As this is a 'Christian forum' we are talking about Christianities God.
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".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 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.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.
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 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".
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".
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.
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: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.
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.
You need to substantiate that claim right there. Do you really mean to say that a nontheistic society is incapable of showing love?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.
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.
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'?
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.
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).
If September 11, 2001 was sanctioned by the one true God Allah to exterminate infidels, then it wasn't 'murder'?
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.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...
All 613 of them; where loving one another does not even crack the top 10?
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
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.
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?