• *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
The inconsistency of christian objective morality
« on: January 20, 2019, 05:23:35 am »
Intuitively, it's clear for every human what is good and what is bad at least in this sense: suffering is bad, bliss is good.

When trying to explain the morality of things that go against this most basic rule (e.g. stories in the bible), people then put forward god as the root of objective morality, and say it's not for us to judge that as good or bad. Only god can be the judge of that.

However, imagine if the nature of heaven ("carrot") and hell ("stick") would be reversed. Heaven would be a place of suffering, hell a place of bliss. People that believe in god would go to heaven as a reward, people who don't would go to hell as a punishment. Now if people would complain about that saying it is unjust, do you think anyone would argue against that by saying: It's not for us to judge what is good and bad, eternal suffering is good if god says so, eternal bliss is bad if god says so?

Certainly not, there would be no believers to say that in the first place. Such a religion would never gain any followers.



  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: The inconsistency of christian objective morality
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2019, 11:59:51 am »
The problem of evil is indeed one where the emotions are misaligned with objective good. Everyone is always doing what they think makes them happy, and in general morality among men has been limited to writing laws to prevent oppression and harm of others similarly engaged, ignoring the needs of future generations as well as God’s higher laws. If you want a wholly good population, then all should rejoice at what is objectively good. The question becomes even more urgent as you notice some souls require purification, and on this route will only take microscopically small steps, keeping themselves feeling happy although progress is almost nil. Further it can be observed that it is likely that attempting to follow the living patterns of truly divine persons such as Jesus, would indeed be a hell for mortals they could not endure even one day. Jesus said His yoke was easy and His burden light, and of course it will be easy for God to be good.

The critical thing, it seems, would be to have a soul powerful enough, and well-ordered enough, so that the emotions arise to support the objective conclusions of the intellect over what is good. Human minds are not this way, but one may suppose angelic minds are. This resolves the age-old quandary of love seeming to be an irrational passion. In the wise, love only arises to love what should be loved. Oddly enough this makes love easier, though the soul must be thoroughly reworked for this to succeed. You don’t have to remember who you love or why. When they appear, you see their good traits and recall why they should be loved. Such advanced love is a rational response from a unified soul.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 12:02:13 pm by jayceeii »