From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ABSOLUTE MORALS, ETC.
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:07:23 GMT
	<1992Apr14.180352.8110@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<GOEHRING.92Apr14152855@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr15.000329.25182@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>The absolutes I speak of are those things which are an integral part
>of God's plan.

But I do not accept God's plan.  What relevance do these absolutes
have to me?

>The only reason we can put our finger on many of them is that they
>are communicated to us by God through his word, the Bible.  They do
>exist without the Bible, but they are harder to define.

Impossible, to be precise.  But please feel free to try.

>They are those things which mankind as a whole recognizes as "wrong"
>and "right" regardless of the social climate or time frame.

Funny.  I do not classify actions as a whole as "right" or "wrong".
Even killing another human being can be "right", in the appropriate
situation (fortunately, such situations are very few and very far
between).

>These things do exist, but the proof is largely in the heart.  I can
>only say that if one looks at all of the civilizations which have
>ever existed and compare their morals (not customs, not religions)
>you will find that they are _suprisingly_ similar.

Really.  Can you point me to the work that demonstrates this?  From
what I've seen, concepts of morality vary heavily from society to
society, especially in issues revolving around sexuality.

>Why would this be unless they are _absolute_ morals which each person
>knows just because they are human?

Perhaps it is because most people understand that the goodwill of the
community is beneficial to themselves and therefore act in a way that
will not damage the community's goodwill toward themselves.
"Enlightened self-interest" is the term for such behavior; it arises
from the basic intelligence and wisdom of human beings.  Obviously,
certain forms of behavior are likely to interfere with such a goal;
wanton disregard for the desire of others and inflicting intentional
harm on others are such behaviors.  This also ties in with the issue
of respect.  Most people feel that other people's wishes should be
respected as much as reasonably possible.  Wanton disregard for other
people's wishes is disrespectful of their humanity.  

>Consider an interchange in which a one person has lied to another,
>and been found out.  Will the person who has lied argue that lying is
>OK, or that they have a valid reason for breaking an _absolute_
>"rule".

I do not acknowledge the existence of an absolute rule forbidding
lying: one, because I do not believe that any authority exists to make
or enforce such a rule; and two, because there are situations in which
it is can be beneficial to lie (or at least withhold the truth).

In general, being truthful is beneficial to oneself, as one who breaks
word loses goodwill with the community.  However, in some situations,
a lie (or a truth left unspoken) might be less damaging, especially in
communities which do not judge a man for his merit, but for his
adherence to arbitrary codes of conduct.  I have not the wisdom to
tell that there is no situation where a lie might be beneficial;
therefore, I shall not rule out the possibility.

>These are morals, and not instincts, as I will attempt to show:
>Instincts are those things which we have a strong natural desire to
>do.  If someone falls through the ice, the strong natural desire is
>to save yourself, while the _absolute_ "right" is to try and save the
>other person, even if it puts you at risk (which would be
>contradictory to "survival of the fittest").  We see then that these
>_absolute_ morals are not the desire to do something, but rather the
>desire to not do them but the "gut feeling" that one ought to.  Other
>such examples are found in every aspect of life.

I would attempt to save the other person, with due regard to my own
safety, not because it is "absolutely right", but because I generally
hold life in high regard.  This goes back to my previous comment about
"wanton disregard for the desire of others": if I fail to attempt to
render assistance when I could do so without immediate peril to
myself, I would be in wanton disregard of the other person's desire to
continue living.  However, if I deemed that I could not save the
person without placing myself in undue risk (note: not merely putting
myself at risk, but actually placing myself in dire threat to life or
limb), I would not be wrong to not attempt a rescue.  I have, in this
case, regarded the desire of the other person, and been unable to
fulfill his desires.  I will feel sorrow for him, but I will not be
"wrong" in my decision.  The Wheel of Life turns on.

>Because all are not so obvious, "fundamental" Christians believe that
>the Bible is where they are to be found, based on its uniqueness in
>the world of literature _and_ its coherence with what people know to
>be true in their heart.

The Bible is not unique in the world of literature.  There are
numerous texts (not common in the Western World, but well known
elsewhere) which hold similar stature with the followers of various
religions.

I find rather little coherence between the Bible and the feelings in
my own heart.  Perhaps I do not like being told repeatedly that I am
pond scum, and that I must rely on outside forces to make myself
worthwhile.

>They are not an issue though when speaking of salvation, because a
>person is nat saved based on what they do.

I have seen no evidence that I have anything to be saved from, except
possibly income tax.

>Morals are only the indicator that all need salvation; that all have
>fallen short of the Glory of God.

This phrase has no meaning to me.  How can one fall short of oneself?
If you believe, as I do, that divinity comes from within, and not from
without, the only way one can fall short of the glory of divinity is
not to try.

>So why adhere to them?  As a part of God's creation they are
>beneficial to the way we live our daily lives.  Some have more of an
>effect than others, which is why some get harped on more than others.
>I do not claim to be living all of them all of the time, but when I
>do I am much happier.

Behaving in a "moral" fashion does indeed make one's life happier,
presuming, of course, that the moral code you follow is reasonable.
However, I do not believe that it is necessary to invoke mythical,
supernatural beings to justify behaving in a just, kind, and merciful
fashion to the people around you.  Also, please note that if your
moral code makes you happy, but causes other people harm, then it is a
perverted moral code and should be discarded.

>OK, scratch God and all related "balogna" for a sec: Why do you, as a
>personal, creative, thinking, feeling inividual exist?  

I am quite content to live my life without having any purpose beyond
sharing love and contentment with those who are willing to share it
with me.  

>The answer to this without religion is to make a minor mark on
>history and die.

I don't even care if I make any marks on history.  Those who aspire to
be remembered in generations past have ego problems.

>Religious persons simply believe that there is more to it than that,
>and they believe this because God _has_ made himself evident in all
>creation.

How does this follow?  How does the existence of a personal God,
separate from ourselves and acting from without, put more purpose into
human existence then the betterment of the human race?

>"Be still and know that I am God."  If you want we can get into a
>discussion about entropy and ordered energy and the personal aspect
>of God as seen in creation, but you can go out and get good books on
>this.

The problem I have with Christianity is that it insists that God (and
all divinity) exists independently of creation.  Divinity reveals
itself throughout creation; I have no doubt of this.  What I object to
is the concept that all of creation (including man) is separate from
divinity.

>"Salvation" simply refers to the notion (in Christianity) of
>accepting God as He has revealed Himdself to man and died for us as a
>man in order that He may erase our sinful nature and "keep" us for
>the new heaven and the new earth.

Ah.  Well, since I do not accept this, I must not have "salvation"
from whatever it is I am to be saved from.  But since you cannot
explicate what it is I am in need of salvation from, I see no point in
worrying myself over this.

>This creation _chose_ to go awry, so as spiritual beings (in His
>creative image) we are given a second chance.

Why would a perfect God create an imperfect creation?

>This choice is crucial, because without it we are all puppets and not
>beings who have chosen to be re-united with our creator.  God cannot
>"keep" people who do not want Him.

I don't want your god.  Then again, I don't even believe that your god
exists, so it would be quite foolish to desire it.

>The existence of God _is_ such a datum if you expand your toolbox of
>senses which can prove something to include faith.

Ah.  So if I have faith that I can fly, then I can fly?  Uh huh.

>I know this might sound fishy, but I do not believe a person can
>_know_ God exists without first accepting that he does.

It sounds very fishy, because it *IS*.  Blatently and obviously.

>Read Hebrews 11 if you are genuinely interested.

>When I first decided to give Christianity a go I was not 100%
>convinced, but I believed that it was true anyway.  This is what you
>may call a "leap of faith".

Well, I am quite certain that Christianity is false, after having
tried it for quite some time.  How do you reconcile my certainty with
your certainty?  One of us must be wrong, no?

>Looking back, having talked _with_ God (both prayer and answer) and
>having felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, I can say now
>that I am 100% sure that God exists, and that the Bible is His word,
>and that He will receive anyone who wants to renew the relationship
>that was designed to be a part of our human experience.

How do you really know that you weren't just talking to yourself, or
to some aspect of yourself that you have little contact with or
understand of?

--
Bobby Knight told me this: 'There is nothing that a good defense cannot beat a
better offense.'  In other words a good offense wins.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc