Commandments/Loving God problem

[destruct]

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.

However, the circumstances are not what make a thing moral.  Morality of an act does not just depend on the consequences.  So because the object of the act is bad, the act is objectively immoral.

Humans do not have to justify actions to God because God is omniscient, and he knows the heart of every person.  Therefore, God already knows what action was permissible or not.  In fact, only God can judge whether our conscience is truly invincibly erroneous.

[northcity4]

correct, circumstances do not make things moral...all the time. Circumstances are part of a broader term called 'motive.' Once motive is established, the we can tell if an action is immoral.

morality=(action)x(motive).
--->the debate is whether the motive is positive or negative. ( motive consists of intention, circumstances, knowledge, responsibility, and so many other factors).
--->action can only be positive since action by itself has no bearing.
I disagree the act alone is objectively immoral. Stealing in itself is not objectively immoral. It is the motive that makes it immoral or not. In this sense, I would say any action performed without motive cannot be known whether it is immoral or morally permissible, or moral (almost like obligation in a sense).

So, I don't think stealing by itself has any bearing on morality. What if the Israelites were taking things that were owned by someone else and they didn't know? What if everytime I pressed this button someone died, but I had no clue? We cannot hold people according to these examples to have done anything immoral.

[destruct]

correct, circumstances do not make things moral...all the time. Circumstances are part of a broader term called 'motive.' Once motive is established, the we can tell if an action is immoral.

morality=(action)x(motive).
--->the debate is whether the motive is positive or negative. ( motive consists of intention, circumstances, knowledge, responsibility, and so many other factors).
--->action can only be positive since action by itself has no bearing.
I disagree the act alone is objectively immoral. Stealing in itself is not objectively immoral. It is the motive that makes it immoral or not. In this sense, I would say any action performed without motive cannot be known whether it is immoral or morally permissible, or moral (almost like obligation in a sense).

So, I don't think stealing by itself has any bearing on morality. What if the Israelites were taking things that were owned by someone else and they didn't know? What if everytime I pressed this button someone died, but I had no clue? We cannot hold people according to these examples to have done anything immoral.

True.  Maybe I should say that acts are neutral until performed.  For your last two examples, intention is not there so that specific act is not immoral.

[northcity4]

Right. We would have to know more about the action before we can assess a moral intuition on it.

My next question is: why tell the israelites these commandments? It seems they kind of already knew this stuff before hand and could run an economy that loves God without them. So, why make these specific commandments on tablets?

[destruct]

My next question is: why tell the israelites these commandments? It seems they kind of already knew this stuff before hand and could run an economy that loves God without them. So, why make these specific commandments on tablets?

The commandments are do not's.  Thou SHALL NOT steal, thou SHALL NOT kill, etc.  The Isrealites, as much as they said they believed in God, were weak of heart.  In  fact, even when Moses just went up the mountain for a month, they started worshiping a golden calf.  God needed them to have these rules ASAP before they (as humans) would ruin everything.  The Commandments are the baby stage, God doesn't explain why yet.  It is like telling a 2 year old to not touch the shiny red stove.  You put him in Time out for going too close.  That is what the Commandments are like, and the Isrealites follow them because else they are afraid of punishment.

Even with the Commandments, the Israelites fell into idolatry and sin.  They needed the Commandments to keep them on the right track.  Also, each of the Commandments focuses on a specific aspect of human life 1-3 deal with how to act towards God, 4-5 deal with how to act towards your family, 6-10 deal with human morality in general.  Note that God didn't just say" Be good people", , he gave them specific ways to do it, hence the need for the commandments.

[northcity4]

Thats my problem. Its the fear of punishment that kept them in check: means they didn't real love God. All that did was make God happy they abided, but deep down they dont love him? How do we know this? The moments when Israel didn't fear punishment are the moments they did the things they weren't supposed to.

----> ex. parents ground you for looking at bad things. You stop, why? Did you realize how bad it was what you did and you want to live a better life or is it the fact punishment is right there? I am not saying boundaries (commandments) don't work to eliminate the problem, but I would say most of the time they don't work. In fact when people finally move out of the home away from religion/parents/friends, they feel freedom because all boundaries (commandments) to them were just chains, not life changers.

[destruct]

That's why Jesus gives the answer in the Beatitudes.  He tells us how to live a good life.  Note that the Beatitudes don't have punishment attached, and they are all do's.  This is like explaining to the 2 year old when he is 6 why not to touch the stove.  The Beatitudes fulfill the Commandments, because now the Church is ready for something greater than the Commandments.  The Beatitudes are the way to be like Jesus (note he perfectly exemplifies him in his life), who is perfect.  No punishment for not following the Beatitudes, but it is good to follow the Beatitudes.  The Commandments set us up to make the choice to live the Beatitudes.

[northcity4]

That's the problem: the explanation of the commandments to beatitudes took too long. The Israelites ending up being people going through so much they gave up on life. That is comparable to telling a 2yr not to touch a stove and then wait when he is 30. By that time, he could be dead or have screwed up his life. There needs to have been earlier explanations which is why I argue God should have explained. The people God told the beatitudes to were just as old as the Israelites. In your case: the Israelites were the example and had to go through the mental problems and struggles (ginny pigs) and the people who lived later got lucky. In my case: God is screwed up for not realizing the problem he was about to make or he is just cruel.

[destruct]

The Israelites were not ready to accept the Beatitudes before Jesus' time.  The prophets, etc. were all sent by God to help his people follow his law.  They couldn't even do the simple part, so they weren't ready for the harder part yet.
Why were they going through so much?  Was that God's fault?  Or was it their fault for not following his laws.  Is it the mom's fault if the kid refuses to stop touching the stove, despite her best efforts, and she can't restrain him?  She is trying to be a good parent, but her child doesn't want to accept that.  The same thing with the Israelites:  They turned their back on God, and because they have free will God cannot force them to accept his law.
The Beatitudes are more of the fulfillment of the Commandments, but the prophets and the judges etc. explained the commandments also in the old testament.  Nathan explained them to David who explained them to the people.  Ezra and Nehemiah explained the Law after the Babylonian exile.  Many more people did this, but still the Isrealites hardened their hearts towards God.

[northcity4]

That doesn't help your argument: you say they were not ready and explain why God is not at fault with your evidence. Yes Israel hardened their hearts many times, but at the time of the 10 commandments we had no prophets or such. Why didn't God use the beatitudes right then and there? I am going to say they were ready, but that is not correct...i would say they would have been better off and God would not be looked at as cruel had he done this right away, but instead gave commandments=terrible explanation for why to not do things and led to Israel going worse off. God didn't do his best

[destruct]

The Isrealites had free will.  God gave them the Commandments, but even in the midst of that they denied him.  God gave them leaders, Moses, Joshua, all the prophets.
God did not give them the Beatitudes because he knew they would not accept them.
How do you know they would have been better off?  Doesn't God know more about his chosen people than us?  Maybe giving them more demanding laws would cause more to turn away from him.

[northcity4]

I still think they would have been better off. This is why:

God gave commandments--->Israel turned on god still is what you said.
You say: why? Is it because Israel was really that stubborn even though God did his best?
I say: why? Explanation was terrible on why to stop doing things. When people don't get good explanations, they don't change. I say if God had given his best explanation:he wouldn't be at fault.

--->example: you tell your kids not to have sex at a young age...why? Oh, you can get aids, pregnant women, destroyed relationships...sure there are consequences that can happen, but why is it bad? Israel wanted to know why it was bad. They are of course responsible for the consequences.

--->bare with me. Why is it bad? (morally), parents gave bad explanation and know what happened? We had the teenage revolution and teens ditched their parents because all they felt was their parents chaining them up.
In the same way: Israel felt chained and revolted. They ditched their parent: God.

---> Both groups (teenagers and Israel) are responsible for the consequences. But for God to say these things are morally wrong because I said so is a terrible explanation. God in this sense is no better than a parent during the teenage revolution who had their teen run off. God should have seen this coming because instead of them learning, they ended up dying. (other nations conquered them)

---> I will go as far as saying God is even more cruel: the consequences for their actions were not the result of their actions. God basically planned out what was going to happen. So in reality, Israel's actions really had no reason to be termed immoral which leads me to believe the commandments were just Gods nice way of forcing the Israelites to become who he wants them to become.

This is a forced love (insincere), but apparently God wants sincere love. You want people to love you sincerely, give them good reasons and quit trying to control their life.