Terry, of course I agree that a certain society's or community's moral values are reflective of their particular Sitz im Leben. I'm simply saying that those norms and social contexts warp and twist what is objectively morally right and wrong. If you feel that objective morality is a false or illogical or contradictory concept that's fine, but I'm not sure why you find my statements "shocking" and "amazing" (emotive rhetoric). It's simply one side of the age-old Euthyphro dilemma.
If there is such a thing as ORIGINAL SIN what does that do to "morality"?
by Terry 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Terry
Terry says:
If Man (Adam) had been created with a moral nature it would logically follow his choices would follow his nature.
To say that a human can exercise other than its own nature is to make a square into a circle.
MyElaine says:
Adam did follow his nature up until he chose to be disobedient(he didn't have a sense of "moral choice" until he ate from the tree of knowledge of GOOD and EVIL). he became a victim of someone who knew about "moral" choice, satan.
Terry replies: Okaaaaay let's take this very slo-o-o-o-o-w-ly.
Elaine says:
1.Adam DID follow his nature
2.Until he chose
3.to be disobedient
4. He (Adam) didn't have a sense of moral choice
5. Until he ate from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil).
Elaine: I have to ask you what KIND of choice is a non-moral choice (4.) when it entails disobedience to God?
If Jehovah created Adam with moral sense it was in his human nature to make moral choices.
All the eating from the "tree of knowledge" would do is give Adam the experience (end result) of his choosing and not
bestow magical powers.
Elaine says: that is why moral codes will not bring about "unity" of the people...but obedience to God will bring about "unity" of the Spirit in the people of God (romans 2:28-29).
Terry replies: What benefit is there to a "moral code" in humans with a "fallen nature"? If Adam would not be obedient with his nature why would Adam's offspring possess greater ability in their own nature? Paul lamented his inability to do what his "moral code" instructed with his "Miserable man that I am speech." The "unity" of the people of God could only have reality if they ceased to have human nature. Paul pulls that rabbit out the hat! He describes
the failure of the flesh and the triump of the spirit--in effect--describing the utter failure of human nature when it comes to having "standing" with God.
Adam was not a spirit. He was flesh. Human flesh is not spiritual and neither is moral choice.
-
fresh prince of ohio
I wanna read the books terry has read. There must be lots of them.
-
Terry
yadda yadda 2 explains: I'm simply saying that those norms and social contexts warp and twist what is objectively morally right and wrong. If you feel that objective morality is a false or illogical or contradictory concept that's fine, but I'm not sure why you find my statements "shocking" and "amazing" (emotive rhetoric). It's simply one side of the age-old Euthyphro dilemma.
Yadda, would you mind explaining exactly WHAT you mean by "OBJECTIVE" morality? What makes any morality objective?
Yes, I do find "objective morality" shocking and amazing. Importantly, it is WHIM; arbitrary, capricious and as such entirely SUBJECTIVE!
A WHIM is a desire experienced by a person who does not know or does not care to discover its cause. Remember when your Mom screamed an answer to your plaintive "Why, Mom?" She said: "Because I said so!"
that the inability to
prove the correctness of an ethical system in an experimental manner or even in
an
a priori, geometrical demonstration proves its mere subjectivity.
-
Terry
I wanna read the books terry has read. There must be lots of them.
Terry worked for Half Price Books in the religion and Philosophy and Metaphysics sections for 5 1/2 years. I got to read for free books I'd never
be able to afford to buy and that the local library wouldn't bother to obtain.
My favorite starter book on philosophy was Mortimer J. Adler's TEN PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES. I highly recommend you go on line and
check it out.
-
myelaine
dear Terry...
you asked: " I have to ask you what KIND of choice is a non-moral choice (4.) when it entails disobedience to God"...
Adam could easily have made many non-moral choices. everything was handed to him, he wasn't put into a position where he had to choose between obedience or disobedience (it was only the immediate introduction of such a choice that was his downfall)...it seems to me from reading the text...he'd never had a "moral" dilemma in which he could excersise his free will in this way before.
I never suggested anything about magical power but adam did have some realisation of his fall from grace.
you asked: "What benefit is there to a "moral code" in humans with a "fallen nature"? If Adam would not be obedient with his nature why would Adam's offspring possess greater ability in their own nature?"...
A&E fell from grace (they were no longer allowed to eat from the tree of life), they had the same "nature" both in the garden and out of the garden. that is the manner in which they took their "original sin" with them out of the garden, romans 5:12. the only way re-introduce the grace of God is to listen to Him...john 8:24
you asked: "What benefit is there to a "moral code" in humans with a "fallen nature"?...
I thought that we agreed that the moral code is taught/learned not something that is "in" us, per se.?...it is helpful to know your rights AND obligations within a community.
you said: "The "unity" of the people of God could only have reality if they ceased to have human nature."...
it is a new creation, a divine nature, one in which the old nature is overcome (with the help of the Holy Spirit) by imitating the heart and mind of Christ...in that "being of one mind" IS unity of the Spirit.
love michelle
-
yadda yadda 2
Wikipaedia on the Euthyphro dilemma:
In philosophical theism [edit]
The dilemma can be modified to apply to philosophical theism, where it is still the object of theological and philosophical discussion, largely within the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions. As Germanphilosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz presents this version of the dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things." [1]
Explanation of the dilemma [edit]
The first horn [edit]
The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right) goes under a variety of names: intellectualism, rationalism, realism, naturalism, and/or objectivism. Roughly, it is the view that there are independent moral standards: some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands. As seen above, this is the view accepted by Socrates and Euthyphro in Plato's dialogue. The Mu'tazilah school of Islamic theology also defended the view (with, for example, Nazzam maintaining that God is powerless to engage in injustice or lying), [2] as did the Islamic philosopher Averroes. [3] Though Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, interpreters often put him on this side of the issue. [4] Aquinas draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands, [5] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law. [6] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments(adding that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal). [7] Among later Scholastics, Vásquez is particularly clear-cut about obligations coming prior to anyone's will, even God's. [8] Modern natural law theory saw Grotius and Leibniz also putting morality prior to God's will, comparing moral truths to unchangeable mathematical truths, and engaging voluntarists like Pufendorf in philosophical controversy. [9] Cambridge Platonists like Benjamin Whichcote and Ralph Cudworth mounted seminal attacks on voluntarist theories, paving the way for the later rationalist metaethics of Samuel Clarke and Richard Price: [10] what emerged was a view on which eternal moral standards (though dependent on God in some way) exist independently of God's will and prior to God's commands. Contemporary philosophers of religion who take this horn of the Euthyphro dilemma include Richard Swinburne [11] and T. J. Mawson [12] (though see below for complications).
Etc...
-
yadda yadda 2
Wikipaedia on the Euthyphro dilemma:
In philosophical theism [edit]
The dilemma can be modified to apply to philosophical theism, where it is still the object of theological and philosophical discussion, largely within the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions. As Germanphilosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz presents this version of the dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things." [1]
Explanation of the dilemma [edit]
The first horn [edit]
The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right) goes under a variety of names: intellectualism, rationalism, realism, naturalism, and/or objectivism. Roughly, it is the view that there are independent moral standards: some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands. As seen above, this is the view accepted by Socrates and Euthyphro in Plato's dialogue. The Mu'tazilah school of Islamic theology also defended the view (with, for example, Nazzam maintaining that God is powerless to engage in injustice or lying), [2] as did the Islamic philosopher Averroes. [3] Though Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, interpreters often put him on this side of the issue. [4] Aquinas draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands, [5] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law. [6] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments(adding that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal). [7] Among later Scholastics, Vásquez is particularly clear-cut about obligations coming prior to anyone's will, even God's. [8] Modern natural law theory saw Grotius and Leibniz also putting morality prior to God's will, comparing moral truths to unchangeable mathematical truths, and engaging voluntarists like Pufendorf in philosophical controversy. [9] Cambridge Platonists like Benjamin Whichcote and Ralph Cudworth mounted seminal attacks on voluntarist theories, paving the way for the later rationalist metaethics of Samuel Clarke and Richard Price: [10] what emerged was a view on which eternal moral standards (though dependent on God in some way) exist independently of God's will and prior to God's commands. Contemporary philosophers of religion who take this horn of the Euthyphro dilemma include Richard Swinburne [11] and T. J. Mawson [12] (though see below for complications).
Etc...
-
Terry
yadda yadda 2: Cut and Paste
So?
Am I to have a conversation with Wikipedia now?
-
Terry
myelaine insists:
you asked: "What benefit is there to a "moral code" in humans with a "fallen nature"?...
I thought that we agreed that the moral code is taught/learned not something that is "in" us, per se.?...it is helpful to know your rights AND obligations within a community.
And here I thought the topic was ORIGINAL SIN!
The presence or absence of something that HAS TO BE LEARNED nullifies the doctrine of Original sin.