What Defines Morality?

[Rose]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?



Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

[David M]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?



Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

Hello Rose
At last you bring up the basis on which we fundamentally disagree. However, to answer your questions, we have to agree the definition of the words moral and morality.

Whatever I say will get pounced on by you and Richard, and I will try to keep this short.

If we consider morality to be based on a system of rules for right and wrong living, then the question is; whose system of rules do we live by?

If we live by your rules (Rose's and Richards) then God-bashing as you appear to be doing is not immoral. And I will agree with your answers above, because we would be living by your rules. I expect most of your rules are good (it would be good for you to define your own top-ten rules). I choose not to live by your rules.

Of course by your rules (when they are defined) you can say that I am being immoral for not following your rules. This is the nub of the problem.

The problem humans have is; accepting God's rules. If I break God's rules, I am being immoral in God's eyes, so to answer your questions in this context, I have to say, "yes" instead of "no" to all your questions above.

The question comes down to; whose rules should we live by? It now becomes a contest of whose rules are best in terms of quality of life, living a peaceful and happy life, instead of strife, and hatred and killings etc.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, God has laid down a set of rules for humans. The fact that human society has incorporated those rules into its own system of rules must mean that those rules have value. Maybe, humans would have come up with something close if starting from scratch, but would have left out the first three commandments say.

I have to make a choice of whose systems of rules I live by. If you ask me to explain why I choose God's system of rules, we get back to arguing as we are doing, because you will not agree with my reasons. If you do not believe in God, you do not have to follow His system of rules. Your morality is right in your own eyes. This was the problem in olden times when everyone did that which was right in their own eyes and lead to disaster. God saw that human morality was not good. Humans did not make for themselves a good set of rules to follow. The 10 commandments were later given as a basis to live by.

God proved by the provision of His Son, born of the virgin Mary, that it was possible to live by His laws. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Jesus has already shown us by example, the life we should lead. Jesus moral code was summed up in the two great commandments about which he said; "on these hang all the law and the prophets".

So, in conclusion to keep this short and to wind up my inital thoughts, I say this; I continue to base my life on God's rules and that is what God shall judge me by. I am also bound by the laws of the country I live in, as long as there is no conflict with God's rules and then I would have to obey God's rule. It is a separate debate as to whose rules are have the higher moral standard. As it is, I believe in God (for reasons R & R disagree) and because I believe God has ultimate power and knows what is in each and every individual heart, I let myself be guided by God and live by His rules. Fundamentally, I find nothing to disagree with in God's rules.

One final point in conclusion. The problem is humans have been given free choice and this goes for the system of rules they want to live by. God has set the rules for humans and we are free to disagree and set our own. God is not bound by the rules He has set for humans. God can do anything He wants to and God is not immoral by His rules (only as humans perceive them).

God has also told humans the consequences for breaking His rules. We might object to the consequences, but then we are powerless to change that. God has proved in His word, that he does that which He has promised and that which He has stated. We might disagree, but then as I recall hearing; "when you can make your own planet, you can do things your way".

So the real problem at the heart of this is; whose set of values (rules) is best for us to live by; God's or R & R's ?


David

[David M]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or

care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

Hello Richard

I have responded to Rose's post to begin the replies. I have come back to your post to make one main point.

As many would say; God is Love. This is one of God's qualities, but not the only one. Love is arguably the highest quality and God has love for those who love Him. God has shown us that He hates abominations and in that case, God does not show love.

If God is Love, then that would mean our morality must be based on God, because you say; "morality is based on love" I know you disagree that God is Love and as I have explained; God is not just Love; He is more than that. Our problem is; we disagree with each other because of what God does, because we see His love differently (in your case - God has no love).

God can kill reprobates for the greater good of the human race, but when He does, you say that is immoral (by your standards). When you would deny God doing what He knows to be for the greater good of humans (in the long-term), you are in fact, imposing your own set of morals(rules) for which you have no credentials to prove that your rules are better.

I try to be objective and that is why I cannot accept what you say, because you cannot prove to be better than God. Your claims to know better than God have no weight at all. You can say that is my subjective statement, but how are you going to prove that I am wrong in my estimation of your values and for you to be in a position to do with what is best for mankind?

Unlike God, you have no plan to work to. God has a plan to restore the world and bring peace and harmony. Human nature left to its own devices has proved not to be in man's best interest. However, God's love is to all those who accept Him and believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Those people who do, come to understand and accept that God will restore the world and that God is the final arbiter and will select who He wants to be in His kingdom (to come on earth). Of course you do not believe in the kingdom of God to come, and will argue this point. I do not want to get into discussion about this here in this thread.

Obedience to God's rules, is what God knows to be best for Humans. Alas, I cannot base my life on your rules/standards which gives me no hope for the future. If you can offer eternal life, let me know, and then you might get me to agree with you. I know that even eternal life is a subject on its own and you will not agree and that is why I do not want to enter into any discussion that goes beyond the subject under discussion here. I have given you some reasons why I accept God's rules; its my choice. I am not going to get drawn into further discussions here. In this post and my reply to Rose, I have given my justification for why I choose God's rules. I have put up and I am shutting up for now and will see what others have to say. I might join in again later when more members of the forum have made their contribution to the discussion.

This discussion on morality is at the heart of the discussions we are having to do with human rights etc. It will be interesting to get a range of comments to this thread that Rose has started.

All the best,

David

[throwback]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Rose
At last you bring up the basis on which we fundamentally disagree. However, to answer your questions, we have to agree the definition of the words moral and morality.

Whatever I say will get pounced on by you and Richard, and I will try to keep this short.

If we consider morality to be based on a system of rules for right and wrong living, then the question is; whose system of rules do we live by?

If we live by your rules (Rose's and Richards) then God-bashing as you appear to be doing is not immoral. And I will agree with your answers above, because we would be living by your rules. I expect most of your rules are good (it would be good for you to define your own top-ten rules). I choose not to live by your rules.

Of course by your rules (when they are defined) you can say that I am being immoral for not following your rules. This is the nub of the problem.

The problem humans have is; accepting God's rules. If I break God's rules, I am being immoral in God's eyes, so to answer your questions in this context, I have to say, "yes" instead of "no" to all your questions above.

The question comes down to; whose rules should we live by? It now becomes a contest of whose rules are best in terms of quality of life, living a peaceful and happy life, instead of strife, and hatred and killings etc.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, God has laid down a set of rules for humans. The fact that human society has incorporated those rules into its own system of rules must mean that those rules have value. Maybe, humans would have come up with something close if starting from scratch, but would have left out the first three commandments say.

I have to make a choice of whose systems of rules I live by. If you ask me to explain why I choose God's system of rules, we get back to arguing as we are doing, because you will not agree with my reasons. If you do not believe in God, you do not have to follow His system of rules. Your morality is right in your own eyes. This was the problem in olden times when everyone did that which was right in their own eyes and lead to disaster. God saw that human morality was not good. Humans did not make for themselves a good set of rules to follow. The 10 commandments were later given as a basis to live by.

God proved by the provision of His Son, born of the virgin Mary, that it was possible to live by His laws. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Jesus has already shown us by example, the life we should lead. Jesus moral code was summed up in the two great commandments about which he said; "on these hang all the law and the prophets".

So, in conclusion to keep this short and to wind up my inital thoughts, I say this; I continue to base my life on God's rules and that is what God shall judge me by. I am also bound by the laws of the country I live in, as long as there is no conflict with God's rules and then I would have to obey God's rule. It is a separate debate as to whose rules are have the higher moral standard. As it is, I believe in God (for reasons R & R disagree) and because I believe God has ultimate power and knows what is in each and every individual heart, I let myself be guided by God and live by His rules. Fundamentally, I find nothing to disagree with in God's rules.

One final point in conclusion. The problem is humans have been given free choice and this goes for the system of rules they want to live by. God has set the rules for humans and we are free to disagree and set our own. God is not bound by the rules He has set for humans. God can do anything He wants to and God is not immoral by His rules (only as humans perceive them).

God has also told humans the consequences for breaking His rules. We might object to the consequences, but then we are powerless to change that. God has proved in His word, that he does that which He has promised and that which He has stated. We might disagree, but then as I recall hearing; "when you can make your own planet, you can do things your way".

So the real problem at the heart of this is; whose set of values (rules) is best for us to live by; God's or R & R's ?


David
Hey there David,

I'm really glad you chose to comment on this thread. I think there are two fundamental errors in your argument. First, you have no system of rules to define morality. If you did, then you could affirm that Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery are always wrong (I include rape in honor of the 32,000 virgins who were distributed to the soldiers who slaughtered their families, Num 31). But you can't affirm those things are absolutely immoral because God commanded them. This proves that you have no "moral rule" other than "We must do what God commands" no matter how immoral those commands might be in every other context.

Your second error is that you think morality is nothing but a set of rules. That is absurd because there are an infinite variety of moral dilemmas and you would need a "rule" for each one. For example, is it always wrong to lie? Of course not. If the Nazis knocked on my door and asked if there were Jews in my attic, it would be a sin for me to answer truthfully because people would die. The moral question lies only in your motive - are you doing it for love or something else? The proof is in the pudding - you have no rules that assert Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery are immoral even though such things are universally rejected by all truly moral people. The morals expressed by the United Nations are much higher than those of the Bible. Their resolutions prohibit Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery for all nations. If the Jews were committing the crimes commanded by God today, they would be seen as an abhorrent and immoral outlaw nation. Indeed, could you imagine anyone going about today murdering people in the name of God? Would you accept their testimony that the True God commanded it and so it was justified? Of course not. The only reason you believe it was justified is because the Bible tells you so.

The fact that morality is not made up of "rules" is evident from the teaching of Christ and Paul who both said that LOVE fulfills the law. The law itself, as given in the Bible, contains many things that have nothing to do with true morality such as not eating shellfish, and other things that directly contradict morality such as stoning people for breaking arbitrary rules like the Sabbath or disrespecting their parents. And on top of that, stoning is a primitive, barbaric, and fundamentally immoral punishment because it is a very slow method of execution akin to torture.

I'm very glad you are pursuing this topic. I think it is of central importance.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If God is Love, then that would mean our morality must be based on God, because you say; "morality is based on love" I know you disagree that God is Love and as I have explained; God is not just Love; He is more than that. Our problem is; we disagree with each other because of what God does, because we see His love differently (in your case - God has no love).

I don't disagree that God is love. Some of the descriptions of God in the Bible are just fine. But others are in grave error.

I never said that "God has no love." But the God of the Bible is a different matter. Obviously, there was no "love" for the people he ordered to be slaughtered or the virgins he ordered to be distributed to the soldiers who slaughtered their families.



God can kill reprobates for the greater good of the human race, but when He does, you say that is immoral (by your standards). When you would deny God doing what He knows to be for the greater good of humans (in the long-term), you are in fact, imposing your own set of morals(rules) for which you have no credentials to prove that your rules are better.

Sure, God can do what he wants. The problem is that that he didn't do it himself but commanded his people to do it, and that makes him look like he's trying to impersonate a typical brutal Bronze age tribal war god. Why would God choose to do that? How are we supposed to learn about morality if he goes about guiding his people into gross immorality? Splattering themselves with baby-guts. It's ridiculous.



I try to be objective and that is why I cannot accept what you say, because you cannot prove to be better than God. Your claims to know better than God have no weight at all. You can say that is my subjective statement, but how are you going to prove that I am wrong in my estimation of your values and for you to be in a position to do with what is best for mankind?

I'm sorry, but I have never seen any indication of any "objectivity" on your part. You are entirely committed to the truth of the Bible no matter how it appears to contradict known facts. You don't even address points that are contrary to you belief system. Everything you write is designed not to find truth, but to justify whatever is written in the Bible. Your behavior is the polar opposite of "objectivity." If you want to begin being objective, it would be good to start by admitting this fact.

Your assertion that I cannot prove that I am better than the God of the Bible is absurd. You merely assert, with no supporting evidence, that the God of the Bible is the true God and that he has some "plan" for humanity. That's all just empty assertion. You know no such thing. You are a man like me. You are setting yourself up as if you had true KNOWLEDGE of the "God's plan" when in fact all you have are unfounded beliefs based on an ancient religious text. That does not qualify as true "knowledge." You can't reject my words by merely claiming that your concept of God is correct, as if that settled it!



Unlike God, you have no plan to work to. God has a plan to restore the world and bring peace and harmony. Human nature left to its own devices has proved not to be in man's best interest. However, God's love is to all those who accept Him and believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Those people who do, come to understand and accept that God will restore the world and that God is the final arbiter and will select who He wants to be in His kingdom (to come on earth). Of course you do not believe in the kingdom of God to come, and will argue this point. I do not want to get into discussion about this here in this thread.

Granted - I am not God! Duh. Neither are you. Double duh. All your claims about God are no different than those of a Muslim or Hindu. So you can't trump my arguments by pointing out that I'm not "God" and I don't have a "plan" for planet earth. That's an absurd line of reasoning.

Human nature has always been "left to it's own devices" as far as anyone can tell. But when we relied on God we died. Then we stood up and began to rely on ourselves and we developed vaccines and so we live when God was perfectly happy to let us die no matter how much we prayed to him. The proof is simple: Take 100 atheists and 100 Christians. Give them all the plague. Let the Christians pray and let the Atheists take antibiotics. Who lives? Who dies? Case closed.

Don't worry, I won't argue your private version of eschatology here. We've got bigger fish to fry.



Obedience to God's rules, is what God knows to be best for Humans.

There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion. It doesn't even mean anything, because every Christian has a different set of "God's rules." For example, you are a Sabbath keeper, right? There are few Christians that agree with you. And what about shellfish? Do you eat it? And what does shellfish have to do with morality or what's best for people anyway? Absolutely nothing.



Alas, I cannot base my life on your rules/standards which gives me no hope for the future.

You can't base your life on love? What's wrong with you?



This discussion on morality is at the heart of the discussions we are having to do with human rights etc. It will be interesting to get a range of comments to this thread that Rose has started.

All the best,

David
Yes indeed!

All the best to you too,

Richard

[David M]

Hey there David,

The fact that morality is not made up of "rules" is evident from the teaching of Christ and Paul who both said that LOVE fulfills the law. Great chatting!

Richard

Hello Richard

I did say that Jesus summed up all the law in two commandments. Both of those two commandments contain the word love.
If you want to combine them into one commandment, that is fine. Infact do away with the rules all together and let everyone have love in their hearts. If everyone loves everybody else to the highest degree, that means we can tear up the rule book and we do not need any rules to follow. Great!!

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I did say that Jesus summed up all the law in two commandments. Both of those two commandments contain the word love.
If you want to combine them into one commandment, that is fine. Infact do away with the rules all together and let everyone have love in their hearts. If everyone loves everybody else to the highest degree, that means we can tear up the rule book and we do not need any rules to follow. Great!!

All the best,

David
Yes, I noticed you mentioned them. I should have added the phrase "as you noted" when I referred to them.

It is not I who has "done away with all the rules." That is YOUR doctrine, as implied by the fact that you cannot say that Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery are morally wrong. All your vaunted "rules" have been reduced to one rule - "We must do whatever God commands" no matter how immoral those commands would be in any other context. It would be good if you addressed this point.

My assertion is that morality is not based on rules at all. It is based on love, empathy, and caring for others. There's a world of difference. Anyone can follow "rules" while inwardly hating others. Rules cannot be the basis of morality. Love is the true morality. Simple as that.

[CWH]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?

Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

Rose seems to be avoiding other commandments that she is uncomfortable with:

Thou shall not commit adultery

Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Thou shall not steal

The ten commandments has nothing to do with morals if not other things would have been included such as thou shall not lie, thou shall not rape etc. It is stated very clearly that the obeying of the ten commandments would lead one to a better life (see in bold). It seems to me that the ten commandments seem to apply more to the Jews living then but still somewhat applicable to us modern people but we are not directly under that covenant. Note that commandment as taught by Jesus, 1 to 5 is related to Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and commandment 6 to 10 is related to Love your neighbor as yourself. So those who do not believe in Loving God but believe in loving your neighbor as yourself should obey commandments 6 to 10 i.e. thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, covet, bear false witness.

Deuteronomy 5

6 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

7 'You shall have no other gods before me.(Commandment 1)

8 'You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10[B] but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.(Commandment 2)

11 'You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.(Commandment 3)

12 'Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.(Commandment 4)

16 'Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.(Commandment 5)

17 'You shall not murder.(Commandment 6)

18 'You shall not commit adultery.(Commandment 7)

19 'You shall not steal.(Commandment 8)

20 'You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.(Commandment 9)

21 'You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.'(Commandment 10).........

28 The LORD heard you when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, 'I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good. 29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children FOREVER!............

32 So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left. 33 Walk in obedience to all that the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.

Just to understand your sense of thinking Rose, what are your ten commandments? Ah....I know:

1. Thou shall worship yourself and not God
2. Thou shall not rape
3. Thou shall treat male and female as equal
4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars
5. Thou shall love one another
6. Thou shall honor your parents unless they have not treated their children well
7. Thou can covet other people's property
8. Thou shall not keep the Sabbath
9. Thou shall not believe in the God of the Bible
10. Thou can divorce and remarry

What else Rose?

May God Blessed those who try to keep his ten commandments.:pray:

[Rose]

Rose seems to be avoiding other commandments that she is uncomfortable with:

Thou shall not commit adultery

Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Thou shall not steal

Hi Cheow, :yo:

No Cheow, I am not avoiding those commandments! I only listed the ones that have nothing to do with morality, the three I left out can have moral applications so it was appropriate not to include them in my list.

Just to understand your sense of thinking Rose, what are your ten commandments? Ah....I know:

1. Thou shall worship yourself and not God
2. Thou shall not rape
3. Thou shall treat male and female as equal
4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars
5. Thou shall love one another
6. Thou shall honor your parents unless they have not treated their children well
7. Thou can covet other people's property
8. Thou shall not keep the Sabbath
9. Thou shall not believe in the God of the Bible
10. Thou can divorce and remarry

What else Rose?

May God Blessed those who try to keep his ten commandments.:pray:

Not too bad :thumb: I will answer in red.

1. Thou shall worship yourself and not God I have no need to worship anyone including myself
2. Thou shall not rape Yes, rape is immoral
3. Thou shall treat male and female as equal Absolutely, men and women should have equal rights!
4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars I would take it even farther, all killing is immoral except for self defense, accidental and wars
5. Thou shall love one another Yes, love your fellow human as yourself
6. Thou shall honor your parents unless they have not treated their children well All people should be honored and respected for how they treat others
7. Thou can covet other people's property People are free to do as they wish, covet or not covet
8. Thou shall not keep the Sabbath People are free to keep any day or no day as the Sabbath
9. Thou shall not believe in the God of the Bible People are free to believe in any god they wish and practice any religion they wish, this has nothing to do with morality
10. Thou can divorce and remarry Absolutely! All people should be able to divorce and remarry whomever they wish, this also has nothing to do with morality


All the best,
Rose

[Rose]

Hello Rose
At last you bring up the basis on which we fundamentally disagree. However, to answer your questions, we have to agree the definition of the words moral and morality.

Whatever I say will get pounced on by you and Richard, and I will try to keep this short.

If we consider morality to be based on a system of rules for right and wrong living, then the question is; whose system of rules do we live by?

If we live by your rules (Rose's and Richards) then God-bashing as you appear to be doing is not immoral. And I will agree with your answers above, because we would be living by your rules. I expect most of your rules are good (it would be good for you to define your own top-ten rules). I choose not to live by your rules.

Of course by your rules (when they are defined) you can say that I am being immoral for not following your rules. This is the nub of the problem.

The problem humans have is; accepting God's rules. If I break God's rules, I am being immoral in God's eyes, so to answer your questions in this context, I have to say, "yes" instead of "no" to all your questions above.

The question comes down to; whose rules should we live by? It now becomes a contest of whose rules are best in terms of quality of life, living a peaceful and happy life, instead of strife, and hatred and killings etc.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, God has laid down a set of rules for humans. The fact that human society has incorporated those rules into its own system of rules must mean that those rules have value. Maybe, humans would have come up with something close if starting from scratch, but would have left out the first three commandments say.

I have to make a choice of whose systems of rules I live by. If you ask me to explain why I choose God's system of rules, we get back to arguing as we are doing, because you will not agree with my reasons. If you do not believe in God, you do not have to follow His system of rules. Your morality is right in your own eyes. This was the problem in olden times when everyone did that which was right in their own eyes and lead to disaster. God saw that human morality was not good. Humans did not make for themselves a good set of rules to follow. The 10 commandments were later given as a basis to live by.

God proved by the provision of His Son, born of the virgin Mary, that it was possible to live by His laws. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Jesus has already shown us by example, the life we should lead. Jesus moral code was summed up in the two great commandments about which he said; "on these hang all the law and the prophets".

So, in conclusion to keep this short and to wind up my inital thoughts, I say this; I continue to base my life on God's rules and that is what God shall judge me by. I am also bound by the laws of the country I live in, as long as there is no conflict with God's rules and then I would have to obey God's rule. It is a separate debate as to whose rules are have the higher moral standard. As it is, I believe in God (for reasons R & R disagree) and because I believe God has ultimate power and knows what is in each and every individual heart, I let myself be guided by God and live by His rules. Fundamentally, I find nothing to disagree with in God's rules.

One final point in conclusion. The problem is humans have been given free choice and this goes for the system of rules they want to live by. God has set the rules for humans and we are free to disagree and set our own. God is not bound by the rules He has set for humans. God can do anything He wants to and God is not immoral by His rules (only as humans perceive them).

God has also told humans the consequences for breaking His rules. We might object to the consequences, but then we are powerless to change that. God has proved in His word, that he does that which He has promised and that which He has stated. We might disagree, but then as I recall hearing; "when you can make your own planet, you can do things your way".

So the real problem at the heart of this is; whose set of values (rules) is best for us to live by; God's or R & R's ?


David

Hi David, :yo:

I wanted to acknowledge that I read your post, but since Richard said pretty much the same thing that I would have said I will let his post stand as a response on my behalf. Thank you, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my post...:signthankspin:

All the best,
Rose

[David M]

Hi Cheow, :yo:

No Cheow, I am not avoiding those commandments! I only listed the ones that have nothing to do with morality, the three I left out can have moral applications so it was appropriate not to include them in my list.


Not too bad :thumb: I will answer in red.

4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars I would take it even farther, all killing is immoral except for self defense, accidental and wars
All the best,
Rose

Hello Rose

I cannot let this pass by without comment. So you agree that in wars killing is legitimate. Even if you say that in wars it is OK to kill provided not babies are killed, you get stuck with babies that have no parents and no obligation by the warring parties to look after the spared babies. Now that is a real problem you have to deal with and give an answer to.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

Hello Rose

I cannot let this pass by without comment. So you agree that in wars killing is legitimate. Even if you say that in wars it is OK to kill provided not babies are killed, you get stuck with babies that have no parents and no obligation by the warring parties to look after the spared babies. Now that is a real problem you have to deal with and give an answer to.

All the best,

David

Good point David.:thumb:
Sometimes I wonder if those Canaanite babies ordered killed were legitimate. Were those babies born from adulteries, incests, prostituitions, rapes etc. Perhaps many of those babies were orphans and rejects, As such, those babies will tend to grow into anti-socials. And many with no parents to look after them will either died off anyway or became anti-socials.

God Blessed those childrens.:pray:

[Rose]

Hello Rose

I cannot let this pass by without comment. So you agree that in wars killing is legitimate. Even if you say that in wars it is OK to kill provided not babies are killed, you get stuck with babies that have no parents and no obligation by the warring parties to look after the spared babies. Now that is a real problem you have to deal with and give an answer to.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

To further clarify myself: what I meant by killing in wars is restricted to the soldiers who are fighting other soldiers, NOT the civilians (men,women, and children)! Civilians should never be killed! Personally I am totally against war except for self-defense, which non of our wars in recent times have been for.

All the best,
Rose

[Rose]

Good point David.:thumb:
Sometimes I wonder if those Canaanite babies ordered killed were legitimate. Were those babies born from adulteries, incests, prostituitions, rapes etc. Perhaps many of those babies were orphans and rejects, As such, those babies will tend to grow into anti-socials. And many with no parents to look after them will either died off anyway or became anti-socials.

God Blessed those childrens.:pray:

What! :eek: You say the killing of Canaanite babies was legitimate because they may have been born from "adulteries, incests, prostitutions, rapes etc."! :eek: With that kind of reasoning then you must also think that the babies that came from the Hebrews soldiers raping the Midianite virgins should have been killed too!

And you say that God blessed those children? Your reasoning is beyond me. :dizzy:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What! :eek: You say the killing of Canaanite babies was legitimate because they may have been born from "adulteries, incests, prostitutions, rapes etc."! :eek: With that kind of reasoning then you must also think that the babies that came from the Hebrews soldiers raping the Midianite virgins should have been killed too!

And you say that God blessed those children? Your reasoning is beyond me. :dizzy:
I've really never seen anything quite so ironic as a Christian justifying the slaughter of innocent babies.

[CWH]

I've really never seen anything quite so ironic as a Christian justifying the slaughter of innocent babies.

Neither do I really seen someone who is very eager to save and support every children born out of incests, prostituitions, fornications, rapes and "Free Love". Such children reminded the parents of the sin they have committed and many of them would rather want them dead than alive. Isn't these the main reasons why many people aborted their fetuses?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should ignore those "sinful children" to their fate but to show mercy and kindness to them by spreading the Gospels to them. This is a form of saving them. Some say that Salvation is not through good works but by faith but I will say it's through both as James confirmed that faith without good works is dead. Spreading the Gospels is one of the good works and faith same as with charity and kindness. Remember one cannot depend on good works alone. Loving your neighbors as yourself without loving God who created your neighbors doesn't make much sense. It's like loving Americans without loving America.

Jesus didn't try to save and resurrect every dying children, did He? No, but He did the salvation by offering the Gospel to every generations that whoever believe in Him will never die but have everlasting life.


God Blessed.:pray:

[David M]

Whatever we might think about God's justice, God has declared He is just. God is also merciful. Humans who are made in God's image are told; to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with God. The Canaanites must have been a very bad lot for God to order the Israelites to destroy them completely. At the time of the Great Flood, God wiped out the whole of civilization except for Noah and his family. In wiping out civilization and starting again with Noah, God had destroyed men, women, children and babies. God saw that there was no hope for any of them. Only non-Godfearing people will defend their own kind. I would not defend people who are completely evil and have no inclination to change their ways and shun evil.

The people pre the Flood were said to; "only do evil continually". God saw no point in saving them; they were beyond saving. Those people had 100 years to consider their ways while Noah was building the ark. It cannot be said that 100 years was not long enough for them to think about changing their ways. The Canaanites were also a totally bad lot. It is speculation to think that these people could be taught the ways of God and would repent. Why should God save those who reject Him? Why should God love those who hate Him? God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for the same reason, but not until the few righteous people were saved. God saves the righteous.

I am reminded by the line in Zechariah 14:21 which says; there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. Such was the reputation of the Canaanites, they had become the symbol for the most evil of people and were rejected by God. God does not have to justify himself to humans, though God has explained to us that judgment belongs to Him. God will do what He sees is necessary. God is working to restore the earth and have it occupied by people who have believed and trusted in Him. God is selectiong people from all generations.Whether sooner or later, all will die one way or another. God is the final Judge. God decides who should live again after death. Judgement has been passed to His only begotten Son.

If God gives up on people who have corrupted their minds and are beyond saving, it is God's right to do with them as He sees fit. God gives life and God has the right to take life back. For humans to impose their own moral values on God is to make themselves superior to God. People who think they are superior to God are deluded.

It is up to ourselves to search out God's wisdom in what God has done and learn the lessons He wants us to learn. I have decided it is pointless for me to discuss this subject any further with people who are not looking to understand God's ways. God does not punish the righteous, God only punishes the unrighteous. Those who believe in God, He treats as adopted children. God corrects His childeren when they do wrong and God leads His children in the paths or rigtheousness that lead to life eternal. As for those who reject God, they are following their own paths leading to destruction and death eternal.

My time is better spent on subjects that lead to further enlightenment. No further enlightenment will come from discussing God's morals with R & R. Having given my initial thoughts, I fail to see what more I can say after this post. No amount of quoting scripture will change anyone's mind who does not want to look for understanding in the ways of God.

All the best.

David

[Unregistered]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

I do not agree.

A baby can bond but it cannot reason love.

It can follow it's instinct though and to us it might look like love but it is just the baby recognizing through instincts the rules of prisoners revenge. That it is more profitable to survival to cooperate and not compete. The only two things that you and I do constantly when interacting with others.

I think this is proof.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

HI Rose

Tried and failed to pick up your quote.

Just wanted to agree and show you this.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.
I do not agree.

A baby can bond but it cannot reason love.

It can follow it's instinct though and to us it might look like love but it is just the baby recognizing through instincts the rules of prisoners revenge. That it is more profitable to survival to cooperate and not compete. The only two things that you and I do constantly when interacting with others.

I think this is proof.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/

Regards
DL
Hi DL,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I agree that the there is a biological basis to morality, but that doesn't explain everything about it. Empathy is seen in other species and primates are known to have a sense of "fairness." But the full concept of "morality" is a product of our big brains and ability to reason and abstract. I have no reason to think it is entirely based in biology and nothing else. The babies discussed in the link you posted shows only the rudimentary circuitry that lies at the foundation of our morality. As an adult, love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions. I still have no reason to think that morality is based on a set of rules.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

HI Rose

Tried and failed to pick up your quote.

Just wanted to agree and show you this.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Regards
DL

Thanks for the link, TED talks rock!

There is a bug in the forum software that occasionally causes the edit box to be blank even when you clicked "Reply With Quote." An easy work-around is to copy/paste the text you want to quote. Place it between the "quote" tags that look like this:


put quote here .

[Greatest I am]

Hi DL,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I agree that the there is a biological basis to morality, but that doesn't explain everything about it. Empathy is seen in other species and primates are known to have a sense of "fairness." But the full concept of "morality" is a product of our big brains and ability to reason and abstract. I have no reason to think it is entirely based in biology and nothing else. The babies discussed in the link you posted shows only the rudimentary circuitry that lies at the foundation of our morality. As an adult, love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions. I still have no reason to think that morality is based on a set of rules.

All the best,

Richard

I agree that initially it is not based on rules. It is based on our survival instincts and those go to cooperation as that baby shows. It is the same with other animals. Rules for man only come into play as a learned response. You are thinking backwards. You say that love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions.

That baby clip proves that it is our survival instincts that push to cooperation and that intuition is what grows to our sense of fairness and then love.

Watch what happens when the first cooperation (love) is rejected by the other chimp in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mv8rfJmCPk

Thanks for the welcome BTW.

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree that initially it is not based on rules. It is based on our survival instincts and those go to cooperation as that baby shows. It is the same with other animals. Rules for man only come into play as a learned response. You are thinking backwards. You say that love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions.

That baby clip proves that it is our survival instincts that push to cooperation and that intuition is what grows to our sense of fairness and then love.

Watch what happens when the first cooperation (love) is rejected by the other chimp in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mv8rfJmCPk

Thanks for the welcome BTW.

Regards
DL
That's an awesome video! Here it is embedded for folks to watch with one less click:


http://youtu.be/3mv8rfJmCPk

The video shows that primates are pretty smart and can understand cooperation to a significant degree. But the narrator's assertion that the chimps were distinguishing between guilt and innocence when the human moved the food is not at all clear. He may be reading morality into the scene where it does not exist. It seems more likely that the chimp saw the human as a super "alpha chimp" and so deferred to his actions. If the alpha chimp gave the other chimp his food, he can't complain because that might incur wrath from the alpha chimp.This is a more primal instinct seen even in wolves with much smaller brains. So when interpreting experiments like this, we need to be careful not to anthropomorphize the chimps.

My assertion that our moral intuitions are based in empathy does not contradict the fact that our empathy is based in our biology. So I'm not sure that we are in any disagreement here.

Your contributions are very interesting! I hope you keep them coming.

Richard

PS: I've upgraded your account to "Full Membership" so you can start your own threads, post pics and videos, and all that good stuff. New members are automatically put on probation just long enough for me to be sure they are not spammers.

[David M]

HI Rose

Tried and failed to pick up your quote.

Just wanted to agree and show you this.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Regards
DL

Hello DL
thanks for supplying the link to this video. I shall make a general comment of two from what came from the video.

Jonathan Haidt said that our minds were designed by evolution. Surely that is a misnomer because evolution cannot design. Evolution has no plan.

He says that our evolved minds are blinded to the truth. All I will say is that the acceptance of Evolution is to blind our minds to the truth. Should evolution have blinded my mind to this truth?

Jonathan Haidt uses the example of the Dalai Lama as an example, probably because he is the best living example. The truth is that Jesus the Son of God is the greatest example of someone who has lived. Jesus had the greatest moral authority and in the eyes of God was sinless. I doubt the Dalai Lama can claim that. Jonathan Haidt said the Dalai Lama's his enormous moral authority came from his moral humility. Once again, there is no greater example than the humility of Jesus which manifested itself in all aspects of Jesus' life.

As far as "being outside the box", God is already there. This is why God has shown us the way. It is the way that men and women are struggling by going their own way. If we step out of the moral box built up by men and women, we find God. In finding God, we come to know the moral code that He has given us, it is the moral code that evolution would make us blind to or if we accept that we start off with a blank mind at birth, the moral code is not something men or women will find out easily for themselves. The fact that men and women will do as they want or agree to do as a team is not in accordance with what God wants. The inventions or men and women have made the problem of finding the truth that much more difficult.

At the moment, this forum shows the contributers are in different teams.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello DL
thanks for supplying the link to this video. I shall make a general comment of two from what came from the video.

Jonathan Haidt said that our minds were designed by evolution. Surely that is a misnomer because evolution cannot design. Evolution has no plan.

He says that our evolved minds are blinded to the truth. All I will say is that the acceptance of Evolution is to blind our minds to the truth. Should evolution have blinded my mind to this truth?

Jonathan Haidt uses the example of the Dalai Lama as an example, probably because he is the best living example. The truth is that Jesus the Son of God is the greatest example of someone who has lived. Jesus had the greatest moral authority and in the eyes of God was sinless. I doubt the Dalai Lama can claim that. Jonathan Haidt said the Dalai Lama's his enormous moral authority came from his moral humility. Once again, there is no greater example than the humility of Jesus which manifested itself in all aspects of Jesus' life.

As far as "being outside the box", God is already there. This is why God has shown us the way. It is the way that men and women are struggling by going their own way. If we step out of the moral box built up by men and women, we find God. In finding God, we come to know the moral code that He has given us, it is the moral code that evolution would make us blind to or if we accept that we start off with a blank mind at birth, the moral code is not something men or women will find out easily for themselves. The fact that men and women will do as they want or agree to do as a team is not in accordance with what God wants. The inventions or men and women have made the problem of finding the truth that much more difficult.

At the moment, this forum shows the contributers are in different teams.

All the best,

David
Good morning David, :tea:

Your comments miss the meat of the video. What do you think about the five moral foundations Haidt listed?


Harm/Care
Fairness/Reciprocity
In-Group Loyalty
Authority/Respect
Purity/Sanctity

What do you think of his research that showed how liberals and conservatives rank the importance of those five categories? Did you see yourself in the research results? I know I did.

Your comments remind me of how I felt when I was a Christian. I was always bothered by the way evolution was integrated with practically every scientific discipline. It made it impossible for me to read most scientific works without a sense that the author was biased against God and the Bible. It felt like they were all part of a "grand conspiracy" designed to deny the truth of God. But now I see things differently. The fact that almost every scientific discipline naturally coheres with the theory of evolution is the greatest evidence of its validity. It's like there is a "great cloud of witnesses" from all the independent scientific disciplines that confirm it. It's like the dozens of independent ways we can confirm the age of the earth and the universe (starlight, expansion rate, radioactive isotopes, tectonic plates, fossils,etc., etc., etc.). The agreement of all these different witnesses gives great weight to their united testimony. If evolution really were fiction, then it simply could not be integrated with the entire body of human knowledge in the way that it is. This is why E. O. Wilson began his book Conscilence: They Unity of Knowledge (http://www.amazon.com/dp/067976867X/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=thebibwhe-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=067976867X&adid=01AZ075RXTGHQHWD8ZYJ) with a discussion of how the theory of evolution revolutionized his understanding of the natural world in his youth. He then went on throughout his book showing how all scientific knowledge forms a unity, and at the heart of that unity is evolution.

Your comment that "Jonathan Haidt said that our minds were designed by evolution" missed the scare quotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes) that Haidt put around the word "design" to indicate that he was not using that word in the literal way that you interpreted it. You are correct that it would be a "misnomer" if Haidt had not put it in quotes.

You are correct that "evolution has no plan." But that does not mean that evolution does not produce effects that look designed. Are you denying that natural selection can produce changes in organisms? What limits those changes? What about the DNA evidence that supports the idea of common descent? What part of evolution are you denying?

I find it very curious that you say "If we step out of the moral box built up by men and women, we find God." How do you discern between the "moral box built up by men and women" vs. the "moral code that He has given us"? The world is filled with religions that claim to have the "moral code from God." How is a person supposed to find the One True ReligionTM buried in the confused mass of human traditions?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Rose]

Hello DL
thanks for supplying the link to this video. I shall make a general comment of two from what came from the video.

Jonathan Haidt said that our minds were designed by evolution. Surely that is a misnomer because evolution cannot design. Evolution has no plan.

He says that our evolved minds are blinded to the truth. All I will say is that the acceptance of Evolution is to blind our minds to the truth. Should evolution have blinded my mind to this truth?

Jonathan Haidt uses the example of the Dalai Lama as an example, probably because he is the best living example. The truth is that Jesus the Son of God is the greatest example of someone who has lived. Jesus had the greatest moral authority and in the eyes of God was sinless. I doubt the Dalai Lama can claim that. Jonathan Haidt said the Dalai Lama's his enormous moral authority came from his moral humility. Once again, there is no greater example than the humility of Jesus which manifested itself in all aspects of Jesus' life.

As far as "being outside the box", God is already there. This is why God has shown us the way. It is the way that men and women are struggling by going their own way. If we step out of the moral box built up by men and women, we find God. In finding God, we come to know the moral code that He has given us, it is the moral code that evolution would make us blind to or if we accept that we start off with a blank mind at birth, the moral code is not something men or women will find out easily for themselves. The fact that men and women will do as they want or agree to do as a team is not in accordance with what God wants. The inventions or men and women have made the problem of finding the truth that much more difficult.

At the moment, this forum shows the contributers are in different teams.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

The one huge flaw I see in your statement of Jesus being "the greatest example of a human and the greatest moral authority" is the fact that nowhere in all his teachings does he ever condemn all the moral atrocities contained in the Old Testament that were ordered by his father, Yahweh. How could greatness, or morality be attributed to anyone who condones by silence the murder of babies and the rape of women? Keeping that in mind the Dali Lama is a far greater example of a human life than Jesus.

All the best,
Rose

[duxrow]

:confused2:
Hey Rose,
You don't think that serpent in the garden had anything to do with those atrocities? Remembering how God told Satan about Job being in his (satan's) domain, seems to me there's been a mixup between the works of God and the works of Satan. :fencing:

[jce]

Hi Cheow, :yo:

10. Thou can divorce and remarry Absolutely! All people should be able to divorce and remarry whomever they wish, this also has nothing to do with morality


All the best,
Rose

Perhaps this one is contingent upon whether or not a contract has been signed, unless of course it is not immoral to break a written agreement. A societal majority could however, agree to modify the intent of written agreements thus rendering them "invalid" should one of the parties agree to terminate the agreement, for whatever reason. In this way a society could continue to advance or degenerate based on the ever evolving description and mutual understanding of morality. How's that for a perfectly democratic, existential, adaptive solution?

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty reasonable description of morality. But what is the foundation of our moral intuitions? Is it just biology? I don't think so. Yes, it begins in biology, but there are layers built upon layers. Our big brains allow use to perceive/create abstract concepts about morality. It's like love - yes, it is based in biology, but something more is going on which I doubt could be fully "reduced" to nothing but atoms moving in space.

This is all linked to the fallacy of the "material reductionist" explanation of everything. The idea of matter itself is just that - an abstract concept, a mental construct. We infer quarks, electrons, and atoms. We don't directly see them. So to say that these mental constructs exist as ontological entities "out there" in the world, and that their interaction "explains" everything from chemistry to the mind, seems to be a self-referential loop. We could just as well start with idealism and say that all "things" are objects of our consciousness, and so consciousness is the ground of being. I'm not committed to any particular metaphysical framework because I have no certain knowledge of such speculative things, but I do tend toward idealism. But I also think the scientific explanations are of central importance. Especially evolution. So I am mystified by it all. On the one hand, I see consciousness being dependent upon the brain. The larger the brain, the greater the consciousness - ant, mouse, cat, horse, chimp, human. So it looks like consciousness is a function of the brain (matter). But on the other hand, I can't imagine how an object becomes a subject. So from that point of view, it looks like consciousness is independent of matter.

:dizzy:

I've been meditating on this for some time, and I see both sides of the coin. So the solution may be that there is only "Matter/Mind" - two sides of the same coin.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:confused2:
Hey Rose,
You don't think that serpent in the garden had anything to do with those atrocities? Remembering how God told Satan about Job being in his (satan's) domain, seems to me there's been a mixup between the works of God and the works of Satan. :fencing:
The serpent could do nothing if God did not allow it. This is morally indistinguishable from God doing it himself. Isn't that what we see in Job? God explicitly gave Satan freedom to do bad things to Job and so the Bible says that it was God himself who did those things.

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me [God] against him, to destroy him without cause.

It was God who destroyed Job. Satan was just his agent to accomplish the purpose he proposed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Perhaps this one is contingent upon whether or not a contract has been signed, unless of course it is not immoral to break a written agreement. A societal majority could however, agree to modify the intent of written agreements thus rendering them "invalid" should one of the parties agree to terminate the agreement, for whatever reason. In this way a society could continue to advance or degenerate based on the ever evolving description and mutual understanding of morality. How's that for a perfectly democratic, existential, adaptive solution?

John
Hey there John, :yo:

It is not immoral (in an absolute sense) to break a contract because it depends upon the situation. For example, I got involved in Scientology as a teenager and signed a billion year contract (they've got one weird religion, let me tell you!). Would you say it was immoral that I broke that contract?

It's funny that you bring up the evolution of morality. How do you feel about the recent execution of homosexuals in Iran? Do you think it was moral? Do you think it was right and acceptable? If not, why not? Here's a pic from an article titled Iranian executions : utterly immoral and disgusting beyond belief (http://nottoomuch.com/entry/1293/iranian-executions-utterly-immoral-and-disgusting-beyond-belief):

402

Do you agree with the title of that article? Is the execution of homosexuals a moral abomination? If so, what do you feel about this command in the Law of God?

Leviticus 20:13 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

[duxrow]

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me [God] against him, to destroy him without cause.

:aim14:
Reads to me that satan wanted to destroy Job, but God not permitting. We don't know what kind of deal was in the works to allow satan to be here on earth in the first place, but God is a God of His Word, and satan's 'lease' will be running out soon. :cool:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:aim14:
Reads to me that satan wanted to destroy Job, but God not permitting. We don't know what kind of deal was in the works to allow satan to be here on earth in the first place, but God is a God of His Word, and satan's 'lease' will be running out soon. :cool:
Why does it matter what Satan wanted? The text quotes God as explicitly stating the he is the one who destroyed Job.

[Greatest I am]

Richard

Thanks for the membership bump and I am pleased you like that chimp link.
You are right in that we have to watch what terminology we use to describe what is learned of animal minds.
In time, we might have to develop a whole new terminology or nomenclature.

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard

Thanks for the membership bump and I am pleased you like that chimp link.
You are right in that we have to watch what terminology we use to describe what is learned of animal minds.
In time, we might have to develop a whole new terminology or nomenclature.

Regards
DL

You comment about "animal minds" reminds me that animals do indeed have "minds" and that seems to undercut the foundation of Cartesian mind/body dualism which many people take for granted because they assume their phenomenological self-perception is accurate (not unlike the ancients who thought the sun rose and set).

[Greatest I am]

Hello DL
thanks for supplying the link to this video. I shall make a general comment of two from what came from the video.

Jonathan Haidt said that our minds were designed by evolution. Surely that is a misnomer because evolution cannot design. Evolution has no plan.

He says that our evolved minds are blinded to the truth. All I will say is that the acceptance of Evolution is to blind our minds to the truth. Should evolution have blinded my mind to this truth?

Jonathan Haidt uses the example of the Dalai Lama as an example, probably because he is the best living example. The truth is that Jesus the Son of God is the greatest example of someone who has lived. Jesus had the greatest moral authority and in the eyes of God was sinless. I doubt the Dalai Lama can claim that. Jonathan Haidt said the Dalai Lama's his enormous moral authority came from his moral humility. Once again, there is no greater example than the humility of Jesus which manifested itself in all aspects of Jesus' life.

As far as "being outside the box", God is already there. This is why God has shown us the way. It is the way that men and women are struggling by going their own way. If we step out of the moral box built up by men and women, we find God. In finding God, we come to know the moral code that He has given us, it is the moral code that evolution would make us blind to or if we accept that we start off with a blank mind at birth, the moral code is not something men or women will find out easily for themselves. The fact that men and women will do as they want or agree to do as a team is not in accordance with what God wants. The inventions or men and women have made the problem of finding the truth that much more difficult.

At the moment, this forum shows the contributers are in different teams.

All the best,

David

I think that discussions about God are all speculative nonsense and that is why I like to discuss morals more than God's existence that we cannot prove until he stops being absentee.

I do not think much of the morals of your God even as I am not an atheist. I call myself a Gnostic Christian.
I also find that much of what the writers put in archetypal Jesus' mouth is unworkable rhetoric. We can perhaps get into some of that later if you like. Things like the morality of his murdering A & E and even having his own son needlessly murdered.

For the moment though, do you agree with Jonathan Haidt on the 5 principles of morality and the sequence he has placed them in?

They disagree with your God's commandment sequence if we view the big 10 as his idea of sequential importance.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

:confused2:
Hey Rose,
You don't think that serpent in the garden had anything to do with those atrocities? Remembering how God told Satan about Job being in his (satan's) domain, seems to me there's been a mixup between the works of God and the works of Satan. :fencing:

Hmm. Scriptures do not agree with you.

Nehemiah 13:18
Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?

Jeremiah 19:15
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it,

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

As to the story of Job. God initiated that immoral bet and is thus culpable for all the evil that Satan did. Right?

Regards
DL

[jce]

Hey there John, :yo:

It is not immoral (in an absolute sense) to break a contract because it depends upon the situation. For example, I got involved in Scientology as a teenager and signed a billion year contract (they've got one weird religion, let me tell you!). Would you say it was immoral that I broke that contract?

Did you agree to the terms? If so, what is your obligation? Is your word on paper the same as your spoken word to agree to something?
Was it a commitment on your part? Did you violate the terms you agreed to?


It's funny that you bring up the evolution of morality. How do you feel about the recent execution of homosexuals in Iran? Do you think it was moral? Do you think it was right and acceptable? If not, why not? Here's a pic from an article titled Iranian executions : utterly immoral and disgusting beyond belief (http://nottoomuch.com/entry/1293/iranian-executions-utterly-immoral-and-disgusting-beyond-belief):

What would Jesus do?


Do you agree with the title of that article? Is the execution of homosexuals a moral abomination? If so, what do you feel about this command in the Law of God?

Leviticus 20:13 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Do you believe that the OT Laws still apply? Do you believe that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God? Do you believe in repentance from sinful behavior? Do you believe it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?

For by Grace are we saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. We are all sinners Richard, you know this as well as anyone. You were once living your life in darkness, and then, the eyes of your understanding were opened and you recognized your state before a holy and just Creator. You can never go back. Once born again, you have that new life within you. For that reason we have the scriptural phrases reciting the words; "twice dead" and "second death".

As always, God's best to you Richard.

John

[Greatest I am]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.


Very nice and not just because I have had similar thoughts.
A darn good way to kill the notion that morality comes from God.
After all, he is just one and was alone for God knows how long before developing all the need that he is said to have and a bitch of a temper if we do not produce and fill those needs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Hi David,

The one huge flaw I see in your statement of Jesus being "the greatest example of a human and the greatest moral authority" is the fact that nowhere in all his teachings does he ever condemn all the moral atrocities contained in the Old Testament that were ordered by his father, Yahweh. How could greatness, or morality be attributed to anyone who condones by silence the murder of babies and the rape of women? Keeping that in mind the Dali Lama is a far greater example of a human life than Jesus.

All the best,
Rose

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmm. Jesus having to learn to obey would mean that he disobeyed at some point in time. Tsk tsk.

I hear David saying -----Out of context.
I hear that a lot.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You comment about "animal minds" reminds me that animals do indeed have "minds" and that seems to undercut the foundation of Cartesian mind/body dualism which many people take for granted because they assume their phenomenological self-perception is accurate (not unlike the ancients who thought the sun rose and set).

Ouch. You just hurt my French and Franglais mind with that word.
I started reading phenomenolog-------then passed out from lack of air. :winking0071::lol:
I surprised myself by knowing what it meant though.:D

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Did you agree to the terms? If so, what is your obligation? Is your word on paper the same as your spoken word to agree to something?
Was it a commitment on your part? Did you violate the terms you agreed to?



What would Jesus do?



Do you believe that the OT Laws still apply? Do you believe that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God? Do you believe in repentance from sinful behavior? Do you believe it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?

For by Grace are we saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. We are all sinners Richard, you know this as well as anyone. You were once living your life in darkness, and then, the eyes of your understanding were opened and you recognized your state before a holy and just Creator. You can never go back. Once born again, you have that new life within you. For that reason we have the scriptural phrases reciting the words; "twice dead" and "second death".

As always, God's best to you Richard.

John

Please allow a hit and run.

You say we are all sinners yet I just saw a quote where God says Job was perfect. That would be sinless in my book. What about yours?

As to Gays. Scripture says an eye for an eye. Not a life for a piece of ass.
If an eye for an eye is correct or close to God's justice then I want to see God doing more than his usual.

[Inappropriate image deleted by moderator]

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Did you agree to the terms? If so, what is your obligation? Is your word on paper the same as your spoken word to agree to something?
Was it a commitment on your part? Did you violate the terms you agreed to?

I couldn't recall the exact terms (I was a confused teenager at the time I signed it) so I Googled it and found this which fits well with my recollection:

403

No one who signed the "contract" can be held to it because it has a clause that begins "Being of sound mind" - :hysterical:

Anyone who signed it was obviously NOT of "sound mind" and so cannot be held responsible for signing it. :lmbo:

And there really was no "commitment" other than to abide by the rules of the group "for the next billion years."



What would Jesus do?

That's the problem! He didn't say a word against the moral abominations attributed to the god he called his "father." The contrast is so great that Marcion tossed out the OT altogether and most of the NT. But if you do that, then Christianity crumbles, so Marcion was rejected as a heretic. So now folks just try to rationalize that the people in the OT times were so bad that they deserved to be murdered, raped, and enslaved. It's one of the great ironies to listen to Christians assert that there would be no "moral absolutes" without God even as they deny that infanticide, genocide, and slavery are "immoral" (because God commanded such things). You really should watch the debate between Hector Avalos and Keith Darrel called Is the Bible a Moral Code for Today? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today) (click the link for the thread where it is being discussed).



Do you believe that the OT Laws still apply? Do you believe that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God? Do you believe in repentance from sinful behavior? Do you believe it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?

When I was a Christian, I believed the OT laws were given to Israel alone and were not intended for Christians except as types and examples (1 Cor 10:11). They did not apply to Christians or Gentiles because the Gentiles have not the law (Rom 2:14) and love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:10).

Yes, all have sinned if we mean done bad things, but I don't use that term anymore. I never think of people as "sinners."

As for the "glory of God" - what does that mean? What do you think of when you read the word "glory?" Most people think of a big bright ball of light or something like that. The term is not well-defined as far as I know.

I do believe in repentance - you bet! And I like the Greek word for it - metanoia - a change of mind. That's what happened to me. I repented of my errors regarding Christianity and now am free from dogma. Indeed, when I woke this morning I realized that I no longer think "superstitiously." It was a sudden realization. For over two decades I have lived with the feeling that everything that happened was directed by God. So if I got a flat tire, it meant that I wasn't praying enough. If something good happened, God was telling me that I was doing well. This kind of "magical thinking" saturated my mind. And this morning I suddenly realized it has evaporated. I don't think that way anymore. It just sort of faded away after I began freeing myself from dogma over the last couple years.

You asked "it is possible to live a life without ever committing another sinful act?" As noted above, I don't use the word "sinful." It carries religious connotations rich with implicit dogmas. But no, I don't think it is possible to be perfect and to never do anything wrong. And that's fine! The concept of perfection is flawed. There is nothing perfect in this world, least of all humans. But I do think that the Christian doctrine that we are intrinsically sinful and that we constantly sin "in word, deed, and thought" is absurd. And I thought it was absurd when I was a Christian because it destroyed the distinction between good and bad. That's the problem I've always had with excessive piety that says any good I do is because of God whereas any evil I do is all my fault.



For by Grace are we saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. We are all sinners Richard, you know this as well as anyone. You were once living your life in darkness, and then, the eyes of your understanding were opened and you recognized your state before a holy and just Creator. You can never go back. Once born again, you have that new life within you. For that reason we have the scriptural phrases reciting the words; "twice dead" and "second death".

As always, God's best to you Richard.

John
Thanks for the good words John. I have absolutely no fear or worries of any kind about my rejection of Christianity because I know in my heart that God wouldn't care if I believed dogmas taught in the Bible. And besides, everyone is so confused about everything in the Bible that it is impossible to think that God would care what intellectual proposition I finally picked from that mass of confusion as "true."

Are you a Calvinist? If so, you are correct that nothing I do could get me unsaved if I've been saved. But there's a dark side to that doctrine since it also says there's nothing an unsaved person can do to get saved. It is total fatalism.

In any case, I really enjoy our conversations. I hope you continue to contribute.

Richard

[David M]

Hello Rose and DL

since I am being responded to in both your posts I will make my reply to you both.



Originally Posted by Rose
Hi David,

The one huge flaw I see in your statement of Jesus being "the greatest example of a human and the greatest moral authority" is the fact that nowhere in all his teachings does he ever condemn all the moral atrocities contained in the Old Testament that were ordered by his father, Yahweh. How could greatness, or morality be attributed to anyone who condones by silence the murder of babies and the rape of women? Keeping that in mind the Dali Lama is a far greater example of a human life than Jesus.

All the best,
RoseMark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmm. Jesus having to learn to obey would mean that he disobeyed at some point in time. Tsk tsk.

I hear David saying -----Out of context.
I hear that a lot.

Regards
DL

Thanks DL for citing the verses in Mark and Hebrews. When Jesus said he was not good, he was humble enough to know he was not equal to his Heavenly Father, hence my thread on 'Jesus is not God'. Jesus also knew that in this body of flesh and blood, he was tempted to sin though he did not succumb to the temptation. Jesus would know of the incorruptible body that he would be given after his death and resurrection. Hence Jesus was made perfect being given an incorruptible body. The fact that he remained sinless and overcame the 'devil in the flesh' meant that victory in him made him perfect also.

As it was in the life of Jesus, he remained sinless and in terms of doing his Father's will, he was perfect. You wrongly conclude that Jesus disobeyed at some time, you have no evidence to support that and God does not lie or fudge the matter so Jesus was perfect in doing his Father's will. Haven't you learned not to do something and have not done it , or have you done everything you have been advised not to do? Jesus learned from his Heavenly Father, it is a pity if we do not learn the lessons Jesus learned.


Hello Rose
I have explained that it was not necessary for Jesus to make the condemnation of God that you want to do often and repeatedly. All you are doing by way of reply is to say the same old thing.

All the best to you both,


David

[David M]

Good morning David, :tea:

Your comments miss the meat of the video. What do you think about the five moral foundations Haidt listed?


Harm/Care
Fairness/Reciprocity
In-Group Loyalty
Authority/Respect
Purity/Sanctity

What do you think of his research that showed how liberals and conservatives rank the importance of those five categories? Did you see yourself in the research results? I know I did.


Great chatting,

Richard

Good morning Richard

There was a lot of good comments that the speaker made and though I picked up on the points you make in your reply, I was not intending to comment on the whole of his talk, just the points I wanted to make. The graphs he presented looked interesting and I have no objection to that type of information. The results have no relevancy to me though I appreciate they might have to you. That is our different perspective on these matters. I do not have to put myself in either of the two groups presented.

As to all your other questions you raised in your reply, I do not propose to continue this discussion on the video presented. Overall, it was a good video and I learned something from it.

Once again, it is interesting to read your reply and thank you for that. Others are free to answer any remaining questions I have not answered.

Regards
David

[David M]

I couldn't recall the exact terms (I was a confused teenager at the time I signed it) so I Googled it and found this which fits well with my recollection:

403

No one who signed the "contract" can be held to it because it has a clause that begins "Being of sound mind" - :hysterical:

Anyone who signed it was obviously NOT of "sound mind" and so cannot be held responsible for signing it. :lmbo:

And there really was no "commitment" other than to abide by the rules of the group "for the next billion years."


Richard


Good morning Richard


That sounds like CATCH 22

No court would rule that is a contract anyone could be held to.


David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard


That sounds like CATCH 22

No court would rule that is a contract anyone could be held to.


David
You got that right David. There really wasn't anything in the contract other than a promise of intent to remain a member of the group "for a billion years." It shows how over the top Ron Hubbard could be with the crap he invented. The amazing thing is that anyone would ever believe it. My only excuse is that I was a troubled teenager at the time with no parents. I grew up with my father after he and my mother divorced when I was a baby, and he committed suicide when I was 14 so I had a lot of "issues" that made me vulnerable to a cult like Scientology that promised super-powers to it's members.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmm. Jesus having to learn to obey would mean that he disobeyed at some point in time. Tsk tsk.

I hear David saying -----Out of context.
I hear that a lot.

Regards
DL
Mark 10:18 has always presented a challenge to those who hold that Jesus was God. The standard explanation is that Jesus was answering a person who didn't believe or understand his divinity. They suggest he was saying "Why do you call me good if you don't think I'm God, since only God is good?" The text says nothing like that , of course, so only a person committed to conforming Scripture to a preconceived doctrine would believe that explanation.

As for Hebrews 5:8, I hadn't thought of that implication before. A person can't "learn obedience" if they already know how to obey. I would guess that most Christians would say "learn" in this context means "acquire experience in" which does not necessarily imply that there was a time when he was disobedient. And given that the same author says Christ was without sin in the immediate context (Heb 4:15), it seems unlikely that he understood what he wrote in the way you suggest. So David would probably be justified if he said your meaning does not fit the context.