How do you measure morality?

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
As this is a 'Christian forum' we are talking about Christianities God.

I realize that...

However, your assertion warrants further exploration, verses just accepting such as an assertion of truth. You stated in post #28
'Explained very easily. A society will not show love for others if that society does not love God.'

My point is that we have many whom genuinely profess love to many opposing God(s). So I ask:

Does it matter which God you love? Or is it that one must specifically profess love to Yahweh exclusively? And if this is indeed the case, what might you state for the ones whom genuinely profess love to an opposing God, who also live by their proclaimed God's moral tenets?

Because you see... Until you can demonstrate the truth/existence of your very specific God, and that all other asserted Gods do not exist, your statement harbors no truth value :(
 
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am a parent. I'd point out that scripture says Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

I'd also point out that God provides multiple modes of communication so that: "Every matter is established by two or three witnesses."

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament tell us that God abhors the sacrifice of children (notice that Abraham never did actually sacrifice Isaac), so something would have to overcome those witnesses.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that, "Every matter is established by two or three witnesses." and that "something would have to overcome those witnesses".
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
QUOTE="Steve Petersen, post: 73485388, member: 110898"]In virtually every measure, the world has become a better place to live IN THE AGGREGATE for the last 200 years at least. Fundamentalists of all stripes (Christian, Jew, Muslim) seem to be entrenched in the notion that the world is going to hell fast.

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?[/QUOT
E

As revealed by Yahweh to His children, Ekklesia around the world in every people, every nation,

the world is very much worse, and continuing to get worst, daily, weekly, annually,

until Jesus Returns....

Of course, the world loves its own, and cannot grasp the spiritual ,
so the ones (governments, newpapers, schools, pharmakeia, stock marketers, financial institutions, corporations, agencies) promoting the world's ways say it is better, as that's the nature of the world.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Morality is not some transcendent universal word or concept independent of human thought or language. Nor, was such a term invented by the authors of the Bible. The term 'morality' is no more or less a human conceptual term, derived by human beings in the past at some point, and is also associated with 'well being.'

From my estimation, the words 'morality' and 'well being' appear directly synonymous with one another. If one of the main objectives is the 'golden rule', (whether you adhere to Jesus or Confucius), then one could make a sound case for such.

To answer your question, one could instead argue that without a supreme moral judge or arbiter, there exists no bases or standard, as we are instead comparing one human opinion to the next. Yes, most might agree. However, what if the dictator of a nation disagrees? By what standard might one appeal to in 'proving' this dictator is mistaken (rhetorical)?

However, if such a scenario does exist, it is also plausible that we instead have no morality, but instead 'moral dictates', as humans are to follow the commands passed by the 'moral arbiter.' or 'authority'. Which basically means we are following orders with no evaluation of our own.

In conclusion, to answer the OPer's question, let's start by directly comparing the term 'morality' to 'well being', as it becomes difficult to call something 'good' or 'bad' without recognizing that the two terms are synonymous with one another.
I agree that "well being" is probably the strongest definition that I have heard. I have had this discussion before from another individual who brought up the same response. However, there is one flaw. Who's well being are we talking about. If something benefits my well being but negatively affects another's, is that thing good or bad? The point is that the very definition of "well being" is subjective to the individual. The early bird gets the worm. However, the early worm gets eaten.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I agree that "well being" is probably the strongest definition that I have heard. I have had this discussion before from another individual who brought up the same response. However, there is one flaw. Who's well being are we talking about. If something benefits my well being but negatively affects another's, is that thing good or bad? The point is that the very definition of "well being" is subjective to the individual. The early bird gets the worm. However, the early worm gets eaten.

I get what you are saying. However, well being also extends to ideals and situations which do not raise an immediate affect upon anyone's well being, but instead the long term. Consequences alone is enough to factor within such situations. The long term well being of performing 'immediate gratification' by way of 'the early bird gets the worm', for instance, may be enough alone to pose adverse affects, or the antithesis, to anyone's well being.

If the goal is for the sake of human well being, one can then evaluate each and every situation of 'good' and 'bad', and assess if such is 'good' or 'bad' on the basis of complete well being, whether it be short term, or in many cases, long term.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I get what you are saying. However, well being also extends to ideals and situations which do not raise an immediate affect upon anyone's well being, but instead the long term. Consequences alone is enough to factor within such situations. The long term well being of performing 'immediate gratification' by way of 'the early bird gets the worm', for instance, may be enough alone to pose adverse affects, or the antithesis, to anyone's well being.

If the goal is for the sake of human well being, one can then evaluate each and every situation of 'good' and 'bad', and assess if such is 'good' or 'bad' on the basis of complete well being, whether it be short term, or in many cases, long term.
Understandable. However, if we look at the long term effects and consequences of actions to determine goodness of well being, obviously we will not be able to determine these consequences until much later in most cases. In my opinion, the mere concept of "morality" is a nonsensical term if there isn't an objective standard to measure it. Of course, for theists, this objective standard is God. However, generally speaking, it doesn't necessarily have to be a god or gods. Pantheists, for example, may look at the laws of nature as their "objective standard".
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Understandable. However, if we look at the long term effects and consequences of actions to determine goodness of well being, obviously we will not be able to determine these consequences until much later in most cases. In my opinion, the mere concept of "morality" is a nonsensical term if there isn't an objective standard to measure it. Of course, for theists, this objective standard is God. However, generally speaking, it doesn't necessarily have to be a god or gods. Pantheists, for example, may look at the laws of nature as their "objective standard".

I again get what you are saying... Through much trial and tribulations, I have concluded that to argue for or against the existence of God, by using 'morality' as ones gauge or tool, demonstrates as follows...

If God does actually exist, then only 'divine dictates' are demonstrated. The 'absolute moral arbiter' dishes out prophetic moral pronouncements, and we are to follow them as ordered; or suffer whatever alternative fate awaits in opposition. Which means, we are not practicing 'morality' in any sorts; but instead following commands... (i.e.) Like someone else mentioned a while ago... You are in the military and are told to advance your troops accordingly. You may not agree, but your orders are given from the commander.

If God does not exist, then we are left to fend for ourselves with 'right' and 'wrong' moral scenarios; like we also do with politics and economics (which is not absolute/objective). Whether we think something is right or wrong, has absolutely no baring upon if God exists or not. So the point always goes back to....

Demonstrate the existence of God. And until you do, you cannot prove the moral pronouncements came from the 'moral law giver' simply by asserting so. One must demonstrate the existence of such an agent first, before we can even begin.

And until then, atheists, skeptics, and believers of other/alternative religions and faiths judge the 'morals' of the opposing claimed dictates; by using their own rationales and thoughts.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand what you mean when you say that, "Every matter is established by two or three witnesses." and that "something would have to overcome those witnesses".

It's one of the basic techniques to determine validity of a concept.

Back when I was in the military teaching younger troops how to do intelligence analysis, I'd tell them: You need at least once reliable source to say something is "possible," two reliable sources to something is "probable," and three reliable sources to say something is "confirmed."

This is what we call "multiple sources."

Then when they drafted out their analyses, I'd have them use colored font for assertions according to how many valid sources they had, red for no sources (unsupported hypothesis), blue for one source, green for two sources, black for three sources. Now, we almost never had the luxury of having three sources for everything we had to finally brief to the warriors (and of course, the final copy was always all black). But by keeping the draft in colors, they always knew that they needed to keep looking for more sources, and that they should never forget that some of those assertions were never supported in the first place.

It happens that this is a validation tool that the bible also stipulates, beginning all the way back to Genesis:

Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do.
...
The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon. - Genesis 41

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. -- Deuteronomy 19

In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. -- 1 Timothy

Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. -- 2 Corinthians

So regarding a child sacrifice ordered by God, in the one place it seemed to have been required, it was actually averted, and there are multiple instances after that where child sacrifice is prohibited by God. So there would have to be more and better sources to overcome the validity of the sources I already consider valid to make me accept conflicting instruction. And that's not very likely.

Something else that comes into effect in that regard is that those additional sources must be validated themselves against a source I already consider valid--and that would be the bible. This is a validation of the source itself that is separate from the validation of the information from that source.

Again, it goes back to an intelligence analysis tool. Is the source reliable? Was this person in a position to have gotten this information first-hand? Has this person given us information in the past that has been proven true by other sources? Has this person been proven to have been wrong in the past (which is not the same question as the previous one)? What is this person's motivation for giving us this information?

You see, a source can be honest and yet unreliable.

So I'd apply these questions to establish the reliability of the source separately from the reliability of the information.

So how did I get these instructions to kill my children? Who told me that? What do I know about the historical reliability of that source?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that "well being" is probably the strongest definition that I have heard. I have had this discussion before from another individual who brought up the same response. However, there is one flaw. Who's well being are we talking about. If something benefits my well being but negatively affects another's, is that thing good or bad? The point is that the very definition of "well being" is subjective to the individual. The early bird gets the worm. However, the early worm gets eaten.

Because worms surface during the night and burrow back down in the morning that's actually the "late worm."

He should have had his okole back in bed.

The bird was wise, the worm was foolish.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I again get what you are saying... Through much trial and tribulations, I have concluded that to argue for or against the existence of God, by using 'morality' as ones gauge or tool, demonstrates as follows...

If God does actually exist, then only 'divine dictates' are demonstrated. The 'absolute moral arbiter' dishes out prophetic moral pronouncements, and we are to follow them as ordered; or suffer whatever alternative fate awaits in opposition. Which means, we are not practicing 'morality' in any sorts; but instead following commands... (i.e.) Like someone else mentioned a while ago... You are in the military and are told to advance your troops accordingly. You may not agree, but your orders are given from the commander.

If God does not exist, then we are left to fend for ourselves with 'right' and 'wrong' moral scenarios; like we also do with politics and economics (which is not absolute/objective). Whether we think something is right or wrong, has absolutely no baring upon if God exists or not. So the point always goes back to....

Demonstrate the existence of God. And until you do, you cannot prove the moral pronouncements came from the 'moral law giver' simply by asserting so. One must demonstrate the existence of such an agent first, before we can even begin.

And until then, atheists, skeptics, and believers of other/alternative religions and faiths judge the 'morals' of the opposing claimed dictates; by using their own rationales and thoughts.
In this conversation, I think we are in agreement. I never made any assertions on God's existence. I merely stated that morality can be nothing more than subjective to the individual without an objective mediator to declare one's morality to be good or bad. The collective is made up of individuals with subjective opinions on morality. So there are really two logical options:

1. There is no objective mediator that is apart from humanity to objectively measure or determine moral goodness. (Note: Many theists call this objective mediator "God", but it doesn't necessarily have to be.) Because there is no objective mediator, the "standard" morality is nothing more than that of the subjective moral opinions of the majority which imposes their standards on the minority. Because the moral makeup of the majority varies with time and culture, the standards for morality varies with time and culture. Thus, morality from an objective standpoint does not exist and cannot exist. The current system of morality isn't perfect for this reason. However, it has worked for thousands of years and is moving in what the current majority believes to be in a positive direction. But it can never be truly going in a positive direction because, as previously explained, a positive or negative moral trends cannot exist.

2. There is an objective mediator apart from humanity to objectively measure or determine moral goodness. This standard is the sole measure of morality regardless of the subjective moral opinions of an individual or the majority. Furthermore, this standard is universal to all and is unchanged regardless of time or culture and anything that agrees with this standard is "good" and anything that disagrees with this standard is "bad". This is not an issue of "who is following the correct objective mediator (God)" because this conclusion would be true regardless of anyone's religious views. Truth is not relative, it is binary. Something is either true, or it is false. There is no in-between. So if an objective mediator does exist, it is quite possible for all claims as to who or what this objective mediator to be false. In this case, everyone's standard of morality would be objectively wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

If God does actually exist, then only 'divine dictates' are demonstrated. The 'absolute moral arbiter' dishes out prophetic moral pronouncements, and we are to follow them as ordered; or suffer whatever alternative fate awaits in opposition. Which means, we are not practicing 'morality' in any sorts; but instead following commands... (i.e.) Like someone else mentioned a while ago... You are in the military and are told to advance your troops accordingly. You may not agree, but your orders are given from the commander.


I had to respond to this part because I have some disagreement with it. I could expound further, but my simple response is that "Goodness" is a measurement of how well something fulfills its intended purpose bestowed by its creator. Something isn't good or bad because God said so. It is good or bad because it does or doesn't conform to the intended purpose that God bestowed. Do you understand the difference? Assuming that the sole purpose for a knife is to cut and not for decoration, the goodness of a knife depends entirely on how well it can cut. You wouldn't call a sharp knife bad if it couldn't give you twitter updates.

This same concept holds true for the Christian God. Assuming for the sake of the argument that such a God exists, He and He alone is the creator for humanity. He and He alone would be capable of bestowing a purpose humanity. Thus, He and He alone can declare how well humanity is conforming to its purpose.



 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I politely disagree

I had to respond to this part because I have some disagreement with it. I could expound further, but my simple response is that "Goodness" is a measurement of how well something fulfills its intended purpose bestowed by its creator. Something isn't good or bad because God said so. It is good or bad because it does or doesn't conform to the intended purpose that God bestowed. Do you understand the difference?



Let's explore


Assuming that the sole purpose for a knife is to cut and not for decoration, the goodness of a knife depends entirely on how well it can cut. You wouldn't call a sharp knife bad if it couldn't give you twitter updates.


A knife is an inanimate object developed by humans, not a God. The knife is at rest until it is used by a human, or animal with an opposable thumb. The knife could also be used as a screw driver, in the absence of a flat head or common head screw driver. And if the knife successfully took the place of the needed screw driver, would the creator or user of the knife still call it 'bad'?

What if the creator of the knife created it for wall decoration, as it was not sharpened fully. It sets on the wall, with intricate decoration for looks. One day, an intruder breaks through the window and threatens to kill your family. You reach for the closest 'weapon' you can find, in self defense; which is the trophy wall knife in this case, and stab the intruder to keep him from harming your defenseless family. Would the creator of such a knife still call it 'bad'?

You see why I consider myself a moral relativist?

This same concept holds true for the Christian God. Assuming for the sake of the argument that such a God exists, He and He alone is the creator for humanity. He and He alone would be capable of bestowing a purpose humanity. Thus, He and He alone can declare how well humanity is conforming to its purpose.

Well, did God intend for humans to kill other humans or not? Because on some occasions, He ordered humans to kill other humans. But the commandments state otherwise. So I stand by my original statement that to worship a God results in divine dictates. We are to follow orders, like in the military.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Explained very easily.
A society will not show love for others if that society does not love God.

That is how the 10C work, they start with God and work down through the family and out into the wider socierty.

What would you suggest and why should it be universally adopted.
You need to substantiate that claim right there. Do you really mean to say that a nontheistic society is incapable of showing love?

The 10C command you to worship God in a very specific and exclusive way, and they detail certain social behaviors that are commanded or forbidden. Not once is love mentioned. One could argue that following the commandments would naturally follow from a love of God and man, but the commandments themselves are not about love and are terrible, horrible behavioral guidelines if taken at face value.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
In this conversation, I think we are in agreement. I never made any assertions on God's existence. I merely stated that morality can be nothing more than subjective to the individual without an objective mediator to declare one's morality to be good or bad. The collective is made up of individuals with subjective opinions on morality. So there are really two logical options:

1. There is no objective mediator that is apart from humanity to objectively measure or determine moral goodness. (Note: Many theists call this objective mediator "God", but it doesn't necessarily have to be.) Because there is no objective mediator, the "standard" morality is nothing more than that of the subjective moral opinions of the majority which imposes their standards on the minority. Because the moral makeup of the majority varies with time and culture, the standards for morality varies with time and culture. Thus, morality from an objective standpoint does not exist and cannot exist. The current system of morality isn't perfect for this reason. However, it has worked for thousands of years and is moving in what the current majority believes to be in a positive direction. But it can never be truly going in a positive direction because, as previously explained, a positive or negative moral trends cannot exist.

2. There is an objective mediator apart from humanity to objectively measure or determine moral goodness. This standard is the sole measure of morality regardless of the subjective moral opinions of an individual or the majority. Furthermore, this standard is universal to all and is unchanged regardless of time or culture and anything that agrees with this standard is "good" and anything that disagrees with this standard is "bad". This is not an issue of "who is following the correct objective mediator (God)" because this conclusion would be true regardless of anyone's religious views. Truth is not relative, it is binary. Something is either true, or it is false. There is no in-between. So if an objective mediator does exist, it is quite possible for all claims as to who or what this objective mediator to be false. In this case, everyone's standard of morality would be objectively wrong.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying on both points, with one small caveat...

If the human mind is considered flawed, how are humans supposed to assess that the 'objective arbiter' or God is actually 'good'? Because He says so?.?.?.? I will give you a quick scenario.


It is written, predominantly in the OT, that humans are ordered to kill other humans for various reasons.... (Rhetorical questions below) If the human mind is flawed, how do we know............

1. ...the order actually came from God?
2. ...the order was actually justified?
3. ...the order did not come from some opposing entity?
4. ...it was not a trick from the Devil?
5. ...it was not a self manifested thought?

**************

If our brains are not perfect tools, then how are we to assess when God is actually conveying a message, versus other?

Because at the end of the day, we read many stories of such in the Bible, but how do we know all such stories were not merely placed there by the humans whom had the power and authority to culminate and collect them, and place them into this one large book of assertions; and that such stories were actually 'God inspired?"

You do not have to answer any of the above, just raising the point, that the topic of morality does not seem to lead one to God.

So then we are left with 'prophecy' and claims of a resurrection, as some sort of possible meter-stick(s)..... :( And I trust you may already gather my take on such.... Sorry to bring up the other two topics. I'm just trying to fast-forward right to the end :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A knife is an inanimate object developed by humans, not a God. The knife is at rest until it is used by a human, or animal with an opposable thumb. The knife could also be used as a screw driver, in the absence of a flat head or common head screw driver. And if the knife successfully took the place of the needed screw driver, would the creator or user of the knife still call it 'bad'?

The part that I probably failed to articulate was that nothing ever created with a specific purpose ever existed without some being of intelligence bestowing a purpose onto that creation. Of course we may find things in nature that were created by natural means. However, these things do not have created purpose. Take a rock on the beach for example. What is its purpose? It has none. However, because we are beings of intelligence, we can bestow a purpose onto a rock. However, unless we are the ones who invented rocks, that purpose would be subjective to the individual. Is it a rock for collecting, skipping, or building? Who is right and who would be wrong. The question we must then raise is simple. Is humanity like a rock that was created by nature through natural means with no created purpose? Or is humanity like a knife that was created by an intelligent being for a specific purpose? The problem is that although all religions agree that humanity is like a knife with a created purpose, religions cannot agree on what that purpose is. Are we knives made for cutting or decoration? These differences drives their worldview and their standards for morality. I concede that unless there is some definitive answer as to which religion is correct, it would be impossible to know for certain what humanity's true purpose is. But once again, my point is not to make an assertion as to who's religion is right or wrong. It is merely explaining that humanity either has an objective purpose to be used as a standard for morality or it doesn't regardless of who's religion is correct.

If the former is true, humanity has no specific purpose. Thus, humanity does not have a creator to act as an objective mediator to measure how effectively humanity fulfills its intended purpose. However, because we are beings with intelligence, we can bestow a purpose onto ourselves. However, that purpose is subjective for the exact same reasons in the beach rock analogy. Is humanity a rock for skipping, collecting, or building. Who is right and who is wrong? Is it possible for anyone to be right or wrong?

Now if the later is true, humanity is similar to a knife because we were created by a being with intelligence to fulfill a specific purpose. This specific purpose for humanity is the objective standard to measure humanity's effectiveness in fulfilling its intended purpose because it drives what qualities would be negative or positive towards that purpose. Thus, humanity's creator alone has the ability to objectively determine how well humanity is able to fulfill its purpose by examining the qualities it possesses.

What if the creator of the knife created it for wall decoration, as it was not sharpened fully. It sets on the wall, with intricate decoration for looks. One day, an intruder breaks through the window and threatens to kill your family. You reach for the closest 'weapon' you can find, in self defense; which is the trophy wall knife in this case, and stab the intruder to keep him from harming your defenseless family. Would the creator of such a knife still call it 'bad'?

No, the creator would not be "bad" because the knife was never intended to be used for self defense. As long as it was pleasing to the eye, it cannot be considered a bad knife, nor the artisan can be considered "bad" because the owner used the knife for a purpose it was never intended. It would be no different than to say a knife is bad because it is terrible at toasting your bread. The only thing "bad" in this scenario is the owners decision to use a decoration as a weapon.

Well, did God intend for humans to kill other humans or not? Because on some occasions, He ordered humans to kill other humans. But the commandments state otherwise. So I stand by my original statement that to worship a God results in divine dictates. We are to follow orders, like in the military.

Good question. This is one that I hear often. The simple answer is this. Killing is simply the taking of life. Murder is killing without cause or authority to do so. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. According to a Christian worldview, God is the only person who can give life. As a result, He and He alone has the authority to take life or give authority to others. The Bible condones killing as a result of capital punishment, self defense, or through military action because God has given this authority to certain individuals in certain positions or situations. However, these If it is true that God tells you to kill someone, He has given you the authority to exercise the completion of His will. Thus, it is not murder. It would be intellectually dishonest of me if I did not mention the cases where people committed horrific acts while claiming to be killing in the name of God. The most obvious examples are found with ISIS and other religious radicals. But the point is not whether or not these people actually received commands from God. The point is that IF they did in fact receive a command from God to kill, the killing would not be murder. In my opinion, humanity's purpose is to love God and to love each other. Obedience is a product of that love. John 14:15 clearly says that if we love God we will keep His commandments. Although there is much more to worship than obeying divine dictates, I agree that obedience of divine dictates is an important part of it. The part that I believe you are having difficulty grasping is the motive for obedience. This says nothing negative about you because this is a concept that many Christians don't understand. The motive that ought to drive obedience is love, not fear or power. This is because perfect love drives out fear and that the only reason why we are capable of love is because God loved us first. (1 John 4).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
The point is that IF they did in fact receive a command from God to kill, the killing would not be murder.

If September 11, 2001 was sanctioned by the one true God Allah to exterminate infidels, then it wasn't 'murder'? I find this curious, as many/most/all Christians judge the Holy Qur'an based upon their own 'moral compass'.


In my opinion, humanity's purpose is to love God and to love each other.

Of course you do. The first 4 commandments seem to indicate as such. Well, at least the love your God part anyways. Not so much for your fellow humans, unless telling humans not to steal and take their wives counts as 'love'. If one of the primary purposes is to love your neighbor, you would think it would at least crack the top 10 list...

Obedience is a product of that love. John 14:15 clearly says that if we love God we will keep His commandments.

All 613 of them; where loving one another does not even crack the top 10?

Although there is much more to worship than obeying divine dictates, I agree that obedience of divine dictates is an important part of it. The part that I believe you are having difficulty grasping is the motive for obedience. This says nothing negative about you because this is a concept that many Christians don't understand. The motive that ought to drive obedience is love, not fear or power.

Oh, but I do understand sir. If God does exist, I either opt to follow the commands/orders, or rebel against them. The knowledge of existence is key. If one 'knows' such an agent is real, they are then left with either following their orders or not. The human cannot choose their own decided or invented path without dyer consequences. Such an individual would clearly know that doing so would alternatively result in eternal torment.

So I ask, if the tenets from the Bible are TRUE, then one clearly is aware that following such commandments and dictates becomes compulsory, like paying taxes really. If you do not comply, the awareness of punishment looms in the background. Yes, you could still fall in love with the IRS tax agent whom is there to inflict punishment upon you for not paying your taxes, but the knowledge of the consequences are still always made aware in the event you decide not to comply with the compulsory law placed upon you without your choosing ;)


This is because perfect love drives out fear and that the only reason why we are capable of love is because God loved us first. (1 John 4).

No. 'Believe or burn' (John 3:16-18) is not 'perfect love' from my personal estimation. It is more-so in line with a compulsory situation, coercion, or even an ultimatum.

And yes, I'm aware that Christians believe that all humans are fallen and Christ had to save them. My point is that if one decides the presented evidence is not sufficient, and earnestly opts to remain skeptical, then God feels justified in burning them for eternity. Placing all one's marbles upon ancient anecdotal testimony from biased reports, does not appear like a sound and just method to hinge one's eternity upon...

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If September 11, 2001 was sanctioned by the one true God Allah to exterminate infidels, then it wasn't 'murder'?

Assuming that Islam is the one true religion and Allah did in fact command them to exterminate infidels, yes, they did not commit murder just like Joshua's slaughter of the Amalekites wasn't murder. Assuming that Islam is correct of course.


Of course you do. The first 4 commandments seem to indicate as such. Well, at least the love your God part anyways. Not so much for your fellow humans, unless telling humans not to steal and take their wives counts as 'love'. If one of the primary purposes is to love your neighbor, you would think it would at least crack the top 10 list...
Jesus sums up the entire law in Mathew 22:26-40 as to simply love God and to love each other. If you obeyed the second part, naturally the other 6 commandments would be followed.


All 613 of them; where loving one another does not even crack the top 10?

This is a hermeneutical question, The OT Law is traditionally broken down into three categories.
1. Ceremonial
2. Civil
3. Moral

Ceremonial Laws are laws specific to temple worship. These are the laws which outline animal sacrifices and the roles and responsibilities of the priests. These laws only apply to priests in the Holy Temple which houses the Ark of the Covenant. Since no such temple exists, these laws cannot be applied today even if we wanted to.

Civil laws were the various laws that were intended to set apart and preserve God's chosen people (the Israelites). These laws consisted of the various food and clothing restrictions. Many Orthodox Jews still practice these laws. These laws determine if something is "kosher" or not. Furthermore, as previously stated, these laws were intended to protect and preserve the Israelites, not all gentiles. This was because God's plan was to have the Messiah come from Israelite lineage. More specifically, from the house of Judah. This is why Orthodox Jews still follow these laws because they do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They still practice them in anticipation of the coming Messiah. Messianic Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah so they do not believe that following such laws are required. Because its purpose has been fulfilled. Rather, they may choose to follow them to preserve their traditions. Not necessarily because they are required. So unless you are an Israelite descendant from the House of Judah and do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, the civil laws do not apply.

Now we are left with the Moral Laws. The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example is the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) and the two great commandments (Mathew 22:26-40) . The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today.


Oh, but I do understand sir. If God does exist, I either opt to follow the commands/orders, or rebel against them. The knowledge of existence is key. If one 'knows' such an agent is real, they are then left with either following their orders or not. The human cannot choose their own decided or invented path without dyer consequences. Such an individual would clearly know that doing so would alternatively result in eternal torment.

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is not accurate. If I told you, "Thou shalt not touch the hot stove. If you do, you will get burned" and chose to disobey me. Your burn would be a direct consequence to the decision you made, not because of my wrath. You and you alone would be responsible for your suffering fingers. Likewise, God's purpose for humanity is to love Him and to have a relationship with Him. If you choose not to have a relationship with Him, you are choosing to be separated from Him. You are not fulfilling your created purpose and will be discarded like a defective God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him and I guarantee that He loved every single soul that He cast into Hell. But don't be mistaken, if you go to Hell it is because you chose separation and now you will spend eternity dealing with those consequences. God is no more responsible for your suffering than I would be of your burnt fingers.




So I ask, if the tenets from the Bible are TRUE, then one clearly is aware that following such commandments and dictates becomes compulsory, like paying taxes really. If you do not comply, the awareness of punishment looms in the background. Yes, you could still fall in love with the IRS tax agent whom is there to inflict punishment upon you for not paying your taxes, but the knowledge of the consequences are still always made aware in the event you decide not to comply with the compulsory law placed upon you without your choosing ;)

There is an interesting book I read by Gustavo Gutierrez called "On Job: God Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent". There is an interesting part where he discusses a concept called "disinterested faith". Naturally, he uses Job as an example where faith is tested. He notes that Job's righteousness is not in question (Job 1:1,8). It was the motive of his righteousness that was the issue (Job 1:9). The test was to see if Job would obey God regardless of fear of punishment or promise of reward. True biblical worship is done for no other reason than out of love regardless of promises or threats.


No. 'Believe or burn' (John 3:16-18) is not 'perfect love' from my personal estimation. It is more-so in line with a compulsory situation, coercion, or even an ultimatum.

I believe you are misunderstanding the context. Is a mother not expressing love for her children when she warns them not to touch a hot stove? You referenced John 3:16-18 but you seem to have overlooked verse 17 "For God did not send his Son into the to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him" (John 3:17). The scripture is basically saying that Jesus is your loving mother telling you to not touch the hot stove because He doesn't want you to get burned.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In virtually every measure, the world has become a better place to live IN THE AGGREGATE for the last 200 years at least. Fundamentalists of all stripes (Christian, Jew, Muslim) seem to be entrenched in the notion that the world is going to hell fast.

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

There is only one moral measuring rule, treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself.
 
Upvote 0