Can you be good without God?

[Davian]

What does the Bible,

Written by men...

God's word,

So you believe.

say?

The Bible is subject to interpretation. Let's hear your version of it.

How is a person pardoned by God, the Judge?

Is it not unethical for a judge to preside over their own interests?

Again: if I slaughter everyone in my neighbourhood, can I still go to "Heaven", in your theology? Yes or no?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You can only determine objective good or bad after the action has taken place. Even then, your "objective" conclusion is different than the person next to you. You have no true objective form of measurement.

That's nonsense. I can tell drinking poison would be objectively bad, prior to drinking the poison. It's also pretty clear killing someone will objectively harm them, before I kill that person.

And my opinion, versus the opinion of someone next to me is irrelevant to objectivity, opinions are subjective. What is objective are the facts of the matter. It is an objective fact that killing someone is generally harmful to them.

You can clearly make determinations like that prior to the actual event occurring. You don't have to look back in hindsight to make a judgment on that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

To molecules, rape is a meaningless thing. Only if there is a God who created you is there right or wrong.

You attest to God's moral law if you call rape immoral.

I am more than simple molecules. That's where your argument fails.

 

[Davian]

Everything is meaningless without God.

This is demonstrably false, as my life has meaning and purpose, and I have never believed in any gods.

It also is a argument from consequences fallacy, in that even if that were true, it would not poof your god into existence.

It also begs the question, have you the right god? Have you the right denomination? I am being told in other threads in these forums that if are not of the right denomination, you are a heretic, and as lost as anyone adhering to the wrong religion, or no religion.

But what I gather from your insistence that "Without God, there is no meaning or purpose", is that, without your God, you would be sad. Would that be accurate?

Do the molecules that bind people together care about rape or lying? Are they concerned if they form cancer cells?

Not that I am aware of. What is your point?

Without God, any attempts at morality are mere illusions you create to define your own parameters.

Or, they are a particular system of values and principles of conduct held by a society, developed from and on bevaiors that are emergent in a social species.

You live in your own matrix.

Ignoring the pejorative tone of your analogy, sure, we all live in this 'matrix', particularly in the absence of evidence for the existence of gods.

 

[Davian]

You can only determine objective good or bad after the action has taken place. Even then, your "objective" conclusion

Why need it be objective?

is different than the person next to you.

I dunno. I suspect the person next to me has similar values, in that they would rather not be hurt, stolen from, or have their home burned down. They needn't be exactly the same as mine.

You have no true objective form of measurement.

I am not aware of any objective form of measurement on the subject of morality. By what testable criteria can you establish this?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's nonsense. I can tell drinking poison would be objectively bad, prior to drinking the poison. It's also pretty clear killing someone will objectively harm them, before I kill that person.

I can think of a number of situations where those would apply but be less black and white. What if you were a general of your country about to be captured by terrorists, and you decided to drink the poison so that they couldn't use you as leverage or get military secrets out of you? What if you are killing someone through euthanasia, who is dying of a painful illness and has no hope of recovery?

And my opinion, versus the opinion of someone next to me is irrelevant to objectivity, opinions are subjective. What is objective are the facts of the matter. It is an objective fact that killing someone is generally harmful to them.

"All generalizations are false, including this one"- Mark Twain. I love that guy's quotes.

You can clearly make determinations like that prior to the actual event occurring. You don't have to look back in hindsight to make a judgment on that.

The world's not usually very black and white when it comes to "right" or "wrong". The vast majority of things people do are morally neutral, like choosing a sandwich over a bagel. Furthermore, the consequences of our actions are not always apparent when we make decisions. If I unknowingly caused a fatal car accident by delaying my mother from leaving the house to show her a funny video, would that make showing her the video immoral?

 

[Davian]

To molecules, rape is a meaningless thing. Only if there is a God who created you is there right or wrong.

You attest to God's moral law if you call rape immoral.

If I rape someone, can I still get to "Heaven", in your theology? Or is it rape wrong?

 

[Davian]

You refuse to acknowledge that you are nothing more than molecules bonded together. What meaning is there in your existence, other than to have the molecular bond dissolve in just a short time from now?
You are displaying a God-given grasp of morality in this conversation.
Either acknowledge your Creator or admit you are meaningless.

What creator?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I can think of a number of situations where those would apply but be less black and white. What if you were a general of your country about to be captured by terrorists, and you decided to drink the poison so that they couldn't use you as leverage or get military secrets out of you? What if you are killing someone through euthanasia, who is dying of a painful illness and has no hope of recovery?


"All generalizations are false, including this one"- Mark Twain. I love that guy's quotes.


The world's not usually very black and white when it comes to "right" or "wrong". The vast majority of things people do are morally neutral, like choosing a sandwich over a bagel. Furthermore, the consequences of our actions are not always apparent when we make decisions. If I unknowingly caused a fatal car accident by delaying my mother from leaving the house to show her a funny video, would that make showing her the video immoral?

Are you really trying to argue the fact that drinking poison is hazardous to your health?

Even in the instances where you're committing suicide to avoid being captured, or being euthanized, etc, the poison is still harmful to you as a person.

You may have reasons why other factors mitigate the harm, however the harm is still a real, objective thing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because of our fallen nature, we're incapable of being good with or without God. God saves us in spite of our sinfulness. He doesn't make us sinless. It's a concept within Christianity called "simul justus et peccator". We will be one day, but are not yet.

To a person that doesn't believe the bible is true, that argument holds no weight. The subjective view of "goodness" in the bible makes thinking about having sex with someone that isn't your spouse the same as adultery. However, is it not more an expression of goodness to refrain from giving in to such desires, rather than just not having them? You also act as if being completely incapable of evil is superior to being capable of both good and evil. The reality is, the former is far more limited in terms of expression.

 

[Davian]

God has never given approval of rape.

Is it wrong? Can I still go to Heaven if I commit such acts?

God does let sinners sin, which is what those verses reveal. He is not obligated to act immediately upon our lawbreaking.

When do you think this will happen? Next week?

If He did, we would all be in Hell at this moment and not conversing. Take that as an act of mercy on your behalf and repent before it's too late.

Belief is not a conscious choice. I cannot simply choose to believe in the absence of compelling evidence. Lay off the scare tactics unless you have something of substance to offer.

 

[Davian]

If God has spoken, He cannot be wrong.
I, like you, can be wrong. But, God is always right. When I quote God's word, He is right. When you go against God's word, you are wrong.

Sounds like you

• Davian
• Nov 4, 2014

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you really trying to argue the fact that drinking poison is hazardous to your health?

Even in the instances where you're committing suicide to avoid being captured, or being euthanized, etc, the poison is still harmful to you as a person.

You may have reasons why other factors mitigate the harm, however the harm is still a real, objective thing.

Biological harm, yes. Psychological harm, not necessarily. I view the later as more detrimental than the former; I'd rather be dead than insane, for example. Thus, if I am ever diagnosed with Alzheimer's or some other neurodegenerative condition, I am going to get my things in order, and then put a bullet in my brain. So, is keeping someone alive who is in constant pain and doomed to die within a year less harmful than having their life peacefully ended on their terms? People are a bit conflicted on that one, because the answer to that question isn't really clear, although I framed it to show my personal bias.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God has never given approval of rape.

Yes, YHWH has. If a man rapes an unwed virgin, she has to marry him after he pays her father a fee. And that's when applied to a fellow believer. That makes the punishment for rape lesser to that of a woman accidentally grabbing another man's private parts while attempting to stop a brawl between her husband and said other man. In case you didn't know, the explicit punishment was for that woman's hand to be cut off, and to not show her any mercy. The "punishment" for a man raping a virgin woman is having to marry her, and given the fact that Hebrew men often paid for their wives anyways, the fee can be disregarded as a punishment. It isn't even particularly high.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Biological harm, yes. Psychological harm, not necessarily. I view the later as more detrimental than the former; I'd rather be dead than insane, for example. Thus, if I am ever diagnosed with Alzheimer's or some other neurodegenerative condition, I am going to get my things in order, and then put a bullet in my brain. So, is keeping someone alive who is in constant pain and doomed to die within a year less harmful than having their life peacefully ended on their terms? People are a bit conflicted on that one, because the answer to that question isn't really clear, although I framed it to show my personal bias.

Right, however I'm talking about biological harm in this example. I chose something fairly black and white so he wouldn't start throwing out random hypotheticals to distract from the point I was making.

It's pretty easy to defend that it's objectively harmful to your health to drink poison. That's true, even if my opinion is that the vial of poison won't hurt me one bit.

I was showing that we can make objective observations, which tied in to the moral argument we were having.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is God who gives you the understanding that rape is wrong. His moral law is within you, even if you refuse to acknowledge him in your life.

YHWH condones slavery, so long as the slaves aren't fellow believers. There's so many rules for it in both the OT and the NT, with even Jesus quoted as telling slaves to obey their masters. Does your inner moral compass agree with that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, however I'm talking about biological harm in this example. I chose something fairly black and white so he wouldn't start throwing out random hypotheticals to distract from the point I was making.

It's pretty easy to defend that it's objectively harmful to your health to drink poison. That's true, even if my opinion is that the vial of poison won't hurt me one bit.

I was showing that we can make objective observations, which tied in to the moral argument we were having.

I agree, to some extent. Most of the time, however, the issue at hand isn't simplistic enough to do that.

 

[Achilles6129]

If I rape someone, can I still get to "Heaven", in your theology? Or is it rape wrong?

Does God say you can get into heaven?

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes, YHWH has. If a man rapes an unwed virgin, she has to marry him after he pays her father a fee. And that's when applied to a fellow believer. That makes the punishment for rape lesser to that of a woman accidentally grabbing another man's private parts while attempting to stop a brawl between her husband and said other man. In case you didn't know, the explicit punishment was for that woman's hand to be cut off, and to not show her any mercy. The "punishment" for a man raping a virgin woman is having to marry her, and given the fact that Hebrew men often paid for their wives anyways, the fee can be disregarded as a punishment. It isn't even particularly high.

That's a terrible mistranslation and misrepresentation of the passage.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Does God say you can get into heaven?

In the bible, yes. The punishment for rape isn't even death, as long as the victim isn't married. And the victim is punished too if they don't scream.

Furthermore, "all sins are equal in the eyes of the lord, as a lie is as condemnable as a murder". Unless you think telling a single lie is a sentence to hell for a believer, you have to acknowledge that murderers can go to heaven.