Determining what is “moral”

Originally posted by KellyJay
God is all powerful; however, we are still made in His image, we have our wills
which He is not destroying to force us into a robot state. So He deals with us
where we are and leads us out of there into a place where now, many of us see
slavery is wrong and can reject it out of hand.
Kelly

“…we are still made in His image…”

How extraordinary arrogant; to believe that you are made in an image of an all-powerful all-knowing god.

So “He” just happens to be in an “image” of a man ( or an asexual human? ) ?
So this supernatural entity has an ”image” that includes exactly two visible legs for walking and exactly two visible arms complete with fingers to manipulate objects and a head with a visible mouth to talk out of and exactly two eyes to see light out of and exactly one nose to breath air through. It begs the question; in his supernatural world, why? What use would he have for such an image and why did he "choose" it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…we are still made in His image…”

How extraordinary arrogant; to believe that you are made in an image of an all-powerful all-knowing god.

So “He” just happens to be in an “image” of a man ( or an asexual human? ) ?
So this supernatural entity has an ”image” that includes exactly two visible legs for walking and exactly two visible arms comp ...[text shortened]... supernatural world, why? What use would he have for such an image and why did he "choose" it?

I suggest you read the scripture, you seem to be very well adapt at telling me
what I believe, so you don't need me for that!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I suggest you read the scripture, you seem to be very well adapt at telling me
what I believe, so you don't need me for that!
Kelly

“…you seem to be very well adapt at telling me what I believe,…”

This is in response to my post that responded to what you said which was:

“…we are still made in His image…”

-which I assumed you believed because you said it.
So are you now saying you don’t believe this?
If so, why did you say it if you don’t believe this? –are you saying you lied?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I pointed out that it was very accepted in times past, and in certain places today
it still is. That was my answer earlier, so has it been and is acceptable depending
on where and when you are yes. Is that a blanket statement on if it was always a
good and moral thing, that wasn't the question I was asked now was it? Morals,
change with the time and peo ...[text shortened]... a source that does not change with time,
and is eternal. You have one of those in mind?
Kelly

I have opted for a source in our shared human nature and capacity for rational thought. That seems to give us a stable core set of values and a bit of leeway, or flexibility, so that our particular norms can be sensitive to changing context. Heck, even you want a little flexibility. Leviticus doesn't bind all of us, does it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…you seem to be very well adapt at telling me what I believe,…”

This is in response to my post that responded to what you said which was:

“…we are still made in His image…”

-which I assumed you believed because you said it.
So are you now saying you don’t believe this?
If so, why did you say it if you don’t believe this? –are you saying you lied?

Sorry to butt in, but I think Kellyjay is responding to your idiosyncratic interpretation of his statement that we are made in God's image, rather than the statement himself. Kellyjay suggested you look at the relevant scripture, but maybe you'd get the general gist from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God.

Given the original context of his comment, I think Kellyjay may interpret the imago dei (according to the article) in the substantive sense (note his reference to free will).

-which I assumed you believed because you said it.
So are you now saying you don’t believe this?
If so, why did you say it if you don’t believe this? –are you saying you lied?

So either he excepts your interpretation of his beliefs, or he's a liar? Surely you don't mean that?

Originally posted by Nimzofish
Sorry to butt in, but I think Kellyjay is responding to your idiosyncratic interpretation of his statement that we are made in God's image, rather than the statement himself. Kellyjay suggested you look at the relevant scripture, but maybe you'd get the general gist from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God.

Given the original context o ...[text shortened]... r he excepts your interpretation of his beliefs, or he's a liar? Surely you don't mean that?

Yes, I can see you are right and I was wrong 🙂
I was completely unaware that the WAS or there even COULD be another interpretation of “image of God”!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God

“…For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God means that they are aware of being that part of the creation through whom God's plans and purposes best can be expressed and actualized; humans, in this way, can interact creatively with the rest of creation….”

Kelly: I apologise 🙂

Until now I had always assumed that “…in God’s image…” was meant by theists literally i.e. “image” means a VISIBLE image! Now I find it means something completely different.

One thing puzzles me: why on earth this is called “God’s image” when it is not only NOT an “image” but has absolutely nothing to do with an “image”!? -I mean, this is certainly a big surprise to me!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

"But, overwhelmingly, this is the question I would really most like to see answered:
Can anyone give a specific example of this and explain the whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?"


The criteria or standard by which I determine what is moral or immoral comes from without. I do not create the standard of morality. I observe it. I recognise and acknowledge its' existence, and then I choose to either adhere to it or ignore it.

OR

The standard(s) of morality evolved over time, and is determined by man as a means of self preservation. If that is the case, then morality is determined by man, and is subjective and opened to interpretation by anyone.


BUT


If morality is an objective standard of right and wrong, and is determined by the agent of its' creation, then it is not open to interpretation, and we are subject to it.


SO


Which is it? Which is right, and which is wrong? Who decides? If there is no objective agent of morality, then man is free to determine what is right or wrong.
But if morality is determined by an objective moral agent, then man is accountable to that standard determined by its' creator.


That's how I see it.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"But, overwhelmingly, this is the question I would really most like to see answered:
Can anyone give a specific example of this and explain the whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?"


The criteria or standard by which I determine what is moral or immoral comes from without. I do not create ...[text shortened]... an is accountable to that standard determined by its' creator.


That's how I see it.[/b]

Anyone who does not create their own morality is a fool, in fact it could be argued that we all create our own morality (even though we may wishh to attribute it to someone/something else).

I wonder has anyone, ever done anything and considered it immoral?
(At the time of the incident and not in retrospect since our morals change over time)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Yes, I can see you are right and I was wrong 🙂
I was completely unaware that the WAS or there even COULD be another interpretation of “image of God”!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God

“…For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God means that they are aware of being that part of the creation thro ...[text shortened]... has absolutely nothing to do with an “image”!? -I mean, this is certainly a big surprise to me!

I think its entirely possible that the idea of being made in God's image was initially interpreted as a physical resemblance. If you look at implied mythic frameworks early in the development of Israelite religion, or evidence from other cultures, I think that's exactly what they're saying. The Greek Pantheon, for example, not only describes gods who look like us but also squabble and scheme, just like us.

However, that framework if applied to Genesis doesn't really work. I think your misunderstanding of Kellyjays position highlights the problem with interpreting it in a physical sense – if we're made to look like God, does that mean people with one leg are not made in his image? If they are, what about someone with no legs? What degree of of divergence from the divine ideal is necessary before we say someone isn't created in God's image and, by extension, not entirely human? Similarly, you queried (in parenthesis) God's gender – if we are made in God's image, the fact human beings are gendered suggests that the vast majority of us are can't possibly truly reflect a divine image.

Furthermore, in looking at this we need to take into account other biblical evidence. I agree that this is applied across the rest of the Hebrew Bible with varying consistency, but a major theme of the texts is God's indefinabiliy and I think it reasonable to interpret descriptions of God in human terms (e.g. God walking, or seeing etc.) metaphorically.

Bringing this back to your OP, I think this highlights the biblical approach to determining what is moral. I don't know if this was definitely part of the intent of the authors of Genesis, but my view is that the authors are trying to make a statement about human dignity in relation to the rest of creation. To oversimplify the point; given that many of us would see nothing wrong with killing and eating animals, why don't we kill and eat each other? There are secular justifications you can give for this, but the biblical justification, in my view, seems to be that there is a qualitative difference between human being and the rest of creation and that difference can be described in terms of our essential nature being made in God's image.

Although I have been an atheist for many years now, my approach to broad moral ideas echoes this – the first question I tend to ask is what does a paticular moral idea imply in terms of what a human being is and, if that isn't consistent with my view, i'd think about wheather that was because the moral idea was flawed or whether my understanding of what a human being is was wrong.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Anyone who does not create their own morality is a fool, in fact it could be argued that we all create our own morality (even though we may wishh to attribute it to someone/something else).

I wonder has anyone, ever done anything and considered it immoral?
(At the time of the incident and not in retrospect since our morals change over time)

"...since our morals change over time)"

A changing moral standard is no moral standard at all. It's pure relativistic thinking based on pure subjectivity.

Originally posted by josephw
OR

The standard(s) of morality evolved over time, and is determined by man as a means of self preservation. If that is the case, then morality is determined by man, and is subjective and opened to interpretation by anyone.

I disagree that a standard having evolved is therefore relative. It certainly isn't therefore 'determined by man, and is subjective and opened to interpretation by anyone' simply because it evolved. That just doesn't follow.
It is perfectly possible that we evolved to have a behavior which is fixed and absolute and applies equally to everyone without any subjectivity whatsoever.

But I don't think the standard 'evolved' at all. The standard is a standard, what evolved is our tendency to follow that standard - to some degree - for the sake of living in society.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Yes, I can see you are right and I was wrong 🙂
I was completely unaware that the WAS or there even COULD be another interpretation of “image of God”!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God

“…For humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God means that they are aware of being that part of the creation thro ...[text shortened]... has absolutely nothing to do with an “image”!? -I mean, this is certainly a big surprise to me!

Thank you
Kelly

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...since our morals change over time)"

A changing moral standard is no moral standard at all. It's pure relativistic thinking based on pure subjectivity.[/b]

So you are saying that someone who changes their morals is immoral?

So if I changed my morals to fit with yours that would be immoral?

Can you say that your morals have always been the same?

.. and yes my moral thinking is all ultimately based on subjectivity
... the same as yours is.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
So you are saying that someone who changes their morals is immoral?

So if I changed my morals to fit with yours that would be immoral?

Can you say that your morals have always been the same?

.. and yes my moral thinking is all ultimately based on subjectivity
... the same as yours is.

1. yes that's true unless they change them for the better

2. no

3. yes unless I didn't know something was immoral or moral

4. maybe yours is but mine is not

Originally posted by Nimzofish
I think its entirely possible that the idea of being made in God's image was initially interpreted as a physical resemblance. If you look at implied mythic frameworks early in the development of Israelite religion, or evidence from other cultures, I think that's exactly what they're saying. The Greek Pantheon, for example, not only describes gods who look ...[text shortened]... idea was flawed or whether my understanding of what a human being is was wrong.

Well put!
Too much focus on the physical.
After all, no one knows the origon of man-not theists or athiests.
For theists it was "created " by God.
For athiests everything we know came from the BigBang.
In my way of thinking there is no difference.
I suspect mans history has been a long and painful one and finding out about our true past can finally settle some age old arguements . Then, maybe we can get our crap together and realize we are all in the same boat-even those pesky illuminati who were trying to escape to their space base on Mars!