Divine Command vs morality; they are not compatible.

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Love is the trinitarian God's inherent character. The Father eternally gives all things to the Son, and the Son eternally submits to the Father. They eternally give each Other all things, including the third Person (the Holy Spirit). Ethics is the logic of coherent interpersonal relationships. One Person of God cannot act unlovingly to another Person of God. For such to happen would mean the end of all existence. So God sets a perfect example for ethical human behavior in how he keeps Himself and all creation existing: Love.

That's actually not terrible. A little monistic, ultimately, but not bad.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Can you define love without self referencing?

eg.
What is Love: - God's inherent character

What is his Character: - Love

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[a] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Well you're wrong. There can be no universal moral system based on man's understanding of the universe because man changes. What was accepted yesterday is not accepted today and vice versa. It's nice you can think that man can be some paragon of moral virtue, but history continually proves you wrong.

I wouldn't dare judge God. I will say that when the Israelites did not follow God's instruction it was a disaster.

Man is constantly in flux and God isn't then?

stoning to death homosexuals and those who work on the sabbath should still be a moral thing to do in today's society?

It appears that God's morality is no greater than that of the average man of the day.

 

[Fatchops]

Don't forget the god of Abraham's unspeakable atrocities can be conveniently swept away by the new testament. So I hear. On this forum.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[a] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

Ok so we can get rid of the "love is not" descriptors because they are vague and we are left with:

Love is patient, kind and rejoices in the truth. Is this accurate?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Ok so we can get rid of the "love is not" descriptors because they are vague and we are left with:

Love is patient, kind and rejoices in the truth. Is this accurate?

Yes.

 

[ShadBo]

Yes.

How have you determined that patience, kindness, and rejoicing in truth is god's nature?

Was god kind when he condemned all of mankind for the rest of eternity for the very first mistake the very first man?

Was he patient when he drowned every living thing on the planet, save for a family of 8 and some animals?

Do you believe god would rejoice upon learning the creation account in genesis is incorrect?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

How have you determined that patience, kindness, and rejoicing in truth is god's nature?

Was god kind when he condemned all of mankind for the rest of eternity for the very first mistake the very first man?

I'm a Christian universalist. You're argument certainly can be used against eternal tormentists and annihilationists, but not universalists.

Was he patient when he drowned every living thing on the planet, save for a family of 8 and some animals?

Leaving aside the question of just how literal Genesis is, let me ask you: On what basis do you say it would be wrong to kill almost all of creation? What makes a given action ethical or unethical?

Do you believe god would rejoice upon learning the creation account in genesis is incorrect?

It's not incorrect. It's metaphysical truths revealed in the style of ANE storytelling.

 

[ShadBo]

I'm a Christian universalist. You're argument certainly can be used against eternal tormentists and annihilationists, but not universalists.

I'm less concerned with how you label yourself and more concerned with how you have come to the conclusion that god's nature is kind, patient, and rejoices in truth.

The only reliable source we have available to us to determine god's nature is the bible. Unless you can point to another universally accepted method of determining gods nature, aside from personal revelation of course.

Leaving aside the question of just how literal Genesis is, let me ask you: On what basis do you say it would be wrong to kill almost all of creation? What makes a given action ethical or unethical?

If it's not literal or true, why believe it?

You're asking me on what basis would I say it's wrong to drown every living human on the planet. How many infants do you suspect drowned in this flood? I can't think of any basis this could be viewed as anything other than murder.

It's not incorrect. It's metaphysical truths revealed in the style of ANE storytelling.

Genesis lists an order of creation. It is talking about the physical nature of the reality we are in, and it is wrong.

 

[Denter]

The religious people - be they Muslims or Christians - always give merit to God's Law and Commands as validation of authority.

If you ask a Christian why stealing or homosexuality is wrong, they will say "The Bible says so." Ultimately, if morality is simply based on God's opinion, that means it's just orders from a dictator, right ?

Look at something as horrific as rape; Is rape wrong simply because God says so ? Or is rape wrong regardless of God's command ? In the Bible and Islamic theology, you have the Prophets doing some horrific things to people because God ordered them or they believed God justified the act.

No Christian, ultimately, can argue 9/11 was immoral because the jihadists believed in Divine Command and that they were doing God's will.

Please explain, then, why religious doctrine should influence public policy and law.

How much time do you have?

 

[Cmart]

No Christian, ultimately, can argue 9/11 was immoral because the jihadists believed in Divine Command and that they were doing God's will.

Please explain, then, why religious doctrine should influence public policy and law.

Sorry if it offends, but Christians like me believe that our way is the only way; that our Christian God is the only God. Muslims also believe they follow the one true god. Our contention is that they are mistaken. Even your typical Muslim doesn't support the idea that Allah tells them to kill everyone else. They don't support killing at all, let alone 9/11. And we Christians certainly don't, I'm not even sure how you think it makes sense to logically connect those dots.

You're making an argument such as:

A: Christianity is a religion.
B: Scientology is a religion.
C: Scientologists believe that members who live on Earth are reincarnated aliens who used to live on other planets.

Therefore, D: Christians must believe that members who live on Earth are reincarnated aliens who used to live on other planets.

Logically unsound. Untrue.

We believe that morality is handed down from God. One part of that is that we have God's word (the Bible) to refer to. The other part is that in the absence of a morality originated from God, it makes sense to ask why we'd act any certain way at all. The idea of killing, rape, theft, etc. being right or wrong would be up for the individual to decide.

 

[Denter]

Genesis lists an order of creation. It is talking about the physical nature of the reality we are in, and it is wrong.

This couldn't be more wrong.

 

[ShadBo]

This couldn't be more wrong.

I assume you have the definitive interpretation?

 

[sub_thug]

I want to know what @Jack V Savage thinks

 

[Denter]

I assume you have the definitive interpretation?

Not definitive, because its many things, not just one thing, but it isn't a literal description of scientific reality. That's one thing it isn't. Its more a lesson about the origins of human consciousness, namely, that we became human when we became self-conscious.

 

[The Sausage King]

"But the Lord just laughs, for he sees their day of judgment coming." - Psalm 37:13

If you're conceding God is ultimately a dictator in Heaven, why do you as a Marine respect that ? Do not Marines care about fighting for freedom and free will of people to be happy ?

 

[ShadBo]

Not definitive, because its many things, not just one thing, but it isn't a literal description of scientific reality. That's one thing it isn't. Its more a lesson about the origins of human consciousness, namely, that we became human when we became self-conscious.

There are those who interpret it as a literal explanation for the origin of all matter and energy.

Can you suggest a method for me to determine who has the more correct interpretation?

 

[mcveteran81]

If you're conceding God is ultimately a dictator in Heaven, why do you as a Marine respect that ? Do not Marines care about fighting for freedom and free will of people to be happy ?

People have free will, please tell me when have you not been allowed to do something? (of course you maybe *persuaded* to not do certain actions because of consequences) but ultimately has anything stopped you? Has God stopped you from doing what you want?

You have free will, the exact same type and quality that every man has ever had / will have. But there's a price to pay for certain actions. Society has laws. And no God is not a *dictator*, He is the King.

 

[Denter]

There are those who interpret it as a literal explanation for the origin of all matter and energy.

Can you suggest a method for me to determine who has the more correct interpretation?

Yeah, test it against your experience and modern personality psychology, and maybe Darwinian explanations too. People don't really live in a world of things, in the way its measured by science -measured, mutually agreeable objects. We live primarily in a world of meaning, and our ancestors especially did since they had not perfected the scientific method yet. Meaning is merely that which has implication for action. Since that's how people lived (and still do, although many are blind to it), their texts are more concerned with using abstract language about how and why to act, rather than to describe what is, because meaning is more important than objects.

So, for example, in genesis, knowledge is represented by a snake and an apple- and there is good evidence that the reason human beings have as good of eyesight as we do because we evolved precisely to watch out for snakes and to judge the ripeness of fruit. Or the psychological idea of Cain killing Abel due to resentment, and that his descendents were the first men to "fashion weapons of war".

There are many other layers of consilience in that text, but one thing they were not trying to do was perform primitive science. Biblical literalists are simpleminded if they are believers or atheists, its a idiots tango.

 

[ShadBo]

Yeah, test it against your experience and modern personality psychology, and maybe Darwinian explanations too. People don't really live in a world of things, in the way its measured by science -measured, mutually agreeable objects. We live primarily in a world of meaning, and our ancestors especially did since they had not perfected the scientific method yet. Meaning is merely that which has implication for action. Since that's how people lived (and still do, although many are blind to it), their texts are more concerned with using abstract language about how and why to act, rather than to describe what is, because meaning is more important than objects.

So, for example, in genesis, knowledge is represented by a snake and an apple- and there is good evidence that the reason human beings have as good of eyesight as we do because we evolved precisely to watch out for snakes and to judge the ripeness of fruit. Or the psychological idea of Cain killing Abel due to resentment, and that his descendents were the first men to "fashion weapons of war".

There are many other layers of consilience in that text, but one thing they were not trying to do was perform primitive science. Biblical literalists are simpleminded if they are believers or atheists, its a idiots tango.

We're talking about a book that is allegedly divine in nature. If the book at face value is not a reliable, being that it leads different people to wildly different conclusions, what value is it? How can anyone trust it as a path to truth?

I wanted to address each of your paragraphs individually, but my work day is over and I'm outta here. I appreciate your reply all the same.