revealing that you and Andrew both maintain that there are circumstances under which Intrinsically Evil acts can be justified. But at least Andrew is being consistent with his stated philosophy that there are no Moral Absolutes.

In a Nutshell: You are saying that as long as God says Moral Relativism is Okay, then it must be Good, because God is the Highest Authority, thus absolving you of responsibility, thus allowing you to maintain that you at least are being Morally Absolute because you always follow God's Orders.

Fair Enough!

Peace and Long Life

GB

Intrinsically Evil acts

I'm curious as to why, in your view, these acts are intrinsically evil?

I view them as evil because they violate rights which God has given to all people. If God, though, removes those rights by a specific command, where is the evil? God has the right to take life as He has to right to give it---apart from God there are no rights or wrongs.

Kierkegaard maintains that true faith in God may be called upon to set aside normal canons of ethics and humanity before the command of religion.

Ok, history here: Kierkegaard is reacting against Kant's view of ethics as a duty-based set of categorical imperatives which even God is not lord over.

Now, is God being ethically inconsistent in ordering the death of nations? No more so than a monarch is in ordering the death of a criminal. God's only responsibility so far as humanity is concerned is the promises He has made.

Your "specific time, specific place, specific people, specific purpose" contradicts your proposition that your version of God is always consistent, and it is an ethical (and intellectual) dodge.

Not so---He is only giving people what they deserve (justice). What is not clear is why He allows anyone to live. When you think about it, you and I are much more like Idi Amin or Heinrich Himmler than like Jesus.

then you and the Islamic Jihadist are welcome to each other.

No---the Islamic Jihadist is following a false religion. The God of the Bible and the god of Islam are similar only to those who are ignorant of both.

You are saying that as long as God says Moral Relativism is Okay

I'm not advocating moral relativism any more than you would be in suggesting that it would be fine to lie to Nazi officials about the Jews hiding in your home.

thus allowing you to maintain that you at least are being Morally Absolute because you always follow God's Orders.

I don't---it's called sin.

Seriously, though, I know from Scripture that revelation is closed until Christ returns: there is a categorical imperative in place until the last judgment.

Anway, I'm off for a week.

TBG

No---the Islamic Jihadist is following a false religion. The God of the Bible and the god of Islam are similar only to those who are ignorant of both.

Prove it !!!! And funnily enough that's EXACTLY what Islamic Jihadists say about Christian Crusaders.

Everything else a just a blatant attempt to return to your Philosophical Hidey Hole after making a Frank and Public Admission.

In a Nutshell: You are saying that as long as God says Moral Relativism is Okay, then it must be Good, because God is the Highest Authority, thus absolving you of responsibility, thus allowing you to maintain that you at least are being Morally Absolute because you always follow God's Orders.

This is, in fact, the distillation of your argument.

Again: Fair Enough! At least it makes some sort of sense now.

GB

PS: The Black Glove, I really think we ought to rename you The Black Knight of Monty Python and the Holy Grail fame.

Sorry, couldn't resist .