NationStates Jolt Archive

This is inspired by the lasted gay bashing thread, so I might as well start by apologising if I come off as a bit antagonistic. My question is genuine enough though.

The Abrahamic religions all have codified moral commands. For orthodox (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthodox&x=0&y=0) believers, these override the believers own morality.

The alleged creator of these moral codes isn't readily available, and by & large, the codes themselves contain no justification for their existence.

In other words; if you adhere to scripture, you have to discriminate (if not outright kill) homosexuals. You can't explain why it should be so, or what could possibly be considered "good" or "rightious" about such behaviour, because no justification exists.

Now to be that begs the question; how the fuck can that possibly be considered moral behaviour? If you can't justify your actions, aren't your actions the very essence of amorality?

Further, if God (and probably a small horde of other deities) never justifies its commands & the commands are detrimental to human wellbeing, how can one be sure the God isn't evil? After all, how can the god be good if its moral code has obvious negative consequences & it refuses to explain just what sort of goal justifies that sort of means?

Every time I'm confronted with orthodoxy, I get this mental image of a scene from Mars Attacks where a bunch of aliens with rayguns are running around, gleefully killing anything that moves while proclaiming "we come in peace!". Either set me straight or back me up, because I'm seriously starting to develop a less than loving attitude towards followers of (mainly) the Abrahamic religions.

well, it might really be the case that the real deity or deities actually do have absolute and final say over what is or isn't moral, just by virtue of their deitiness. in that situation there really isn't any more justification to be had beyond 'god says so'. conflicts between that and your moral intuitions would just be the result of faulty programming on your end.

As a Christian I happen to disagree with how you would follow scripture. Christianity is Abrahamic, certainly, yet, when the Pharisee's pressed Jesus about what the greatest commandment was He did not reply "To killeth homosexuals" no, rather He said "Love you neighbor as you love yourself, and love the Lord your God with all you heart, minf, soul, and strength". This means to me that although I can look at people who live all sorts of lifestyles, and with all different beliefs and not judge them, or condemn them, for am I more righteous then them? "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". so no, technically Christians shouldn't kill homosexuals "Go into all the world and make believers of all men, baptising them in My name". Whether or not a particular Christian believes homosexuality to be a sin or not (although, why there is still debate I don't exactly understand, it isn't an unclear issue) sould make no difference, we are to live our lives to imitate Christ, who while He did not condemn, or hate anyone He also expected people to turn form ungodliness "Go and sin no more"

well, it might really be the case that the real deity or deities actually do have absolute and final say over what is or isn't moral, just by virtue of their deitiness. in that situation there really isn't any more justification to be had beyond 'god says so'. conflicts between that and your moral intuitions would just be the result of faulty programming on your end.

wow, I feel the same way, and my Philosophy class recently did not cover the possibility of God(s) being able to be inherently morally perfect by virtue of being... you know divine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma

actually, lol, that is the dialogue that the prof. pointed out, which gave no abil;ity for God to have moral righteousness in, and of Himself

I guess it does depend largely on how you define morality, or rather the basis of morality.

Personally, I see morality in social context, moral behaviour is behaviour that is non-detrimental to society and individuals. The basis of my morality is human society, to simplify you could say I assume that what's good for human beings is automatically moral.

However, religious people will tell you that humanity is not the be-all end-all when it comes to morality, and that not everything that's good for human wellfare is automatically moral. It's their understanding that morality has been defined by their god or gods, and to please him/her/them is the ultimate goal. Therefore, moral behaviour is whatever god specifies.

As a Christian I happen to disagree with how you would follow scripture.It's not how I would follow scripture, it's how a lot of orthodox people go about it. You need look no further than NSG for proof. My view on ethics is fairly well summed up in the Harm Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_Principle)
Christianity is Abrahamic, certainly, yet, when the Pharisee's pressed Jesus about what the greatest commandment was He did not reply "To killeth homosexuals" no, rather He said "Love you neighbor as you love yourself, and love the Lord your God with all you heart, minf, soul, and strength". This means to me that although I can look at people who live all sorts of lifestyles, and with all different beliefs and not judge them, or condemn them, for am I more righteous then them?
The problem with that is that Abrahamic scripture actually does have something to say about homosexuality & other equally (apparently) nonsensical things. Orthodox believers do on the whole attempt to follow all of the things in scripture, not just select passages of the supposed statements by Mr. Annointed.

Obviously I far prefer salad-bar Christians, exactly because they don't attempt to act like robots, and though I sort of implied it above, my growing anger & disgust isn't aimed at you or similar believers. I won't pretend to understand why you believe, but it's nothing to do with me - again exactly because you choose to ignore the bits about spreading strife & suffering.

well, it might really be the case that the real deity or deities actually do have absolute and final say over what is or isn't moral, just by virtue of their deitiness. in that situation there really isn't any more justification to be had beyond 'god says so'. conflicts between that and your moral intuitions would just be the result of faulty programming on your end.That's borderline oxymoronic. If this was the case, then how could anyone possibly not understand, justify & share said morality? No-one we're able to communicate with can claim anything of the sort, so at most, the deity's moral absolutes absolutely doesn't extend to anything we know about. Like i said, it sounds like a contradiction in terms.

However, religious people will tell you that humanity is not the be-all end-all when it comes to morality, and that not everything that's good for human wellfare is automatically moral. It's their understanding that morality has been defined by their god or gods, and to please him/her/them is the ultimate goal. Therefore, moral behaviour is whatever god specifies.Oh yes.. The inspired kind of "Let's butcher the fuckers for their own/the greater good" that gave us such memorable moments in history as the III Reich, Pol Pot's Cambodia & the Taleban regime.

Obviously I'm a humanist like you CW, and I guess that may have something to do with my failure to comprehend how people can defend what on the face of it looks like rabidly insane behaviour by people who needs serious medical help.

"Oi! Look at that! The man's bloody well dancing! Quick, kill him dead for his own sake!"

Oh yes.. The inspired kind of "Let's butcher the fuckers for their own/the greater good" that gave us such memorable moments in history as the III Reich, Pol Pot's Cambodia & the Taleban regime.

All perfect examples that morals are not a fixed code, no matter where they come from.


Obviously I'm a humanist like you CW, and I guess that may have something to do with my failure to comprehend how people can defend what on the face of it looks like rabidly insane behaviour by people who needs serious medical help.

"Oi! Look at that! The man's bloody well dancing! Quick, kill him dead for his own sake!"

It's not so much "for his own good", although especially Christians might be tempted to use that excuse, it's more on a "if we don't do it, god will be displeased with us and turn us into newts"-attitude.