Can there be morality without God?

[stevevw]

You clarified, and you're terribly wrong. Science has not discovered and is not talking about the possibility of ghosts being real. You and I both know it. Please stop pretending false information supports your beliefs.

Once again you fail to understand what I am saying. I never said that scientists are saying ghosts are real. I am saying some of the things they are talking about and the language they are using is like they are talking about ghosts and the spirit world. The difference is, is that they put a scientific spin on it or try to anyway. But as far as I'm concerned when scientists talk about hologram worlds that is like ghosts and spirit worlds. Its a projection of an image that is not real according to the way we measure things. When they talk about multiverses where there are all sorts of possibilities. Such as another million you or me existing and living slightly different lives I think this is just as far fetched. When they talk about time travel or worm holes taking us to other dimensions I think this is just as far fetched.

The only difference they think they are entitled to talk like this because they have science on their side. But still they are only basing this on very flimsy indirect evidence which can be used for ghosts and spirits in the same manner if you look at all the indirect evidence for them. Anyway here are some examples you may want to check first.
Accepting quantum physics to be universally true, argues Max Tegmark, means that you should also believe in parallel universes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448023a.html
Proponents of the multiverse, as well as greatly enlarging our conception of physical reality, are implicitly redefining what is meant by ‘science.’”
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/cosmologist-george-ellis-on-the-multiverse/
Scientists discover 'near death' evidence
Scientists discover 'near death' evidence | Daily Mail Online

I mean science even has a prize for the best scientists working on spirituality.
Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize and it happened to be won by the guy who invented the laser and works with quantum electronics.
Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize - latimes
The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God.
Newsweek: Science Finds God
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

This is stupid. You need to study quantum physics because it apparently does not mean what you think it means. Probabilities for subatomic movements do not suddenly make ghosts appear. I have seen this from more than one poster now where you guys think the word "quantum" means whatever apes*** crazy ideas are suddenly true when it is obviously and ridiculously false. Never a quantum physics reference though... oh no, we don't do real science.

Its not just posters and yes some people can carry things beyond what they are. But there are scientists who are saying similar things. I have heard all the dismissals about it not being science and all the quantum goo and all that. But the fact is scientists themselves are using this language. They use this type of language because that is exactly where the science is at. There are things they are seeing that dont make sense to the known physics. They point to something beyond those physical parameters at work or that may exist in some way, shape or form. I look at it like with junk DNA. Many scientists kept resisting that the junk DNA had any function. They kept saying it was junk and a minority of scientists kept saying no there is more function than we realize. As time has gone on the minority have been proven right.
A physicist finds God in cosmic harmonies
CultureLab: A physicist finds God in cosmic harmonies
https://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/#.VRArcI7eLfd

So Yahweh saved us from sin that he introduced to us by creating Satan, and from death which he decided was the punishment for those sins he introduced by creating Satan. And the only way to do that was through blood?

[/quote]
Thats the way you mind works. Now you are being the god of what is right and wrong. We dont know the big picture of things. We are just tiny ants in a big world. It maybe that evil was always there as an opposite to good. Like love and hate. If love and good exist then so do the opposites. Love and good are nothing without their opposites. But everyone has a choice and can decide. Each person is judged according to their knowledge of this.

So when a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar without permission, why then do you not require the child to sacrifice a goat to you?

Like I say all people are judged according to their knowledge. God is the creator of all things. Only He knows these greater question you ask. People try to be god themselves and answer all those questions according to what they think is right and wrong. We all have a sense of right and wrong. It had to come from somewhere. There has to be an ultimate truth and justice for this world and the evil that is in it. Thank God he has given His son so that all by God free gift of grace may be saved.

I will do part 2 later. It seemed a good note to finish on for the time being.

 

[stevevw]

No, I say that because I agreed with you. I agreed that those stories told in the past were done so by humans who often allowed their own fears, prejudices and hopes to shape their writing. You say this is the reason behind the actions of your God being portrayed as being so cruel, harsh and bloodthirsty. Very well. Using the same logic, we can also assume that their depictions of the supernatural being equally untrustworthy.

I agree with you.

The bible is written by many people. It has stood the test of time. It wasn't written in fear of anything. The very Christian movement became the greatest religion of the very empire that tried to destroy it. If there was any fear it was the fear to even talk about it as people would be tortured and killed for that. Yet people stood up for it even when facing death. So they were persecuted more. This actually grew the early church. It has survived and lasted all the criticisms, claims of being false and made up and has shown that it has a lot more going for it than mere accusations and attacks from people.

The writers of the bible were great men who stood on their word. This was passed down to others who continued to spread the word of God. Any mythology would have died out or have taken over it. The fact is no one ever disputed the claims throughout time. All they could do was claim that Jesus was not a God and then get rid of Him and try to do the same for His followers. But it only made them stronger.

That's right. The point you were making is that those ancient writers allowed their personal biases to influence their writing.

I agree with you. We shouldn't accept any of it as being 'gospel'.

Why shouldn't we at least give some credence to what is written in the bible. Why immediately dismiss it. A fair appraisal would be to investigate everything before you make sweeping statements. I would say you havnt done this so you are speaking from a personal point of view. If you are a non believers in the first place then you are not going to give any of it the time of day no matter what which is unfair.

I can even see this by the way you twist anything I say so that it can be used as another false accusation. I said that as people can see things differently they may tell things with their own perspective. But this doesn't mean that the original event didn't happen. But you have chosen to ignore the last part so that you can distort what I have said to make your point. This shows me you have already made up your mind. God is guilty before a trial just like Jesus.

Your problem here is an obvious one. How would those human writers of the Old Testament have any idea as to what their counterparts, centuries into the future, were going to write?

I dont understand what you mean. The writers of the bible have written what they have witnessed or what they have been told by those who have known about what happened. The bible has been proven time and time again by archeology. So the people that wrote it know about all the small details of that time. They were there or know others that were there. Jesus was a real man. He was crucified by the Romans. He was a preacher who did miracles and He spoke about Gods love and peace. He claimed to be the Son of God. So the only thing that you have to decide is whether what He said was true or not. Its as simple as that. I know what you have decide because thats why you try to deny that it ever happened in the first place.

Another formidable problem here. There is not even a skerrick of evidence to suggest an exodus of more than half a million Jews from Egypt. It is a myth. A myth that even the Jews no longer seek. I clearly remember David benGurion calling for the 'deeds' to Israel being discovered. They never have been. Jewish scholars no longer believe they exist.

Thats what I am talking about the event happened but there may have been exaggeration in how many people were there. They may also have some of the details wrong or misunderstand some of the details of where and when things happened. But they have evidence for the Jews in Egypt. They have evidence for the Jews in the deserts but the locations are in another place. They have evidence for the Jews and the Canaanites and the battle of Joshua and Jericho. There is talk of finding more archeological evidence for the Jews in Egypt and the wilderness and news is coming out all the time.

Ask the Jews if they were not captive in Egypt though. Ask them if they didn't wander in the desert for 40 years with Moses they great prophet. Ask them if they didn't find the promise land which is so precious to them. They and many millions of others will tell you emphatically that this did happen and there is evidence for it. You have to remember the bible has a very good track record with archeology supporting what it has said. Time and time again evidence has eventually been unearthed that verifies whats in the bible.
ISRAELITES IN EGYPT - Is there evidence that the Israelites once lived in Egypt as the Bible says? And has Joseph's original tomb been found? ? ChristianAnswers.Net
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt
https://carm.org/why-isnt-there-any-record-millions-jews-wandering-desert
The Bible and Archaeology: Archaeology and the Book of Joshua?The Conquest - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm glad you said sounds like. Because sounds like and actuality are two different things. First off you do not understand what the context is that God was stating these things. You take a snippet of bible verse and leave the rest of what was happening. I was waiting for someone to bring up some of the old testament examples. That is why I was emphasizing that we were talking about Mohammad and Jesus. Mohammad claims to be the last great prophet that represents Allah. Jesus was God incarnate and the fulfillment of Gods laws. I was using what Mohammad and Jesus had said as they represent their Gods. Whatever you wish to say or think about the God of the old testament can be fulfilled and seen in Jesus. In Jesus there is no sin so we know that He represents God so in God there is no sin.

What context is needed for understanding why the killing of women and children is immoral?

God ordered immoral actions, according to the Bible. All you did was spend several paragraphs avoiding the rather obvious.

 

[stevevw]

What context is needed for understanding why the killing of women and children is immoral?

God ordered immoral actions, according to the Bible. All you did was spend several paragraphs avoiding the rather obvious.

First off the point I was making originally was between Mohammad and Jesus. But now the debate is being side tracked to arguments about the old testament. I was stating that when you look to Jesus who is God in the flesh we dont see any sin or bad. I was comparing this to Mohammad. If you want to understand God look to Jesus. It doesn't matter what you think God may or may not have done in the old testament. The truth is in Jesus. This is a more clearer picture and one that is not marred with ancient interpretations of those times and meanings.

That is going backwards and moving away from the best way to understand God. That is the very reason Jesus came so that we could have a clear picture of who God was. Rather that man trying to connect with God who was more distant back then we now have Jesus who was God and who actually came to visit us. People seen Him in the flesh in front of them living His life and teaching the way to live. This is the best and clearest way we can get to know God. By going back to ancient times which have been superseded you are actually taking a big step backwards in some ways.

Secondly if you really want to talk about the context of why some people may have been killed in something that was to do with God establishing what was right and wrong back then as a righteous judge then look at man kind. When we bombed Japan in the second world war and killed millions of women and children for stopping a mad dictator and an enemy intent on destroying the world did we think that was immoral.

Yet God is so much more worthy of being in a position to know of all the present and future circumstances and consequences of why it is important to act and not act than man who has a track record of making the wrong decisions about what is right and wrong. Unfortunately in life there has to be someone who has to make the hard decisions and take the hard actions to stop bad things getting worse. But then you are claiming that you have a greater knowledge of what is ultimately right and wrong by making the judgements yourself about these actions of God. Where do you get your morality from. Who said that you are the truth holder of morality.

 

[Loudmouth]

First off the point I was making originally was between Mohammad and Jesus. But now the debate is being side tracked to arguments about the old testament. I was stating that when you look to Jesus who is God in the flesh we dont see any sin or bad.

That would be the same God that ordered the killing of women and children, correct?

It doesn't matter what you think God may or may not have done in the old testament. The truth is in Jesus.

Isn't Jesus the same God of the Old Testament?

Given that you are trying to distance yourself from the Old Testament, I think it only proves what I have suggested all along. You use your own moral compass to determine if deities are behaving morally.

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

That would be the same God that ordered the killing of women and children, correct? Isn't Jesus the same God of the Old Testament? Given that you are trying to distance yourself from the Old Testament, I think it only proves what I have suggested all along. You use your own moral compass to determine if deities are behaving morally.

The Bible does shoe that Jesus is our Creator. The Bible leaves no doubt about that fact. You missed the part about God killing the men. He did more of that than with woman or children. Romans 6:23 does state that the wages of sin is death. Do not repent and you will die. That goes for cities and nations as well as individuals. Look at the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. Judgment was about to be given to that whole city. But they repented, and they lived. Asking why God kills people is not the big question. But why we continue to ignore God and continue to live in sin, knowing the judgement of God, is an even bigger one to me.

 

[stevevw]

The Bible does shoe that Jesus is our Creator. The Bible leaves no doubt about that fact. You missed the part about God killing the men. He did more of that than with woman or children. Romans 6:23 does state that the wages of sin is death. Do not repent and you will die. That goes for cities and nations as well as individuals. Look at the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. Judgment was about to be given to that whole city. But they repented, and they lived. Asking why God kills people is not the big question. But why we continue to ignore God and continue to live in sin, knowing the judgement of God, is an even bigger one to me.

Yes there are examples where God spares many because they have repented. Many have done the same thing as others who refused to repent after God had given them warnings and ample time to repent. In one case 100s of years to repent. This shows that some like to tar God with the same brush and not distinguish between these events. This shows God was measured and considered each situation. If He was the hateful God that some try to make out then He would have been going around and killing for no good reason, without any control. God is the only worthy Judge who is all knowing. So He knows everything that is involved in these situations. He can make these Judgements from a position of understanding and He can make these decisions from a position of being worthy because He is without sin.

 

[stevevw]

That would be the same God that ordered the killing of women and children, correct?

Thats my point, if Jesus is the same God then why dont we see Jesus going around ordering the killing of women and children. Which is the real side of God the acts of Jesus or the acts of God in the old testament. More to the point is if Jesus does not do what the God of the old testament does in the eyes of non believers then maybe they have misunderstood what God was doing in the old testament. Remember that Jesus was seen by many and written about. He isn't in the sky far away at a distance. He was there in front of people and they could clearly see what He was like. Jesus the representation of God here on earth.
(Matthew 11:27).Jesus said that He came to “reveal” the Father
(Colossians 2:9) For in Him all the http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Colossians 2.9#footnote1fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
So we have a better way to know Him and that is the exact reason He came so that we had a direct line to God. So that we could see God in Him. Jesus Himself referred to God and the old testament. He was saying tha God wanted mercy and not sacrifices. The God Himself in the old testament States that He doesnt like or want anyone to be killed or take pleasure in punishing the wicked.
“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).

Isn't Jesus the same God of the Old Testament?

The Trinity of God is a hard concept to understand. Though Jesus has all the qualities of God and is the same as God He is also a separate entity. Jesus prayed to His father in the garden of Gethsemane.

Given that you are trying to distance yourself from the Old Testament, I think it only proves what I have suggested all along. You use your own moral compass to determine if deities are behaving morally.

No not at all. I have debated the old testament many times and have no problems in doing so. But I find it always ends the same way. I will show some reason and context for what is said to show an evil God. Then when that is done the person will go onto another example and then another. So it is never resolved. So I point to Jesus as the simple way to know God. The old testament was all about preparing for the Messiah Jesus. The new testament states time and time again that Jesus is the old testament God in the flesh. So the best way irregardless of all the debate about ancient texts and their meanings and context is to cut directly to what is the best way to know God and that is in Jesus Christ.

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

For those who still want to believe in a liberal love God that would never hurt anybody or send them to an eternal hell, had better read the 19th chapter in Revelation. He returns with His church behind Him, with blood on His garment from the death of sinners. He is destroying them Himself with a sword from His mouth (His Word), and His eyes are read as a fire because of His anger. The blood that will be left behind will be deep enough to swim in. It is that day that He will have finally stopped waiting for His creation (us) to repent, and away they will go into eternal hell.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible does shoe that Jesus is our Creator. The Bible leaves no doubt about that fact. You missed the part about God killing the men. He did more of that than with woman or children. Romans 6:23 does state that the wages of sin is death. Do not repent and you will die. That goes for cities and nations as well as individuals. Look at the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. Judgment was about to be given to that whole city. But they repented, and they lived. Asking why God kills people is not the big question. But why we continue to ignore God and continue to live in sin, knowing the judgement of God, is an even bigger one to me.

Is it immoral to kill a man's wife and children for something the man did?

Is it immoral to kill the grandchildren of a man for what the man did?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats my point, if Jesus is the same God then why dont we see Jesus going around ordering the killing of women and children.

We do see that, in the Old Testament. Jesus is God, is he not?

No not at all. I have debated the old testament many times and have no problems in doing so. But I find it always ends the same way. I will show some reason and context for what is said to show an evil God. Then when that is done the person will go onto another example and then another. So it is never resolved. So I point to Jesus as the simple way to know God. The old testament was all about preparing for the Messiah Jesus. The new testament states time and time again that Jesus is the old testament God in the flesh. So the best way irregardless of all the debate about ancient texts and their meanings and context is to cut directly to what is the best way to know God and that is in Jesus Christ.

The problem is that your argument boils down to, "God is moral, therefore anything God commands is moral". It is a circular argument, and a very dangerous one at that.

 

[keith99]

Is it immoral to kill a man's wife and children for something the man did?

Is it immoral to kill the grandchildren of a man for what the man did?

Or if we consider Job to be history to kill a man's wife and children just to win a bet.

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

Or if we consider Job to be history to kill a man's wife and children just to win a bet.

Lol. This is funny. In today's world that would be considered a bet. But there is more to it than than. I know an unsaved person may not see it, but God did allow us to see who it is that kills people for simple pleasure. God also showed that He protects His own from the touch of Satan. If we read it for what it says, we can learn so much more than what our unsaved eyes want us to see.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth View Post
Is it immoral to kill a man's wife and children for something the man did?

Is it immoral to kill the grandchildren of a man for what the man did?

Or if we consider Job to be history to kill a man's wife and children just to win a bet.

Although i understood the gist of your point (even if i disagree), Job's wife was not killed, and there is more to the issue than seen at first glance.

Thank you kindly.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...This shows God was measured and considered each situation. If He was the hateful God that some try to make out then He would have been going around and killing for no good reason, without any control. ...

According you, this excuses the worst mass murders in history, because not one of them went around "killing for no good reason, without any control."

 

[DaisyDay]

Lol. This is funny. In today's world that would be considered a bet. But there is more to it than than. I know an unsaved person may not see it, but God did allow us to see who it is that kills people for simple pleasure. God also showed that He protects His own from the touch of Satan. If we read it for what it says, we can learn so much more than what our unsaved eyes want us to see.

He didn't really protect Job from the touch of Satan - boils, family killed. Even though Job got a replacement family, I'd think he'd still mourn his original one (who were obviously not protected from Satan's touch).

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

He did protect him. He would have died had satan done so. Remember in the beginning that protective hedge? That is what we Christians have. Without it satan can do what he wants. Gods glory was shown throughout the whole book. I found it inspiring!

 

[keith99]

He did protect him. He would have died had satan done so. Remember in the beginning that protective hedge? That is what we Christians have. Without it satan can do what he wants. Gods glory was shown throughout the whole book. I found it inspiring!

I'll go unprotected thanks. Your God has failed to protect so many the claim is laughable.

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

I agree that He has not protected many. Look at Matthew 7:13-14 and you will see why. Plus, my eternal destination is better than the other one that many will follow.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree that He has not protected many. Look at Matthew 7:13-14 and you will see why. Plus, my eternal destination is better than the other one that many will follow.

If I allowed a family to be killed just to test the loyalty of the father, would you consider that moral or immoral?