Morality: Do you agree

[Polymath257]

Because the claim is that he created everything, including morality. That is where objectivity comes in. Sort of like saying that God created the physical laws and they follow these rules because God made it so.

And could God have created different physical laws? Maybe ones where gravity isn't as strong or where the electric force is stronger?

Could he have created a different morality? Say, one where murder is good and caring for others is bad?

If I believed in a deity, I would consider the first quite possible, but the second not to be.

 

[Polymath257]

Well God was so nice to share it with a few people that could write them down, but he kind of forgot to keep them up to date

I think that is a reasonable question for believers, I would have no answer to that.

But essentially it just means that things are right or wrong because God says so. You are not supposed to question God like that, if there is something you don't understand then the problem is with you and not God, that is basically it. If you were to question the morality of God, then it would be subjective and God pointless in that regard.

Frankly, I find this viewpoint scary. That there is *any* principle that is not questioned bothers me. And saying something is moral simply because a creator deity says so is a belief that has often lead to horrific results.

Too many believe they know that God wants them to kill those who disagree with them (or, in their mind, their God) and have been quite willing to carry out those decrees and say they are moral.

The story of Abraham is one that I see as deeply evil. Being willing to kill your own son because a deity tells you to is offensive to me. it means you are not truly moral at all. You are just following orders.

 

[Koldo]

Well God was so nice to share it with a few people that could write them down, but he kind of forgot to keep them up to date

I think that is a reasonable question for believers, I would have no answer to that.

But essentially it just means that things are right or wrong because God says so. You are not supposed to question God like that, if there is something you don't understand then the problem is with you and not God, that is basically it. If you were to question the morality of God, then it would be subjective and God pointless in that regard.

Not quite what I was talking about. I am asking: How do you figure that I specifically haven't created a new moral rule just now?

 

[rational experiences]

As just a human.. abused history O the human family everywhere. I understood star fall was involved in all nations brothers First.

Conscious change. As natural means are conscious as yourself the position dominion conscious human. Who caused very small changes in nature. Food gathering.

So if I didn't believe in God I'd own scientific human reasons for it.

Seeing men determined by adult human words what all things meant to them.

So a goat had a God itself a dog has a God the dog God etc.

As a human has their god. Human.

Each our owned genesis.

So you are natural highest first the one species the human.

Then brain changed you become a sun star from above fall effected mind.

No God terms O gone from above. Fell onto the ground said men. Crop circles.

You then became aware of earth sciences dusts. Not God either. O fixed earth.

So you build technology as not with God anymore mind. But biology body always with God as holy water is life.

In countries many brothers built technology that blew up. As sun stars from above equalled a machine they built atop mountain.

God below dusts was their ground machine.

Sun theories evil.

The outcome all humans conscious mind left gods awareness. Only gradually returned healing.

Why we haven't stopped disbelieving in God or our own natural human spirituality. As we know by identifying all wrongs. As we are spiritually guided.

We know our forefathers guide us in our heavenly memories. So the natural human hasn't lied.

Science knows it's caused history. Man of science lost his morality. As all men first are natural man.

It's why we said families leadership has to be like our father. So those who hurt their children or want their human family hurt are without knowing God.

So we would not accept them as our leaders as they are not responsible enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps, @Trailblazer, you are less familiar with the Bible than you suggest? Because the Bible says, as @TagliatelliMonster suggests, that God does approve of all of those things. And in the case of the first two, is Himself guilty of them.

I am familiar enough with the Bible, I just don't believe that God actually did those things...
I think that much of the Old Testament is anthropomorphic.

I also don't believe that God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. I believe these were fictional stories that contained spiritual messages.

I believe that what is on this Christian website is completely absurd. Christians have turned God into a man.

Who was walking with Adam and Eve in the garden?

God created human beings to have fellowship with him. That's why he was walking in the garden: he wanted to meet with Adam and Eve and spend time with them.Sep 1, 2010

God Walks in the Garden - Today Daily Devotional

According to Baha'i beliefs, God neither walks in a garden nor does God 'spend time' with humans. God does not want 'fellowship' with men. God is forever one and alone, self-subsisting.

“Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
In case you don't know, Baha'is hold different positions on the Bible and we are free to do so.

"Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree."
A Baháí View of the Bible

In case you are interested, I lean towards the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces.

"The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature."
A Baháí View of the Bible

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

My gods advise subjective morality.

 

[Trailblazer]

New My gods advise subjective morality.

That's fine, I just hope they don't meet the Abrahamic God in a dark alley as there might be a shootout.

 

[Eli G]

This topic is becoming disrespectful to believers and the things they hold sacred. You, non-theists as you call yourselves, should stop your sarcasm and teasing, even if you are not believers... that is not the way topics should be discussed on this forum.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This topic is becoming disrespectful to believers and the things they hold sacred. You, non-theists as you call yourselves, should stop your sarcasm and teasing, even if you are not believers... that is not the way topics should be discussed on this forum.

Well, I'm a theist so I'm going to poke fun at overly sanctimonious gatekeeping on morality, and this ridiculous stance that atheists cannot possess morality. Give me a reason to respect such preposterous claims.

 

[Eli G]

Well, I'm a theist so I'm going to poke fun at overly sanctimonious gatekeeping on morality, and this ridiculous stance that atheists cannot possess morality. Give me a reason to respect such preposterous claims.

I have not idea about who said that ... and you don't have to adress that comment to me if you didn't even check on my posts.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I have not idea about who said that ... and you don't have to adress that comment to me if you didn't even check on my posts.

Your post that I replied to is pleading for atheists (or "non-theists") to stop teasing and being sarcastic about this. Why? Why should they be solemnly respectful while being told per topic that they're not able to be moral without a god?

 

[Eli G]

Again, don't tell me what has nothing to do with me.

Address your claims to whom it may concern.

Have a good night.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

 

[sayak83]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

God's morality is subjective morality only.

 

[Nimos]

Well there you go! Anyone willing to undertake a debate where premises must be accepted as true -- is doomed to either triumph or failure, depending on whether he decides yes or no. But in spite of the triumph of one side and failure of another, absolutely nothing will have been decided.

Seems like a pretty pathetic argument, to me.

In all these debates one side will be based on the premise that God exists, except if that is what the debate is about, otherwise there would be no debate, to begin with
But isn't that pretty normal in debates? I mean often people will debate based on an assumption of how something might be or turn out to be. Politics, theories etc. Religious debates are no different I think.

 

[Nimos]

God's morality is subjective morality only.

Well yes and no

If God can't be wrong, then he must also be correct about what is morally right and wrong. However, you are correct that God decided what that is, which would make it subjective I guess

 

[Nimos]

And could God have created different physical laws? Maybe ones where gravity isn't as strong or where the electric force is stronger?

Could he have created a different morality? Say, one where murder is good and caring for others is bad?

If I believed in a deity, I would consider the first quite possible, but the second not to be.

As I just wrote to @sayak83.
God can't be wrong, in theory at least. So my guess is that God couldn't or wouldn't make them differently, because if he did, they would be wrong in that sense, as he would have made them like that, to begin with.

At least from a logical point of view, I think that would make sense. So one must assume that they are perfect.

 

[Nimos]

Frankly, I find this viewpoint scary. That there is *any* principle that is not questioned bothers me. And saying something is moral simply because a creator deity says so is a belief that has often lead to horrific results.

Too many believe they know that God wants them to kill those who disagree with them (or, in their mind, their God) and have been quite willing to carry out those decrees and say they are moral.

The story of Abraham is one that I see as deeply evil. Being willing to kill your own son because a deity tells you to is offensive to me. it means you are not truly moral at all. You are just following orders.

Agree, but from my understanding, those are the "rules", I doubt any believers would question God in regards to whether he is correct or not, that would be rather unthinkable I would assume. As he is the creator after all.

 

[Nimos]

Not quite what I was talking about. I am asking: How do you figure that I specifically haven't created a new moral rule just now?

If you mean you literally and how I would figure it out? Then I have no way of doing that, but also I wouldn't care, what that moral rule is to begin with if it doesn't involve me.

Not sure if I understood it correctly?

 

[sayak83]

Well yes and no

If God can't be wrong, then he must also be correct about what is morally right and wrong. However, you are correct that God decided what that is, which would make it subjective I guess

What makes it so that God's moral views cannot be wrong?