Are the Ten Commandments moral laws?

[gadar perets]

In other words, moral behaviour is not dependend on wheter or not this God "commanded" it, but rather on something else.

What is that something else?

When it concerns a command from Him, moral behavior is dependent upon obedience.

"Something else" would be a situation that is not addressed in any command.

Everything our Creator commands is moral because He is telling us what HE considers right or wrong behavior. Our Creator is the author of morality.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

In other words, since our Creator has no immorality in Him, everything He is and does is moral (right behavior). Therefore, no command can be immoral.

So, when this God decides if X is moral or not, what does he base that on?

His inherent morality.

Deuteronomy 32:3-4 Because I will publish the name of YHWH: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.

Psalm 145:17 YHWH is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works.​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When it concerns a command from Him, moral behavior is dependent upon obedience.

FYI: morality that comes down to mere obedience, is a defining characteristic of psychopathy. Just saying.

"Something else" would be a situation that is not addressed in any command.

As I asked.... What is that "something else"? How does it work?

In other words, since our Creator has no immorality in Him,

How do you know?

His inherent morality.

So.... "x is moral because he says it is"?

So, if I ask you to explain why murder is immoral, your answer is "because god says it is"?

 

[gadar perets]

FYI: morality that comes down to mere obedience, is a defining characteristic of psychopathy. Just saying.

I never said our morality is based on mere obedience. Our obedience is a fruit of our salvation and stems from love for our Creator and our fellow man. However, when we do obey our Creator, we are doing something moral, an act of morality.

As I asked.... What is that "something else"? How does it work?

Scripture does not address automobiles. If I run a red light or a stop sign on purpose, that would be an immoral act even though our Creator did not command us to stop at red lights or stop signs. However, He has told us to not harm others. So to endanger another is an immoral act.

How do you know?

We know there is no immorality in Him because the Scriptures tell us He is perfect. Immorality is a flaw.

So.... "x is moral because he says it is"?

Not because He says it is (the word "moral" is not found in the Bible), but because "x" originates from within a perfect being in whom is no immorality, no sin, no unrighteousness.

So, if I ask you to explain why murder is immoral, your answer is "because god says it is"?

No. Our Creator never used the word "immoral" either". If we base our understanding of morality on the definition in post #1 (of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior), then murder is wrong behavior since our Creator told us not to do it and therefore, it would be an immoral thing to do. To preserve life would be right behavior and therefore, a moral thing to do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said our morality is based on mere obedience.

Actually, that is exactly what you said: When it concerns a command from Him, moral behavior is dependent upon obedience

However, when we do obey our Creator, we are doing something moral, an act of morality.[/qutoe]

How is it moral?

Scripture does not address automobiles. If I run a red light or a stop sign on purpose, that would be an immoral act

Would it? I'ld say that we'ld require a bit more context before we can make such a judgement.

For example, maybe you are in need of rushing somewhere for some justified reason which would make stopping for the red light actually and act of immorality.

It's not hard to come up with such scenario's.

even though our Creator did not command us to stop at red lights or stop signs. However, He has told us to not harm others. So to endanger another is an immoral act.

Is it an immoral act, because your god said it is, or is it rather an immoral act for some other reason, regardless what your god said about it.

Again, if you are asked the question Why is endangering other people immoral? is your BEST answer then "cause god said it"? Does that actually explain why it is immoral, in your opinion?

We know there is no immorality in Him because the Scriptures tell us He is perfect. Immorality is a flaw.

I'm asking you how you know that that claim is true. I didn't ask you where you pulled the claim from.

Not because He says it is (the word "moral" is not found in the Bible), but because "x" originates from within a perfect being in whom is no immorality, no sin, no unrighteousness.

I fail to see how that is different from "because he says it is"....

No. Our Creator never used the word "immoral" either". If we base our understanding of morality on the definition in post #1 (of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior)

This definition only defines what is being meant by "morality". It doesn't even begin to address how to arrive at moral judgements. That's what I'm asking about.

How do you determine if action x is a moral or immoral action? So far, it seems as if you are saying that we require an authority to tell us those things and that we can't reason our way to such judgements. Is that correct?

, then murder is wrong behavior since our Creator told us not to do it

See? Exactly as I said above....
Your moral compass seems to be completely based on "cause god said it".
So what you have is not really a moral compass or standard. What you actually is just mere obedience to a perceived authority.

If this authority would command you to go rape and pillage, then such action would be your moral duty (in your opinion). Correct?

To preserve life would be right behavior and therefore, a moral thing to do.

Why? Because your perceived authority said so? Or is there some other, better, reason?

 

[gadar perets]

Let's just cut to the chase TM. What I perceive you, as an atheist, trying to show is that morality is not based on what our Creator says is right or wrong, but on some other thing. Since you do not believe there is a Creator, you have no choice but to believe morality is founded upon something else. I'm not sure what you believe morality is. Perhaps you will define it for me and tell me what it is founded upon.

If you believe there is something inside of each person that is their moral compass, then everyone's moral compass will differ. If your moral compass says murder is wrong and immoral, your atheist neighbor may believe it is acceptable under certain circumstances. He may decide it is morally acceptable to put a bullet through your head so he can steal your stuff from you and sell it to pay for his wife's upcoming surgery. Such subjective morality would end in worldwide chaos. As it is, man's laws do much to stem the tide of mass chaos, but man's laws are only necessary when our Creator's laws are discarded or worse, when our Creator Himself is discarded.

 

[1John2:4]

That's great; but the question was about morality, not asking what you believed. Atheists don't believe in most gods, doesn't mean they don't get a guilty conscience when they hurt others. Morality goes beyond things written down on paper or stone; it comes from a working heart that has love in it. There's a reason atheists don't get a guilty conscience from working on Saturday, but do when they hurt others. The reason is called "written on the heart"

Who defines morality, Is it man or is it God?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Who defines morality, Is it man or is it God?

The conscience. Look, if you're wanting me to believe that a ritual ordinance is a "moral law" then you may as well pass over me and move on to the next person. Though I'm confident no one on the face of the earth is going to buy what you're selling. There's a reason the only people claiming ritual ordinances are "moral" have the faith tag "Messianic"

 

[gadar perets]

The conscience. Look, if you're wanting me to believe that a ritual ordinance is a "moral law" then you may as well pass over me and move on to the next person. Though I'm confident no one on the face of the earth is going to buy what you're selling. There's a reason the only people claiming ritual ordinances are "moral" have the faith tag "Messianic"

You classify the Sabbath as a "ritual ordinance". The Almighty classifies it as one of His "Ten Commandments". Please show us where the Sabbath is said to be a ritual.

 

[1John2:4]

The conscience. Look, if you're wanting me to believe that a ritual ordinance is a "moral law" then you may as well pass over me and move on to the next person. Though I'm confident no one on the face of the earth is going to buy what you're selling. There's a reason the only people claiming ritual ordinances are "moral" have the faith tag "Messianic"

The conscience. Look, if you're wanting me to believe that a ritual ordinance is a "moral law" then you may as well pass over me and move on to the next person. Though I'm confident no one on the face of the earth is going to buy what you're selling. There's a reason the only people claiming ritual ordinances are "moral" have the faith tag "Messianic"

Where in the Bible does God devide the law into categories such as moral, cerimonial and cival? This is a doctrine made up by man to try and justify sin. It's very simple the definition of sin is transgression of Gods law 1 John 3:4. Not parts of His law or only the ones that conflict with The Macy's One Day Sale. Why is His Sabbath not concitered part of the moral law box according your your understanding?

 

[1John2:4]

There's a reason the only people claiming ritual ordinances are "moral" have the faith tag "Messianic"

BTW play nice when you are in the sandbox, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's just cut to the chase TM. What I perceive you, as an atheist, trying to show is that morality is not based on what our Creator says is right or wrong, but on some other thing.

You prerceived correctly. And not just what "the creator" says, but what anyone says.

Sure, I can imagine an entity with "all knowledge" who's so awesome that he is never mistaken. So such an entity would perfectly be capable of discerning what is right from what is wrong. But the things that are right or wrong, aren't right or wrong because that entity says so.

In other words, when you aks the question "why is X immoral?", the correct answer can not be "because Y says so".

There is an actual reason for why X is immoral or not.

Since you do not believe there is a Creator, you have no choice but to believe morality is founded upon something else.

No. As I explained above, even if I would assume the existance of such an entity, it would not change anything.

I'm not sure what you believe morality is. Perhaps you will define it for me and tell me what it is founded upon.

Entire books could be written about that (and are written about that). So whatever explanation I say here is bound to be incomplete and extremely generalised. So keep that in mind.

But at bottom, in the most simplistic fashion, I think Sam Harris said it best in his book The Moral Landscape:

Good: that which is beneficial to the well-being of all sentient creatures.
Bad: that which is detrimental to the well-being of all sentient creatures.

The "best possible" world, is that world where no sentient creature suffers and where the well-being of those creatures is maximised.
The "worst possible" world, is that world where all sentient creatures' suffering is maximised.

Those actions and decisions that get us closer to the "best possible world", is what is moral behaviour.

Immoral behaviour would be those actions and decisions that get us closer to the "worst possible world".

And if you are going to disagree with those 2 premises (of what "right" and "wrong" means), then I have no idea what you mean when you speak about "morality".

If you believe there is something inside of each person that is their moral compass,

And there is. It's called empathy and social responsability.
People who lack this trait, are usually diagnosed as psychopaths or sociopaths.
In other words, we recognise that empathy and a sense of social responsability is the norm. It is not surprising that this is so, given that we are a social species that depends on efficient cooperation with the other members of the group.

then everyone's moral compass will differ

Not in radical ways though.
Mostly all humans agree on a core set of values.
It is not surprising, for example, that things like "the golden rule" have shown up in as good as all civilisations, independently from one another.

If your moral compass says murder is wrong and immoral, your atheist neighbor may believe it is acceptable under certain circumstances.

Seeing as how the word "murder" is defined as the "unlawfull/unjustified killing" of a human being, that would be a contradiction in terms.

Having said that, pointing at lunatics, psychopaths and sociopaths doesn't really qualify as an argument against secular morality.

Especially not considering that under "divine command theory", not only is it not immoral to slaughter innocents when the perceived authority is believed to command it, it actually becomes a moral duty.

So, sorry, but you don't get to come on here making such statements, when your "moral compass" is so morally bankrupt that it translates into nothing but mere unquestioned obedience. "befehl ist befehl".

He may decide it is morally acceptable to put a bullet through your head so he can steal your stuff from you and sell it to pay for his wife's upcoming surgery.

And he'd be wrong.

Such subjective morality would end in worldwide chaos.

Really? Then why is the chaos today only present in those countries that are theocracies and not in secular nations?

Take a look at the statistics of the US, the most religious of the western nations, with the rest of the western world.

Statistics regarding rape, murder, crime,... It's through the roof in the US as compared to the rest of the secular western world. Yet, it holds the most religious people of that same western world.

It seems like the facts of reality disagree with your claims.

As it is, man's laws do much to stem the tide of mass chaos, but man's laws are only necessary when our Creator's laws are discarded or worse, when our Creator Himself is discarded.

And yet, life is much better overall in secular democracies as opposed to in theocracies. Or even as opposed to in secular democracies with high levels of religiosity.

Again, it seems as if the facts of reality are the opposite of what you are claiming that they would be....

 

[gadar perets]

But at bottom, in the most simplistic fashion, I think Sam Harris said it best in his book The Moral Landscape:

Good: that which is beneficial to the well-being of all sentient creatures.
Bad: that which is detrimental to the well-being of all sentient creatures.

The "best possible" world, is that world where no sentient creature suffers and where the well-being of those creatures is maximised.
The "worst possible" world, is that world where all sentient creatures' suffering is maximised.

Those actions and decisions that get us closer to the "best possible world", is what is moral behaviour.

Immoral behaviour would be those actions and decisions that get us closer to the "worst possible world".

Who decides what is beneficial or detrimental to the well-being of all sentient creatures? Society?
There were societies that believed it was beneficial to sacrifice children to their false god. The Nazis believed it was beneficial for mankind to kill all Jews. Obviously those two societies were incapable of determining what was beneficial for all mankind. Our Creator has set laws in place that make those determinations for us. He has also given certain people His indwelling Holy Spirit to further guide them in making right choices.

And there is. It's called empathy and social responsability.
People who lack this trait, are usually diagnosed as psychopaths or sociopaths.
In other words, we recognise that empathy and a sense of social responsability is the norm.

The Nazis were killing Jews and thinking they were being socially responsible by ridding the world of Jews.

Mostly all humans agree on a core set of values.
It is not surprising, for example, that things like "the golden rule" have shown up in as good as all civilisations, independently from one another.

Those values were passed down from our Creator.

Especially not considering that under "divine command theory", not only is it not immoral to slaughter innocents when the perceived authority is believed to command it, it actually becomes a moral duty.

You bring your Creator into judgment and declare Him guilty of slaughtering "innocents" because you do not know your Creator. Had you known Him, you would know that He is just in all things and that He knows the end from the beginning. He knew those "innocents" would grow up just like their evil parents who sacrifice their children in fire to false gods and did all manner of wickedness. You would also know that your Creator can resurrect anyone from the dead, including those who were unjustly killed, and bless them with eternal life in a glorious world without pain, suffering and death.

Really? Then why is the chaos today only present in those countries that are theocracies and not in secular nations?

Take a look at the statistics of the US, the most religious of the western nations, with the rest of the western world.

Statistics regarding rape, murder, crime,... It's through the roof in the US as compared to the rest of the secular western world. Yet, it holds the most religious people of that same western world.

It seems like the facts of reality disagree with your claims.

According to the chart here, the US ranked 99th in 2010. What are you calling "the secular western world"? Even if your claim is true, it is not the religious people that are causing all the crime in the US, but the secular people. Those who could care less about obeying their Creator and living a holy life.

And yet, life is much better overall in secular democracies as opposed to in theocracies. Or even as opposed to in secular democracies with high levels of religiosity.

Again, it seems as if the facts of reality are the opposite of what you are claiming that they would be....

The US is NOT a theocracy. Your opinion does make your position true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who decides what is beneficial or detrimental to the well-being of all sentient creatures?

Seriously?
Well-being vs suffering is pretty straight forward, I would think.

For example, would cutting off your hand with a blunt axe increase your well-being or increase your suffering?

There were societies that believed it was beneficial to sacrifice children to their false god.

Yes. It seems as if you do not realise how that is an argument against your position.
I think it's pretty safe to say that all those people realised that that would be a rather painfull experience for those children. And all those people most likely would personally prefer to live as long as possible.

Yet, their gods overruled those thoughts.

The Nazis believed it was beneficial for mankind to kill all Jews.

Not so much for the Jews. In case you haven't noticed, they are sentient creatures too....

A rational mind would also say that it isn't so beneficial for Germans either in the long run. Because this comes down to elitism and racism. If you can rationalise a genocide of one group of people, what stops your from rationalizing another? You might be part of the group that is next.

Obviously those two societies were incapable of determining what was beneficial for all mankind.

Indeed. It requires rational reasoning to be able to make such determinations. If you allow your rational mind to be poisened by religion or blind hatred like racism/facism, then you're not going to be making rational choices.

It seems as if you haven't understood a word I said in my previous post.

Our Creator has set laws in place that make those determinations for us.

Actually... people did that and claimed they some divine origins. And you just believe it and blindly follow it.

But let's not kid ourselves.... you don't actually really follow it.
I'll bet that you don't really keep the sabbath. I'll bet even more that you don't drag those who break the sabbath into the streets to stone them to death.

Because you know and understand how ridiculously immoral that is.
You also understand how there are no actual moral implications in doing a job on that day.

He has also given certain people His indwelling Holy Spirit to further guide them in making right choices.

Really? I guess he missed to mark then with all those priests who were/are raping little boys and girls.

The Nazis were killing Jews and thinking they were being socially responsible by ridding the world of Jews.

Do you want me to start listing all the genocides that were carried out, because the aggressors believed that their unquestionable god of choice commanded them to do so?

Those values were passed down from our Creator.

No. This concept shows up all over the world in various forms, independently from one another, long before israelites even existed. Contrary to what a lot of christians seem to believe, the idea of what is called "the golden rule" seriously predates abrahamic religion.

You bring your Creator into judgment and declare Him guilty of slaughtering "innocents" because you do not know your Creator. Had you known Him, you would know that He is just in all things and that He knows the end from the beginning. He knew those "innocents" would grow up just like their evil parents who sacrifice their children in fire to false gods and did all manner of wickedness. You would also know that your Creator can resurrect anyone from the dead, including those who were unjustly killed, and bless them with eternal life in a glorious world without pain, suffering and death.

See, this is exactly what I mean.
You have put yourself in the morally bankrupt position where you actually rationalise genocide, the slaughter of babies and toddlers and the enslavement of women as spoils of war. And all of that, because you happen to believe a bronze age text that says so. This is the same language and "moral compass" that jihadists in Iraq and Syria are using.

You don't get to come on here and question my moral compass and lecture me about moral values, while your own "moral compass" is indistinguishable from the likes of ISIS.

According to the chart here, the US ranked 99th in 2010.

Have you taken a look at the first 98?

What are you calling "the secular western world"?

You don't know? Or do you pretend not to know?
Try Europe, Australia and the US.

Even if your claim is true, it is not the religious people that are causing all the crime in the US, but the secular people.

/facepalm

Then why are non-religious people so overwhelmingly under-represented in American prisons?

Atheists Now Make Up 0.1% of the Federal Prison Population

Note that, as the article states, this correlation does not imply that atheists are more moral as a rule. But it DOES counter the ridiculous, indefensible point that the high crime rate in the US is due to non-religious people.

If you're interested, but I'm guessing you aren't, here's a nice sociology paper about an extensive study of the relations/corrolations between high religiosity, atheism, secularism and crime rates: http://pitweb.pitzer.edu/academics/...8/2014/12/FAC-Zuckerman-Sociology-Compass.pdf

Those who could care less about obeying their Creator and living a holy life.

The actual facts of the world, show the exact opposite.

The US is NOT a theocracy.

I didn't say it was.

 

[Loudmouth]

When it concerns a command from Him, moral behavior is dependent upon obedience.

Nazi officers were obedient. Did that make them moral?

Does obediently following an immoral commandment make you moral?

In other words, since our Creator has no immorality in Him, everything He is and does is moral (right behavior).

How did you determine that God has no immorality in him?

Do you accept the same claim for every other God out there? Do you feel that you should be subject to Sharia law? Do you think it is immoral to break Sharia law?

How does religious freedom fit into this? Is it immoral to be a Hindu?

 

[gadar perets]

Who decides what is beneficial or detrimental to the well-being of all sentient creatures?

Seriously?
Well-being vs suffering is pretty straight forward, I would think.

Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way since some societies believe the suffering of others is justifiable for the sake of their own well-being.

There were societies that believed it was beneficial to sacrifice children to their false god.

Yes. It seems as if you do not realise how that is an argument against your position.
I think it's pretty safe to say that all those people realised that that would be a rather painfull experience for those children. And all those people most likely would personally prefer to live as long as possible.

Yet, their gods overruled those thoughts.

No, their gods did not overrule those thoughts because their gods do NOT exist. It was their own deceived minds and lack of morality that had those thoughts and acted upon them in the name of FALSE religion and FALSE god.

Indeed. It requires rational reasoning to be able to make such determinations. If you allow your rational mind to be poisened by religion or blind hatred like racism/facism, then you're not going to be making rational choices.

You will always find some kind of excuse for rationalizing your view of morality. If it is not religion, it is racism/facism. If it is not racism/facism, it is …

Our Creator has set laws in place that make those determinations for us.

Actually... people did that and claimed they some divine origins. And you just believe it and blindly follow it.[/QUOTE]

And you just disbelieve it and blindly reject it. The fact is, you have blind faith that the claims of the Bible are false and I have the internal assurance through the Holy Spirit that lives in me that it is true.

But let's not kid ourselves.... you don't actually really follow it.
I'll bet that you don't really keep the sabbath. I'll bet even more that you don't drag those who break the sabbath into the streets to stone them to death.

Because you know and understand how ridiculously immoral that is.
You also understand how there are no actual moral implications in doing a job on that day.

You would lose the first bet. I live what I believe. As for the second bet, our Creator, under the New Covenant, has removed the death penalty for sin, Messiah Yeshua having paid the penalty for us. However, there will be consequences come judgment day.

As for the moral implications involved with the Sabbath, it is immoral for me to work on that day because my Creator said it was wrong. It is also immoral for me to cause another person to work and rob them of their blessing of the Sabbath rest.

He has also given certain people His indwelling Holy Spirit to further guide them in making right choices.

Really? I guess he missed to mark then with all those priests who were/are raping little boys and girls.

There are many that profess to be true believers, but are not. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Those values were passed down from our Creator.

No. This concept shows up all over the world in various forms, independently from one another, long before israelites even existed. Contrary to what a lot of christians seem to believe, the idea of what is called "the golden rule" seriously predates abrahamic religion.

That is because our Creator seriously predates Abraham, Israel and any other nation in the world.

You have put yourself in the morally bankrupt position where you actually rationalise genocide, the slaughter of babies and toddlers and the enslavement of women as spoils of war. And all of that, because you happen to believe a bronze age text that says so. This is the same language and "moral compass" that jihadists in Iraq and Syria are using.

And you are in the morally bankrupt position of rejecting the Holy Scriptures which have proven themselves true for millennia and of rejecting the Savior of the world, your only hope.

You don't get to come on here and question my moral compass and lecture me about moral values, while your own "moral compass" is indistinguishable from the likes of ISIS.

ISIS does not live by the Holy Scriptures, nor do they obey their Creator. Also, you are the one that started questioning MY moral compass in post #37.

 

[gadar perets]

Nazi officers were obedient. Did that make them moral?

They were obedient to their human leaders, not to their Creator.

Does obediently following an immoral commandment make you moral?

No. It makes you immoral. Our Creator does not give us immoral commandments. Therefore, all commandments we are expected to obey are moral commands.

How did you determine that God has no immorality in him?

Because He, in the Holy Scriptures which I accept as divinely inspired, said He was perfect. Immorality is a flaw.

Do you accept the same claim for every other God out there? Do you feel that you should be subject to Sharia law? Do you think it is immoral to break Sharia law?

There is no other God but one, Almighty YHWH, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Sharia law is man-made. Therefore, no one need obey it. It would not be immoral for me to break it because I am not under that law. I am subject to my Creator's laws and the laws of the land in which I live, unless those laws conflict with the Creator's laws. Sharia law is in total conflict with our Creators laws as found in the Holy Scriptures.

How does religious freedom fit into this? Is it immoral to be a Hindu?

For me, personally, to be a Hindu is immoral for two primary reasons, 1) Hindus worship false gods (idolatry is immoral) and 2) their religious beliefs conflict with the truth of Scripture.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way since some societies believe the suffering of others is justifiable for the sake of their own well-being.

That would counter the premise I gave you: well-being of all sentient creatures.

No, their gods did not overrule those thoughts because their gods do NOT exist.

They would heavily disagree. So much so, that they were willing to sacrifice their children to these non-existing gods.

It was their own deceived minds and lack of morality that had those thoughts and acted upon them in the name of FALSE religion and FALSE god.

So, you seriously believe that they were just looking for an excuse to kill their children while not really believing these gods exist? Are you actually serious?

You will always find some kind of excuse for rationalizing your view of morality.

You certainly do. You even go so far as to rationalise the slaughter of babies and toddlers and the enslavement of young virgins.

In case you haven't noticed yet: you are consistently accusing me here of having no morals, but you are the one who's defending killing babies and toddlers and plain old genocide.

If it is not religion, it is racism/facism. If it is not racism/facism, it is …

Ow, people will do immoral stuff for lots of reasons. Some even quite consiously, but just don't care for whatever reason.

The problem with things like religion or other dogmatic ideologies, is that it can make otherwise decent people do incredibly evil things, while believing they are acting morally.

And you just disbelieve it and blindly reject it.

What is blindly asserted, can be blindly rejected.

The fact is, you have blind faith that the claims of the Bible are false and I have the internal assurance through the Holy Spirit that lives in me that it is true.

lol

I don't need "faith" to not believe something.
Faith is what you need to accept something as true, without justifiable reason.
Rejecting bare assertions because of the lack of supporting evidence, is the exact opposite of "having faith".

As for the moral implications involved with the Sabbath, it is immoral for me to work on that day because my Creator said it was wrong.

"befehl ist befehl".

That is because our Creator seriously predates Abraham, Israel and any other nation in the world.

It's kind of funny then that he was never heared of before that time.

And you are in the morally bankrupt position of rejecting the Holy Scriptures which have proven themselves true for millennia and of rejecting the Savior of the world, your only hope.

Moral bankrupcy: it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Doesn't it make you pause and think for a second, that the moral compass you are describing is like... one of the symptoms of psychopathy?

A psychopath also requires authorities to tell him what is right or wrong.

ISIS does not live by the Holy Scriptures, nor do they obey their Creator.

They would heavily disagree. So much so, that they would probably put a bullet in your head for even only suggesting it.

Also, you are the one that started questioning MY moral compass in post #37.

Which is indistinguishable from the moral compass of ISIS followers. The point exactly.

When you ask them "is x moral?", they open their book and look for the answer. Just like you.

When you ask me that question, I reflect and reason to a moral judgement, based on the premises mentioned in the previous post and by analysing the implications and consequence of the action X, both short and long term, to the best of my ability.

 

[Soyeong]

Based on Webster's definition of "moral" and the following verse by the Apostle Paul, I would say yes.

Webster's definition of moral

1. 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.​

If you agree they are moral laws, would it be immoral to break them? Again, I would say yes.

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and it is immoral to break any of them. In Romans 7:12, it does not specify that it is talking about just the Ten Commandments.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that if followed they help lead to a form of "dynamic equilibrium" or a pattern of society, an ordered chaos.