Does morality exist without God?

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm not sure if that answers the question (it's a big question, too), but I do like this quote and I think it has some truth to it:

"if god wasn't righteous, the righteous would not care about god." -- meister eckhart

It's a pity it commits the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[nom]

how so? because god is by definition righteous, and righteousness defined by god? well I disagree with that. sure, maybe god implanted the sense for what I consider just or benevolent into me, but without my knowing -- therefore I can't help but *think* that is my own judgement. how would you be able to appreciate love, or that god is merciful? it responds to something in you, no matter how it got there, it's in you. maybe that's where "created in god's image" comes in.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

how so? because god is by definition righteous, and righteousness defined by god? well I disagree with that. sure, maybe god implanted the sense for what I consider just or benevolent into me, but without my knowing -- therefore I can't help but *think* that is my own judgement. how would you be able to appreciate love, or that god is merciful? it responds to something in you, no matter how it got there, it's in you. maybe that's where "created in god's image" comes in.

Well, how are you to verify that righteous people care about god, and by implication, that non-righteous people do not really care about god? How do you define righteousness? Do you define it as a subset (which subset, exactly?) of the attributes that people who care about god live their lives by? Why this group, and not that other group over there? Or do you define it as a subset of attributes that god has? Again, what about so-and-so god over there? And how do you determine which of god's attributes are righteous?

Also, appealing to popularity in terms of love, and mercy (I don't perceive god - if he exists - as being particularly merciful, by the way), and righteousness, doesn't really work, because even if it weren't a logical fallacy (sorry for the parentheses, but just because we have X attribute, and just because god supposedly created us in his image, doesn't mean that god has X attribute), it would still fall down by virtue of the fact that not all people have the capacity to feel love, or be merciful, or feel righteous. And the people that do, perceive it in different ways.

As for the third part - about where your judgment comes from: Occam's razor?

 

[nom]

holy crap! let's just say I read more than that quote of meister eckhart and I digged the guy. I'm not willing to explain what should be so obvious... "if you don't get it, ignore it". or try this: if god was unfair, fair people would not care about god.

yes, those are subjective terms. they also depend on our interpretation of ourselves and the world around us. but still... at worst that's a rather pointless statement. because they shouldn't, by definition or something. but I didn't expect the pedantic inquisition :/

 

[razeontherock]

It's a pity it commits the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What in the world could possibly possess you to think that has any relevance to Christianity?

 

[razeontherock]

direct passages from the Bible that proved that Jesus did indeed command us to keep to the OT laws

You posted no such thing. Apparently you have no idea what you parroted.

 

[razeontherock]

Especially given the total lack of evidence, Biblical or otherwise, to accept Paul above any of the other commentaries which are floating around but were not deemed suitable for the Bible.

Oh my. I suppose you think you have an actual basis for forming an opinion like that?

 

[razeontherock]

Then I have a question: What if one were to honestly think about it, and decide that even if God existed, he'd prefer to live as he saw fit then to bow? I mean, he's not denying anything to make himself feel better; even if somebody proved God to him, he wouldn't change his ways. What would you say to that person?

This is knowing and willful rejection. The Judgments pronounced on that path are severe.

 

[razeontherock]

just because we have X attribute, and just because god supposedly created us in his image, doesn't mean that god has X attribute), it would still fall down by virtue of the fact that not all people have the capacity to feel love, or be merciful, or feel righteous.

Wow is this ever wrong thinking!

 

[razeontherock]

let's just say I read more than that quote of meister eckhart and I digged the guy.

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Oh my. I suppose you think you have an actual basis for forming an opinion like that?

The only claims come from Paul himself, which is not a good basis to believe in inspiration from God. Even then, there is no reason to presume that Paul honestly thought that he was inspired by God. 2 Timothy is an incredibly controversial part of the Bible, with many scholars doubting its authenticity, and that is essentially what the opinion of Paul being God inspired is based on.

Assuming we take 2 Timothy to be true, then there is still no reason to include Paul under "all scripture is God-breathed", because what became the epistles were not scripture yet. There's no reason to assume that Paul was talking about his own contributions. Peter seemed to think he was, seemed being the operative word because his words can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. He certainly admired Paul, but again there's no reason to think that he was inspired by God either.

The simple fact of the matter is that the claims for inspiration from God come from other men of whom in turn it is claimed they were inspired by God. There's nothing from God himself on the situation, AFAIK, just a group of people patting each other on the back.

If you look at the Bible as what it is, a mess of historical claims and commentaries on said historical claims, based upon earlier religious myths and legends, then you see that's it a group of men writing a book. Sometimes they work together, other times not so much, and all of this was mashed together into the Bible by yet other men. Of course, if you look at the Bible as what you want it to be, God's words and inspiration, then you can justify any viewpoint you like. There are plenty of Christians who look at the Bible how it is. It doesn't change their faith, it just means that they have a greater understanding of the Bible and where it came from, in my opinion. Likewise, there are plenty of Christians who venerate Paul almost above Jesus on occasion. That's their faith, and their choice to make, but they seem to take great offence at people disagreeing with them on this subject...

 

[nom]

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton?

not familiar, but I heard the name before.. I looked him up, liked what I read so far, and will keep him in mind, thanks!

 

[specialribbons]

Of course. The bible is full of many immoral ideas. The bible tells you to stone your disobedient children to death, that's moral? There are good things in the bible, as with any religion. But they're not good because they come from a magic invisible man or the bible, they're good because they're good. We use our sense of empathy as a basis for determining what is moral and immoral, not a magic invisible man in the sky.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Wow is this ever wrong thinking!

In what way?

What in the world could possibly possess you to think that has any relevance to Christianity?

Yes, how foolish of me to think that Christianity is in any way associated with critical thinking.

holy crap! let's just say I read more than that quote of meister eckhart and I digged the guy. I'm not willing to explain what should be so obvious... "if you don't get it, ignore it". or try this: if god was unfair, fair people would not care about god.

yes, those are subjective terms. they also depend on our interpretation of ourselves and the world around us. but still... at worst that's a rather pointless statement. because they shouldn't, by definition or something. but I didn't expect the pedantic inquisition :/

I do get it. It's a pithy quote, and pithy quotes are useful in some ways. Just...not in this kind of way.

 

[nom]

I do get it. It's a pithy quote, and pithy quotes are useful in some ways. Just...not in this kind of way.

oh? and what way would that be? I said I know it doesn't answer the question, I just like the quote.

in that way it is 100% "useful". not to you maybe, but then again, that was not my intention so it's all good

 

[razeontherock]

The only claims come from Paul himself

False. Right out of the gate! Do i dare read the rest of it to see if there's any merit?

Ugh, I wonder how many IQ points I just lost actually reading that through ... now I need a shower.

 

[razeontherock]

The bible tells you to stone your disobedient children to death

It does NOT!

You're attempting to wield a two-edged sword, while you're proving you should be trusted with nothing sharper than a rubber ball ...

 

[razeontherock]

In what way?

Every possible way that could be read, was full of twist and distort.

Yes, how foolish of me to think that Christianity is in any way associated with critical thinking.

Your flaming is duly noted. That however does not make the no true scotsman fallacy applicable. You would realize that if, you know, you actually gave this some thought

 

[specialribbons]

It does NOT!

You're attempting to wield a two-edged sword, while you're proving you should be trusted with nothing sharper than a rubber ball ...

No, what I've just proven is that very few Christians have actually read the nonsense that they live their lives by. I'll quote it for you:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not harken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, and will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die...."


Well, that was easy ^____^

 

[rubicontwentytwelve]

Of course. The bible is full of many immoral ideas. The bible tells you to stone your disobedient children to death, that's moral? There are good things in the bible, as with any religion. But they're not good because they come from a magic invisible man or the bible, they're good because they're good. We use our sense of empathy as a basis for determining what is moral and immoral, not a magic invisible man in the sky.

What immorality is there in God's teachings?

That put there by the imaginations/mis interpretations/deceptions of men...? Would that be it of which you speak?


"...they're good because they're good. We use our sense of empathy as a basis for determining what is moral and immoral,..."

So man KNOWS the way of Good/Morality...? That would be evidenced how many decades of peace world wide? THAT would be evidenced in NO crime in which nations? THAT would be evidenced in NO starvation and 100% prosperity in which regions?

SURELY you can provide evidence to back up your claims...correct?

I'll go even simpler...list ONE century in which there existed NO WAR, NO OPPRESSION, NO PREJUDICE / UNEQUALITY IN APPLICATION OF LAWS, NO CRIME, NO MALICE of one group of humans against another.

What I'm saying is...YOU challenge the existence of that which you do not see, ... very well; .... PROVE that which you CLAIM you can.

That should be simple enough...right?