Sources of Ethics and Morality

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Your position makes no sense! God smites Job just to prove Satan wrong? Please, what arrogance. God let Job's family be wiped out just to prove Satan wrong? No, you got it wrong. Why? You have God wrong.

Yes, the book of Job is very clear that God allowed Satan to do terrible things.

God didn't tell Satan, "You go destroy his kids". Perhaps they were outside His protection because they rejected God. I mean if I had been Job's kid I might have rejected God too.

Why? Because self-righteous folks turn folks away from God. That's why Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: John317

The act of God in getting rid of all sin-- and of all those who insist on holding on to their sins-- will most certainly be justified.

Then why the punishment? I mean if God wants to get rid of sin then He could just blink His eye' date=' but instead unbelievers suffer intensely. Here's the SDA view:

... fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, “The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.” [EW 294']

Then why the punishment?

[there buster]

Quote:

Because self-righteous folks turn folks away from God.

Your posts make that quite evident.

[olger]

15,500 to be precise...

[Bravus]

Play nice boys

[cardw]

Quote:

Not at all. I use Biblical reasoning. It is logical and conclusive.

There is no such thing as Biblical reasoning. There is reason and there is authority. You are still being lazy because you don't even attempt to express anything approximating reason.

Quote:

However such logic falls on deaf ears to those that question the existence of God or the inspiration of the Bible.

Well, we don't know since all you have presented is triumphal pronouncements.

[John317]

It's an oversimplified position though that does not take into account lives of Job's children.

God does not need to prove himself right, if He is indeed a God...

Of course you are right that God does not "need" to. God does not "need" humans, either. He made humans because of His love, and that is the same reason the Bible was written: in order to demonstrate that God is love and that He is right. In fact, God allowed Satan and sin to develop and show its true character for the same reason: to demonstrate that God's way is best and that Satan is wrong.

That is why the end of the book of Revelation-- those chapters dealing with events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ-- show the whole world will be required to make a choice between God and Satan. We each make have that choice to make every day of our lives.

[cardw]

Quote:

So far, you are the one playing the 'shell game.' I can't get a single statement from you about where your notions of morality come from. You claim something is 'not superior' but without any criterion to validate that claim.

Apparently not one you can understand. What I have said is that there are many criteria and each of these will produce a different morality. And the choice of criteria is simply preference.

Criteria that may produce a beginning point are

1) Reduce suffering

2) Maximize Pleasure

3) Produce order

4) Follow the Bible

5) Control violence

6) Maximize the length of life

If any of these is chosen as the most important goal then we can choose which moral principles to achieve these goals are superior. My point is the choice of the most important goal is simply preference.

My choice is the reduction of suffering with a secondary goal of maximizing joy. That is the goal of my personal moral position. I can't prove that the reduction of suffering is the most important value to have, but no one can prove their goal is the most important. Most moral positions, when reduced down, are appeals to a subjective value that relates to what I believe C.S. Lewis is referring to when he talks about a "Natural Philosophy." But even he says he doesn't know exactly what this is rationally.

But when someone has stated a particular goal of their moral position is such and such and then the morality they present is contrary to that goal, then within the context of their goals their moral position is inferior to itself. That pretty much tells me they are incompetent to understand even their own position from a rational perspective. Most often these contradictory positions come out of following writings from an authoritarian position, which means there is very little reasoning going on other than trying to evaluate how closely their position conforms to the writing.

Quote:

Nietschze's "will to power" is consistent. Everyone wills to power, we all duke it out, and whoever wins rules.

Well, that's not a moral standard either.

I agree that there is a will to power, but the goal of that will to power is where the moral discussion begins. Willing to power is neither right or wrong within most contexts, unless that context is to gain the most power for power itself. But even having power itself generally appeals to some sensory experience, which is often some form of pleasure or satisfaction or possibly the reduction of fear.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Then why the punishment? I mean if God wants to get rid of sin then He could just blink His eye' date=' but instead unbelievers suffer intensely. Here's the SDA view:

... fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, “The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.” [EW 294']

Quote:

ROBERT-- Then why the punishment?

Yes, you are right that if God wanted to, He could just blink His eye and sin and sinners would be obliterated. But that is not the way God works. It is not according to His character. Because of His love, He involves the whole universe in the process of judging and determining the outcome of sin and rebellion. That's because God is concerned with what His creation thinks of Him and of His character and laws. We're not puppets but have free choices to make about issues regarding the controversy between Christ and Satan, between righteousness and sin.

The punishment is due to God's justice: that sin has a penalty. We reap what we sow. Our choices are important and they have eternal consequences.

That is one reason for the resurrection of the wicked. (Notice not everyone is "wicked.") The wicked are resurrected in order to demonstrate that if given another chance, they would continue to rebel and commit sin. They have not changed. In fact, they are incapable of changing. This is proved by the fact that they try to destroy God and the righteous even after they confess freely that God is just and right.

[John317]

God didn't tell Satan, "You go destroy his kids". Perhaps they were outside His protection because they rejected God. I mean if I had been Job's kid I might have rejected God too...

We have no reason to think that they were killed because they had rejected God. Bad things happen to good and innocent people-- that is one of the themes of the book of Job.

God's faithful people do not reject Him because God allows really terrible things to happen to them. If you would reject God because He allows Satan to do terrible things to you, then you haven't learned the lesson taught in this book. The last generation will hold on to its faith in God even though it appears that God is going to allow them to perish. And many will be martyrs before the close of human probation. Yet they will die believing in Christ and submitting to God's will.

[John317]

The purpose of this book was not to show that God needs to prove to Satan that his ways are wrong.

No one said that the purpose of the book of Job is to show that God needs to prove to Satan that his ways are wrong.

The demonstration is not for the sake of Satan and his fallen angels but for us and for the whole universe of intelligent beings.

Quote:

But the purpose of the book is to show that God is all powerful, and does not derive His sense of justice from human view of "fairness"....

I disagree. Not once in the entire book of Job is God's power called into question. Job does not doubt God's power and neither do any of Job's so-called friends.

God's exhibition and review of His power does not even attempt to answer Job's question about his suffering. Job never questioned whether God had power.

Job's question of why the innocent and the good suffer is never answered directly. (The reader knows, however, because he's read the first two chapters, which Job himself has no knowledge of.)

In the end God simply says that Job was right in what he had said about God. What what was that? It was that the innocent and the good suffer in this world and that there is no connection between suffering and righteousness. The best example of this is not Job but God Himself who suffered in the person of His Son Jesus Christ the Righteous.

[Robert]

The punishment is due to God's justice: that sin has a penalty. We reap what we sow. Our choices are important and they have eternal consequences.

EGW states that, "just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained." Why would God punish like this given that it doesn't have any purpose? If you make your kid go to his room for doing something bad there's a purpose to your punishment.

The wages of sin is death, but EGW has God causing the lost to suffer as long as their finger (for example) remains unconsumed. Nothing in that statement resembles a loving God. Even Hitler couldn't go to that extent when he tortured the Jews.

So again, "why the punishment?"

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

God didn't tell Satan, "You go destroy his kids". Perhaps they were outside His protection because they rejected God. I mean if I had been Job's kid I might have rejected God too...

If you would reject God because He allows Satan to do terrible things to you, then you haven't learned the lesson taught in this book.

I said I would most likely reject God if I had a self-righteous dad.....

[there buster]

Quote:

What I have said is that there are many criteria and each of these will produce a different morality. And the choice of criteria is simply preference.

What you describe is not morality, but a morality-free philosophy, a form of pragmatism. Pragmatism is concerns itself with results. In your system, if a particular means produces the desired result, e.g., "produce order," then that means is moral. In short, the end justifies the means. Far from being moral, this is a pernicious philosophy that results in tyranny of all kinds.

By contrast, morality is concerned with means. Actions are right or wrong without regard to their results.

In your system, lying or murder might be moral choices if they resulted in more order. But morality insists that some actions are evil, and cannot be justified by outcome.

So, in the end, you're not talking about morality at all, merely different forms of pragmatism. Pragmatism has many flaws and some benefits as a philosophy. But it is not "morality" of any kind.

[there buster]

Quote:

given that it doesn't have any purpose

But that is an assumption, not a 'given.'

Angel Rodriquez recently gave an intriguing answer to this question.

[there buster]

Quote:

Play nice boys

Physician, heal thyself.

[Tom Wetmore]

Even though there are any number of possible "discussions" hereabouts apropos for this interjection of wisdom, I offer this here and now as befitting our usual religion of argumentation.

The following dialog took place in 1873 between the great Chief Joseph of the Nez Perces and a commisioner sent by President Grant to persuade the Nez Perces to accept government schools:

Quote:

"Why do you not want schools?" the comissioner asked.

"They will teach us to have churches," Joseph answered.

"Do you not want churches?"

"No, we do not want churches."

"Why do you not want churches?"

"They will teach us to quarrel about God," Joseph said. "We do not want to learn that. We may quarrel with men sometimes about things on this earth, but we never quarrel about God. We do not want to learn that." - From Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

[fccool]

Of course you are right that God does not "need" to. God does not "need" humans, either. He made humans because of His love, and that is the same reason the Bible was written: in order to demonstrate that God is love and that He is right. In fact, God allowed Satan and sin to develop and show its true character for the same reason: to demonstrate that God's way is best and that Satan is wrong.

That is why the end of the book of Revelation-- those chapters dealing with events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ-- show the whole world will be required to make a choice between God and Satan. We each make have that choice to make every day of our lives.

Perhaps you are right, but I think you are incorrect in your assertion that Job is somehow came out righteous out of this situation. Although Job did not doubt God's power, he doubted God's justice much by the end of the book.

The book of Job is there not to explain God's reason for allowing evil, or even deals with the origin of evil. It does in premise deals with God's infinite and unexplained justice paralleling to the creation of the world.

I think it's fair to say that God does create "evil" by proxy. Not to say that He creates it for the purpose to be evil or takes pleasure in it. This would be far from truth that some make it out to justify their rejection of God. But God is in fact the author of everything, be it good or bad.

Here's a simple proof of that. The meat eating animals and blood sucking insects did not disobey God to become what they are. Likewise, I think it would not be "fair" by our definition of fairness to inflict endless cycle of death on animals and insects as result of Adam's disobedience... neither that disobedience created the meat eating and blood sucking function and instincts in animals and insects. It was God who done that as a lesson, thus turning what was good into something that is partially "evil". The majority of Christians would blame Adam for that fact, but I think this has more to do with God teaching a lesson, than Adam disobeying.

Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Christians would like to chalk the "evil" part to "calamity". But there's no way around this passage. God creates "evil" and takes full responsibility for it in his infinite knowledge and justice to play out for our own good. Most people have problem with that view, because they want God in their own image and understanding of justice and wisdom. But there's much Biblical position and proof that is hard to avoid. Here are a couple verses:

Proverbs 16:4 - "The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Lamentations 3:38 - "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? "

Deuteronomy 30:15 - "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil."

Evil has a role to play in God's plan of redemption and road to human understanding. Without function of evil, the function of good logically can not be perceived or known. Consider the following.

Paul tells the congregation to take the guilty parties and do the following: "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Or, Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1st Timothy 1:20). Evil is there for us to learn from. Without evil, good would be just an undescriptive adjective... like describing a color to blind.

Evil was there from the beginning, just as Biblically... Satan was said to be evil "from the beginning".

(1 John 3:8) 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar and the father of lies” John 8:44

If I say that someone was a murderer from the beginning, does it mean that they were originally good? Think about it. I understand the poetic description of "Satan's fall", but likewise there's much problems with it due to the person addresses and when the fall actually taken place.

What do you think about this Biblical view?

[Robert]

Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

God creates "evil"....

"And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

What was the condition of those two goats? What were the qualifications of the two goats? Did the goats have to meet certain specifications? They had to be without blemish. One of them or both of them? Both of them had to be without blemish, so that you could interchange the goats. You cast lots and the lot falls on either this goat or the other. So we must be clear that the second goat doesn’t represent Satan as we know him but Lucifer as God created him, because both Christ and Lucifer were spotless.

Look now at the second goat for a moment. What is the name of the second goat in your Bible? In the KJV it is “Scapegoat.” In the original it is “Azazel,” and some of the modern translations will have that word. What does the word “Azazel” mean? In the Hebrew, words have meanings. What does the word mean? We do not know today because the Hebrew language changed in the ninth century and we do not know exactly what it means.

But here is what we have from the best of the scholars. According to the Hebrew scholars (these are not Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars), “Azazel” is the name of the devil. So the Hebrew scholars back us up. We do have not the Hebrew manuscript but we do have the Syriac manuscript, which is one of the oldest manuscripts. The Syriac manuscript for “Azazel” has this phrase “the angel that revolted.” Very interesting and a very reliable manuscript. Most Christian scholars interpret Azazel as the Scapegoat. What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.[JS]

[fccool]

Logically, the Creator is responsible for the creature. If you created a gun that has a potential to fire by itself and that gun kills someone, do we just chalk it up to malfunction of the gun and move on? Of course not, the mechanism for killing was present in there from the start. Better yet, if you knew that the gun could fire and kill someone when you created it, but you did it anyway because you love guns... is it a gun to blame for doing something that it was potentially "programmed" to do?

Out choices does not originate from nowhere. Adam was caused by Satan, that was made by God. In the end it points to God, and He takes full control and the responsibility for the end results. Is it wrong for a child to blame his parents for being disabled? There's nothing wrong with blaming God, in a sense that there no sinful action in it. Bible does not indicate blame to be an act of sin.

That's what the book of Job is about : "Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly"

Please observe that charging God foolishly is not a sin, but indeed... blaming God for the evil as "unfair act" is foolish... because

1) He knows the end from the beginning

2) He created us

This is why Paul stated...

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy....

and then expected the criticism that you are putting forth and rebutted it with:

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

There's no way around that concept. It's foolish to question it just like a character in a computer game that you made would criticize your for making the game and controlling the character. Is it wrong to do that? Why do we construct things that serve our purpose then if the concept is so "evil" and "unfair"?

[Dr. Shane]

There is no such thing as Biblical reasoning.

There is but one would not expect unbelievers to be able to grasp it. Which, of course, is Paul's point. To nonbelievers it is foolishness. To believers it is logical. There is a gap there that can only be bridged by the conversion experience. Once converted the unbeliever grasps Biblical reasoning.

[cardw]

Quote:

What you describe is not morality, but a morality-free philosophy, a form of pragmatism.

My point is that morality is essentially based on some sort of pragmatism. This is even the position of Jesus, since we are talking about the morality of the Bible. He states that it is by one's fruits that they are known, not their morals.

We can regurgitate a college philosophy and reason course or we can talk about the real world.

Quote:

By contrast, morality is concerned with means. Actions are right or wrong without regard to their results.

That may be true, but the issue is how do we determine those means in the first place. Moral means are either decided by reason or authority. You may have morals, but you either need a book that lays out those morals or you have to come up with them using some means. It goes around and around. Shell game again.

Quote:

In your system, lying or murder might be moral choices if they resulted in more order. But morality insists that some actions are evil, and cannot be justified by outcome.

Well it depends on what system of morality you subscribe to. Some systems may allow for any means because a moral values can teach us to value the outcomes over anything else.

Quote:

So, in the end, you're not talking about morality at all, merely different forms of pragmatism. Pragmatism has many flaws and some benefits as a philosophy. But it is not "morality" of any kind.

If you apply pragmatism from a purely rational basis, you can come up with some pretty terrible means. But no one lives by one form of philosophy. We tend to adapt different forms of philosophy to meet different needs. This is because most of us, as human beings, can feel.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

There is no such thing as Biblical reasoning.

There is but one would not expect unbelievers to be able to grasp it. Which, of course, is Paul's point. To nonbelievers it is foolishness. To believers it is logical. There is a gap there that can only be bridged by the conversion experience. Once converted the unbeliever grasps Biblical reasoning.

This is highly unlikely since I was once a believer and I am well aware of the reasons I believed it then. It was because I had confidence in the validity of the Bible. There is no reasoning involved there.

[there buster]

Quote:

My point is that morality is essentially based on some sort of pragmatism. This is even the position of Jesus, since we are talking about the morality of the Bible. He states that it is by one's fruits that they are known, not their morals.

No. Morality is not based on pragmatism. Lying may or may not be a practical means to an end (pragmatic), but it is morally wrong.

Jesus statement about fruits is talking about teachers, not philosophies. And in any case, "fruits" refers to character qualities, not pragmatic outcomes. In fact, describing someone as a pragmatist is roughly equivalent to saying they have no morals at all.

And that is the real world. I work as a legislative consultant. Few things are more pragmatic. Yet describing a legislator as pragmatic is not a compliment.

Quote:

Some systems may allow for any means because a moral values can teach us to value the outcomes over anything else.

Then they are not moral systems,not standards of conduct, but only measures of short-term effectiveness.

Quote:

But no one lives by one form of philosophy. We tend to adapt different forms of philosophy to meet different needs. This is because most of us, as human beings, can feel.

Philosophies are not means to "meet needs." Indeed, one major part of philosophy is to determine what are needs and what are merely desires. And morality often demands that we sacrifice our own needs for s higher good.

As far as the "human beings can feel" part, it is a non sequitur. Morality often demands that we go against our feelings.

Really, the Abolition of Man spends roughly 1/3 of the book dealing with the issue of 'appropriate sentiments.'

Your so-called morality is a hodge-podge appetites, wishes, and stratagems. The only thing lacking is-- a moral framework itself.

[Dr. Shane]

Talking to a nonbeliever about Biblical reasoning is pointless - which is Paul's point. Two cannot walk together unless they are agreed. Without the common belief in the Bible there is no point in discussing things like morality, ethics, family values, education, healthful living, social habits, marriage, environmentalism, etc. The believer's worldview is completely controlled by their belief in the Bible. The unbeliever does not accept the Bible as authoritarian. The two are polar opposites. They can work together in a vocation like a factory, construction project or providing health-care but outside of a vocation they would have nothing in common. They don't speak the same language. They don't think the same. The don't see the world the same. They will never be able to understand each other. The logic of one is the foolishness of the other.