Moral responsibility.

by nicolaou 168 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    “Why does God allow it?” was a frequent objection when we used to do house to house ministry . I can remember it as far back as the Aberfan disaster when I was still a youngster.

    The stock Witness answer is to say that God expects mankind to look after himself and he is not there to protect us from ur own mistakes and ignorance since man chose a course of rebellion against him. If he protected us from the consequences we would have no reason to be careful. It would also help maintain the rotten sinful life we have today.Rather , his purpose provides a permanent solution to sin and death.

    Nowadays I can see the holes in that argument and I know why nobody believed me. Truth is I cannot answer the question…

    Mind you that answer is better than saying, as some vicars do, that God must have wanted another angel in heaven and took the child !

  • PaddyTheBaddy
    PaddyTheBaddy

    What if you knew the child was going to grow into an incredibly evil person such as Hitler who would go on to kill millions of people? Would it be better to let one child die in order to save millions from death?

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    just put out your arm and scoop up the child.
    But you don't. You watch as the little boy falls onto the tracks and is pulverised by 185 tonnes of metal.
    My question. What responsibility do you bear for the child's death?

    @Niclaou,

    A lot. Christians can logically answer this question because of their belief that we are made in the image of a loving God and have intrinsic value. We are obligated to love others because "God first loved us". That worldview provides a rational explanation for the morality that I can clearly observe within myself. It is a consitent worldview... it makes sense.

    But atheists claim that we are products of explosions from nothing, star supernovas, chemical accidents and DNA copying mistakes.

    I am not denying that most atheists have some morality, of course they do. They are made in the image of God same as Christians. What I am asking atheists to do is to provide a consistent explanation for the presence of this morality.

    Why don't atheists act consistently with the worldview they claim is true? In other words, why should one chemical accident care what another chemical accident does?


    How many people would even bother to post on this thread if it was about a beaker of chemicals instead of a child that got run over by a train?

    In our heart of hearts, we all know the Christian God.

  • lriddle80
    lriddle80

    Paddythebaddy

    Actually Hitler as a 4 year old was on his way to drowning and a priest saw him and saved him.

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    Sea Breeze: Christians can logically answer this question because of their belief that we are made in the image of a loving God and have intrinsic value.

    Do we really have intrinsic value in a universe created by god? God does not need us. No matter how I behave in my lifetime, god could justifiably end my existence. Who would stop him? My behavior, good or ill, does not affect him, it does not change him. It cannot, by definition, since god is already perfect.

    Putting aside the difficulty of reconciling his actions with the notion that he personifies love, we can logically recognize that we do not have intrinsic value in a reality where we are created by this being.

  • cofty
    cofty
    In our heart of hearts, we all know the Christian God

    One of the most stupid and arrogant lies that theists tell one another.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    Do we really have intrinsic value in a universe created by god? God does not need us.

    @ TonusOh

    Yes, I believe human value is rooted in the Character of God whose primary attriburte is love, who does not need us, as you state; as if some utility would be missing without us. But, he does desire a relationship with us, because relationship is a requirement of love, his chief attribute. And, we should be extremely grateful that this view helped shape much of western freedom. There is MUCH at stake here in considering the intrinsic value offered by Christians and instrumental value offered by atheists.

    Consider:

    Intrinsic Value

    If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others’ value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform - something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.

    Instrumental Value

    On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the “goodness” of even the most egregious behaviors if a “greater” goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgment is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to “might makes right:” whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Political reform has no justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.

    The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value by virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.

    Origins of The Image of God

    If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one’s view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.

    In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life’s history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a “cultural big bang”:

  • Lee Marsh
    Lee Marsh

    If I see it and do nothing I AM morally responsible.

    I have heard things many times and although I might not be able to intervene myself I have called the police and let them know the situation was urgent. The police always came within a few minutes and one case put a man under arrest immediately.

    In all cases there was the threat of violence. I am not trained for that so called the people who were trained to deal with someone who was potentially violent.

    Although I have interceded once before the police arrived to get an innocent bystander out of a situation that could have resulted in him being attacked. What amazed me was that the staff who deal with those people on a regular basis and knew both men, had no idea how to rescue the innocent man without endangering a dozen other people. But it ended well once the police finally arrived.

    Our moral responsibility has nothing to do with any god. it has to do with my personal decision to help others when I can. That doesn't even have anything to do with how I might feel if I did nothing and a person got injured.

    It is a matter of doing what is right and moral and ethical in the immediate moment without thinking or considering the cost

  • Lee Marsh
    Lee Marsh

    Ok so let's say I am God and my creation makes what I consider a grievous error. Not only do I punish them but every single person that came form them for thousands of years, so billions of people. Just to show them a lesson!

    Up they won't learn much because they died. All their offspring suffer endlessly because of what their ancestors did.

    You call this just? Fair? Loving?

    If I can do the right thing to save someone, why can't God do the same thing? When I see a problem I can take action to help others, lessen their pain, saved some from death even. Why doesn't God do that? he sits around and waits and lets people suffer.

    I have a neighbor who prays constantly. I can't see how that helps.

    As a child I prayed constantly for help that I never got.

    As a young wife and mother I prayed constantly for help that I never got. If I had stayed in that situation, I would most likely be dead now.

    It seems ridiculous to me to say well, God helped you be strong. That isn't what I needed. I needed the beatings to stop as a child. I needed the emotional and spiritual abuse to stop as an adult. That isn't what I got.

    I was strong but I doubt that had anything to do with God. I was strong because I had no choice. Not only was I trying to protect myself but also 3 little boys and a baby girl. No one else was protecting them from their own parents.

    You might say God gave me strength to leave the Witnesses. Nope. That was pure fear that got me out. I didn't want to be dead.

    To me, the instinct to survive is what saved me. The instinct to protect those who are smaller and weaker pushed me to help my brothers and sister. God gave me the instinct? Every living thing has it.

    For me, God has seriously failed his "creation". I would not do that to one child, never mind generations of them. Billions of them!

  • just fine
    just fine

    If I am supposed to be in the image of god and he has the ability to intervene and doesn’t (regardless of the reason) - why am I morally responsible to intervene?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit