Does morality exist without God?

[3sigma]

If only you would have read one more definition from your link...

3. an exchange similar to conversation.

Seriously, you wanted to know and I told you. If it is not what you wanted it is your problem. Lul

How is your communication with your God an exchange similar to conversation? By the way, am I correct in assuming that when you say you are in daily conversation with “the supernatural” you mean whatever you think of as your God rather than ghosts or fairies?

A conversation is some form of communication such as speech or text (thank you to chris and Wiccan for the correction) involving the physical senses such as hearing or vision. Others would be able to hear or see that conversation if they were present at the time.

However, you say the communication with your God is typically either “visions” or “knowledge”, implying something that forms only within your mind and doesn’t involve the physical senses. Others would not be able to hear or see that particular communication if they were present at the time. Is that a fair description of your communication with your God? Are you forming a mental image of something not present to the senses?

 

[Belk]

Now you're being reasonable, thank you! Recognize that with an Eternal being, 2 way communication may take place in a 40 year back and forth and it's still 2 way. And G-d's awareness of our input is simply a non-issue; you seem to have no way of processing that vital bit of info?

So the only variable here is if we her from G-d, or if it's just bad pizza. Anyone who doesn't see the validity of this point is instantly suspect

How one is to discern btw the 2 is something I would expect you to know. There's this thing called the Bible, ever hear of it? The Spirit and the Word will not contradict.

I always love this part. I have had conversations with other Christians along these lines before. How do you know your interpretation of the bible is correct? The spirit tells us. How do you know it is the spirit telling you things? It agrees with the bible. No circular reasoning there at all.

 

[Harmony118]

Yes. Although most religions have moral codes, so does society. I know several hardcore atheists who are perfectly fine, moral (although not religious) people.

Then again most of our societal moral codes are derived from religion or G-d so....tough question!

 

[david_x]

So, there's nothing I can do to become equipped so I can see all this supernatural stuff or truly understand the Bible?

Not directly, but you can always start the process by accepting the Savior.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Supernatural=/=Jesus so that's not really true.

 

[david_x]

How is your communication with your God an exchange similar to conversation? By the way, am I correct in assuming that when you say you are in daily conversation with “the supernatural” you mean whatever you think of as your God rather than ghosts or fairies?

That assumption would not be true. Not about ghosts and fairies exactly, but about angels and saints.

A conversation is some form of communication such as speech or text (thank you to chris and Wiccan for the correction) involving the physical senses such as hearing or vision. Others would be able to hear or see that conversation if they were present at the time.

False assumption, at least according to the definition of the word communicate.

However, you say the communication with your God is typically either “visions” or “knowledge”, implying something that forms only within your mind and doesn’t involve the physical senses. Others would not be able to hear or see that particular communication if they were present at the time. Is that a fair description of your communication with your God? Are you forming a mental image of something not present to the senses?

When I say vision and knowledge I mean something very similar to how communication is normally done. For example let's say that I tell you to picture an apple. You picture an apple in your head. You thus have a vision of the apple without actually showing you an apple. This is how a vision works, except that God surpasses the need for the audible telling. It is the same with knowledge, only it would be more like me telling you that an apple can be violet in our example.

 

[razeontherock]

Could I be equipped?

Potentially, in the future, yes. What does that require of you, and are you willing? (Hopefully you know how to trace context via the blue arrows, and that function is working)

 

[razeontherock]

Yes I realize that it'll prbably never happen. But when someone makes an outlandish claim, I question it. Questions can often lead to answers, and answers ultimately satisfy my curiosity. See how that works?

Yes, absolutely! I'm just pointing out these are answers G-d limits our ability to give, or to get from other mortals. We may share a glimpse, point in what we think is the right direction, but some things G-d delights in reserving for Himself to reveal. He's like that! Reminds me of a parent on Christmas morning ...

 

[razeontherock]

With all due respect, this is such a copout! I am not suprised that when all the fluff was cut away that it came to that. (

Perhaps the fluff was your false impressions, and what remains is far more significant than the fluff you're disappointed to have seen disperse? It surely is so, and I am amazed to see you label this a copout. It actually gave you some specifics, which is what you had been asking for.

 

[razeontherock]

I have no problem admitting that "visions" (or whatever you want to call it) could be from god, the devil, or some other supernatural entity. I just have never seen any evidence that would make me lean in that direction.

The best evidence is truly when some such thing helps the individual grasp concepts presented in the Bible, that they have already read, questioned, and been desperate in their failure to comprehend. Then this needs to be checked, via their new understanding jibing both with Elders in the Lord and the whole of Scripture. That's how you separate the voice of G-d from bad pizza.

 

[razeontherock]

So, it is God's choice that I am an unbeliever.

No! In context, there's a great deal of Truth in the Bible that an unbeliever can comprehend at face value. In response to your quote here, try this:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

This directly refutes your statement, and I'm really surprised you need me to point this out.

 

[razeontherock]

I always love this part. I have had conversations with other Christians along these lines before. How do you know your interpretation of the bible is correct? The spirit tells us. How do you know it is the spirit telling you things? It agrees with the bible. No circular reasoning there at all.

Actually no, there's not circular reasoning in anything but your strawman. (Or perhaps weak, immature believers you may have had contact with) All you need do is read my tagline to see where the buck stops. It's Ray's on the Rock, not Ray's on the circle chasing his tail like a dog

 

[Ampersand]

So the verses of the Bible support other verses...

In the Bible. So my copy of House of Leaves proves that it is a true story because different chapters support each other.

 

[razeontherock]

So the verses of the Bible support other verses...

In the Bible. So my copy of House of Leaves proves that it is a true story because different chapters support each other.

No, that is still circular. And ignores the context you're attempting to address. And ignores the things I mention. So .... no.

 

[Ampersand]

Your sig says otherwise. It says, clear as crystal, that by memorizing the Bible you can justify one verse with another. That's circular.

 

[razeontherock]

Your sig says otherwise. It says, clear as crystal, that by memorizing the Bible you can justify one verse with another. That's circular.

Amazing how you choose to distort!

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Yes morality exists whether or not any form of deity or spiritual influence exists.

In any system morality is both objective and subjective.

There is no dichotomy here. Neither are exclusive.

 

[SithDoughnut]

In any system morality is both objective and subjective.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[3sigma]

When I say vision and knowledge I mean something very similar to how communication is normally done. For example let's say that I tell you to picture an apple. You picture an apple in your head. You thus have a vision of the apple without actually showing you an apple. This is how a vision works, except that God surpasses the need for the audible telling. It is the same with knowledge, only it would be more like me telling you that an apple can be violet in our example.

When you tell me to picture an apple, you are communicating with me. When I picture the apple in my head, I am imagining it. You say that in your conversations with your God, the audible communication part of this process is omitted. In that case, all that is left is your imagination.

First case:

1. You tell me to picture an apple. [communication]
2. I think of an apple. [imagination]

Second case:

1. … [silence]
2. You think your God told you something. [imagination]

 

[zairsmith]

This has to do with if you believe in God or not...This is inarguable since the true nature of the topic falls on the idea of beliefs, not morality existing without God. If God exist, then no, if he doesn't, then yes. Personally, I think it does not exist without God because nothing precedes God...but this is an attribute of my belief