Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[Ken-1122]

.opps

 

[stevevw]

But that's not the issue, is it?

First of all, it's not just tracing a history, it's tracing the history of these specific concepts.

Secondly, it's not just tracing it back to the time of Jesus. It's seeing if they can be traced back to BEFORE the time of Jesus. After all, if Christianity wasn't the source but just took concepts that already existed, then we should see these concepts around BEFORE Christianity, shouldn't we? But if Christianity really was the source of these concepts, then we shouldn't see them at all before Christianity.

I think the core of Christian morals have been around forever. Like I said the Bible tells us that we as humans know these moral truths through our conscience even without any written laws. Christianity is an expression of these moral truths.
Romans 2:15
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

We have a long history of expressing the moral truths through different means.

 

[stevevw]

Would you say Christian values are the same as Human values; or even secular values? If not, how are they different?

I think there is a core set of morals we all have like don't murder, steal, bear false witness, abuse others. This is reflected in things like Human Rights the laws and ethical codes of conduct which are applied in secular society. But there are some differences in how these are applied between secular society and Christianity. Take sex before marriage. Secular society doesn't really have any stipulations on this either way but Christianity is specific about monogamy and infidelity. But you would not think this the case in modern society.

I think Christian's are called to do certain things like helping others and though we all have this inclination (well it seems to be a dying in modern society) Christians place emphasis on this as its part of salvation. There is also more consequences for not doing good as its not just about what happens here on earth but for the soul and eternity. Whereas I think people living just for this life may see things differently in that there may be no consequences for doing wrong and taking advantage of others.

I’ve already stated my definition of Christian nation is Christian theocracy; what’s YOUR definition?
BTW Even though our laws are secular, 70% of Americans consider themselves Christian

2020 PRRI Census of American Religion: County-Level Data on Religious Identity and Diversity

The 2020 PRRI Census of American Religion provides unprecedented county-level data on religious identity and diversity in the United States. Based on interviews with more than 500,000…

www.prri.org

Yes so I guess it depends on how you frame the question. In one way the US for example is not a Christian nation in that its not a theocracy. Though I don't think that has ever been what Christianity stands for as I mentioned its not about human governments. But in another way we could say its a Christian nation as the majority of people are Christians and therefore this reflects in the way that nation lives which will be seen in politics and culture.

I mean as far as religious belief goes the US is not Muslim, Hindu or any other religion but Christian. So in a religious sense they are a Christian nation. But I don't think its as black and white as that and there's other factors that can complicate things. Like mixing religion and politics which may water down Christian moral truths and what exactly qualifies as a Christian today where I think though people identify as Christian's they don't necessarily live as Christians.

 

[Kylie]

I think the core of Christian morals have been around forever. Like I said the Bible tells us that we as humans know these moral truths through our conscience even without any written laws. Christianity is an expression of these moral truths.
Romans 2:15
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

We have a long history of expressing the moral truths through different means.

So then they were around before Christianity, and all you have is a religion that claims it is responsible for them.

However, that kind of morality has been claimed by lots of other religions as well. If you can say those other religions have it wrong, why can't I similarly say that Christianity is wrong when it also lays claim to them?

 

[Ken-1122]

I think there is a core set of morals we all have like don't murder, steal, bear false witness, abuse others. This is reflected in things like Human Rights the laws and ethical codes of conduct which are applied in secular society. But there are some differences in how these are applied between secular society and Christianity. Take sex before marriage. Secular society doesn't really have any stipulations on this either way but Christianity is specific about monogamy and infidelity. But you would not think this the case in modern society.

(Ken)
You can’t be under the impression that only Christians see the value of monogamy and fidelity in relationships are you? You don’t have to be Christian to value marriage to one person, and to not cheat on that person you are married to.

I think Christian's are called to do certain things like helping others and though we all have this inclination (well it seems to be a dying in modern society) Christians place emphasis on this as its part of salvation. There is also more consequences for not doing good as its not just about what happens here on earth but for the soul and eternity. Whereas I think people living just for this life may see things differently in that there may be no consequences for doing wrong and taking advantage of others.

(Ken)
Christians are not the only ones who help others that are less fortunate; secularists do it as well. And if the Christians only help others as an effort to buy his way into Heaven, but the Atheist helps others because he feels that is the right thing to do, who is the moral one in this situation?

 

[stevevw]

So then they were around before Christianity, and all you have is a religion that claims it is responsible for them.

I guess so. Christ said he was the truth so I guess Christianity is claiming that there is only one way to get right with God and yourself. But as these moral truths are known by all and seen in Gods creation then anyone can know these whether they are a Christian or not. Its just Christianity says that these truths are reflected in Christ.

I think that is the nature of objective morality. You cannot have many truths but only one truth. A case can be made for Christianity representing that one truth. As opposed to secular society where all truths have equal status, though that is really impossible to achieve in practice because as moral beings we know that morals need an objective determination if they are going to work.

However, that kind of morality has been claimed by lots of other religions as well. If you can say those other religions have it wrong, why can't I similarly say that Christianity is wrong when it also lays claim to them?

They don't necessarily have it wrong. As mentioned we all know these moral truths regardless of religion. But Christianity says these truths are best found in Jesus teachings. A case can be made that Christianity is the truth but that is another topic that can be quite detailed.

But basically your objection fails because the fact there are many religions doesn't discount the fact that there may be one true faith. Just like people have differing beliefs about anything really doesn't mean there is a truth to the matter.

I think its the fact that many people have beliefs in general that testifies to belief being something natural in humans about some entity behind what we see and our knowledge of right and wrong. This has been supported by science which shows humans are born believers and have knowledge of morality. But can also be argued from direct conscious experience of belief throughout our history.

Because belief is about a truth there cannot be many truths as this contradicts what truth is. So we can argue for a truth about belief and morality. This is when we get into the case for the Christian God which has many variations like the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, argument from consciousness, Arguments from witnesses' testimony, Argument from design etc. which seem to have a rational basis compared to other beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
You can’t be under the impression that only Christians see the value of monogamy and fidelity in relationships are you? You don’t have to be Christian to value marriage to one person, and to not cheat on that person you are married to.

I agree, as I said we have this knowledge in us. But it only makes sense that this must come from some objective basis which implies a moral law giver beyond what humans think. Otherwise why make monogamy a moral issue. Either monogamy is right or its wrong. But what I am saying is that in secular society which basis morality of subjectivism there is no basis as its up to the persons personal views so being monogamous or not is not a moral issue in the first place and just a difference of opinion like fashion or any lifestyle choices.

Whereas under Christianity monogamy is a requirement regardless of personal subjective choice. We are called to be righteous not by our own will but by following Gods will. Its a commitment to a specific way of living as opposed to deciding what is right by our own views.

(Ken)
Christians are not the only ones who help others that are less fortunate; secularists do it as well. And if the Christians only help others as an effort to buy his way into Heaven, but the Atheist helps others because he feels that is the right thing to do, who is the moral one in this situation?

Like I said we all know these moral truths. The fact that we are moral beings and have to live with each other means we have to keep our behavior in check. The fact is left to our own devices this world promotes self and not others. We are selfish by nature. Christians are transformed from our selfish natures to Christlike natures in putting the self aside and accepting Christ.

It is well known and accepted that the source of help for others has been underpinned by Christianity. Its in the nature of Christianity. Its like a degree in life help. Every sermon, every gathering of Christians is about following the teachings of Jesus which is about loving God and helping others. Its rather cynical to say that the only reason people help is because they want to be saved. It undermines the genuine love people have for others set out by Christ.


Sure a person who is sincere is more genuine than someone who pretends. Jesus pointed this out when the Pharisees acted so pious but were corrupt inside while a poor women gave her last coin to God. But I don't believe this is the majority of Christian's and its testified by the work they have done which is not superficial and is long term and genuine. If it wasn't for Christian charities society would fall apart.


I know this as I work in the community support industry and the majority are Churches all doing their part. But I also think that people who are not affiliated with a Church or Christianity may still be acting as Christians in their heart as its not just about belonging to a Church or specific religion but what is in your heart. As Jesus said when you help the needy you are helping me.

 

[Kylie]

I guess so. Christ said he was the truth so I guess Christianity is claiming that there is only one way to get right with God and yourself. But as these moral truths are known by all and seen in Gods creation then anyone can know these whether they are a Christian or not. Its just Christianity says that these truths are reflected in Christ.

But the problem is that other religions make pretty much the same claim, saying that this morality comes from its own particular deity. Christianity is making a claim no different. If all those other claims can be rejected, why shouldn't I reject the Christian claim that Christianity is the source of this morality for the same reason you reject all the other religions' claims?

I think that is the nature of objective morality. You cannot have many truths but only one truth. A case can be made for Christianity representing that one truth. As opposed to secular society where all truths have equal status, though that is really impossible to achieve in practice because as moral beings we know that morals need an objective determination if they are going to work.

But it has not been demonstrated that an objective moral truth exists. I remember you were never able to prove it.

They don't necessarily have it wrong. As mentioned we all know these moral truths regardless of religion. But Christianity says these truths are best found in Jesus teachings. A case can be made that Christianity is the truth but that is another topic that can be quite detailed.

Of course Christianity is going to say that the truth is best found in Christianity. Likewise, Islam is going to say that the truth is best found in Islam, and the same with any other religion. Christianity is nothing special here.

But basically your objection fails because the fact there are many religions doesn't discount the fact that there may be one true faith. Just like people have differing beliefs about anything really doesn't mean there is a truth to the matter.

Yes, there could be just one objective truth regarding morality, but then again there might not be.

However, all of the evidence supports that subjective morality is sufficient to explain everything we see with morality. You have never been able to demonstrate that objective morality exists.

I think its the fact that many people have beliefs in general that testifies to belief being something natural in humans about some entity behind what we see and our knowledge of right and wrong.

So what? The fact that many people hold a belief does not mean that belief is true.

This has been supported by science which shows humans are born believers and have knowledge of morality. But can also be argued from direct conscious experience of belief throughout our history.

Evolution explains that as well, since behavioural traits can be genetic in nature. If the genes for what we see as moral behaviour were passed on (which would likely happen, as such behaviours would be an advantage in the social groups we Humans tend to gather in), then evolution explains morality just fine.

Because belief is about a truth there cannot be many truths as this contradicts what truth is. So we can argue for a truth about belief and morality. This is when we get into the case for the Christian God which has many variations like the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, argument from consciousness, Arguments from witnesses' testimony, Argument from design etc. which seem to have a rational basis compared to other beliefs.

You can't just claim that there is one single objective truth because someone has a belief about it. Something can be believed yet still be subjective. The fact that you believe it is about a single objective truth does not mean that you are correct.

 

[stevevw]

But the problem is that other religions make pretty much the same claim, saying that this morality comes from its own particular deity. Christianity is making a claim no different. If all those other claims can be rejected, why shouldn't I reject the Christian claim that Christianity is the source of this morality for the same reason you reject all the other religions' claims?

Because logically you can't. The nature of the truth means that one of them may be true but you don't know which one. So you cannot really say that they all are false unless you want to deny that there is no truth to the matter. But in doing that you shoot yourself in the foot as your claiming a truth that there is no truth.

But it has not been demonstrated that an objective moral truth exists. I remember you were never able to prove it.

That was your view. I outlined some reasoning that supported the truth of morality. I also pointed out that the criteria for how you are determining moral truths doesn't apply to morality. You can't test morality in a test tube. It has no material substance. Yet we can make a case for transcendent truths as we live by them everyday.

Our experience testifies to the truth of morality in that we have live out those truths and embodied them to see if they work and they do to the point that we now regard them as truth like laws just like we do with the laws of physics but in a non-material way that is every bit as real as physical laws. This is supported by how they can effect reality as to whether we live or dies or whether we have an objective planet to live on due to our behavior.

Of course Christianity is going to say that the truth is best found in Christianity. Likewise, Islam is going to say that the truth is best found in Islam, and the same with any other religion. Christianity is nothing special here.

But your still basing things on a fallacy that because each religion claims their belief or morals as true doesn't mean there is no truth among them all. As mentioned we can make arguments that the Christian God is the one true God compared to others. A quick example is that Hindu belief has many gods of equal status. That contradicts the truth as truth can only have one determination. If they want to claim their religion is the truth then which god holds that truth.

Yes, there could be just one objective truth regarding morality, but then again there might not be.

But the nature of morality demands a truth. There are not different truths about immoral behavior, its either right or wrong.

However, all of the evidence supports that subjective morality is sufficient to explain everything we see with morality. You have never been able to demonstrate that objective morality exists.

I have by the fact that I have shown that morality is objective by nature and subjective morality is impossible and contradictory. Try and have an argument about whether a particular act is moral or not without any objective determination. You will be going around in circles for ever. Thus the only option left is to say we cannot make any truthful determinations about certain acts being right or wrong which leads to nihilism and a horrible world where the actions of a deviant is on equal pegging to the actions of a saint.

So what? The fact that many people hold a belief does not mean that belief is true.

Its not just the fact that many people hold belief but that we do so as a natural part of being human. So just like other natural instincts or tendencies they are part of us that needs to be lived out in some way. Otherwise we are rejecting ourselves. Sometimes the fact that we all do it means there is some truth to its basis. We all want love and companionship. Does that means we cannot say that love is not true.

Evolution explains that as well, since behavioral traits can be genetic in nature. If the genes for what we see as moral behavior were passed on (which would likely happen, as such behaviors would be an advantage in the social groups we Humans tend to gather in), then evolution explains morality just fine.

It doesn't really. First moral values are not genetic or materially based. You cannot find kindness in a gene or neuron. There's an explanatory gap there between quantitative processes and qualitative phenomena. This is well acknowledged. Second because of this gap there are many anomalies that evolution cannot explain like altruism which contradicts survival in passing genes on. Third evolution only tries to account for how morality came about. But that doesn't explain why. Its says its survival but many morals are contradictory to survival.

Its called the genetic fallacy in trying to explain morality by something like evolution that doesn't explain morality but rather describes how morality may or may not have come about. How do morals come out of proteins when they are not even material in nature. They are more about what the person experiences which can only be understood directly from the subject themselves.

You can't just claim that there is one single objective truth because someone has a belief about it. Something can be believed yet still be subjective. The fact that you believe it is about a single objective truth does not mean that you are correct.

But we can justify our beliefs as being the source of true knowledge about the world. The problem is when we discuss the truth of morality we cannot talk in subjective terms because truth demands a single answer and not many truths. Either there is a single truth or there is no truth. But even claiming there is no truth is claiming there is a single truth that there is no truth. So I think the best we can do is look at our experience and find the truth that way. Our experience of transcendent qualities about the world like truth, beauty and pain are every bit as real as the computer you use to debate this topic.

 

[Kylie]

Because logically you can't. The nature of the truth means that one of them may be true but you don't know which one. So you cannot really say that they all are false unless you want to deny that there is no truth to the matter. But in doing that you shoot yourself in the foot as your claiming a truth that there is no truth.

Aside from the fact that the same reasoning would force you to the conclusion that you can't dismiss the claims of any other religion, this just isn't true. nIt is based on the assumption that there actually IS a single objective truth, a claim that you have yet to prove. And, even if you CAN prove there is a single objective truth, it doesn't follow that one of the religions humans have followed has that truth. It's perfectly possible that ALL religions have it wrong.

That was your view. I outlined some reasoning that supported the truth of morality. I also pointed out that the criteria for how you are determining moral truths doesn't apply to morality. You can't test morality in a test tube. It has no material substance. Yet we can make a case for transcendent truths as we live by them everyday.

Our experience testifies to the truth of morality in that we have live out those truths and embodied them to see if they work and they do to the point that we now regard them as truth like laws just like we do with the laws of physics but in a non-material way that is every bit as real as physical laws. This is supported by how they can effect reality as to whether we live or dies or whether we have an objective planet to live on due to our behavior.

Your argument was nothing more than an argument from popularity, claiming that since most people held a moral viewpoint, then that moral viewpoint must be objectively correct.

But your still basing things on a fallacy that because each religion claims their belief or morals as true doesn't mean there is no truth among them all. As mentioned we can make arguments that the Christian God is the one true God compared to others. A quick example is that Hindu belief has many gods of equal status. That contradicts the truth as truth can only have one determination. If they want to claim their religion is the truth then which god holds that truth.

Your conclusion is not logical. You assume that the truth must indicate that there is one God for... reasons. Why can't it be objectively true that there are multiple Gods? If There can be only one version of objective truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean only one god.

But the nature of morality demands a truth. There are not different truths about immoral behavior, its either right or wrong.

No, it does not demand an objective truth.

I have by the fact that I have shown that morality is objective by nature and subjective morality is impossible and contradictory. Try and have an argument about whether a particular act is moral or not without any objective determination. You will be going around in circles for ever. Thus the only option left is to say we cannot make any truthful determinations about certain acts being right or wrong which leads to nihilism and a horrible world where the actions of a deviant is on equal pegging to the actions of a saint.

You have not shown that morality is objective. You have merely asserted it, and your argument seems to be, "If morality is subjective, then we'd see different people having different opinions, and we'll never get everyone to agree on one set of morality." But that is precisely what we see with morality in the real world.

It doesn't really. First moral values are not genetic or materially based. You cannot find kindness in a gene or neuron. There's an explanatory gap there between quantitative processes and qualitative phenomena. This is well acknowledged. Second because of this gap there are many anomalies that evolution cannot explain like altruism which contradicts survival in passing genes on. Third evolution only tries to account for how morality came about. But that doesn't explain why. Its says its survival but many morals are contradictory to survival.

Evolution explains why behaviours that fit what we think of as moral exist without any trouble.

Its called the genetic fallacy in trying to explain morality by something like evolution that doesn't explain morality but rather describes how morality may or may not have come about. How do morals come out of proteins when they are not even material in nature. They are more about what the person experiences which can only be understood directly from the subject themselves.

You aren't being clear here. How can you say that evolution can't explain morality and then agree that evolution describes how morality may have come about?

But we can justify our beliefs as being the source of true knowledge about the world. The problem is when we discuss the truth of morality we cannot talk in subjective terms because truth demands a single answer and not many truths. Either there is a single truth or there is no truth. But even claiming there is no truth is claiming there is a single truth that there is no truth. So I think the best we can do is look at our experience and find the truth that way. Our experience of transcendent qualities about the world like truth, beauty and pain are every bit as real as the computer you use to debate this topic.

No, we can not justify our beliefs as being the source of true information about the world. If that was the case, then everyone's beliefs would be true, and the fact that the beliefs of one person can contradict the beliefs of another person prove that a person can hold beliefs that are objectively wrong.

You are also using the word "truth" to mean "objective truth." If you allow subjective truth, then the problem goes away. But you refuse to do that, and thus you claim that we can not talk about objective truth in subjective terms. I agree with this, but as I've said, you have not shown that morality is an example of OBJECTIVE truth.

 

[stevevw]

Aside from the fact that the same reasoning would force you to the conclusion that you can't dismiss the claims of any other religion, this just isn't true. nIt is based on the assumption that there actually IS a single objective truth, a claim that you have yet to prove.

`So we are left with 'there is no moral truth' or there 'is a moral truth'. If there is no moral truth then how can we ever say that anything is really morally wrong. See how subjective morality shoots itself in the foot in that we are faced with a situation where we have to determine a truth but we can't because there is no truth.

And, even if you CAN prove there is a single objective truth, it doesn't follow that one of the religions humans have followed has that truth. It's perfectly possible that ALL religions have it wrong.

Then we are left with no way to determine morality apart from personal subjective views. This would make arguing about whether something is moral or not useless. Yet we argue about what is right and wrong all the time. As I said we can make a case for religious belief being a natural part of being human. Therefore being natural we can determine certain behaviors as being factually right or wrong.

Your argument was nothing more than an argument from popularity, claiming that since most people held a moral viewpoint, then that moral viewpoint must be objectively correct.

Its because most people naturally know morality and the fact that morality demands a determination one way or the other is what supports there being objective morals.

Your conclusion is not logical. You assume that the truth must indicate that there is one God for... reasons.

Yes good reasons. If God represents how we should live morally and morals by nature demand a right or wrong determination then there cannot be many gods as this would undermine the meaning of truth and of God itself. If there is a God there cannot be many gods at the same time as God by nature is truth, is good, is love, is just etc. But many gods would imply many versions of truth, justice, goodness and love. Where back to a human made version of God.

Why can't it be objectively true that there are multiple Gods? If There can be only one version of objective truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean only one god.

Yes it does because many gods bring many truths and many ways of being. That would contradict the idea of God in the first place.

No, it does not demand an objective truth.

So if we are faced with determining a certain behavior is right or wrong how do we work out whether its right or wrong.

You have not shown that morality is objective. You have merely asserted it, and your argument seems to be, "If morality is subjective, then we'd see different people having different opinions, and we'll never get everyone to agree on one set of morality." But that is precisely what we see with morality in the real world.

So what about all the laws, Human Rights and ethical codes of organizations which stipulate one way to behave and not many ways. What about when you argue with someone about whether an act is right or wrong and people come to an agreement about it one way or the other. We come to agreements all the time about morality. How do we determine those agreements.

Evolution explains why behaviors that fit what we think of as moral exist without any trouble.

Such as

You aren't being clear here. How can you say that evolution can't explain morality and then agree that evolution describes how morality may have come about?

Explaining how something comes about (its origin being evolution) does not account for whether its true or not. It explains nothing but just equivocates morality with evolution. Its called a genetic fallacy. Its based on the source of the evidence rather than on the quality of evidence.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When one tries to find the evolutionary reason for morality we walk into many conflicts that contradict evolution like altruism for example. But also in that evolution is basically saying as you said that our behavior is deterministic so in some ways we are what we are because we were programmed that way. We can't help it. This sort of lets us off the hook and anyone can say my genes made me do it which is not how we actually apply morality. So that in itself contradicts evolution as the basis for morality.

No, we can not justify our beliefs as being the source of true information about the world. If that was the case, then everyone's beliefs would be true, and the fact that the beliefs of one person can contradict the beliefs of another person prove that a person can hold beliefs that are objectively wrong.

That is why I said we can 'justify' our beliefs. Not all beliefs are true but the fact is some beliefs are true when they can be seen as a true representation of what we experience. Rather than me explain here is a link about phenomenal beliefs.

The Content and Epistemology of Phenomenal Belief
https://consc.net/papers/belief.pdf

The idea that only certain truths about the world and ourselves can be determined by science is itself a belief and an objective claim about the world and what it is which is about ontology and not science. So when you use science to refute the idea that there may be phenomenal abstract truths in the world you are actually making a belief claim just like people do about religious belief. The idea that we can live without these phenomenal truths is wrong as we live with them everyday just like we do in the objective world.

You are also using the word "truth" to mean "objective truth." If you allow subjective truth, then the problem goes away. But you refuse to do that, and thus you claim that we can not talk about objective truth in subjective terms. I agree with this, but as I've said, you have not shown that morality is an example of OBJECTIVE truth.

So we cannot determine if there is an objective world outside our Minds. So we agree that there is one based on our perception which is kind of like a mass illusion because we have not actually verified there is a world out there. We could be a brain in a vat or what we see as the objective world may be just an interface or surface reflection of a deeper reality that we just cannot comprehend.

So we construct a mental image to map out the world that allows us to navigate this interface. It works so we go with it and it becomes how we live at least in a practical sense. All we have is our mind concepts of this.

Morality is the same. We experience the world and through that experience we come to an agreement that certain behaviors are wrong. We have gathered those moral truths through 1,000s of years of experiencing how these morals work or don't work. We derive what works and make them truths because they work or have proven to help us.

The difference is I think our direct experience of the world is more reliable than our perception which can be an illusion because the only thing that is real is our direct conscious experience. So in some ways our conscious experience is a better way of determining the truth about morality. Like science its proven itself to be right. Not all experiences have truth content but certain experiences do when we align them with how they can be applied and how they have successfully proven themselves throughout history just like science.

 

[Ken-1122]

.

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree, as I said we have this knowledge in us. But it only makes sense that this must come from some objective basis which implies a moral law giver beyond what humans think.

(Ken)
But some of the most righteous men in the Bible did not believe in this, so obviously this does not come from your God, so if not your God, what moral law giver are you talking about?

Otherwise why make monogamy a moral issue. Either monogamy is right or its wrong.

(Ken)
I consider monogamy and fidelity a moral issue because I wouldn’t want those things done against me. The way I see it; if the only reason you do good is because an outsource instructs you to, you aren't being moral, you're being obedient! You are nothing more than an immoral person who is good at following directions. I'm better than that; I always have been.

But what I am saying is that in secular society which basis morality of subjectivism there is no basis as its up to the persons personal views so being monogamous or not is not a moral issue in the first place and just a difference of opinion like fashion or any lifestyle choices.

Whereas under Christianity monogamy is a requirement regardless of personal subjective choice. We are called to be righteous not by our own will but by following Gods will. Its a commitment to a specific way of living as opposed to deciding what is right by our own views.

(Ken)
But when you look at some of the behavior of God’s favorite; like Abraham, David, Jacob, or Solomon; it is obvious God doesn’t care about those things; otherwise he would have made it clear to those men that what they were doing was wrong and corrected them.

Like I said we all know these moral truths. The fact that we are moral beings and have to live with each other means we have to keep our behavior in check.

(Ken)
Which is why they are human values; not just Christian values.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
But some of the most righteous men in the Bible did not believe in this, so obviously this does not come from your God, so if not your God, what moral law giver are you talking about?

Which righteous men.

(Ken)
I consider monogamy and fidelity a moral issue because I wouldn’t want those things done against me. The way I see it; if the only reason you do good is because an outsource instructs you to, you aren't being moral, you're being obedient! You are nothing more than an immoral person who is good at following directions. I'm better than that; I always have been.

But that is not Christianity. Christ came to show the spirit behind the laws. He said not only is committing adultery wrong but lusting after another mans wife in your heart is wrong. So its more than just following rules but what the intent is in your heart. He used the example of the Pharisees who were acting all pious in following the law but were corrupt in their hearts.

Not wanting to have those wrongs done against you is also the basis of Christianity. The second greatest commandment that covers all the moral laws is love your neighbor as you love yourself. In other words treat others as you would want to be treated. Its a good basis for morality as we are moral beings and have to live together.

Sometimes we have to do the right thing because its the right thing and we respect the law and law giver. There's nothing wrong with that sometimes. Children don't understand the reasons why they have to be good. They just do it because their parents tell them and know they will get into trouble. That's how we learn at first. But eventually we will see the wisdom in those rules.

Gods laws are not just there to follow blindly. They are wise laws, good for you, good for your health and bring true happiness and peace. So the basis for morals is important as to which morals will lead to bringing stability rather than chaos.

(Ken)
But when you look at some of the behavior of God’s favorite; like Abraham, David, Jacob, or Solomon; it is obvious God doesn’t care about those things; otherwise he would have made it clear to those men that what they were doing was wrong and corrected them.

I disagree. Don't mistake human weakness to sin as being something God condones. The Bible tells it warts and all and showed peoples tendency to sin and rebel against God. But I think you will find that these people despite their weaknesses had a heart after God and in the end proved to be faithful to God and that is why they became gre4at men of God.

(Ken)
Which is why they are human values; not just Christian values.

If we all know these morals and were born with them and they existed before the law like some truth in the universe then how can they be subjective. These core morals like don't murder, steal, bear false witness cannot be manipulated by personal opinions. If they were subjective and held no truth then you or I could come along and dispute them and replace them with different morals and they would still have just as much status and authority.

But we don't, we stick to the same and always have. Though we might venture way from these truths we always come back. They are tried and tested and have stood the test of time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(Ken)
I consider monogamy and fidelity a moral issue because I wouldn’t want those things done against me. The way I see it; if the only reason you do good is because an outsource instructs you to, you aren't being moral, you're being obedient! You are nothing more than an immoral person who is good at following directions. I'm better than that; I always have been.

You're definitely a better person than I am then, Ken, because I can honestly say that I do need the additional nudge from an outside source in order to be moral.

Of course, when I reflect on my past, it was a nudge from another outside source or two that prompted me to go to the Dark Side in the first place ...

But, such is life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes good reasons.

And your "reasons" are built on assumptions that reach your conclusions. These are definitionally "bad reasons".

If God represents how we should live morally and morals by nature demand a right or wrong determination then there cannot be many gods as this would undermine the meaning of truth and of God itself.

"If god", well that really says it all now doesn't it? Building a circular argument.

If there is a God there cannot be many gods at the same time as God by nature is truth, is good, is love, is just etc. But many gods would imply many versions of truth, justice, goodness and love.

"god is love", "god is truth" this kind of talk is just meaningless "New-Age-y" mush. How are you supposed to build an argument on a foundation of mush.

Where back to a human made version of God.

Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me given the general lack of evidence.

 

[Ken-1122]

Which righteous men.

(Ken)
Didn’t Abraham have sex with the maid because his wife was too old? Didn’t Lot have sex with his children after his wife was killed after being turned into a pillar of salt? Where in the Bible does it say God condemned those actions?

But that is not Christianity. Christ came to show the spirit behind the laws. He said not only is committing adultery wrong but lusting after another mans wife in your heart is wrong. So its more than just following rules but what the intent is in your heart. He used the example of the Pharisees who were acting all pious in following the law but were corrupt in their hearts.

Not wanting to have those wrongs done against you is also the basis of Christianity. The second greatest commandment that covers all the moral laws is love your neighbor as you love yourself. In other words treat others as you would want to be treated. Its a good basis for morality as we are moral beings and have to live together.

Sometimes we have to do the right thing because its the right thing and we respect the law and law giver. There's nothing wrong with that sometimes. Children don't understand the reasons why they have to be good. They just do it because their parents tell them and know they will get into trouble. That's how we learn at first. But eventually we will see the wisdom in those rules.

Gods laws are not just there to follow blindly. They are wise laws, good for you, good for your health and bring true happiness and peace. So the basis for morals is important as to which morals will lead to bringing stability rather than chaos.

(Ken)
I’ve always considered Jesus to be morally superior to the God he prayed to.
* Don’t lust after another man’s wife
* Love your neighbor as yourself
* Treat others as you would want to be treated
These are good life lessons; but you don’t have to be a genius to figure that out! This is easy stuff! Any fair minded moral agent should know this. If you have to go to a book, or receive instructions from an outside source to understand the fairness and morality in these commandments, I am sorry for you; but most of us are better than that.

I disagree. Don't mistake human weakness to sin as being something God condones. The Bible tells it warts and all and showed peoples tendency to sin and rebel against God.

(Ken)
Where in the Bible does it say their actions are a sin? The bible does not say Abraham having sex with the maid to be a sin. The bible does not say Lot having sex with his children to be a sin. If God considered these things a sin I’m sure it would have been in there.

But I think you will find that these people despite their weaknesses had a heart after God and in the end proved to be faithful to God and that is why they became gre4at men of God.

(Ken)
So…… If you can cheat on your wife, molest your children, all while finding favor in the eyes of God, why make monogamy a moral issue?

If we all know these morals and were born with them and they existed before the law like some truth in the universe then how can they be subjective.

(Ken)
They are NOT like some truth in the universe; they are subjective.

These core morals like don't murder, steal, bear false witness cannot be manipulated by personal opinions.

(Ken)
They are! What one person calls murder, someone else might call it justified killing. What one person calls stealing, another might call it taking what is rightfully his; what one calls bear false witness, another might call it doing what is necessary to get a criminal behind bars

If they were subjective and held no truth then you or I could come along and dispute them and replace them with different morals and they would still have just as much status and authority.

(Ken)
This is done every day! Haven’t you noticed?

 

[Ken-1122]

You're definitely a better person than I am then, Ken, because I can honestly say that I do need the additional nudge from an outside source in order to be moral.

I am sorry to hear that.

Of course, when I reflect on my past, it was a nudge from another outside source or two that prompted me to go to the Dark Side in the first place ...

But, such is life.

If nudging from outside sources has a history of nudging you in the wrong direction, why do you continue to allow this? Rather than shrug your shoulders and say "such is life" why not think for yourself concerning moral issues?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(Ken)
Didn’t Abraham have sex with the maid because his wife was too old? Didn’t Lot have sex with his children after his wife was killed after being turned into a pillar of salt? Where in the Bible does it say God condemned those actions?


(Ken)
I’ve always considered Jesus to be morally superior to the God he prayed to.
* Don’t lust after another man’s wife
* Love your neighbor as yourself
* Treat others as you would want to be treated
These are good life lessons; but you don’t have to be a genius to figure that out! This is easy stuff! Any fair minded moral agent should know this. If you have to go to a book, or receive instructions from an outside source to understand the fairness and morality in these commandments, I am sorry for you; but most of us are better than that.


(Ken)
Where in the Bible does it say their actions are a sin? The bible does not say Abraham having sex with the maid pregnant to be a sin. The bible does not say Lot having sex with his children to be a sin. If God considered these things a sin I’m sure it would have been in there.

(Ken)
So…… If you can cheat on your wife, molest your children, all while finding favor in the eyes of God, why make monogamy a moral issue?

(Ken)
They are NOT like some truth in the universe; they are subjective.

(Ken)
They are! What one person calls murder, someone else might call it justified killing. What one person calls stealing, another might call it taking what is rightfully his; what one calls bear false witness, another might call it doing what is necessary to get a criminal behind bars

(Ken)
This is done every day! Haven’t you noticed?

Ken, pardon my intrusion, but in each of the cases and instances you've cited from the Bible, there are fuller contexts that have to be taken into account if we're going to 'bother' with applying any form of Biblical Criticism to the texts and do so with academic and intellectual integrity.

While we can play armchair rugby with the Bible in the attempt to beat it down and present defeaters for its ancient, clumsy logic, if we ignore the contexts simply because we're already prone to disrespect the texts, then it ends up turning what could be a useful exploration of biblical criticism into a self-sabotaging moment and your opinion is lost on anyone else who might have agreed with you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am sorry to hear that.

You sound a bit presumptuous in that statement, but I'll let it slide for now ...

If nudging from outside sources has a history of nudging you in the wrong direction, why do you continue to allow this?

Who says I do allow it? I never said that I did. But I get it. You and I have barely crossed paths here on CF, so I can hardly expect you to know my approach to life or my mindset.

Rather than shrug your shoulders and say "such is life" why not think for yourself concerning moral issues?

Again, who says I don't?