can you elaborate on this statement for me? How do many already do better?
My ethics are the rational ethics of humanism based in a utilitarian vision for society. You may not agree that those are superior ethics, but if so, you probably believe that people speaking for a god are in a better position to tell us right and wrong based in the belief that those ideas come from gods. Christian ethics are the ones I know best from among the religions, and they're full of bigotries and messages for a world we no longer live in.
The ethics of sex in Christianity have been to promote fecundity, and come from a time when life was shorter, men died more often and younger in war and women in childbirth, infant mortality was higher, and infection and food poisoning took so many lives that every fertile womb was needed to generate more soldiers and mothers, and larger, safer communities. Toward this end, maidens were encouraged to marry at puberty, to never refuse their husbands sex, and to never divorce, masturbate, engage in homosexuality, or use contraception or abortion.
Today's world is overpopulated, and those ideas become immoral, since they work against human well-being now. And so you have things like the Christians capturing the American Supreme Court and trying to force mothers to deliver unwanted babies. They'll take gay marriage and contraceptives away as well if they can. This is because they are still marching to an ancient and now counterproductive drumbeat. When they update their ethics as when American Christians accepted the overthrowing of God's divinely appointed king and to accept divorce, it was because of the input of rational humanistic influences.
And what laws and morals given by God are you referring to? The ten Commandments?
Any that people say come from a god and are to be received and obeyed uncritically. They're never as good as what reasonable, well-meaning people can come up with. Look at the poor Baha'i, who are basically a kind, gentle people, but have been led astray by Abrahamic theology and its homophobic deity. We can do better than that, but we need to bring empathy and reason to the table to do that.
Yes men cone to think they know better and shut God out.
Men who bring empiricism and empathy to the process do know better than any of the holy books, especially those of the Abrahamic religions, where people begin speaking for gods who happen to share their own bigotries. These books have failed mankind for millennia. How long has yours had to bring unity to the world, and how much have the Baha'i accomplished? I had never heard of your religion before coming to RF. It sounded like an island in Hawaii or Indonesia. It's begins to pall after a while when people say that if man would just follow the book, he'd be happy. It would be as ineffectual as a humanist saying be kind and wise, and then blaming others because the message was so ineffective.
That is the quandary of God given choice. I can only offer what I have found.
Or, you could offer what was requested - a reply that addresses what was said to you. I'm assuming as always when you don't rebut it's because you are wrong and therefore can't. Here's that comment for you to ignore a third time. Let's try to guess why. We can only guess, since you refuse to participate in a discussion. You only want to post vapid comments like that one that reads like a fortune cookie fortune or a Hallmark card:
- "This doesn't address my comment, which was, "We can do better than that. Many already do" in response to, "the laws and morals given by God." A rebuttal is a counterargument that attempts to falsify a claim. Furthermore, now you're claiming humanist moral values for your god as well ("all possible virtues and morals"). Isn't one of your god's moral values that homosexuality is a sin? That god's love doesn't extend to that group of honest, hard-working, decent, community-minded people because they sleep with one another. You can call that love, but I don't. That's what I mean by we can do better than going to religions for moral guidance. Apparently, telling people to love another for a few millennia accomplishes nothing, especially when your model of loves include bigotry (atheophobia, homophobia, misogyny) and blood sacrifice. But none that have led to that outcome. It's time to look elsewhere for answers."
They are free to move into a country that is not a Christian theocracy. I think the question was about would I like to live in theocracy. I would, if it would mean that the only law is the ten commandments. This doesn't mean I would want to force everyone else to live in it.
I have a better idea. Why don't you leave and go form your religious society somewhere else and leave democracy-loving and personal freedom-loving people to their own devices. I believe that Jonestown is still available.