Does morality come from the scriptures ?

[TheKnight]

Why not?

Because, if I based my system on "harming people is bad" then harming Johnny would be bad, even though it leads to good. It may work, but it's still inconsistent.

If you believe in morals then there is no problem with that.

I disagree. However I do realize that it would depend on what you base your moral system off of.

Of course you are right using that limited credo. In reality of course we are always balancing things out and i think I mentioned that already. We are balancing between the evils and good that we do.
For example if Sally is being killed by Johnny and we do nothing then we actually DO something. We let harm happen. If we stop Johnny we harm him but safe her. Now the question is simply which is the greater harm and (in my view) obviously forcing Johnny to stop is the lesser harm, especially since he (by starting to commit moral evil) is less "worth" in the calculation than Sally anyway.

I suppose. But then at what point is the line drawn between bad that can be done in order to accomplish good. Suppose a parent kills their children. Their justification being "I could have let them live, but if I let them live and encounter harm (which would have inevitably happened) then I would be DOING something. I would be letting them get hurt. So instead, I killed them painlessly which is a lesser harm than having to go through the pains of life."

Thats not different from non theists.
You see all societies regardless of the religion they adhere to have such morals. If they only came from religion, especially the abrahmitic ones then one would expect this behavior not to be present in lets say "Zululand".

I didn't really get this part.

Well then you have agreed on the idea that morals obviously had to evolve anyway.

I agree that morals are necessary for the establishment of a successful social structure. In a world that consistently denies Godly moral values, then they would have had to evolve over time.

Of course morals are more complex than my simple rule. I mean i wrote that down in a forum in some 2 minutes. What would you expect.
Generally however I think stating what you stated above means that you either haven't read all the morals in your scripture OR that you pick and choose. For instance something as
is in my view not moral. The only way to declare scripture as moral is
a) to actually believe such statements are moral
b) to not know of such statements
c) to "interpret" such statements differently than what they actually (literally) state.

That quote is not from my scriptures as I don't believe in the NT (I am not a Christian).

However, there are similar troubling statements in the Torah. And in those cases, the problem is often interpretation due to translation. Things are lost in translation.

If one were to read the Torah in Hebrew, they'd probably get a few verses into Genesis 1 and then go this doesn't make sense.

A simple reading of the text in Hebrew would show that an interpretation other than what's written is necessary. Not to mention that the Torah alludes to the Oral Torah many times.

No disrespect meant, but only a fool thinks their moral system addresses all.

I believe the moral system I adhere to is an eternal moral system given to mankind by God. That being said, I fully believe that God has the wisdom to forsee any possible situations that may arise and design a legal system that would be able to deal with those situations without going too far from the original idea.

 

[Commoner]

However, there are similar troubling statements in the Torah. And in those cases, the problem is often interpretation due to translation. Things are lost in translation.

If one were to read the Torah in Hebrew, they'd probably get a few verses into Genesis 1 and then go this doesn't make sense.

A simple reading of the text in Hebrew would show that an interpretation other than what's written is necessary. Not to mention that the Torah alludes to the Oral Torah many times.

I believe the moral system I adhere to is an eternal moral system given to mankind by God. That being said, I fully believe that God has the wisdom to forsee any possible situations that may arise and design a legal system that would be able to deal with those situations without going too far from the original idea.

In other words, god is infinately wise and all-knowing (omniscient), yet he failed to realize his "instructions" will be misinterpreted ? That can't be, he must have intended it to happen.

I would suggest then, that if you believe in this god, anything is moral - as long as god says it is. And since "god's words" seem to be ambiguous (at least they seem that way to us), any (honest, genuine) interpretation is moral. That must have been what god intended, since he knows all. Or - we should not relly on them at all, as the ideas in scriptures are outdated BS thought up thousands of years ago by superstitious people living in a primitive society.

Is it moral because god says it is or does god say it because it's moral? It' absurd.

 

[Kerr]

I believe the moral system I adhere to is an eternal moral system given to mankind by God. That being said, I fully believe that God has the wisdom to forsee any possible situations that may arise and design a legal system that would be able to deal with those situations without going too far from the original idea.

Which may be a religious stance, but it is not perfect since even if God actually did that it ignores the human factor.

 

[Kerr]

Because, if I based my system on "harming people is bad" then harming Johnny would be bad, even though it leads to good. It may work, but it's still inconsistent.

Moral systems are more complicated then that. What is the best choice if harming people is bad. To let evil happen or to save an innocent life?

 

[Commoner]

Because, if I based my system on "harming people is bad" then harming Johnny would be bad, even though it leads to good. It may work, but it's still inconsistent.

Harming Johhny is "bad", it is also the best alternative (if we reduce the example to a choice between stopping Johnny by killing him or not doing anything at all). It doesn't lead to "good", there is no good alternative in this example. Just bad and worse.

 

[TheKnight]

In other words, god is infinately wise and all-knowing (omniscient), yet he failed to realize his "instructions" will be misinterpreted ? That can't be, he must have intended it to happen.

I would suggest then, that if you believe in this god, anything is moral - as long as god says it is. And since "god's words" seem to be ambiguous (at least they seem that way to us), any (honest, genuine) interpretation is moral. That must have been what god intended, since he knows all. Or - we should not relly on them at all, as the ideas in scriptures are outdated BS thought up thousands of years ago by superstitious people living in a primitive society.

Is it moral because god says it is or does god say it because it's moral? It' absurd.

It's moral because God says it is moral.

Misinterpretation is meaningless. Only if the misinterpretation is logical. The vast majority of misinterpreted scriptures result from a lack of study and dedication on part of the misinterpreter.

The scriptures can be understood if one is thorough in one's investigation of what the scripture means. Most people, however, are not.

The standard that God has necessitates that we study thoroughly. The fact that a lot of people won't reach the standard doesn't mean the standard should be lowered.

Moral systems are more complicated then that. What is the best choice if harming people is bad. To let evil happen or to save an innocent life?

To have a moral system where wrong isn't based on harm. Sometimes harm results in good. Therefore to define "wrong" as harming someone is a foolish definition.

Harming Johhny is "bad", it is also the best alternative (if we reduce the example to a choice between stopping Johnny by killing him or not doing anything at all). It doesn't lead to "good", there is no good alternative in this example. Just bad and worse.

I agree. My argument is that it's not consistent. If harming people is wrong, and there are situations where you have to harm people, then you have a system where you must do wrong sometimes.

That, in my opinion, is an intensely fallible moral system.

Whereas you could have a system where nothing is wrong. Where actions are either pro-goal or anti-goal.

 

[Commoner]

It's moral because God says it is moral.

I suggest a couple of problems with this idea:

1. What is moral (or good) is arbitrary (as god decides). God could decide that rape is a virtue and you would agree?
2. Calling god "good" in any sense becomes meaningless.
3. If you were really willing to do anything god tells you to do (or even just think he tells you to do) and consider it moral, you would be considered immoral by any ethical standard. Unless you claim to know the mind of god, you have no way of telling what he might ask of you. If you believed, without a shadow of a doubt, that god was telling you to kill your family and rape your neighbours daughter, would you? Would you consider it moral? If you would, I would consider you immoral and a covard.

(I don't think you would)

Misinterpretation is meaningless. Only if the misinterpretation is logical. The vast majority of misinterpreted scriptures result from a lack of study and dedication on part of the misinterpreter.

The scriptures can be understood if one is thorough in one's investigation of what the scripture means. Most people, however, are not.

The standard that God has necessitates that we study thoroughly. The fact that a lot of people won't reach the standard doesn't mean the standard should be lowered.

You have no way of knowing if your interpretation is correct. You base your interpretation on the moral standards you already have. When you read a commandment that clearly states you should destroy a nation and "take" their women, you already know that isn't the moral thing to do. (or you don't so you interpret it as correct). The point is, you are not basing your morals on those scriptures, you are applying your moral views to them and you are agreeing with the good parts and rationalizing the akward ones as "well, it's a matter of interpretation" or "the translation isn't good enough".

To have a moral system where wrong isn't based on harm. Sometimes harm results in good. Therefore to define "wrong" as harming someone is a foolish definition.

I agree. My argument is that it's not consistent. If harming people is wrong, and there are situations where you have to harm people, then you have a system where you must do wrong sometimes.

That, in my opinion, is an intensely fallible moral system.

Whereas you could have a system where nothing is wrong. Where actions are either pro-goal or anti-goal.

"Wrong" is just a silly term we use. There are no actual "right" and "wrong", they are just concepts. Same goes for "bad" and "good". Minimizing harm (or maximizing the opposite) is a completely consistent concept (you could consider it your goal). You keep getting back to this "but harm can result in good", which has nothing to do with it at all, and apart from saying "no, it isn't" you have not shown any inconsistency at all.

It's not a question of "result". You could act in a way we would probably all consider completely moral and it would still result in horrible consequences - let's say, you give money to charity only to find out the charity was a front for funding a terrorist group. It's a question of acting in an optimal way, weighing your options and deciding which option you think is the least harmful (or the most benificial). Show me one example of a situation, where you could not be consistant with that principle if you wanted to act in a moral way.

 

[Kerr]

To have a moral system where wrong isn't based on harm. Sometimes harm results in good. Therefore to define "wrong" as harming someone is a foolish definition.

You misunderstood my question. I did not ask which was and was not a better moral system. I asked what option would be best in a system that said that doing harm was wrong, to let evil happen or save the life of an innocent?

 

[TheKnight]

I suggest a couple of problems with this idea:

1. What is moral (or good) is arbitrary (as god decides). God could decide that rape is a virtue and you would agree?

Morality is not determined by my agreement with it. So yes.

2. Calling god "good" in any sense becomes meaningless.

True. Of course, I believe that calling God anything is, ultimately, meaningless because God is, ultimately, indescribable.

1. If you were really willing to do anything god tells you to do (or even just think he tells you to do) and consider it moral, you would be considered immoral by any ethical standard. 2. Unless you claim to know the mind of god, you have no way of telling what he might ask of you. 3. If you believed, without a shadow of a doubt, that god was telling you to kill your family and rape your neighbours daughter, would you? Would you consider it moral? 4. If you would, I would consider you immoral and a covard.

1. How does my doing anything God tells me to do make me immoral? Currently, I do that already. Does that make me immoral?

2. I agree. I would have no way of knowing what God asks of me, UNLESS He tells me. And I believe that He told the world what He expected of it 3300 years ago at the foot of the Sinai mountain. He told 3+ million Jews who have held that tradition consistently until today. I believe that, while it is not sufficient evidence to establish fact, it does provide me with enough to reasonably believe that Judaism is true.

3. If I was certain that God was telling me to do a certain thing, I would do it.


4. What about it makes me a coward?

You have no way of knowing if your interpretation is correct. You base your interpretation on the moral standards you already have. When you read a commandment that clearly states you should destroy a nation and "take" their women, you already know that isn't the moral thing to do. (or you don't so you interpret it as correct). The point is, you are not basing your morals on those scriptures, you are applying your moral views to them and you are agreeing with the good parts and rationalizing the akward ones as "well, it's a matter of interpretation" or "the translation isn't good enough".

What do you mean? I am not applying my moral standards to my interpretation. I don't rely on my interpretation. I rely on God's interpretation (which I also believe was given along with the Torah). There is sufficient evidence within the text of the Torah to suggest that there exists an oral tradition that accompanies it and explains it to greater detail. In essence, the Torah is the outline of a lesson that is to be learned from a teacher. The Torah, in itself, is not the whole lesson (although the whole lesson is derived from it).

That being said, when I look at a verse (any verse, not just the controversial ones), I stop for a moment and think "Does this verse apply to me? If so, how does it apply to me? How can I put this into practice in my day to day life? What changes can I make to ensure that I do not transgress or violate the lesson that this verse is telling me."

I don't look at a verse (controversial or not) and say "Hmm, I don't like that, surely it means something else."

They do that in Christendom and it is a practice I left long ago. The closest I have come to it is reading a verse I don't like and saying "I don't like that. Do I understand it correctly?" From which point I will commence studying the verse (by examining the Hebrew, reading commentaries of people who also didn't like the verse, reading the opinions of those who see the verse differently than written, the opinions of those who agree and like the verse, etc etc etc).

In essence, I do not apply my values to my reading of the Torah and it's verses. If a verse is clear and contradicts my current personal moral values, then my personal moral values must change.

"Wrong" is just a silly term we use. There are no actual "right" and "wrong", they are just concepts. Same goes for "bad" and "good". Minimizing harm (or maximizing the opposite) is a completely consistent concept (you could consider it your goal). You keep getting back to this "but harm can result in good", which has nothing to do with it at all, and apart from saying "no, it isn't" you have not shown any inconsistency at all.

It's not a question of "result". You could act in a way we would probably all consider completely moral and it would still result in horrible consequences - let's say, you give money to charity only to find out the charity was a front for funding a terrorist group. It's a question of acting in an optimal way, weighing your options and deciding which option you think is the least harmful (or the most benificial). Show me one example of a situation, where you could not be consistant with that principle if you wanted to act in a moral way.

That could be a consistent principle. Acting in the "optimal" way. But the problem with it is the subjectivity of it. Optimal for you may not be optimal for me. Suppose I walk upon the scene of Johnny malevolently trying to kill Sally, but I don't like Sally. In fact, I think that Sally is a degenerate and can prove that she is involved in criminal activity.

I guess my problem with non-Theistic morality is that I see it as having the flaw of subjectivity. Whereas if morality is defined by what God says and does not say, then the only flaw is knowing whether or not God said it.

You misunderstood my question. I did not ask which was and was not a better moral system. I asked what option would be best in a system that said that doing harm was wrong, to let evil happen or save the life of an innocent?

The best option would be to let evil happen. In a system where evil is harming people, then letting evil happen is not evil. Unless you consider passively harming someone to be evil as well.

If I harm Johnny, I have committed evil. Whereas if I do nothing and Johnny kills Sally, then Johnny has committed evil and I haven't.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Because, if I based my system on "harming people is bad" then harming Johnny would be bad, even though it leads to good. It may work, but it's still inconsistent.

As said already. Of course morals are a bit more complicated than what i have written down in one of the last posts.
In your example: Harming John is of course essentially bad, but letting John harm Sue is even worse.

I disagree. However I do realize that it would depend on what you base your moral system off of.

I do not understand why and how?
You asked how people could be consistent in their beliefs and on the other side be moral. If your "belief" or your worldview incorporates morals then I see no trouble that is any bigger than the trouble you always have regardless of whether you are a nontheist or a theist.

I suppose. But then at what point is the line drawn between bad that can be done in order to accomplish good. Suppose a parent kills their children. Their justification being "I could have let them live, but if I let them live and encounter harm (which would have inevitably happened) then I would be DOING something. I would be letting them get hurt. So instead, I killed them painlessly which is a lesser harm than having to go through the pains of life."

You forgot that we do have a right to live, don't we?
Of course the problem with drawing the line is always drawn somewhere and you can't evade the problem either even with supposedly god given morals. God doesn't give you detailed guidelines for all circumstances that may arise. As you yourself have stated somewhere in your post you have "interpretation" yourself. And of course there are general guidelines in any morals alongside perhaps some more specific. It depends on the case how one decides and sometimes even on the time.

I didn't really get this part.

You stated that your religion had specific moral guidelines for killing someone who threatens/kills others. I simply stated that such guidelines or laws or ideas can be found all over the globe and not just in your religion. A hindu, or an atheist wouldn't think it to be good or neutral to sit aside while someone kills someone else.

I agree that morals are necessary for the establishment of a successful social structure. In a world that consistently denies Godly moral values, then they would have had to evolve over time.

Then morals do not have to come from God obviously?

That quote is not from my scriptures as I don't believe in the NT (I am not a Christian).

However, there are similar troubling statements in the Torah. And in those cases, the problem is often interpretation due to translation. Things are lost in translation.

If one were to read the Torah in Hebrew, they'd probably get a few verses into Genesis 1 and then go this doesn't make sense.

A simple reading of the text in Hebrew would show that an interpretation other than what's written is necessary. Not to mention that the Torah alludes to the Oral Torah many times.

This is an argument made from the perspective of a believer and i can understand it.
From the perspective of a nonbeliever of course this doesnt make much sense. For him there is a scripture that either translated or "original" in many aspects doesn't make sense, seems wrong or promotes things one sees as immoral. If he were a believer he would need to interpret the passage differently in order to "set things right" again. As a nonbeliever he has no need for that and can take it as it is written. The end of that is that he discards the scripture as not from God since he assumes that a God would not write text down that could be so easily misunderstood with so much harm done in the name of him.

I believe the moral system I adhere to is an eternal moral system given to mankind by God. That being said, I fully believe that God has the wisdom to forsee any possible situations that may arise and design a legal system that would be able to deal with those situations without going too far from the original idea.

That was not addressed to me but i think it fits my last point.
God as a perfect designer in my view would do a better job than the moral system he prescribed so misunderstably and uneternally in his nonfixed scriptures. No offense meant!
In my view the shortcommings are too obvious and in order to overcome them you interpret much in(to) the texts. By doing that you do what non theists do all the time, namely find their own morals. The only thing you do differently is to actually change or discard (you call it interpret) the morals in the scripture according to your own "Zeitgeist" while a nontheist simply acknowledges the fact that it is his own thinking that drives him in the first place.

 

[TheKnight]

I do not understand why and how?
You asked how people could be consistent in their beliefs and on the other side be moral. If your "belief" or your worldview incorporates morals then I see no trouble that is any bigger than the trouble you always have regardless of whether you are a nontheist or a theist.

It depends on what you base it off of. There are flaws in a Theistic moral system, but they're different (and in my opinion less problematic) than those in a Non-Theistic system. Particularly when it comes to subjectivity and consistency.

You forgot that we do have a right to live, don't we?
Of course the problem with drawing the line is always drawn somewhere and you can't evade the problem either even with supposedly god given morals. God doesn't give you detailed guidelines for all circumstances that may arise. As you yourself have stated somewhere in your post you have "interpretation" yourself. And of course there are general guidelines in any morals alongside perhaps some more specific. It depends on the case how one decides and sometimes even on the time.

I believe that the Torah has a moral teaching for any given circumstance.

Also, is it OK to forgo Johnny's right to live, but not our children's? The fact that we have a right to live isn't relevant to my point.

You stated that your religion had specific moral guidelines for killing someone who threatens/kills others. I simply stated that such guidelines or laws or ideas can be found all over the globe and not just in your religion. A hindu, or an atheist wouldn't think it to be good or neutral to sit aside while someone kills someone else.

I know that. My problem is specifically with the "harm=evil" mindset that a lot of Non-Theists seem to promote.

Then morals do not have to come from God obviously?

They do. I believe that all morals (even those we come up with from our internal reasoning) are from God. However, the denial of God's existence necessitates that we believe that morals will evolve. Of course, that is if we expect to have a successful society.

This is an argument made from the perspective of a believer and i can understand it.
From the perspective of a nonbeliever of course this doesnt make much sense. For him there is a scripture that either translated or "original" in many aspects doesn't make sense, seems wrong or promotes things one sees as immoral. If he were a believer he would need to interpret the passage differently in order to "set things right" again. As a nonbeliever he has no need for that and can take it as it is written. The end of that is that he discards the scripture as not from God since he assumes that a God would not write text down that could be so easily misunderstood with so much harm done in the name of him.

It doesn't take much to realize that the text needs interpretation. And keep in mind that we in Judaism do believe that God gave an interpretation at Sinai. Torah was the notes, the Mesorah is the lecture itself. If I say to you "There was once a man who...and because he was...he did....and then he....but then a woman...and she and he...now they arent."

It is obvious to you that there are parts missing in that...it's similar with the Torah. It's written in such a way that you can know that it's not the whole story. That doesn't mean each person individually needs to figure out the blanks. After all, there is an accompanying interpretation.

That was not addressed to me but i think it fits my last point.
God as a perfect designer in my view would do a better job than the moral system he prescribed so misunderstably and uneternally in his nonfixed scriptures. No offense meant!
In my view the shortcommings are too obvious and in order to overcome them you interpret much in(to) the texts. By doing that you do what non theists do all the time, namely find their own morals. The only thing you do differently is to actually change or discard (you call it interpret) the morals in the scripture according to your own "Zeitgeist" while a nontheist simply acknowledges the fact that it is his own thinking that drives him in the first place.

This may be true in Christianity. But as I explained in the post before yours, Judaism is a religion in which we believe that God gave the Torah and alongside it gave the interpretation. He gave the lecture and the notes.

We have a tradition that goes back pretty far (at least as far back as the first temple period) and that tradition explains the entire Torah.

It's not just man putting his own interpretation, but God assisting us in our interpreting.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Does morality comes from the scriptures? No.

 

[saltandlight]

Does morality comes from the scriptures? No.

Well, it comes from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which was created by God, and the Bible just backs that up.

 

[Kerr]

Also, is it OK to forgo Johnny's right to live, but not our children's? The fact that we have a right to live isn't relevant to my point.

Johnny is directly threatening another life, in what way are they even comparable?

 

[Kerr]

The best option would be to let evil happen. In a system where evil is harming people, then letting evil happen is not evil. Unless you consider passively harming someone to be evil as well.

If I harm Johnny, I have committed evil. Whereas if I do nothing and Johnny kills Sally, then Johnny has committed evil and I haven't.

Evil happens in either case, the choice is your what kind of evil will occur. The one that can be justified, or the one that can´t. In either case someone will get harmed, your choice who.

 

[Kerr]

They do. I believe that all morals (even those we come up with from our internal reasoning) are from God. However, the denial of God's existence necessitates that we believe that morals will evolve. Of course, that is if we expect to have a successful society.

It is just to look at human history. With or without a deity in the system morality does evolve.

 

[TheKnight]

Johnny is directly threatening another life, in what way are they even comparable?

Taking Johnny's life and taking the lives of my children both result in the alleviation of suffering. That is how they are comparable.

Evil happens in either case, the choice is your what kind of evil will occur. The one that can be justified, or the one that can´t. In either case someone will get harmed, your choice who.

Evil does happen in either case. In one scenario I have to justify the evil, in the other scenario I don't because I didn't commit any evil.

 

[Kerr]

Taking Johnny's life and taking the lives of my children both result in the alleviation of suffering. That is how they are comparable.

Only if you do not value and respect human life.

Evil does happen in either case. In one scenario I have to justify the evil, in the other scenario I don't because I didn't commit any evil.

The best moral option does not need to be a good one.

 

[Renji]

Well, it comes from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which was created by God, and the Bible just backs that up.

But us, as humans are the supposedly "actualizers" of morality. If we don't practice morality no matter what's written in the scriptures, it will be useless.

 

[Commoner]

1. How does my doing anything God tells me to do make me immoral? Currently, I do that already. Does that make me immoral?

2. I agree. I would have no way of knowing what God asks of me, UNLESS He tells me. And I believe that He told the world what He expected of it 3300 years ago at the foot of the Sinai mountain. He told 3+ million Jews who have held that tradition consistently until today. I believe that, while it is not sufficient evidence to establish fact, it does provide me with enough to reasonably believe that Judaism is true.

3. If I was certain that God was telling me to do a certain thing, I would do it.

4. What about it makes me a coward?

Then you are both immoral and a coward. UNLESS he tells you? Really? Do you think that people doing crazy things in the name of god, like blowing themselves up, don't believe that's what he's telling them to do? Do you condone that? How is that any different?

To say that you would do anything, even if it's clearly ****** up - like rape and murder, because god commanded you, is pretty much proof that you have no concept of morality. If you really feel that way, I suggest you consult a psychiatrist and get yourself locked up.

You are a coward, because you would be willing to do things that go against what you believe in (well, I don't even know that anymore), just to appease big brother. There is no other reason to just go out and start raping and killing, if you're a sane person.

Whereas if morality is defined by what God says and does not say, then the only flaw is knowing whether or not God said it.

Which allows people to justify forrible, illogical actions. Do you really not see that? Do you think you are somehow special?

The best option would be to let evil happen. In a system where evil is harming people, then letting evil happen is not evil. Unless you consider passively harming someone to be evil as well.

If I harm Johnny, I have committed evil. Whereas if I do nothing and Johnny kills Sally, then Johnny has committed evil and I haven't.

The best thing to do would be to call up your god and ask him why immoral actions are permitted in the first place. I don't need them, do you? He makes the rules, just remove some of the options. Your god is a sadistic little prick. It's a good thing he does not exist.