Commandments/Loving God problem

[memimemi]

Sorry for this very late reply...this makes much more sense now, thank you.
Thank you as well memimemi for you post as well, but as far as modern rules (dad example), shouldn't parent's give somewhat of a reason? Are not there a lot of repercussions for not knowing reasons, or something valid reason even at a young age, even if it's  bland at first? I don't know...it's just my view kids need more than just because since that in itself is a fallacy. 'Ad Aculum' is what I think that is called.

I agree with the assessment of this brand of morality as being fallacious.  It is, however, what is presented in the OT, and alluded to in the NT.  Draw your own conclusions.

[OldTrees]

Sorry for this very late reply...this makes much more sense now, thank you.
Thank you as well memimemi for you post as well, but as far as modern rules (dad example), shouldn't parent's give somewhat of a reason? Are not there a lot of repercussions for not knowing reasons, or something valid reason even at a young age, even if it's  bland at first? I don't know...it's just my view kids need more than just because since that in itself is a fallacy. 'Ad Aculum' is what I think that is called.

I agree with the assessment of this brand of morality as being fallacious.  It is, however, what is presented in the OT, and alluded to in the NT.  Draw your own conclusions.

While I agree I must play devil's advocate and point out that if the reason is sufficiently complex then the rule needs to be followed before the explanation would finish.

EX: How long would it take for you to explain the dangers of radiation?
Note: It's poison would not be sufficient.
Note 2: Remember you are explaining to someone that is the youngest age.

[northcity4]

What about a simpler answer and it gets more complex as you get older? Of course you won't tell a young child the dangers of radiation in a complex manner since that will not help them understand.

Ex: Don't go in there, there is radiation in there.

Child: Why?
You: Bad for you/ like poison (usually young kids understand what poison is)
Child: how?
You: when you get older, I will explain more, for now just know it's like poison.

Here is what I am against:

Don't go in there, there is radiation in there.
Child: why?
You: cause I said so.

Although you as the parent have the authority to not let you child 'there,' saying because you are the parent gives children the impression you trying to over power them sometimes and not showing you care for them.

In the same way, some argue the Israelites felt the same way when given the commandments.

[OldTrees]

Does this fit your pattern?

Don't do X.
Why?
Because it is wrong.
How?
You will understand later.

[northcity4]

Yes. Except I am still in favor of some simple meaning at first. Saying it's wrong is still comparable to "because I said so." I forget the movie, but this religious guy travels to the future and tells this little girl not to steal because it's wrong to which she replies "who says?"

[destruct]

Some are morally permissive I would say. Here is why: let's say you grow up not knowing stealing is wrong and you steal one day, but don't know it--> you didn't do an immoral act.

Stealing is still morally wrong, no matter what you think about it, that is founded in human nature.  By stealing you have commited an immoral act. However, you are not culpable for that action because you had an invincibly erroneous conscience, so it is not a sin.  It is still immoral, but you are not personally culpable.  Therefore, the Commandments state basic facts of things that inherently bad for humans.  The things that the commandments prohibit are not suggestively prohibited.  Here is an example why.
Physically, some things are good for me to eat, and some things I should not eat.   NO MATTER WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT, it is still never good for me to eat a bowling ball.  Again, no matter what I think about it, it is good for me to eat vegetables as long as I am not allergic to them or something like that.
It is the same thing for spiritual matters.   Some things are inherently good for me as a human, some things are not good for my soul.   God, in the Commandments, lays out our human nature before us and shows us that doing these things is inherently bad for us.  Not obeying the commandments is sinful, therefore.

[destruct]

So again, if you believe in the Bible (Old and/or New Covenants), breaking the laws established in the Bible is wrong--FOR YOU--because, and only because, G-d said so.  That's the answer to your question.

That isn't precisely true.  Because the Commandments (and the Beatitudes, if you wish to extend this) are founded in human nature, which applies to every human being, any human that violates these commandments is doing something wrong.  It isn't wrong just because you are Christian, it is wrong because it violates our universal human nature.

[northcity4]

Some are morally permissive I would say. Here is why: let's say you grow up not knowing stealing is wrong and you steal one day, but don't know it--> you didn't do an immoral act.

Stealing is still morally wrong, no matter what you think about it, that is founded in human nature.  By stealing you have commited an immoral act. However, you are not culpable for that action because you had an invincibly erroneous conscience, so it is not a sin.  It is still immoral, but you are not personally culpable.  Therefore, the Commandments state basic facts of things that inherently bad for humans.  The things that the commandments prohibit are not suggestively prohibited.  Here is an example why.
Physically, some things are good for me to eat, and some things I should not eat.   NO MATTER WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT, it is still never good for me to eat a bowling ball.  Again, no matter what I think about it, it is good for me to eat vegetables as long as I am not allergic to them or something like that.
It is the same thing for spiritual matters.   Some things are inherently good for me as a human, some things are not good for my soul.   God, in the Commandments, lays out our human nature before us and shows us that doing these things is inherently bad for us.  Not obeying the commandments is sinful, therefore.

I disagree. Not all acts of stealing are immoral. Immorality involves if you know. For you to say it's not sin is correct, but you cannot say it was immoral to sin if you didn't know it was wrong. From a philosophical stand point, we don't even use the word sin. We simply say that act is not immoral since he didn't know/other reasons as well.

In religion: not suddenly: not a sin, but immoral. It's both. If someone is not culpable: not a sin AND not immoral.

[destruct]

Some are morally permissive I would say. Here is why: let's say you grow up not knowing stealing is wrong and you steal one day, but don't know it--> you didn't do an immoral act.

Stealing is still morally wrong, no matter what you think about it, that is founded in human nature.  By stealing you have commited an immoral act. However, you are not culpable for that action because you had an invincibly erroneous conscience, so it is not a sin.  It is still immoral, but you are not personally culpable.  Therefore, the Commandments state basic facts of things that inherently bad for humans.  The things that the commandments prohibit are not suggestively prohibited.  Here is an example why.
Physically, some things are good for me to eat, and some things I should not eat.   NO MATTER WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT, it is still never good for me to eat a bowling ball.  Again, no matter what I think about it, it is good for me to eat vegetables as long as I am not allergic to them or something like that.
It is the same thing for spiritual matters.   Some things are inherently good for me as a human, some things are not good for my soul.   God, in the Commandments, lays out our human nature before us and shows us that doing these things is inherently bad for us.  Not obeying the commandments is sinful, therefore.

I disagree. Not all acts of stealing are immoral. Immorality involves if you know. For you to say it's not sin is correct, but you cannot say it was immoral to sin if you didn't know it was wrong. From a philosophical stand point, we don't even use the word sin. We simply say that act is not immoral since he didn't know/other reasons as well.

In religion: not suddenly: not a sin, but immoral. It's both. If someone is not culpable: not a sin AND not immoral.

Are you saying that it is not subjectively immoral or not objectively immoral?

[northcity4]

stealing is subjectively immoral, not objectively. To make sure I am not mis-interpreting: subjectively immoral requires other factors to count it as immoral and objectively is immoral regardless correct?

[destruct]

Subjectively immoral also requires at least partial knowledge that an act is wrong.  Objectively immoral means that the act is bad no matter what.  I agree with your interpretation, but stealing is bad for any human because it is not founded in our human nature to steal.  Therefore it has to be objectively immoral.  Objectively is talking just about the act itself, minus the intention and circumstances.  It may or may not be subjectively immoral depending on the intention and circumstances.

[northcity4]

I disagree to some extent. When God made these laws, I don't think he meant stealing is wrong in every sense. There is still the notion that the way he said things to that culture was received with the interpretation there are times when stealing is not immoral. I think if the circumstance makes stealing permissible, then the act altogether is morally ok to do. I still don't agree the act is first immoral and then justified to be permissible.

If this is the case, then all humans when they die would have to justify each action to God in terms of permissible or not.