Fiach

You make a rather unconvincing argument for your view that morality is not absolute, but purely subjective by God, dependent on his particular mood at the tiime. I thought fundies kept barfing the charge that infidels used situational ethics, and that they, the fundies, believed in moral absolutes. Now I find that is bullshit.

You don't believe in moral absolutes. You may (or may not) think that it is immoral to murder babies in 2003. But you think it was just fine and dandy when Israelite Storm Troopers attacked Bashon and Heshbon plus hundreds of other Canaanite cities and towns in which by God's horrid command, killed men, women, children, babies, and dashing the heads of babies against the stone.

So ergo your morality is subject to God's mood, while mine is absolute. Killing innocent babies was wrong 6000 BC, 4000 BC, 3000 BC, 2000 BC, 1000 Bc...and 2003 AD.

Fiach

Mageth

Since God created the laws, including morality and ethics - hes quite entitled to break them if he so chooses. He gave the laws to us so we know what he asks of us - He's perfect in his sovereignty and doesn't need a law to control himself - he does what needs to be done - whether you think its right or not.

OK, so you believe in an amoral God. Do you realize that you're describing god as just such a "despicable" character many Xians claim atheists must be if they reject god's moral authority? Hey, good news! We atheists are made more "in the image of god" than you theists!

Albert Cipriani

Cave asks:
The classic Catholic definition of good comes from St. Augustine: The classic Catholic definition of evil comes from St. Thomas Aquinas. I paraphrase:Ergo, theologically-speaking, evil is a non-entity, only a relatively less existent entity.

Shame on you for giving up on you Catholic religion. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

the_cave

Albert--I know enough about Catholicism that your admonishment is actually a duty of faith, and I will thank you for your concern, even though that thanks might look unwarranted to others. If it reassures you, I have many faithful friends and relatives who will help guide me towards the truth, if I need guiding. Now you might not believe me, but I don't think I've given up on anything. I merely stated I was not a very good Catholic--which I'm not. That's different than saying I'm not one at all.

I appreciate your quotations, and I'm sure you know more about Aquinas and Augustine than I. I think they could be quite helpful in solving the problems at hand. But if I were an atheist (which I am not), I would not find them helpful, because even if evil is a non-entity, it still begs the question; then why does God allow it to run amok in His creation? Now I'm not saying Aquinas and Augustine don't have answers to that (as a matter of fact, it's my understanding that they do.) All I'm saying is, I wonder how atheists might define "the good." The Christian claim is, God is all-good, even though He allows evil to run amok in His creation. The atheists are somewhat dubious of this claim, as, well, evil runs amok in his creation. I'm not going to try and explain it (though you are welcome to); I am instead going to ask them what they think the good, then, is.

To me, it's clear God has to be all-good. The conflict is the presence of that goodness with so much evil. So I want to know if there is any definition of "the good" that atheists accept, and then see if it can be applied to God (atheists, now don't go and start explaining that there isn't a God right away--that's not my question.)

bgponder

Cave--

Speaking strictly for myself as an atheist, I have in recent times come to disdain the very words "good" and "evil", because they tend to make black and white a region that is totally grey. IOW, I think there is no real good or evil, certainly no absolutes, in bridging the gaps between fact and value, what is and what ought to be.

I do not really even put much stock in objectivism, "moral standards". This is only a term for a consensus of individuals, which conveys the most advantages to those individuals, in most situations, which varies from culture to culture. All things being equal, yes, The Golden Rule is most advantageous (with a healthy dose of live and let live thrown in). But as situations and motivations tend toward extremes, so do moral concepts.

Morality is about advantage and priority.

Sincerely, BarryG

Albert Cipriani

Dear Cave,
You ask,
For our good. For greater clarity. To reveal the hearts of many. In short, evil is the means whereby good, by contrast, can manifest itself and manifest itself more abundantly.

Obtain pleasure and avoid pain. In fact, the problem of evil as framed by atheists typically means the problem of suffering, of putting up with parasites and the like.

For what it’s worth, good should be conceived of as giving glory to God. Boring, huh? That’s why the uninitiated can give it through proxy, via His creation. It’s enough to know that whenever one feels awe and thinks that they are grateful, one has given glory to God or to God through His creation. This is what we have been designed to do.

Thank you for not taking offense at my admonishment. –God Bless You, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Wiploc

Then what's the point of being good? This standard seems irrelevant.
crc

Wiploc

How so?



Is it that he can't control the evil, or doesn't want to?



I ran across an actual useful definition of evil just last semester. Evil is the sources of human suffering. So, since plagues cause suffering, plagues are a type of evil. This definition makes sin and evil completely different. Sin is doubt and disobedience; evil is the punishment for sin.

I like it. I just don't know whether people would understand me if I used the word that way.

But if we use that meaning for evil, it suggests that good is the sources of human happiness. Thus, love is good. Ice cream is usually good. Throwing people into Hell is evil.

Does this work for you?
crc

Albert Cipriani

Wiploc says:
Punishment, by definition, is good. For like any tool, it is a means of bringing about a good change in the person being punished. If punishment is administered without the possibility of it causing a good change, then it is unworthy of the word. Such “punishment” would actually be cruelty, or sadism.

Thus, hell is not punishment for sin. It is a state of being chosen. It is a consequent of choice. Not God’s reaction to that choice. People who are “going to hell” are actually already in hell right now but are just too distracted to realize it... yet – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

winstonjen

Actually, according to the bible, god made up the requirements for heaven & hell, so he is ultimately responsible. It is HIS reaction to our choices that dictates where we go. He could choose to send the 'good' to hell and the 'evil' to heaven (that way he could be with those that are like him), but he doesn't. Why?