Incurring Moral Obligation

[ppp]

In what way am I morally obligated to your god?

Let's skip these and their variations:

• "God owns us" - this does not inspire any sense of obligation. It only inspires disgust for the being claiming ownership and for those advocating for it.
• "Or else" - at most that is an argument for a moral obligation to myself. Again, this only inspires contempt and disgust for the creator or supporter of any such system.
• "Because super smart" - this one is better, but it does not explain why I should care about that god's goals.
• "Because ultimate good" - I do not see any evidence that there is or even could be an ultimate "good".

What else is there?

 

[JustGeorge]

In what way am I morally obligated to your god?

You're not.

 

[1213]

• "God owns us" - this does not inspire any sense of obligation. It only inspires disgust for the being claiming ownership and for those advocating for it.

But what if it is true? Is truth disgusting? And if truth is disgusting, should we live in a lie?

• "Or else" - at most that is an argument for a moral obligation to myself. Again, this only inspires contempt and disgust for the creator or supporter of any such system.
• "Because super smart" - this one is better, but it does not explain why I should care about that god's goals.
• "Because ultimate good" - I do not see any evidence that there is or even could be an ultimate "good".

What else is there?

I don't think you are obligated.

In the Bible eternal life is promised only for righteous.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

If you do the right thing only because you must, I don't think you are righteous. Therefore obligation is not very useful and love is the only reasonable way:

If you love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:15
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

 

[ppp]

In the Bible

Irrelevant

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

In what way am I morally obligated to your god?

Let's skip these and their variations:

• "God owns us" - this does not inspire any sense of obligation. It only inspires disgust for the being claiming ownership and for those advocating for it.
• "Or else" - at most that is an argument for a moral obligation to myself. Again, this only inspires contempt and disgust for the creator or supporter of any such system.
• "Because super smart" - this one is better, but it does not explain why I should care about that god's goals.
• "Because ultimate good" - I do not see any evidence that there is or even could be an ultimate "good".

What else is there?

Which moral obligations?

Are we talking about the Divine Rights of Kings to mediate disputes between a master and his slaves?

In Cauca, the masters were Idolaters.

They mistreated their slaves horribly.

They didn’t feel any moral obligation to follow church teaching on the treatment of the slaves.

In this case it led to a series of Holy Wars.

 

[ppp]

Which moral obligations?

[shrug] if you are trying to answer the question, you tell me. I don't know which god(s) you claim.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

[shrug] if you are trying to answer the question, you tell me. I don't know which god(s) you claim.

Catholic.

As for me, I don’t claim any God. I’m atheist.

But avoiding Holy Wars would seem to be a good thing, don’t you think?

 

[ppp]

I’m atheist.

Then I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Then I wasn't talking to you.

Your post was addressed to me.

 

[osgart]

In what way am I morally obligated to your god?

Let's skip these and their variations:

• "God owns us" - this does not inspire any sense of obligation. It only inspires disgust for the being claiming ownership and for those advocating for it.
• "Or else" - at most that is an argument for a moral obligation to myself. Again, this only inspires contempt and disgust for the creator or supporter of any such system.
• "Because super smart" - this one is better, but it does not explain why I should care about that god's goals.
• "Because ultimate good" - I do not see any evidence that there is or even could be an ultimate "good".

What else is there?

Well supposing there is a God of justice, people fall into two paths: 1) destroying innocent life 2) being for the cause of all innocence

The first path obligates and owes their life to justice for robbing life. The second path there is no just law against such people whom are naturally just.

The ultimate good are the virtues which aim at love and benevolence. Ultimate evil otoh aims at destroying love and benevolence.

Morality is looking not only at actions, and behavior but also one's nature and essence that they have freely chosen. So naturally just motivations, desires, and intentions incur no obligation.

Ultimate evil otoh finds no sanctity in life, and especially innocent life. Vanity, arrogance, and hatred incur obligation every day when they murder, steal, and take from the innocent.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In what way am I morally obligated to your god?

Kindly remind me which one is mine again. I can't seem to recall having one.

In what way are you morally obligated to not take my life or your own?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Irrelevant

Not really.

Calling out a group about their god and then outright dismissing the holy text that informs them of their god is bad form and nothing short of rude.

 

[Secret Chief]

Irrelevant

You've started a thread about gods but are dismissive of a post because it contains reference to "the Bible." So that others might avoid posting time-wasting irrelevancies could you list all the acceptable references?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You've started a thread about gods but are dismissive of a post because it contains reference to "the Bible." So that others might avoid posting time-wasting irrelevancies could you list all the acceptable references?

Apparently, neither the Holy Bible nor the Divine Rights of Kings to mediate disputes between a master and his slaves counts as relevant.

His attitude reminds me of the attitudes of the Idolatrous masters in Cauca.

Many of the discussions that we have here have historical antecedents. This is one of them.

 

[Quintessence]

You're not.

Yeah, this entire thread premise is just plain confusing.

To aid in clarity, who told you that you were "morally obliged" to some particular god, @ppp, and which god, specifically? What exactly does "moral obligation" even mean?

I feel like we're missing some important context here.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yeah, this entire thread premise is just plain confusing.

To aid in clarity, who told you that you were "morally obliged" to some particular god, @ppp, and which god, specifically? What exactly does "moral obligation" even mean?

I feel like we're missing some important context here.

You're not missing anything. It's just another one of those threads that begins with the premise and assumption that all religions and their gods are Abrahamic.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

You're not.

Took the words right outta my mouth.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yeah, this entire thread premise is just plain confusing.

To aid in clarity, who told you that you were "morally obliged" to some particular god, @ppp, and which god, specifically? What exactly does "moral obligation" even mean?

I feel like we're missing some important context here.

I assumed that we were just being asked to each provide contexts that interest us. People often ask general questions to brainstorm approaches to religion that have been taken or might be taken.

When I see general statements about religion, I try to apply them to this context, just to see if they make sense in at least one example.

Here’s an artist discussing some basic cultural and religious aspects of a mural he painted.

Memoriandar con Adolfo Albán Achinte sobre un Canto a la Escuetería o "Los macheteros del Patía"​

 

[Quintessence]

You're not missing anything. It's just another one of those threads that begins with the premise and assumption that all religions and their gods are Abrahamic.

Probably, but I often prefer granting opportunities for clarification rather than continue on with the proverbial assumption train. Also, if I interpret the OP from the standpoint of a reconstructed indigenous religion like mine, as @Banach-Tarski Paradox suggests we do, it... well...

... let's just say if recognizing the interdependence of existence "inspires disgust" in someone, I'd worry about the mental health of that someone as the welfare of anyone in contact with them.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Probably, but I often prefer granting opportunities for clarification rather than continue on with the proverbial assumption train. Also, if I interpret the OP from the standpoint of a reconstructed indigenous religion like mine, as @Banach-Tarski Paradox suggests we do, it... well...

... let's just say if recognizing the interdependence of existence "inspires disgust" in someone, I'd worry about the mental health of that someone as the welfare of anyone in contact with them.

Different peoples have different relationships with specific species of birds.

And one guy saw for the first time in his life, the bird he had tattooed on his arm.

Might be all sorts of moral obligations (under international law) involved in maintaining that system.

I recall reading about one people whose job it was to hold up the sky. It was a long time ago, so I forget the name.

THE BIRDERS | A Melodic Journey through Northern Colombia​