So I came to a startling realization the other day. It was after I wrote all that stuff about society and developing your own opinion, about taking as much information as you could and critically evaluating it to develop your own moral standpoint, and then to stick to it to the best of your ability.Well I was singing a hymn with my brother and sister-in-law and the kids for their Family Home Evening (a church lesson at home) and it had a sentence like "If Jesus stood beside me, would I follow his example?" and it made me think, after EVERYTHING I'd realized about majorities and societies and face-value opinions, who is God to declare a supreme law?
Now I'm sure that would catch most people off guard, but think about it...in a world where our society is constantly evolving, changing, adapting, why do so many of us choose to believe in a God who has declared supreme law? Is it because we hate the idea of ever-changing rules? Of evolving societal norms? Do people desire so much to have that unflinching consistency in their lives?
For example, in the Bible God says that sex between a man and woman before marriage is a sin. But this is the same thing I was saying in my previous post, you have to ask WHY? does he say that? What makes him right about that? Just because he's God? My big realization was that what God says (if God exists in the sense that most Christians believe) isn't any different than what a parent might tell you. Your parents are probably going to have more experience, and are probably going to be right about most of the things they tell you to do, but that doesn't mean they haven't been influenced in their morals throughout their development same as they are doing to you, and their morals may not be right either. Whose to say God is the only omnipotent being in the universe? I dunno if I believe God to be the beginning of existence, how did God coming into being? Same as us? Through a bigger scheme same as we're doing now? If so, then there's an innumerable amount of other omnipotent beings in the universe, and who's God to declare his opinions and morals as supreme universal law? I mean really. He may be right for all I know, but in an existence where there's no question about right and wrong, a world where the words 'right' and 'wrong' lose their relative meanings, what's the point of existence? What's the point of free will?
If you ask me, the nature of society to change, evolve, adapt, to be able to experience and learn new things, reshape your opinions and influence the opinions of others, hell that's the fun in life! You have the free will to make whatever decisions you choose, but if there was absolutely no question in what decisions were right and which were wrong, whats even the point of having free will? Relativity is, in short, one of the most necessary and desirable forces at work in our world, and if relativity doesn't exist in the life here after, I'm not sure I want to live an eternal life without relativity, with one simply unrelenting truth. Sounds boring to me.
And so what if you live your mortal life in a way inconsistent with what God says is 'right', he'll condemn you to an eternity of damnation in fire and brimstone? What kind of God is that? That's devolving into a style of government with a monarch, a supreme king and if you don't do what he says he'll throw you in the dungeon! Is God no more than King Henry? If he is, I don't want to believe in a God like that.
The traditional Christian God is consistent, never-changing, resolute, if he 'changed his mind' he would 'cease to be God'. A supreme constant in moral rights and wrongs. Why would people believe in a God like that? A lot more people than I realize must desire that kind of lifestyle. A lifestyle in which they don't have to make up their own minds about what's right and wrong, or maybe they just hate having to butt heads with people of different moral backgrounds so much they believe in a world where everyone has the same moral beliefs. Like I said...sounds boring to me.
People always say we should spend more time emulating God, but I think (and here's my daily dose of heresy) God should spend more time emulating me. It's okay to declare your opinion, but don't declare a supreme law upon it. Punishing those who don't think like you is the very essence of the evil of society. People are different! There shouldn't be a supreme law! I would expect that undeniable human rights that transcend moral belief such as life, property, and the pursuit of happiness, aren't going to be things that can be attacked in a post-mortal existence.
I dunno, I think I've explained myself. I denounce my belief in the supremacy of God's law.
3 comments:
Who is God you ask?
You ask perhaps the most important question of all time, for the answer is material to the life we chose to live. The answer is a fundamental determinant of our happiness and our future. The question is however preceeded by another. Is there a God?
For the sake of dealing with the question you have asked, let's assume there is a God since there is tremendous evidence througout recorded history and embeded into the moral fabric of every society, that greater knowledge and wisdom has been given to man than that which was conceived from within.
One might start this discussion by asking, Who is not God? It is certainly not I. I make too many mistakes and know too little. It is not my neighbor. He is worse off than I. It is certainly not any celebrity I know nor any politian I know, nor for than matter any king or ruler who has live during recorded history. (contrary to what some of them in their vanity perhaps believed of themselves.) All were fallible.
Society has generally defined "God" as a source of truth, wisdom, and light - a source of goodness and benevolence towards mankind - all knowing, all powerful, and not prone toward making mistakes - not subject to death, illness, and other mortal weaknesses. These are obviously characteristics not possesed by any on this world. Perhaps he or they are an advanced race of superior beings living somewhere else in the universe, who discovered our planet and in their desire to help us but not interfere in our world have given us knowledge about the universe and guidance from time to time in how to have a happy, peaceful, and fruitfull society. Perhaps this is the source of the ten commandments Moses received or the visitations seen by those we have called prophets. Perhaps they know that the only way for us to become like them as a society is to exercise our own minds, make our own choices, and learn wisdom from our own mistakes. Perhaps they share knowledge with us only as fast as we learn to use that knowledge in wisdom and charity towards each other. Perhaps they will only reveal themselves to mankind in general after we have become a civilized world capable of living in the universe in peace and contributing to the advancement of other evolving races. If this is a correct answer to the question of who is God, and I'm not saying it is, then the answer to your second question, Who is God to define truth and set a standard of morality can then be answered. HE is the Teacher, who in greater experience and wisdom has learned what is required to have joy in life and desires that we may enjoy the life he lives. But in his wisdom he does not reveal himself to quickly, least we fail to learn for ourselves, or take away our freedom and coerce us to accept his values.
One can take this discussion a step further, but that will have to wait for another day.
Wandering Muse
Very insightful, however, your argument is based on the fact that the life that 'God' has is 'best' and contains the most 'joy'.
The theory of relativity doesn't apply simply to physics. Words like 'better', 'best', 'joy', 'happiness', 'right', 'wrong', all these and so many more are ALL relative words. So when you use words like that, you have to consider to whom or what you're declaring it relative to.
If you are declaring words like 'right' and 'wrong' and 'joy' as relative to what God says, then fine. But already you're accepting the supremacy of what God says, goes. I'm not saying that if there's a being of supreme wisdom and understanding that what he says ISN'T what's 'right', but you do have to consider that maybe it's not. In a lot of cases, you have to treat the words 'right' and 'wrong' relative to other people, a society, your family, friends, but other times (and in most cases I would say) your beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong' should be relative to your personal experiences and knowledge.
So at that point, the idea of accepting someone else's opinions of right and wrong, even if that person is God, simply because they say so would be falling prey to the social model I described before. You always have to ask why. Sometimes the greater good calls for you to make decisions outside your personal interest, but in a post-life where I *imagine* there won't be restraints of physical location and constraint to one society or another, that you would be able to act and treat the words right and wrong as relative to your own personal experience and you're not going to bother anyone else. So why declare supreme law?
There seem to be 3 times in a person's life when they ask why repeatedly. First as a very young child they ask why for each response their Mother gives them until in frustration the Mother says "Because I said so" or "Because God said so". This stops the why game. As a person matures from adolescence to adulthood, the boundaries set by home and society are usually tested with another series of “why” questions. But this time it is not a game. Authority and social norms are challenged in an exploration of one’s personal values. Late in life, often after making wrong choices, one again asks “why”, but this time the why is a question of regret that better choices were not made and it comes from a realization that much of life has passed and a wish that one could undo what has been done. The question of relativity, of right and wrong and of what makes one happy, that emanates from the inexperience of youth is replaced with the reality of physical and emotional strength or scars, with opportunities gained or lost, with relationships treasured or soured, all gleaned from the lessons of life, both seen and experienced.
Take care for the relativity of values that you speak of (which is called “situational ethics” in today’s business world) has been the downfall of many. The Enron scandal is a prime example, as was WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing, and more recently the failure of Bear Stearns. Each of these is a very public example of failed corporate governance, accounting abuses, and personal greed being justified in the name of relative values – values borne out of personal interests taking precedence over the welfare other people. For each of these very public displays of relative values gone awry, there are thousands of individuals who bear grief and unhappiness in their private lives because they chose the wrong measure of relativity.
Whether there is or is not a God, there IS an intrinsic right and wrong that has governed societies throughout the history of this world. These intrinsic values are surprising similar from society to society and throughout the written history of man. They have been codified in law, whether religious or civil, and enforced by societies to preserve the welfare and well being of the many, and to protect individuals from the trespass of those who would do them harm. They are most likely basic and foundational elements to the well being of any society anywhere in the universe. Thou Shalt not kill. Thou Shalt not steal. Thou Shalt not bear false witness (lie). Thou Shalt not commit adultery. You get the idea. These are not relative. They have withstood the test of time. They are true and correct principles, endorsed by both God fearing and Godless societies. So who gave these laws to Moses? Who gave them to each and every society with a written history we can study? Did they come from God? If so, then whoever God is, perhaps he is wiser than you give him credit.
Post a Comment