absolute morality - relative morality = 0 ?

[chezlaw]

I (and I assume the same for most other people) have moral feelings that change with my understanding of the situation.

Suppose there is an absolute morality. How could I do better than follow the guide of my moral feelings?

If god then, as I've already wittered on about at length, my moral feelings are the best possible guide to absolute right/wrong.

If no god, then either I have no understanding of this moral absoluteness in which case my feelings are as good a guide as any or I understand this moral absoluteness.

If I understand this non-god moral absoluteness then is it possible that my feelings wouldn't mirror it? It seems nonsense to say I understand that something is wrong but I feel it is right.

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I (and I assume the same for most other people) have moral feelings that change with my understanding of the situation.

Suppose there is an absolute morality. How could I do better than follow the guide of my moral feelings?

If god then, as I've already wittered on about at length, my moral feelings are the best possible guide to absolute right/wrong.

If no god, then either I have no understanding of this moral absoluteness in which case my feelings are as good a guide as any or I understand this moral absoluteness.

If I understand this non-god moral absoluteness then is it possible that my feelings wouldn't mirror it? It seems nonsense to say I understand that something is wrong but I feel it is right.

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Could you run this by me again without god?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I (and I assume the same for most other people) have moral feelings that change with my understanding of the situation.

Suppose there is an absolute morality. How could I do better than follow the guide of my moral feelings?

If god then, as I've already wittered on about at length, my moral feelings are the best possible guide to absolute right/wrong.

If no god, then either I have no understanding of this moral absoluteness in which case my feelings are as good a guide as any or I understand this moral absoluteness.

If I understand this non-god moral absoluteness then is it possible that my feelings wouldn't mirror it? It seems nonsense to say I understand that something is wrong but I feel it is right.

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Could you run this by me again without god?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have a go.

Suppose there is an absolute right/wrong i.e. in any specific situation there is a correct moral action.

Suppose also that I have moral feelings that are informed by my understanding of the world. (I take this to be true - it seems to be how it works)

If I want to be moral then can I do better than follow my moral feelings?

I'm not sure the answer is no but I think it may be. What do you think?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I (and I assume the same for most other people) have moral feelings that change with my understanding of the situation.

Suppose there is an absolute morality. How could I do better than follow the guide of my moral feelings?

If god then, as I've already wittered on about at length, my moral feelings are the best possible guide to absolute right/wrong.

If no god, then either I have no understanding of this moral absoluteness in which case my feelings are as good a guide as any or I understand this moral absoluteness.

If I understand this non-god moral absoluteness then is it possible that my feelings wouldn't mirror it? It seems nonsense to say I understand that something is wrong but I feel it is right.

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Could you run this by me again without god?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have a go.

Suppose there is an absolute right/wrong i.e. in any specific situation there is a correct moral action.

Suppose also that I have moral feelings that are informed by my understanding of the world. (I take this to be true - it seems to be how it works)

If I want to be moral then can I do better than follow my moral feelings?

I'm not sure the answer is no but I think it may be. What do you think?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Is it possible to cut out your moral feelings in the conclusion.

Suppose there is an absolute right/wrong i.e. in any specific situation there is a correct moral action.

Suppose also that I have moral feelings that are informed by my understanding of the world. (I take this to be true - it seems to be how it works)

If I want to be moral then can I do better than follow my understanding of the world, or gain more understanding of the world?

A limitation of these thoughts is that my moral correctness can only be as good as my understanding of the world.

[chezlaw]

Without the god otion, I think you're right and I can just talk about understanding.

[ QUOTE ]
A limitation of these thoughts is that my moral correctness can only be as good as my understanding of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats more or less the conclusion I want to reach. If its true than how could I do better, in any situation, then go with my current understanding?

I may get it wrong but as that's due to my lack of understanding, how could I do better?

chez

[chezlaw]

There is at least one case when I need to use feelings not understanding, the case where someone claims there is no understanding.

So the conclusion I think maybe correct is:

Even if there is an absolute morality then, if I want to be moral, the best I can do in any situation is follow my moral feelings.

Anyone see a problem with this claim?

chez

[J. Stew]

Who/What is it that is guiding you. Thoughts, but where do the thoughts come from?

After you let your morals guide you, did you feel as though you were reaching deeper truths? If yes, then wouldn't you already be on the path to moral absoluteness? And if you are on the path to moral absolutness now, when did you first walk on the path? When you learned your first truth, or did you always know what your morals were/are?

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Following the truths in your head lead to truer relative truths, but ultimate truth, which manifests ultimate morality, is not a concept, which thoughts/guiding priniciples are.

- Jeff

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Who/What is it that is guiding you. Thoughts, but where do the thoughts come from?

After you let your morals guide you, did you feel as though you were reaching deeper truths? If yes, then wouldn't you already be on the path to moral absoluteness? And if you are on the path to moral absolutness now, when did you first walk on the path? When you learned your first truth, or did you always know what your morals were/are?

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Following the truths in your head lead to truer relative truths, but ultimate truth, which manifests ultimate morality, is not a concept, which thoughts/guiding priniciples are.

- Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if there is an absolute morality then, if I want to be moral, the best I can do in any situation is follow my moral feelings.

Anyone see a problem with this claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, because if there were an absolute morality then it would be able to be followed. Your solution seems to deal with psuedo absolute morality. The problem stems from our tendency to believe what we can say. The fact we can create a structurally correct sentence doesn't mean it relates to anything in reality. "This sentence is false" for example, or 'god could create absolute morality'.

Since no two situations are the same, we'd need an infinite set of absolute morals which are merely relative morality in drag. That agrees with your thread subject but for different reasons.

Here's a list of absolutes that our local god tried to create -
You must not go over 60mph.
You must be out of town by 9pm.
You must not drive on the sidewalk.

I have a flat, the only way I can get out of town by 9 is to either speed or drive across the sidewalk. Is there a hierarchy of morals? is it worse to be still here at 9:10 or to cross a sidewalk? what about my choices that are later/faster/moresidewalking.

We see that played out in our attempt to deal with a "no killing" moral. There are infinite scenarios where one person kills another and there is no one who could write a code that deals with every possible variable so we could simply look up the 'absolute' moral stance in that circumstance even if they were given infinite time to write it ( and then what good would it do me).

So, you have suggested a solution to a conceptually flawed ( being polite) concept, and in a sense you have committed my calculators 'division by zero' error.

sorry if I've perverted your point, since I think you're very aware of the issue I'm raising with the concept of absolute morality but somebody may take the "if there were AM..' seriously and waste a lot of our time.

luckyme ..
... if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[bholdr]

'feelings'?! If there is an absolute morality, then it follows that it should be...

nevermind this is stupid.

read Kant's 'critique of pure reason' and then get back to me. the basic idea about morality: the universal moral law can be deduced and studied logically like any other natural science. he explains much better than i can. nevermind.

[chezlaw]

I recognise problems with the existence of any absolute morality. However
[ QUOTE ]
Since no two situations are the same, we'd need an infinite set of absolute morals which are merely relative morality in drag.

[/ QUOTE ] isn't necessarily true. A finite set of rules could handle an infinte set of situations. Thats a digression I hope to avoid.

As you point out it's clear that if there's no absolute morality then the statement I made must be true which I suspect is most likely the case. What I'm wondering is is there any way any sort of absolute morality could make it false (god or no god).

What I'm aiming at is a quasi-ought. If I can do no better (morally) than trust my moral feelings and cannot prove an absolute morality doesn't exist, then if I want to be as moral as possible I should act in accordance with my moral feelings.


chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
'feelings'?! If there is an absolute morality, then it follows that it should be...

nevermind this is stupid.

read Kant's 'critique of pure reason' and then get back to me. the basic idea about morality: the universal moral law can be deduced and studied logically like any other natural science. he explains much better than i can. nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks mate, very helpful.

What's the point of not making an attempt to understand what I'm saying and then posting to say there's no point.

At least I tried to understand your point before posting to say your post was pointless. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chez

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to find ultimate truth/morality here and I dont make any claim that my moral feelings are true.

I think (via introspection) that my moral feelings reflect my understanding of the world. I don't think they can get out of line, that is if I ever understood that something was morally wrong then I would feel it was morally wrong.

Part of the question is: could my moral feelings ever conflict with my understanding (this is an introspective empirical question, to which I think the answer is no).

The second part is: could I ever expect to behave more morally in a given situation then to follow this feeling/understanding. (assuming there is an absolute morality).

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]To be fair to chez, I believe he is restating his theory of the repugnance of "gods" punishment. Although, in doing so he may just (big if) stumble upon evidence of absolute ethics.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]To be fair to chez, I believe he is restating his theory of the repugnance of "gods" punishment. Although, in doing so he may just (big if) stumble upon evidence of absolute ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very similar although I believe that was logically watertight whereas this includes the no god situation which requires more investigation of the nature of the moral feelings.

chez

[jester710]

Chez-

I'm thinking this might be a stupid question, but my brain has been malfunctioning recently ("recently" defined as "since birth").

What if you consistently followed your moral feelings, but they were later proven to be consistently wrong when compared to the absolute morality? Could you ever get to the point where you'd say, "My moral feelings have been wrong every time I've trusted them, therefore I'll go against them in the hopes that I will do what is right"?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez-

I'm thinking this might be a stupid question, but my brain has been malfunctioning recently ("recently" defined as "since birth").

What if you consistently followed your moral feelings, but they were later proven to be consistently wrong when compared to the absolute morality? Could you ever get to the point where you'd say, "My moral feelings have been wrong every time I've trusted them, therefore I'll go against them in the hopes that I will do what is right"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if I realised my moral feelings were 100% correlated with absolute morality but they always pointed the wrong way, then the feeling would switch to point the right way. Thats why I say it seems that the feelings line up with understanding.

An analogy might be wearing glasses that invert everything. After a short while the brain corrects and everything is the right way up.

I think the worst case is when moral feelings/understanding are completely independent of absolute morality. In that case I still don't see how I can do better than follow my feelings/understanding (although it doesn't make any difference whether I follow them or not).

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A finite set of rules could handle an infinte set of situations. Thats a digression I hope to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough ( but isn't a finite set that handles infinite situations how relative morality works, as I tried to illustrate with my traffic example ... in case you want to clarify later ;-)

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm wondering is is there any way any sort of absolute morality could make it false (god or no god).

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's the part I'm quibbling over. Your statement premises a concept called "absolute morality" but until we can get somebody to define what that means your question is unanswerable. My contention is that Absolute Morality is impossible, god or no god ... but that's based on what I think Absolute Morality means, which isn't fair to somebody making a claim based on their defnition of Absolute Morality. In another thread I'm waiting for RJT to give me his definition of AM so I can illustrate there could be other ways of it existing besides god-driven. AM undefined is just two words put together but when you take it into the field "that dog won't hunt".

[ QUOTE ]
... and cannot prove an absolute morality doesn't exist, then if I want to be as moral as possible I should act in accordance with my moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been ducking the "feelings" part because feeling ( as I use the term) are way too kludgy trust with such a delicate balancing act as morality. I'd gladly kick in my 2c on whether you can do better once I hear what your 'absolute morality' consists of. Perhaps the way you conceive it there are better answer than the one you're suggesting.

luckyme..
..if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]

Part of the question is: could my moral feelings ever conflict with my understanding (this is an introspective empirical question, to which I think the answer is no).

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how attached to a conceptual understanding of reality that one is. If belief in concepts rather than what actually is, is strong, then that will sway a person's thinking towards right vs. wrong which creates duality. That duality is just a concept in the mind though, but which then leads to more thinking along those same lines, which causes confusion as to what is actually truth or 'right'. If the mind believes concepts are reality, then the body/mind is imprisoned by thought. It would be like having a bad childhood memory and everytime you think about it you feel terrible. That is when the mind is strongly attached to a belief/thought. The mind that is able to see thoughts come and go without being swayed by them is the mind that sees reality/truth IMO and which from morals feel right/truthful.

[ QUOTE ]
The second part is: could I ever expect to behave more morally in a given situation then to follow this feeling/understanding. (assuming there is an absolute morality).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's anything more one could do except to be their own mind. I think what causes problems is that everybody has their own attachments which sway their judgment this way or that way. The natural mind that remains after attachments are exposed, and which is/has been there the whole time, knows truth because it views reality without the haze of conceptual bias or, just views the reality/truth of the moment.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I'm wondering is is there any way any sort of absolute morality could make it false (god or no god).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And that's the part I'm quibbling over. Your statement premises a concept called "absolute morality" but until we can get somebody to define what that means your question is unanswerable. My contention is that Absolute Morality is impossible, god or no god ... but that's based on what I think Absolute Morality means, which isn't fair to somebody making a claim based on their defnition of Absolute Morality. In another thread I'm waiting for RJT to give me his definition of AM so I can illustrate there could be other ways of it existing besides god-driven. AM undefined is just two words put together but when you take it into the field "that dog won't hunt".

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, but if there no possible definition of AM then AM cannot make anything false.

Suppose someone has a definition of AM that is 100% correct.

1) if I have no knowledge of AM then I can't make use of it.
2) if I have aware of some theory of AM but don't understand it (incorporate it into my understanding of the world) then I can't make use of it.
3) if I understand AM then I am suggesting that moral feelings work in such a way that they reflect this understanding.
3*) (if you don't like feelings) if I understand AM then my understanding reflects this understanding.

Doesn't that that cover any AM, however defined, so the argument is independent of any particular AM. I can't give you a definition (I'm not holding it back, I haven't got one). Its 2) where I think someone might object.


[ QUOTE ]
I've been ducking the "feelings" part because feeling ( as I use the term) are way too kludgy trust with such a delicate balancing act as morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm using feeling more or less synonomously with understanding. just use 'understanding' instead of 'feeling' if you prefer. (I need feelings to handle the god case).

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part is: could I ever expect to behave more morally in a given situation then to follow this feeling/understanding. (assuming there is an absolute morality).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think there's anything more one could do except to be their own mind. I think what causes problems is that everybody has their own attachments which sway their judgment this way or that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems to agree with what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about whether our own minds get it right to any extent, I'm just claiming that we can't do better (even if there's an objective standard of better) than to rely on our own minds.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part of the question is: could my moral feelings ever conflict with my understanding (this is an introspective empirical question, to which I think the answer is no).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It depends on how attached to a conceptual understanding of reality that one is. If belief in concepts rather than what actually is, is strong, then that will sway a person's thinking towards right vs. wrong which creates duality. That duality is just a concept in the mind though, but which then leads to more thinking along those same lines, which causes confusion as to what is actually truth or 'right'. If the mind believes concepts are reality, then the body/mind is imprisoned by thought. It would be like having a bad childhood memory and everytime you think about it you feel terrible. That is when the mind is strongly attached to a belief/thought. The mind that is able to see thoughts come and go without being swayed by them is the mind that sees reality/truth IMO and which from morals feel right/truthful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be suffering from an understanding failure, there's a lot in what you've said. It seems you are talking about a failure of the mind to understand the world (because its strongly attached to particular beliefs etc) and that the moral feelings reflect this flawed understanding. The duality bit worries me, are you saying someone could understand it is wrong to kill someone but feel it is right to kill them?

chez

[RJT]

Chez, I am not sure this post belongs here. (I had a few Cabernet’s this eve at dinner with a some friends - two friends’ bdays and mine next week.) I know you will give me some lea way if I just post it here.

Here’s the bottom line, chez. And I am only playing the “devils advocate” here. Honestly, if God, I have no idea what He really wants of us for sure - other than to love Him and our neighbor. You seem to agree to the love thy neighbor part. What happens if love God is part of the deal (all or nothing) I don’t know for sure.

All I say is this - then if the love God was part of it (i.e. believe in Him) and you don’t, then don’t try to reason with Him when (if) the time comes with this argument - Hey, God I reasoned that your rules weren’t proven. I saw no “evidence” give me a break. Don’t say to Him, I did half of what you asked (even though it wasn’t because it was You who said to, rather my feelings told me so.)

Now, He might say, “chez, you are cool, I like how you behaved - get out of jail free.” All I am saying is if He says “Wrong.” Don’t say you didn’t know the rules. You did and chose to decide otherwise.

I am not unlike you chez. I buy the first part - love thy neighbor. It is the second part that I still have to figure out. I am sure it is correct. I just don’t know why it is so important yet. When I do , then I take the leap. I think it might have something to do with actually living the first part. I think(it might be) when we truly love our neighbor then second part (love God) becomes self evident.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
All I say is this - then if the love God was part of it (i.e. believe in Him) and you don’t, then don’t try to reason with Him when (if) the time comes with this argument - Hey, God I reasoned that your rules weren’t proven. I saw no “evidence” give me a break. Don’t say to Him, I did half of what you asked (even though it wasn’t because it was You who said to, rather my feelings told me so.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely doesn't belong here but so what /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If given the opportunity, I would try to reason with god as follows: (It doesn't really make sense because he knows what's going on in my mind so what could I explain).

'Dear god

You know I didn't believe in you, genuinely didn't believe in you. So how could I love you?

Didn't CS Lewis have it right? (does name dropping get me in, kind sir). I tried to be a good person the way you made me want to be, what more than that could I try to be? Where I failed I'm happy to receive due punishment.

If you punish me for not believing then you are not good in my eyes, the very eyes you yourself gave me.

Yours sincerely'


Then, being god, he can do what he likes.


chez

[RJT]

You know what, chez? I'd give you a free pass in a second (other than calling God no good - if God then we missed something and He is good still). I don't know what God can say to your "letter". That is the BIG question so far as I am concerned. Folk like you (and me really). He gives us intellect and free will.

The difference between you and me is this: my choice (God) comes from my background and my studies. I say yes. Yours (to love they neighbor) comes from your "moral sense".

I think the answer lies therein - my education/and acceptance of God's Word and your "moral sense" that is either innate and/or nurtured. If Jesus is God then the answer is in black and white. One just has to figure it out viz a viz our intellect and today's science and God‘s Word (the Bible). If He is not God, then your moral sense might be something similar and we need to explore that avenue as much as I study the Bible. (Basically, for me - I see no need to reinvent the wheel. I choose Christianity.) If you have ideas where to go from here, let's roll. But, to not explore either is the ultimate "sin" as far I am concerned.

I think the answer must be something like this if Christianity is true: One cannot truly love ones neighbor without too loving God. The reason I say this is because of my belief in Christianity. That He said these two thing that we must do. If/when I figure out why both rather than just one like you suggest, I’ll let you in on the secret (lol). (I do think it is easier to love one’s neighbor when one love’s God, but not being atheist I have no objectivity here - so can‘t say for sure.)

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what, chez? I'd give you a free pass in a second (other than calling God no good - if God then we missed something and He is good still). I don't know what God can say to your "letter". That is the BIG question so far as I am concerned. Folk like you (and me really). He gives us intellect and free will.

The difference between you and me is this: my choice (God) comes from my background and my studies. I say yes. Yours (to love they neighbor) comes from your "moral sense".

I think the answer lies therein - my education/and acceptance of God's Word and your "moral sense" that is either innate and/or nurtured. If Jesus is God then the answer is in black and white. One just has to figure it out viz a viz our intellect and today's science and God‘s Word (the Bible). If He is not God, then your moral sense might be something similar and we need to explore that avenue as much as I study the Bible. (Basically, for me - I see no need to reinvent the wheel. I choose Christianity.) If you have ideas where to go from here, let's roll. But, to not explore either is the ultimate "sin" as far I am concerned.

I think the answer must be something like this if Christianity is true: One cannot truly love ones neighbor without too loving God. The reason I say this is because of my belief in Christianity. That He said these two thing that we must do. If/when I figure out why both rather than just one like you suggest, I’ll let you in on the secret (lol). (I do think it is easier to love one’s neighbor when one love’s God, but not being atheist I have no objectivity here - so can‘t say for sure.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, hopefully any god agrees with you. I've never understood why anyone should think it would be different.

BTW I didn't call god no good, I said in my eyes if he ... then he is not good and that he gave me the eyes. Thus he is responsible for me seeing him as bad under those circumstances.

Chezlaw's wager follows. Similar to Pascal's except its not to believe in god, its to behave in accordance with what you believe to be right.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.


[/ QUOTE ]

You admitted in another thread you don't always keep your own law. I'm not trying to brow beat you here. The reason I bring it up is there is some indication that God will judge those without the law, heathen who've never heard of the Bible for instance, by their own code, or by their conscience. It also says no one will pass their own law.

The point of the Gospel isn't to keep the law, God's, yours, or anyone else's. The point is no one can keep any law. Adam had a very simple law. Don't eat. He broke it. The point of the Gospel is we are all sinners by our own standard and are therefore guilty. Christ paid for that guilt on the cross. The forgiveness He made possible is through faith in Him.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.


[/ QUOTE ]

You admitted in another thread you don't always keep your own law. I'm not trying to brow beat you here. The reason I bring it up is there is some indication that God will judge those without the law, heathen who've never heard of the Bible for instance, by their own code, or by their conscience. It also says no one will pass their own law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as you brow beating me. (even if I did I'm in no position to complain about you having a go at me /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

Its no big admission on my part. Sometimes I do things I believe to be wrong. Greed, fear etc. sometimes overcome my morals sense. I assume that's true for most people.

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the Gospel isn't to keep the law, God's, yours, or anyone else's. The point is no one can keep any law. Adam had a very simple law. Don't eat. He broke it. The point of the Gospel is we are all sinners by our own standard and are therefore guilty. Christ paid for that guilt on the cross. The forgiveness He made possible is through faith in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't believe it. I don't believe Christ was the son of god, paid for my guilt on the cross, or that I need forgiveness or that I could get forgiveness through believing in something. [I don't mean I find it plausible but unconvincing. I mean it seems like nonsense to me (like believing in the tooth fairy)].

I've no problem with others believing it (though I don't understand why) as long as they don't impose their beliefs on me.

chez