Does morality exist without God?

[razeontherock]

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


Well, that was easy ^____^

No, that was a really STOOPID thing to say.

I've read it, all of it, and studied much if it in detail; you have NO IDEA what you're even attempting to discuss. Just to get you started: what makes you think your handy-dandy little quote there, no doubt gleaned from IhateGod.com, tells you or I to do anything? I mean, there are instructions on how to arm a nuclear submarine, and my best childhood friend went into that program. Does that mean I should push the red button? Your conclusion is every bit as senseless.

 

[razeontherock]

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?

Wow, this shows great thinking. Horrible typing, but great thinking!

 

[rubicontwentytwelve]

Wow, this shows great thinking. Horrible typing, but great thinking!

I failed typing class four times. But, I've managed to write for twenty years and still have most folks understand my chicken pickin, ...

 

[specialribbons]

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?

Sure! That's simple enough. I'll start with giving some examples of immorality in the bible:
Raped women must marry their rapists, as instructed by god:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES HER and they discovered, he shall pay the girl's father 50 Shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" [Deut 22:28-30]

Kill people that work on Saturdays, as instructed by god:
Exodus 31:15 - "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

And here, god wants you to kill children that don't listen:
Kill disobedient children:
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...."

And yes, any human of normal mental health has this thing called EMPATHY, which is where the golden rule comes from. "Treat others the way you want to be treated." Anyone that lacks empathy is considered a sociopath. We know what is right, and what is wrong. Though, that doesn't account for matters of circumstance.
In early America, the colonists would often steal food. They knew this was wrong, but they weren't going to let themselves die. Their "wrongs" were sparked by circumstances.

And as a matter of fact, religion is the number one cause of "WAR, OPPRESSION, PREJUDICE / UNEQUALITY IN APPLICATION OF LAWS, CRIME, and MALICE" throughout history. Funny, isn't it?

Glad to be of service ^^

 

[specialribbons]

No, that was a really STOOPID thing to say.

I've read it, all of it, and studied much if it in detail; you have NO IDEA what you're even attempting to discuss. Just to get you started: what makes you think your handy-dandy little quote there, no doubt gleaned from IhateGod.com, tells you or I to do anything? I mean, there are instructions on how to arm a nuclear submarine, and my best childhood friend went into that program. Does that mean I should push the red button? Your conclusion is every bit as senseless.

Senseless? That verse CONDONES stoning disobedient children. Are you saying that it doesn't? I'd say that makes you STOOPID.

 

[SithDoughnut]

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.

Do you remember the times when me and you had nice discussions, and you were polite and friendly? Those were good times. I remember that we once had a discussion on the nature of sin in the Bible, and I learned a lot from that. It made me think, and I think it changed my whole view of Christianity somewhat. If you feel like going back to those times, I'd welcome any corrections. I don't claim to be all-knowledgeable, and I'm sure that I am wrong in various parts of my understanding.

Otherwise I can only wonder if a troll stole your account details in order to discredit Christianity; it's not unheard of for people to pretend to be Christian (or anything, for that matter), and present an unlikeable image of Christians, by being rude, insulting others and pointedly refusing to explain their points so that they appear weak. Perhaps you should change your password?

 

[nom]

"...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?

you provided the evidence yourself by your deploring of that state.

so much for great thinking.

 

[razeontherock]

Sure! That's simple enough. I'll start with giving some examples of immorality in the bible:
Raped women must marry their rapists, as instructed by god:

And again, you have NO IDEA what this refers to. Are you even aware this was not written in English? Does it come as a surprise to you that it was written to a people of a distant time, a distant land, with their own culture, which is incredibly different from our own? What efforts have you made to sort that all out, to know what was being said? do you even know where to look to see how such things were carried out?

And yes, any human of normal mental health has this thing called EMPATHY, which is where the golden rule comes from. "Treat others the way you want to be treated." Anyone that lacks empathy is considered a sociopath.

I can't even give you a "nice try." No, not anyone who fails to live up to the golden rule is automatically a sociopath. And children need to be taught this, it doesn't come naturally.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So man KNOWS the way of Good/Morality...? That would be evidenced how many decades of peace world wide?

Knowing what is good, and the ability to create a world utopia, are two quite different feats.

Tell me, what is it that contestants in beauty pageants are known to wish for?

World Peace - YouTube

Why do you think that is? It's because world peace is a moral ideal everyone accepts. It's a difficult ideal to realize, but it is certainly there as a belief in what is right and good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

Senseless? That verse CONDONES stoning disobedient children.

By what rationale do you project the text re: stoning children onto you or I? (This I gotta see)

HINT: don't go basing convictions off what you find on some religio-phobic website.

 

[razeontherock]

Do you remember the times when me and you had nice discussions, and you were polite and friendly? Those were good times. I remember that we once had a discussion on the nature of sin in the Bible, and I learned a lot from that. It made me think

I do remember that certainly, but why do you not consider the difference on your side of the screen? Look at your opening comment from the post: (and for that matter, on this line of thought)

it's based solely off not only falsehood, but things we have discussed at length and therefore you can be expected to know better. Why was Paul accepted by the Church? How was he commended by God, rather than just "people patting one another on the back?" I will grant you, that if that's all it was it would suck, and for you to point out to me that's all I had would indeed be a loving act.

But are intentions all that matters, irrespective of pertinent facts? And can you claim not to be aware of any statement I have made that I hold in my possession many facts of first-hand experience, that you do not? And that I can logically conclude this all fits together beautifully and powerfully, so that i do not base my life on a dusty old book or claims made by dead men, but on first-hand experiential knowledge? Surely you have not forgotten that at least i say I have experienced the Power of the Gospel, so that while this may just be a thought experiment for you, I'm speaking from empirical observations?

And to relate this to your comment re: one past discussion we had and what you learned, your conclusion was you would sit on the sidelines rather than participate in the war between good and evil I posit we are all thrust into, knowingly or not, like it or not. Can you not attribute my current behavior to the results of your intended non-participation, unwittingly incorporating you into the efforts of evil, even in this very discussion? I mean, hypothetically, if the idea to discredit Paul had to be attributed to "an angel whispering in your ear," would that be a Holy Angel, or an unholy one? This is all a no-brainer, right?

Sorry if I've been needlessly terse. There's plenty on my side of the screen to account for that, and I don't mean to take it out in you. At the same time, you're a bright young man that could no doubt influence the world around you for good, and I literally HATE to see you taken advantage of by evil that simply wants to destroy you, forever and ever, for the sheer "pleasure" of it. While unseen, this stuff is REAL! And very subtle ...

 

[specialribbons]

And again, you have NO IDEA what this refers to. Are you even aware this was not written in English? Does it come as a surprise to you that it was written to a people of a distant time, a distant land, with their own culture, which is incredibly different from our own? What efforts have you made to sort that all out, to know what was being said? do you even know where to look to see how such things were carried out?

I can't even give you a "nice try." No, not anyone who fails to live up to the golden rule is automatically a sociopath. And children need to be taught this, it doesn't come naturally.

Ah, so you're with the group that decides to ignore anything like this and chalk it up to not understanding, instead of, "Hey..maybe that's not okay."
I understand the fact that it's a different culture, but what kind of moron do you have to be to think that rules morality change depending on where you are? If you go somewhere that stealing is legal, does that make it moral? NO, you twit.


Nice job twisting my words, but that's not what I said. I don't always live up to the golden rule, but I'm certainly not a sociopath. This because of what I described as "matters of circumstance."

As human beings, the majority of us have empathy. Sociopaths do not. It's why many of them can walk into a preschool and start killing babies. I myself, and I'm assuming you, would not do this because we DO experience empathy. I hope I was able to sort some of this out for you dear

 

[rubicontwentytwelve]

Sure! That's simple enough. I'll start with giving some examples of immorality in the bible:
Raped women must marry their rapists, as instructed by god:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES HER and they discovered, he shall pay the girl's father 50 Shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" [Deut 22:28-30]

Where does it say 'rape'? It says 'lays hold on'....

If I went to the pound and laid hold on a dog I wanted to adopt...does that mean I raped the dog? According to what you say it does.

If a man goes to a store and lays hold on a ham he wants to purchase, does that mean he raped the ham....? If YOU meet a woman you are attracted to and want to be with and make it apparent... (lay hold on her) ....and you are with her, does that mean you raped her?

' Lays hold on' IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS SECTION OF DEUTERONOMY means 'wants' in a sexual manner. If a man wants to be with a young woman who is a virgin, and carries through on it, ...then he must accept the responsibility of her being his wife.

There's no rape implied. There is if she is forced, in which case it is handled in the same as when a man murders his neighbor.... the man is executed.


Kill people that work on Saturdays, as instructed by god:
Exodus 31:15 - "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

God is specific about His commandments, they are not to be DEFILED.
V 14. ' DEFILED ' indicates a WANTON / INTENTIONAL disobedience to the Commandment..... the attitude of "...I'll just do this tomorrow, eventhough its the sabbath, ...I'mm too busy / tired to do it today".

Same as one whom INTENTIONALLY breaks any other law, ...its thumbing one's nose at the law / authority.

SUGGEST you check both the HEBREW and CONTEXT before you ASSUME.

And here, god wants you to kill children that don't listen:
Kill disobedient children:
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, if the parents have corrected him time and again and he continues to break the law and not heaken unto it (his parents righteous instructions), proving to be incourageable, or a habitual lawbreaker...what would be preferable...confining him to prison for life and PAYING to keep him and thousands of others like him out of society...? GEE kinda sounds like what we currently do huh?

The society that is tollerant of evil in its midst has no call to complain when that evil overflows and comes back on it.

And yes, any human of normal mental health has this thing called EMPATHY, which is where the golden rule comes from. "Treat others the way you want to be treated."

So empathy becomes an excuse to justify murder, rape, oppression, and all the rest of man's evil against his fellow man? Surely then you have no right to complain about ANY crime.

Anyone that lacks empathy is considered a sociopath. We know what is right, and what is wrong.

But you just implied that empathy supercedes right / wrong...

Though, that doesn't account for matters of circumstance.
In early America, the colonists would often steal food. They knew this was wrong, but they weren't going to let themselves die. Their "wrongs" were sparked by circumstances.

John Smith of the Virginia colony stated,...' He who does not work does not eat'. Pertty clear there. As for circumstances God also allows for them as well...if a man is hungry and steals to eat thatis taken into account and he is allowed to woirk off the cost of what he stole. Thats mercy due to EMPATHY for his condition.

And as a matter of fact, religion is the number one cause of "WAR, OPPRESSION, PREJUDICE / UNEQUALITY IN APPLICATION OF LAWS, CRIME, and MALICE" throughout history. Funny, isn't it?

Religion yes..I'll agree with that. But TRUTH...NO. TRUTH causes no war...execept within those who refuse to accept it.

Glad to be of service ^^

ohh...and you FORGOT to POST THOSE REFERENCES I asked you about.... I'll be waitin...

 

[razeontherock]

you provided the evidence yourself by your deploring of that state.

so much for great thinking.

Wait, my Brother! Back up a bit, and put what Rubicon said in context with the Book of Judges ... admittedly what he wrote was vague enough to be taken other than what he intended, but I urge you to seek what he meant to convey!

"Every man did that which is right in their own eyes" does NOT lead to establishing the Kingdom of God on earth!

 

[specialribbons]

By what rationale do you project the text re: stoning children onto you or I? (This I gotta see)

HINT: don't go basing convictions off what you find on some religio-phobic website.

Honestly, I'm not sure that you expressed that in the way you had hoped.
NOWHERE after that verse does it say, "See what was just said? Don't do that."

I don't think I answered your question, as I'm hardly sure of what you were asking.

 

[razeontherock]

Knowing what is good, and the ability to create a world utopia, are two quite different feats.

Tell me, what is it that contestants in beauty pageants are known to wish for?

World Peace - YouTube

Why do you think that is? It's because world peace is a moral ideal everyone accepts. It's a difficult ideal to realize, but it is certainly there as a belief in what is right and good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ok ok, so you deserve a "touche." Please see my post #454. It's easy for me to have compassion on rubicon's failure to adequately convey his point, and I'm sure you've seen me suffer from that difficulty more than enough. Hopefully post #454 is concise enough, and I would like you to attempt to address that, in context with what rubicon was saying that you addressed here. (Oh and, one look at that girl in the red dress and you KNOW there's a God!

 

[SithDoughnut]

it's based solely off not only falsehood, but things we have discussed at length and therefore you can be expected to know better. Why was Paul accepted by the Church? How was he commended by God, rather than just "people patting one another on the back?" I will grant you, that if that's all it was it would suck, and for you to point out to me that's all I had would indeed be a loving act.

We have never discussed Paul, to my knowledge (unless I forgot about it, in which case I apologise). I'll look into it further at some point, but based purely upon what I've seen in the Bible, I haven't seen any reason to believe that Paul was anything more than a commentator. That doesn't mean that a reason doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. You didn't take what I wrote as an insult, did you? It was supposed to be an opinion.

And can you claim not to be aware of any statement I have made that I hold in my possession many facts of first-hand experience, that you do not?

Certainly, but the human brain in notoriously complicated and useless on occasion, and first hand experience isn't of any use to anyone other than the person who experienced it, and even then it's not that good if you're looking for objective truth.

Can you not attribute my current behavior to the results of your intended non-participation, unwittingly incorporating you into the efforts of evil, even in this very discussion?

Not really. Your behaviour wasn't exactly welcoming, which would mean I can only conclude that if you're basing your posts on what we said, then you're either trying to keep me out of your circle or push me further into evil. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but it's the result you were getting.

I mean, hypothetically, if the idea to discredit Paul had to be attributed to "an angel whispering in your ear," would that be a Holy Angel, or an unholy one? This is all a no-brainer, right?

Of course, but I'm not trying to discredit Paul. It's not a requirement for someone to be inspired by God for them to have a message worth listening to. There are numerous Christians out there who look at the Bible in a similar way as me, and see Paul as a commentator rather than a messenger of God. They still listen and agree to his words though, and believe that he accurately represents the values of God.

At the same time, you're a bright young man that could no doubt influence the world around you for good, and I literally HATE to see you taken advantage of by evil that simply wants to destroy you, forever and ever, for the sheer "pleasure" of it. While unseen, this stuff is REAL! And very subtle ...

I know, and I respect that.

So, now we're on the same page, how do you view Paul? After all, this is a discussion on morality and a lot of Christian moral values come from his writings.

 

[razeontherock]

Ah, so you're with the group that decides to ignore anything like this and chalk it up to not understanding

My understanding does not come from any "group," nor do I ignore any of this.
You are incapable of addressing the topic, and you conflate all sorts of things rather than bringing clarity to anything. Since this is a topic I have devoted much of my life to, at the expense of many other things, at least some of which you are probably more knowledgable about than I am, please hear that if you actually wish to gain any understanding of what you're attempting to comment on START WITH THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Leave the OT out (except maybe Proverbs and Psalms) until you have both read the entire NT through, and understand as much of it as you can. Then any attempt to delve into the OT needs to be balanced out by continued reading (and practice of, preferably) of what you find valuable and interesting in the NT.

Failure to do this will merely KEEP YOU IN YOUR CURRENT STATE of not being able to have an informed opinion on any of this.

Nice job twisting my words, but that's not what I said. I don't always live up to the golden rule, but I'm certainly not a sociopath.

The implication of your statement is indeed that anyone not living up to the golden rule as a habit, is a sociopath. I'm glad to see you recognize my correction of that incredibly false concept, even though you don't display the integrity to retract (or even clarify) your statement.

Peace

 

[razeontherock]

Honestly, I'm not sure that you expressed that in the way you had hoped.
NOWHERE after that verse does it say, "See what was just said? Don't do that."

I expressed it exactly the way I wanted to, gauging by your response. Your only lack is the incredible lack of foresight in thinking that qualifiers need to immediately follow that verse, for some unknown reason.

Simply put, you're in WAY over your head! Otherwise known as, when you're digging the hole for your own grave, it's best to put down the shovel.

 

[razeontherock]

We have never discussed Paul, to my knowledge (unless I forgot about it, in which case I apologise). I'll look into it further at some point, but based purely upon what I've seen in the Bible, I haven't seen any reason to believe that Paul was anything more than a commentator. That doesn't mean that a reason doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it.

So, now we're on the same page, how do you view Paul? After all, this is a discussion on morality and a lot of Christian moral values come from his writings.

Well this frames things quite a bit differently! This is a big topic.

A very small chunk of it is your statement "a lot of Christian moral values come from his [Paul's] writings."

Only a tiny fraction of what Paul wrote is anything that "comes from Paul," and those are indeed moral values. In every one of those cases, Paul qualifies his statement as his own opinion, and in every one of those cases, it has brought about much controversy. There has been wonderful insight posted on at least most of those passages by people that have studied them at length, but of course those are in the C only sections.

In short, he was a liberator and champion of equal rights, not a misogynistic slave-driver. At the same time, he did NOT risk forfeiting Church growth (synonymous with establishing the Kingdom of God on earth) in favor of freeing slaves, getting women the right to vote or etc. It's called "picking your battles." And it both stands to reason and has been proven true, that in an environment of the Kingdom of God having been established on earth, issues such as slavery and women's rights have been dealt with more effectively.

The total comments by Paul about any of these human rights issues probably max out at around 3.

The other things Paul wrote are actually established in the law of Moses! So one can hardly say he wrote his own commentary and we can take it or leave it. (Personally, I hate Bible commentaries)

Paul was approved by the Church because when he first met them, he already knew the things only the original Apostles were supposed to know. He went to Jerusalem to meet them, to see if what he had learned directly from the Lord was actually true; a day of reckoning or "face the board," if you will.

The main Church leaders were amazed to find Paul must have been in direct contact with Jesus, moreso than any of them had been since His Ascension. Paul was authorized to preach, (presumably this means in the Temple at Jerusalem but I'm not sure that's explicitly stated) and many members of the congregation(s) preferred being taught by Paul over anyone else, which caused it's own problems.

The bottom line is the Gospel has been preached via God's actions and every other aspect of the Bible, beginning with the story of Adam and Eve. The OT hides it, and Paul was the first to see it clearly. (Other than Jesus Himself, of course) Part of this is due to his excellence in Jewish education, and is clearly coupled with both outright ability, and diligently applying himself.

None of this equates to actual worship of Paul, and even RC claims they don't teach to worship Saints. Nonetheless, Jesus Himself specified that Apostles have a special place in the Kingdom, next to Himself.

Questions, or is that enough?