I don't particularly want to sin...

[ChristineM]

@Eyes to See

May i draw your attention to staff advice on the abuse of the funny rating?
Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

 

[ppp]

Morality is a godly trait which humans display. Animals, unlike humans, are governed by instinct and thus cannot sin.

All social mammals display morality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He said he did not come to destroy them but to fulfill them:

“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."-Matthew 5:17.

And that Jesus did. He fulfilled the law. And then it was no more.

Let us say you had a contract, once that contract is fulfilled what happens to it? It is complete. There is no contradiction.

Jesus also said there is more yet to come. This is in the Gospels, where he said it shall come like a thief in the night (but Christians are always sure it's near).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All admit, assuming the Bible is true I do want to sin. To all things give glory and thanks to god? I don't want to do that. I also like having lustful thoughts. I like expressing my anger, and I like not loving my enemies (I save that for those I actually do love). I don't want to submit to a man and put him above me just because he is a man. I don't want to live in accordance to Jesus' expectations, and I want to blaspheme when I feel like it. And I love shrimp. And then there's who I am as a person. A lot of that Jehovah doesn't like. Oh well. Let the sin begin.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I want to sin....in the same way I want to meet Voldemort.
Id est, not at all....not even possible.

These guys aren't really over exaggerating. I contest pretty much anyone who isn't Christian wants to sin. Because "everything I’ve ever done; everything I ever do; every place I’ve ever been; everywhere I’m going to; it’s a sin."

 

[osgart]

I wouldn't hold to that perspective... it is too global. And, certainly, with or without God people permit themselves to do things that others wouldn't.

But, if one holds that there is no God, couldn't we then say "My values are my values and you can't tell me I'm wrong?"

There's clearly good and right, and there is also bad and wrong. I don't need a God to tell me murder and abuse is a very bad thing. Without God there are still virtues and vices.

By nature of being alive with others we have a necessity of morality. There's the necessity of reason and justification to qualify one's morality as civil and just. Goodness leads to a quality of life, and wickedness leads to utter chaos and destruction.

Morality is governed by cause and effect, as reason dictates what conscience people need to have with regards to self and others, or suffer brutal consequences. My point is that people can figure it out on their own what morality needs to be for life to have quality and worth.

Following a God's commandments because they are written in a book without giving reason or justification in reality is blind and dangerous.

Morality is a necessity of nature governed by reason. This is true without a God there.

And if God were to exist, then God must be qualified by reason and justification, with understanding. No one should accept a God without reason, understanding, and just cause put to the test.

 

[Sheldon]

Morality is a godly trait which humans display. Animals, unlike humans, are governed by instinct and thus cannot sin.

That morality is not restricted to humankind but comes from above we are told:

"You must be holy to me, because I, Jehovah, am holy."-Leviticus 20:26.

Although Jehovah God declared his holiness to the nation of Israel, and mandated that they must remain holy does not mean it is restricted to them. Later in in the Christian Scriptures we are told:

"But like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all your conduct, for it is written: “You must be holy, because I am holy.”-1 Peter 1:15-16.

Holiness is being pure and clean, set apart to do God's will. So God has a standard of right and wrong. What is holy is pure, undefiled, unadulterated.

God cannot lie:

"And is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie."-Titus 1:2. And he hates a liar.

This morality comes from the heavenly throne of God. God sets the high clean moral standards of conduct of right and wrong, he holds himself to those standards and he expects all of his creation whom he created as free moral agents to also live up to his high degree of morality:

"Happy are those who wash their robes, so that they may have authority to go to the trees of life and that they may gain entrance into the city through its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.'"-Revelation 22:14-15.

I don't believe you, as all you have done is offer biblical claims, but no objective evidence to support your claims.

Furthermore there are many other animals, that have evolved to live in societal groups, that research indicates exhibit moral behaviour. Empathy and morality are likely evolved traits.

 

[Kenny]

There's clearly good and right, and there is also bad and wrong. I don't need a God to tell me murder and abuse is a very bad thing. Without God there are still virtues and vices.

I said that very thing... yet we also know that todays immorality can be tomorrows morality and your morality isn't necessary someone else's morality. So who determines what is or isn't? Is it a standard or is it a moving goal post?

By nature of being alive with others we have a necessity of morality. There's the necessity of reason and justification to qualify one's morality as civil and just. Goodness leads to a quality of life, and wickedness leads to utter chaos and destruction.

But there are variations of what is determined as "quality of life". Someone's quality of life may include drinking and yet that would be destruction for someone else. (as an example)

And if God were to exist, then God must be qualified by reason and justification, with understanding. No one should accept a God without reason, understanding, and just cause put to the test.

True. No argument here.

 

[ppp]

I said that very thing... yet we also know that todays immorality can be tomorrows morality and your morality isn't necessary someone else's morality. So who determines what is or isn't? Is it a standard or is it a moving goal post?

depends on what you define as morality. Theistic morality is usually defined on what the theist thinks their god wants. My morality is based on the real world consequences of my actions on other thinking beings.

 

[osgart]

I said that very thing... yet we also know that todays immorality can be tomorrows morality and your morality isn't necessary someone else's morality. So who determines what is or isn't? Is it a standard or is it a moving goal post?



But there are variations of what is determined as "quality of life". Someone's quality of life may include drinking and yet that would be destruction for someone else. (as an example)



True. No argument here.

People know what's right or wrong by the kinds of things produced by their actions. Humanity in reality always has people shifting the goalposts. There's no one but humanity deciding the acceptable norms from generation to generation. Yet for any kind of civil peace and prosperity the determining factors are always boiling down to virtues and vices. While people often change like the wind, the facts of morality never change; the cause and effect of morality doesn't change at all. The natural world is indifferent to morality, but trustworthy people are always the one's who build the peace, and those that are not tear at the fabric of society.

As for quality of life, some take advantage of that quality in an immoral way and use that for gain. But the true quality of life is those that are trustworthy.

So people change, but the causes and effects don't.

 

[firedragon]

From where I sit, it's human beings who dictate morality. I see no evidence of any God(s) doing so.

Do you have evidence that humans dictate morality? I ask since you said you see no evidence for the flip side so you should be having evidence to your hard claim.

 

[Kenny]

depends on what you define as morality. Theistic morality is usually defined on what the theist thinks there god wants. My morality is based on the real world consequences of my actions on other thinking beings.

But, doesn't that skirt the point? Take, for an example, the hot button of abortion of which I don't know what your position is and one's personal position isn't the issue but rather as an example.

At 6 months gestation some people would say it isn't a person and others would since it is viable because it fully thinks. If one's morality says it isn't and therefore the action of abortion doesn't affect another thinking being and yet for another it would be immoral.

Or, another hot button, someone is filthy rich and pays his employees well and takes care of their health issue. One persons morality would say "You are still too rich" which the other would say "my riches is none of your business" - who is right?

For that matter, who is right on what a marriage looks like? Who decides what is moral and what isn't?

 

[Kenny]

There's no one but humanity deciding the acceptable norms from generation to generation. Yet for any kind of civil peace and prosperity the determining factors are always boiling down to virtues and vices. While people often change like the wind, the facts of morality never change; the cause and effect of morality doesn't change at all.

I think you need to expand this a little for me to better understand.

I agree that the facts of morality never changes (God never changes). I agree that the cause and effect of morality doesn't change since morality never changes and, as my scriptures says, "God is not mocked, whatever a man sows so shall he reap" (cause and effect)

But norms do change from generation to generation. Let's take marriage, for example. Some would hold to "a man and a woman" and another would say "who are you to tell me two of the same sex is not a marriage".

Who decides if that is just humanity shifting vs the constant "morality doesn't change"? Something changed... who is right?

 

[viole]

The heart referred to here is the figurative one, the hidden seat of desire and motivation of a person. It appears that God has given us a moral code and written it into our DNA. That is why we can see cultures all around the world, even backwards and primitive ones who have had no contact with society for hundreds of years, hold simple truths to be true. Such as murder is wrong, adultery is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc.

Do we really need to make it so complicated? It comes without saying that people might think that all those things are wrong. Who wants to be murdered? Or their children be murdered. Or been stolen of the things that helps our gene carriers to survive?

So, when it comes to the obvious, we all sort of agree. However, when it comes to the not-so-obvious, it looks like that this programming of the heart misfires. Is the death penalty wrong? Is gay sex wrong? Is abortion wrong? etc.

Therefore, we have two empirical facts:

1) The law written by God is reliable only when it immediately affects our own survival and prosperity
2) The law written by God is much less so, for things that are not critical for our own survival and well being

So, we have the two alternatives:

1) God programming is buggy. Which is already funny for an omnipotent programmer. For some magical reason, it works reliably only when in case of obvious, survival related, things
2) God has nothing to do with it, and morality has a simple naturalistic origin. Some of it is genetic (killing children for fun is wrong), and some of it is memetic/cultural (wearing mini skirts is wrong).

Wouldn't that be much simpler?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ppp]

Who decides what is moral and what isn't?

The same people who have always done it. People.

Btw, adding a god's opinion would not solve the problem that you're trying to imply.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But, if one holds that there is no God, couldn't we then say "My values are my values and you can't tell me I'm wrong?"

How would that be different from "bible values are god's values and you can't tell me they're wrong"?


Having said that, I don't argue from authority like that.
To me, morality is reasoned and the result of rational discourse and valid argumentation and evidence.

In other words, when there is a proposition like "X is (im)moral", there should be a rational and well argued answer to the question "why is that so?".

"because god says so", "because I say so", "because this guy I follow says so",... none of these are valid answers.

You need to be able to give an actual real-world reason for why a certain thing is or isn't moral.
And by doing so, you can actually also convince me, by reasonable argumentation. By showing me things I didn't think of or know about.

Ask yourself.... when someone asks you questions like:
- why is torture wrong?
- why is rape wrong?
- why is slavery wrong?
- why is armed robbery wrong?


Do you really need to appeal to a moral authority to answer these?
Could you really not give a well-reasoned answer to these questions without appealing to any kind of authority?

 

[Kenny]

The same people who have always done it. People.

Btw, adding a god's opinion would not solve the problem that you're trying to imply.

Somehow I don't see how that answered the question...

No problem.

Hope you have a great day.

 

[Kenny]

You need to be able to give an actual real-world reason for why a certain thing is or isn't moral.
And by doing so, you can actually also convince me, by reasonable argumentation. By showing me things I didn't think of or know about.

Ask yourself.... when someone asks you questions like:
- why is torture wrong?
- why is rape wrong?
- why is slavery wrong?
- why is armed robbery wrong?


Do you really need to appeal to a moral authority to answer these?
Could you really not give a well-reasoned answer to these questions without appealing to any kind of authority?

OK... let's tackle the reasoning.

I am going to bypass the thought of "who instilled the reason that these are wrong -- was it instilled by a moral authority or did it just pop up in our conscience and who made my conscience" and come to the point. I say bypass those thoughts because it will take us too far and too wide.

You picked four easy peasy ones but let's look at a current flash point one.

Who determines what a marriage is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Morality is a godly trait which humans display. Animals, unlike humans, are governed by instinct and thus cannot sin.

This is not true.
All social animals have some kind of "rules of conducted" that is acceptable within the group and which is punished when trespassed. Every social species has its own specific type of "morality".

Wolves that misbehave for example, will be punished one way or the other or even get banished from the group.

That morality is not restricted to humankind but comes from above we are told:

"You must be holy to me, because I, Jehovah, am holy."-Leviticus 20:26.

Although Jehovah God declared his holiness to the nation of Israel, and mandated that they must remain holy does not mean it is restricted to them. Later in in the Christian Scriptures we are told:

"But like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all your conduct, for it is written: “You must be holy, because I am holy.”-1 Peter 1:15-16.

Holiness is being pure and clean, set apart to do God's will. So God has a standard of right and wrong. What is holy is pure, undefiled, unadulterated.

God cannot lie:

"And is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie."-Titus 1:2. And he hates a liar.

It matters not what your book says.

This morality comes from the heavenly throne of God. God sets the high clean moral standards of conduct of right and wrong

Your god thinks that the practice of slavery is acceptable. That the killing of homosexuals is a moral duty. This god also engages in, and orders, genocidal and infanticidal killing sprees.

So you think all that is moral?
Can you think of a context where such things are moral?

, he holds himself to those standards and he expects all of his creation whom he created as free moral agents to also live up to his high degree of morality:

If you call that "high".........
My moral standards are a wee bit higher then standards that don't even see problems with things like slavery and homophobia.

I consider myself seriously morally superior to the biblical god.
You also. Likely, you don't consider it moral to engage in slavery.

 

[ppp]

Somehow I don't see how that answered the question...

No problem.

Hope you have a great day.

It seemed a straightforward and clear response to the words you posted and to your implied subtext.
Ciao!