Suit yourself. Does that mean that killing was NOT wrong before God decreed it? Are we still waiting for his decree on cloning, and if so, does that mean that's not wrong (yet)? Or did he make up his mind on everything before the universe was created, he just takes his sweet time in letting us know? (Oh, and has he changed his mind about the eating-shellfish-being-an-abomination yet?)
My opinion is, it comes down the point of: Do I believe in God and the Scriptures, or not? If so, which I do, then I choose the believe in Him/Them wholeheartedly.....and "accept" the fact that He's God...and I'm not. My morality is really no morality at all in light of His ways and commandments. I believe in God, Jesus, the whole shebang. Sure, lots of stuff (this side of Heaven) doesn't make sense. However, I'm still reminded..
If God's ways are not our ways, why should we listen to him? I happen to think burning babies for kicks is wrong. Suppose an incredibly advanced alien came along and said "My ways are not your ways, and I say burning babies is okay" - should I change my ways? After all, this is a being that could get to our planet AND talk our language, so he/she/it must be pretty damn awesome. Also: if God's ways are not our ways, how do we know he's not fucking with us? It might not be wrong to make shit up, according to "his ways".
see rasta's post. if you define right and wrong as nothing more than god's will they are effectively arbitrary - no less someone's opinion than if you or i wrote down our own moral code. yes, and insane. i don't think morality necessarily exists at all indpendent of sentient minds, but either way it's simple logic that sentient life that DOES value it's own existence (as we do) SHOULD value it's own existence over that of non-sentient life. unlike humans a worm isn't even aware it's alive, wouldn't be aware if you tortured it etc. you might as well say the life of a human and a rock have the same value. a worm and a rock lack the capacity to care about such things. again i don't think objective values exists in the sense you are referring to, but i do think a form of objective right and wrong behavior emerges from evolution and common sense just as a matter of utility. in the case of murder it IS objectively wrong in the sense that humans almost universally value their own survival, and murder is objectively detrimental for the social structures we rely on for survival. and on a personal level if it weren't viewed as wrong it would make it much more probable that you would be murdered (the golden rule is quite utilitarian).
I listen to Him because that's what he instructs through His Word. In the final analysis, Jesus has paved the way: Therefore, what Jesus says, goes. It's what I believe. It's my testimony. It's my life. Many others may choose to believe otherwise, but that's their decision, their life.
not at all. IMO there is no reason to believe what you think of as inherent moral instincts are anything more than evolved or learned emotional response to particular behavior. there's nothing supernatural about emotions.
That is only a valid point if you give God's moral laws and values the same weight as you'd give that of a mortal man's. I don't agree with that notion, not in the slightest. I view God as the sovereign Lord over this existence and He decides what's right or wrong. There are many people out there who value animals like dogs or cats or endangered species higher than that of a humans, but I don't see how that makes them insane from a naturalist viewpoint. Why would it? So humans are the only creatures that value their own lives? I guess that's why a zebra lays down and gives up when it gets chased by a lion then? Or a million other examples like that in the animal kingdom. And you could make a case that a human life doesn't have more value than a rocks from a naturalist point of view. What redeeming quality does a human being have over a rock? I mean let's get down to the nitty gritty here, a hundred years from now every human alive today will be dead and all memory of them will be lost forever more through eternity. And when the earth is destroyed nothing we ever said or did will matter one iota. Humans value their own survival, so does a cow. But does that make it wrong to kill either one? God gave us dominion over the beasts of the earth, and we slaughter cows every single day. But we know it's wrong to kill a fellow human being, and most people feel terrible when it happens. I know where right and wrong come from, I'm just curious how an atheists or evolutionist can have grounded moral values. You can also look at the death of people and animals in other ways too, it leaves more food and supplies open for the remaining population. And those that are weak and unfit to survive would die off, aka "natural selection".
weight is irrelevant. if morality is simply a matter of god's will and nothing more, morality is arbitrary and subjective. why wouldn't it? someone would have to be mentally disturbed to think it was in principal their moral duty to save a dog's life over a human's. humans are the only creatures that are aware of the concept of values. you're arguing about meaning here, not morality. do you think it's preferrable to be alive rather than dead? do you think it's preferrable not to suffer?
...or, rather, absolute. In my line of reasoning, the inventor/creator entirely has the prerogative to lay down the rules/precepts....all of them.
Arbitrary and subjective to who and what? God's laws are absolute and what He says is wrong or is a sin is our reality. Since this is HIS creation, He makes the rules. Why? So that automatically makes them intrinsically more valuable or worth more than "other" animals. For what reason? OK, from a naturalist view why is a human being more important or valuable than a rock in this grand existence of ours? And from who's point of view? I'd say it really makes no difference whatsoever. If death is just blackness then you're not even aware you're dead. Suffering would have no justice or rectification so it's utterly meaningless, just like everything is. Plus it can just be chalked up to perception and chemical reactions taking place, or an illusion that's no more relevant than being in a state of euphoria.
That isn't the case; which is why I just didn't use "Religion". There is "extremests" in every moral concept. In fact, Musselini supported Darwinism and mass murdered thousands of Italians and Africans to purify their race; Adopting of the "Survival of the fittest". Stalin adopted this same concept and killed millions. And there are many "Extreme Factions of Patriots" that killed for what they feel is morally right.
but the rules are still subjective. if god told you murdering children was moral, you'd have to agree.
