-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"So what purpose is there in having concepts of right and wrong to begin with if it all comes down to opinion?"
For me, I'm happier when I think there is right and wrong. I sense that I can make a decision, that is, that I'm more than chemicals and particles. This leads me to believe that there is a god, and that there is right and wrong.
Also, I'm interested in your take on that word 'fault', when you get around to reading my post on that...
For me, I'm happier when I think there is right and wrong. I sense that I can make a decision, that is, that I'm more than chemicals and particles. This leads me to believe that there is a god, and that there is right and wrong.
Also, I'm interested in your take on that word 'fault', when you get around to reading my post on that...
"If you can't empathize, that's your issue, not mine."
If someone doesn't feel empathy, is it then not wrong for them?
"Why would I want to do it to anyone else if it's not beneficial in any way?"
Check out this quote attributed to Genghis Khan,
'The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.'
So, personal happiness would be one reason.
If someone doesn't feel empathy, is it then not wrong for them?
"Why would I want to do it to anyone else if it's not beneficial in any way?"
Check out this quote attributed to Genghis Khan,
'The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.'
So, personal happiness would be one reason.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God and introduced a new and higher ethic.
Instead of "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth", Jesus calls his kingdom followers to a more demanding standard as in "turn the other cheek" to be smitten, give your tunic and coat away, go the extra mile, give to him who asks (Matthew 5:38-42).
Jesus is the "Blessed One" who shall vindicate injustices when He comes the second time.
Instead of "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth", Jesus calls his kingdom followers to a more demanding standard as in "turn the other cheek" to be smitten, give your tunic and coat away, go the extra mile, give to him who asks (Matthew 5:38-42).
Jesus is the "Blessed One" who shall vindicate injustices when He comes the second time.
Truthfully, it frequently happens the other way around. I even have Christians coming to my door to try and convert me. I often tell people on forums that I don't have any real interest in disproving the existence of God. I do think it important, however, that people accept modern science. Unfortunately, too many conservative Christians see science as undermining God and they react strongly against it. It is this anit-science push back that brought people such as Richard Dawkins into the discussion and is the principle reason I also visit religious forums.
How do they make you feel embarrassed?
PS. Welcome to the forum.
How do they make you feel embarrassed?
PS. Welcome to the forum.
Good to know, if or when the subject of free will and making decisions comes up again... did you have a chance to look at the physics webpage I put up earlier? Looking forward to fruitful and pleasurable discussions with you!
Can you rephrase?
What about this one attributed to Martin Luther:
'If women wear themselves out in childbearing, let them go on and continue to bear until they die. What does it matter? That is what they are for''.
An apparently Godly man right there.
The point is:
1. 'God's morality' is really a morality built on subjective interpretations of the bible, which vary tremendously. It's subjetive in that the reader interprets it and then applies it, and the particular interpretation is subject to the colour of perception.
2. Immorality is rife, in Christians and non-Christians alike.
3. If a person gains personal happiness from robbing pillaging and raping (Genghis Khan) it doesn't take away the reality that Ghengis Khan would not feel personal happiness if his wives and daughters were raped and his wealth robbed. It's safe therefore to say that Ghengis Khan is not a man of moral integrity nor of empathy regarding the unconsensual suffering of others; which of course are the bases for my morality.
Nobody has to adhere to that morality, but there is integrity in it; as a moral foundation. It can't really be misinterpreted in the way the bible can, because it does not rely on subjective interpretation of some exterior piece of writing, nor on the idea that morality is inherenrtly objective. You see, when you objectify God's morality, you assume the conclusions you draw thereof are infalliby correct because you believe you're reading God's word at face value, yet, every Christian likely believes similar, regardless of whether there are discrepancies between your morality and theirs (which there always are), whereas my morality begins with subjectivity (my own conscious desire not to suffer unconsensually) which I know is innate in every human being (I know no human being who likes to suffer against their will, for it is a self-contained truth. If the will is not to suffer at the hand of another in a given moment, then violation of that will is by definition undesireable to the victim), and ends with the application of things gleaned from that observation.
The only things I need take into account are:
I don't like to suffer unconsensually, therefore neither do others. Moral integrity demands I don't do to others what I would find a violation of my giving or not giving consent to be inflicted with suffering. I've highlighted exeptions earlier (self defense, and of course in medicinal circumstances where a level of suffering is necessary to save a life, but which is never heavy-handed for the particular situation).
What I am saying is that, a very subjective morality based on the premise of personal empathy regarding unconsensual suffering has less room for misinterpretation than morality based on personal interpretation of a text which, to be honest, is itself contradictory in many instances.
If each person thinks only; ''Am I causing suffering without this other person's explicit consent'' (obviously exceptions being medicinal situations and self defense) in moral decisions regarding interaction with other people, the world would be a much better place than it currently is.
And yes, I believe that this is the natural progression from 'do unto others ...' I don't think Jesus, in saying the phrase, was imparting some never-before-heard esoteric Godly knowledge, I think he was stating the obvious, speaking to the innate empathy in every person.
''The Kingdom of God is not something you shall look at and say 'behold, there it is', because the Kingdom of God is within you''. Isn't that what they say?
If each person thinks only; ''Am I causing suffering without this other person's explicit consent'' (obviously exceptions being medicinal situations and self defense) in moral decisions regarding interaction with other people, the world would be a much better place than it currently is.
And yes, I believe that this is the natural progression from 'do unto others ...' I don't think Jesus, in saying the phrase, was imparting some never-before-heard esoteric Godly knowledge, I think he was stating the obvious, speaking to the innate empathy in every person.
''The Kingdom of God is not something you shall look at and say 'behold, there it is', because the Kingdom of God is within you''. Isn't that what they say?
The wording of Psalm 137:8 provides context and shows that the action described in Psalm 137:9 would be a vindication or retribution for earlier action already taken.
Psalm 2 in general and Psalm 2:9 has been cited as a Messianic Prophecy where Jesus in the future will be a Conqueror and a Vindicator. We don't always know the original intent of Scripture nor do we see and understand like God sees and understands.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psalm 2 in general and Psalm 2:9 has been cited as a Messianic Prophecy where Jesus in the future will be a Conqueror and a Vindicator. We don't always know the original intent of Scripture nor do we see and understand like God sees and understands.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
If there are exceptions then it's not really any kind of axiom - it isn't a truly defining characteristic of moral behaviour. If there are caveats and limitations then there's something more fundamental at work that isn't identified in the condition itself.
Is there any reason, other than your subjective emotional impulses, to think that this is actually the case? You say the world would be a "much better place" if everyone acted in this manner, but in order to justify the claim of it being "much better" one would have to appeal to the truth of that system of moral judgement in the first place (i.e. it's circular).
If this system you're proposing is actually completely subjective, how does it actually carry any more weight than saying "my favourite colour of blue, and the world would be a better place if everyone agreed" - other than the emotional intensity with which it is believed? Is this "moral integrity" to which you refer anything other than a fiction you create in your own head?
Is there any reason, other than your subjective emotional impulses, to think that this is actually the case? You say the world would be a "much better place" if everyone acted in this manner, but in order to justify the claim of it being "much better" one would have to appeal to the truth of that system of moral judgement in the first place (i.e. it's circular).
If this system you're proposing is actually completely subjective, how does it actually carry any more weight than saying "my favourite colour of blue, and the world would be a better place if everyone agreed" - other than the emotional intensity with which it is believed? Is this "moral integrity" to which you refer anything other than a fiction you create in your own head?
Selfishness and charity or love are different ethical principles at different ends of a spectrum.
Motives vary but Selflessness, charity and love make more sense if there is a God who sees all and will bring every thought and action into account at a great Day of Judgment. Even if we could influence the our genes with greater empathy today, not all of us will spawn new offspring. Yet, let love and empathy continue and extend among all of us.
Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.
Motives vary but Selflessness, charity and love make more sense if there is a God who sees all and will bring every thought and action into account at a great Day of Judgment. Even if we could influence the our genes with greater empathy today, not all of us will spawn new offspring. Yet, let love and empathy continue and extend among all of us.
Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.
Also, there's no account here as to precisely why suffering is bad, and as to why relieving it is good. This is what I mean when I say it puts the cart before the horse, comparing two statements:
- I eat because I am hungry.
- I help (or avoid hurting) people because I feel bad when they are hurting.
Of course we often think we eat because we are hungry, but this only exposes a shallow motivation. The actual natural motivation for eating is to obtain the sustenance necessary for the body to function in order to ensure the perpetuity of the being; hunger serves as an impulsive means to an end to achieve this goal. Similarly, humans are naturally social creatures who live in community and render one another mutual assistance; empathy is another bodily impulse just like hunger, fatigue, romantic attraction, rage etc. It has its purpose and is oriented towards a particular end.
The subjective experience (which can actually be mis-directed) assists in the fulfillment of an objective good. When someone's subjective experiences are misdirected then there's a problem with said person (e.g. a sadistic psychopath who derives pleasure from torturing babies) - that's why there's such a thing as a mental disorder as opposed to the rightly ordered experiences and ends.
- I eat because I am hungry.
- I help (or avoid hurting) people because I feel bad when they are hurting.
Of course we often think we eat because we are hungry, but this only exposes a shallow motivation. The actual natural motivation for eating is to obtain the sustenance necessary for the body to function in order to ensure the perpetuity of the being; hunger serves as an impulsive means to an end to achieve this goal. Similarly, humans are naturally social creatures who live in community and render one another mutual assistance; empathy is another bodily impulse just like hunger, fatigue, romantic attraction, rage etc. It has its purpose and is oriented towards a particular end.
The subjective experience (which can actually be mis-directed) assists in the fulfillment of an objective good. When someone's subjective experiences are misdirected then there's a problem with said person (e.g. a sadistic psychopath who derives pleasure from torturing babies) - that's why there's such a thing as a mental disorder as opposed to the rightly ordered experiences and ends.
Last edited:
Would you, in the throes of having your wife raped and your son brutalized and you person punched, find that experience good? Suffering is bad because nobody likes it. That should be absolutely obvious, but again, you're compartmentalizing the idea of suffering from its real world application; making it abstract.
Two statements deliberately engineered to confuse suffering from an impulse with the cognitive ability to empathize. Perhaps try:
I eat because I am hungry. Hunger feels unpleasant, therefore hunger is unpleasant in others. I would like others to feed me when I am hungry, thus I should feed hungry others.
In reality, we do eat because we are hungry. Our body doesn't tell us; ''This hunger is actually abstract, just a desire for sustenence for the body''. In reality, our stomach hurts and we suffer hunger.
Empathy is the congitive ability to recognize and understand others in regards to oneself. It's not an emotional impulse, but it can illicit emotional symbiosis.
The idea of fulfilling an objective good (feeding the hungry man) depends on subjective notions of what is 'good' or 'bad'. For this reason I assert it's better to focus moral deliberation on the application of empathy, projecting from one's own experience of suffering in various forms onto others in order to actually establish what is good and what is bad to begin with.
Two statements deliberately engineered to confuse suffering from an impulse with the cognitive ability to empathize. Perhaps try:
I eat because I am hungry. Hunger feels unpleasant, therefore hunger is unpleasant in others. I would like others to feed me when I am hungry, thus I should feed hungry others.
In reality, we do eat because we are hungry. Our body doesn't tell us; ''This hunger is actually abstract, just a desire for sustenence for the body''. In reality, our stomach hurts and we suffer hunger.
Empathy is the congitive ability to recognize and understand others in regards to oneself. It's not an emotional impulse, but it can illicit emotional symbiosis.
The idea of fulfilling an objective good (feeding the hungry man) depends on subjective notions of what is 'good' or 'bad'. For this reason I assert it's better to focus moral deliberation on the application of empathy, projecting from one's own experience of suffering in various forms onto others in order to actually establish what is good and what is bad to begin with.
Last edited:
It's obvious that it is bad, but I disagree as to why it is "bad." I don't think that my personal preferences, nor the preferences of anyone around me, determine what is actually good or bad.
If I were punched in the stomach, I would suffer. But the suffering in itself isn't necessarily bad; if I put my hand on the stove for too long and burn it, its proper function (sensing, grasping, etc.) will be impaired by the damage. The body provides a response to stimulus in the form of pain - ow - in order to dissuade me from damaging myself.
You say I'm somehow making suffering abstract - on the contrary, I am insisting that it be paired with the actual cause of the suffering - i.e. it is understood as "bad" or something to be avoided in light of its real-world cause. The entire point of suffering, again, is to avoid evil. Suffering in the contexts to which you and I have referred is ultimately a defensive biological mechanism which is incredibly useful.
I avoid suffering because I want to avoid the state of affairs which causes it. Aren't you the one saying that suffering, in itself, is bad - and that it is bad purely on the basis of us "not liking it" instead of it being linked to specific causes which are to be avoided as a matter of biology? That is suffering in the 'abstract.'
If I were punched in the stomach, I would suffer. But the suffering in itself isn't necessarily bad; if I put my hand on the stove for too long and burn it, its proper function (sensing, grasping, etc.) will be impaired by the damage. The body provides a response to stimulus in the form of pain - ow - in order to dissuade me from damaging myself.
You say I'm somehow making suffering abstract - on the contrary, I am insisting that it be paired with the actual cause of the suffering - i.e. it is understood as "bad" or something to be avoided in light of its real-world cause. The entire point of suffering, again, is to avoid evil. Suffering in the contexts to which you and I have referred is ultimately a defensive biological mechanism which is incredibly useful.
I avoid suffering because I want to avoid the state of affairs which causes it. Aren't you the one saying that suffering, in itself, is bad - and that it is bad purely on the basis of us "not liking it" instead of it being linked to specific causes which are to be avoided as a matter of biology? That is suffering in the 'abstract.'