The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Christian Fools
|Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini||Date: 10/3/2012 11:26 AM|
|Author: benjd25||Number: 183185 of 196899|
I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority.
You think that to Frydaze1, Frydaze 1 is just any authority? No. In both descriptions, a very specific authority is specified.
I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority. It is the holy, just, loving, and perfectly good Creator of the universe. God's commands for us are not merely preferences, but flow out of his good nature. His knowledge allows him to craft commands for us to maximize our happiness. Interesting to me, Frydaze comes up with a eerily similar set of precepts to what God's commands are.
This is like asking if God could make a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides. It's a vacuous statement. God doesn't think raping little girls is good.
Great. Now we're both insane. You, because you claim omniscience, and know absolutely that God's moral nature is not consistent with considering raping little girls good. Me, because I'm entertaining the possibility of going through the whole discussion again with hope of a different result. (In this case, the different result is that you won't again engage in willful ignorance of a conclusion you yourself arrived at in the past.)
I'm claiming that there is an objective basis for morality, found in the commands of a good God to us, which we're obligated to follow. That I don't perfectly know God's mind on morality is an entirely different issue.
The first contradiction didn't take long. If you don't perfectly know God's mind on morality, then it is possible (no matter how unlikely or likely) that God prefers the rape of little girls. If God did prefer it, by your understanding of morality, it would be good.
I further claim that this explains our experience of the world, and specifically morality, better than the subjective view. It is the only way to make sense of the claim "raping little girls is wrong". It's wrong because ultimately it violates the unchanging, good nature of God.
And if you found out that God's unchanging, good nature was such that God approved of raping little girls, it would be good. As previously agreed to - by both of us.
Engaging in insanity:
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|