Can there be morality without God?

[Autumnleaf]

Even granting your god's existence, and the assertion that he has made moral decrees, and the assertion that the Bible accurately represents his moral decrees, your holy book has this same god character breaking this decree all the time, and explicitly commanding people to break it. So no, far from being 'cut and dried', it's entirely subject to his whims.

Yes it is. Subject to His will. I guess rank has its perks.

His will seems less bloody than the alternatives. Add up the body count and let me know if I'm wrong.

'Oh no Al. You are not wrong. It just really cheeses me off that God seemingly breaks His own rules.'

Yeah well, maybe He's more human than some people think.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God did instruct Israel to kill their enemies, but such killing wasn't murder, and thus didn't violate the commandment.

The commandment not to kill (murder specifically) is part of the letter of the Law, "which killeth." It's moral component is in it's antithesis, which is the spirit of the law. Christians intrinsically follow the spirit of the law, but seldom express it, such is it's spiritual nature.

How is it not murder?

Do you honestly think Israel's enemies wrote laws that exempted foreign invaders? If you travel to another land and kill some people...is that not murder under their laws?

If some foreign invaders showed up on your doorstep and killed your family, is that not murder?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How is it not murder?

Do you honestly think Israel's enemies wrote laws that exempted foreign invaders? If you travel to another land and kill some people...is that not murder under their laws?

If some foreign invaders showed up on your doorstep and killed your family, is that not murder?

We call that collateral damage.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We call that collateral damage.

When it happens to someone else...when it happens to you or yours, it's murder.

What happened to the "spirit of the law"? Seems to me murder by any other name is still murder.

 

[Autumnleaf]

How is it not murder?

Do you honestly think Israel's enemies wrote laws that exempted foreign invaders? If you travel to another land and kill some people...is that not murder under their laws?

If some foreign invaders showed up on your doorstep and killed your family, is that not murder?

It was war with God leading the army. By definition they were right. It is also ancient history. Only Crom knows how it really went down.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5K3AKl5qpc

What we do know is recent history. Recent history is not rife with God leading armies. It is full of secular humanists starving millions around the world.

 

[quatona]

God's morality would be, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

Man's morality would be that killing people is wrong unless it is done in the interest of the greater good of society. ie War, abortion or whatever other LEGAL reason it is justified by.

One is cut and dried and the other is capricious.

What about killing moskitos?

 

[Golden Yak]

Theists - God's morality says Thou Shalt Not Kill! Flat out! It's much better than man's morality, which would try to justify killing as being part of some greater good!

Atheists - What about all the poor suckers God kills?

Theists - That was justified killing, it was for the greater good.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When it happens to someone else...when it happens to you or yours, it's murder.

What happened to the "spirit of the law"? Seems to me murder by any other name is still murder.

The spirit of the law supercedes the letter of the law and is revealed to the new covenant church by the Holy Spirit. The church is not a secular governing body and isn't responsible for the bloodbath that goes on in society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was war with God leading the army. By definition they were right. It is also ancient history. Only Crom knows how it really went down.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5K3AKl5qpc

What we do know is recent history. Recent history is not rife with God leading armies. It is full of secular humanists starving millions around the world.

Lol we know quite a bit more of history than just recent history.

I'd like to know what you mean by, "by definition they were right."? You mean by god's definition?

Also, this is now hilarious..."Man's morality would be that killing people is wrong unless it is done in the interest of the greater good of society. ie War, abortion or whatever other LEGAL reason it is justified by."

Of course, god doesn't need a justification... because when he goes around killing, its automatically "right". Why, you ask? Duh...because god says so...

 

[Ana the Ist]

The spirit of the law supercedes the letter of the law and is a function of the Holy Spirit working in the new covenant church. The church is not a secular governing body and isn't responsible for the bloodbath that goes on in society.

That's exactly my point. By the spirit of the law, if you go to someone's home and kill them, it's murder.

So either god's a murderer...or he changes the rules so he can murder.

God's morality doesn't seem all that different from man's.

 

[Strathos]

Please educate yourself on this extremely basic logical fallacy,

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

It would only be a fallacy if I was saying that I was right because many people agreed with me. I was just pointing out that it wasn't just "according to me" like the poster I quoted said.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You disarm them and incapacitate them until the constable can take them into custody.

Gotcha...now I get it...

You're unable to tell real life apart from movies.

 

[Inkfingers]

Well the problem with "cut and dry" would be....what if someone is trying to kill me? What if I can't get away? Should I just let them kill me since god doesn't want me to kill?

In the words of a Buddhist based TV programme...

Avoid, rather than check.
Check, rather than hurt.
Hurt, rather than maim.
Maim, rather than kill.

It is good advice, even if from "the movies".

Small point of order: it's "thou shall not murder" not "thou shall not kill" (yes, I know it wasn't you saying otherwise).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was just pointing out that it wasn't just "according to me" like the poster I quoted said.

Then are you retracting your statement from post #43? It was:

According to you...

Why would you say this if multitudes of other people might agree with me? Do you think that I am the only person in the world who holds that view? Why is it just according to me, but not according to you? Don't you see a double-standard here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Man's morality would be that killing people is wrong unless it is done in the interest of the greater good of society.

I'd like to meet Man, because I don't agree with his morality. It sounds too collectivist or utilitarian.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the words of a Buddhist based TV programme...

Avoid, rather than check.
Check, rather than hurt.
Hurt, rather than maim.
Maim, rather than kill.

It is good advice, even if from "the movies".

Small point of order: it's "thou shall not murder" not "thou shall not kill" (yes, I know it wasn't you saying otherwise).

They have Buddhist based T.V.?

 

[Inkfingers]

They have Buddhist based T.V.?

Yes. Its programmes are neither on nor off

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's exactly my point. By the spirit of the law, if you go to someone's home and kill them, it's murder.

The spirit of the law is the ultimate intent of the law, and is the antithesis of the written command. The literal commandments were meant to lead Israel toward the real meaning of the law, and were thus only a temporary guideline, a guideline that ended with the advent of the Holy Spirit.



"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:23-25 KJV)

 

[Strathos]

Then are you retracting your statement from post #43? It was:

According to you...

Why would you say this if multitudes of other people might agree with me? Do you think that I am the only person in the world who holds that view? Why is it just according to me, but not according to you? Don't you see a double-standard here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, but I'm saying my view can't be so casually dismissed at you imply.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, but I'm saying my view can't be so casually dismissed at you imply.

In that case, neither can mine as you implied.


eudaimonia,

Mark