so god didn't actually dictate leviticus or command joshua. that's an interesting take for a biblical literalist.
Just want to post this again. Wanted to post what Rasta, Crow, ABM and whomever all agreed what theoretically correct.
Okay so now my point. Do the "lawmakers" of the United States feel they are Gods? Do other political leaders around the world believe they are Gods? How can we justify morality unless we are God? And how in the hell did you smart individuals actually fall for this catch-22?
I don't think the lawmakers as a generality try to determine good versus bad. They design a set of laws to determine right versus wrong. You can be good, but wrong(stealing to feed family sort of thing, etc.) and bad, but right. Nobody is playing god or thinking they are god. Laws aren't morals. Peoples morals differ case by case, but the laws in the US are, generically speaking, the same for everyone. You can morally agree with abortion, and others can disagree, but the law on it is the law. You can be morally opposed to gays being allowed to marry, and I can be morally in favor, but the laws are the laws.
Exactly... So when the law of the land terminates a convicted serial murder; it's not about morals; but breaking the law. Now do you see where this is going?
clear on where it was going? I guess not. Sorry. I said not about morals, and playing god, but on laws. You asked where it was going. I don't know what you're getting at. Sorry.
I think this is the crucial point here. Attempting to view this from a non-religious viewpoint (very difficult for me, I must admit), I think most approach the notion of "morality" based on a measurement of "harm". That is, actions that cause no harm to another are by definition acceptable, and actions that cause harm to another are questionable at best. Those that do require harm to another are then evaluated in similar terms, but weighing the harm caused against the harm prevented. Those decreeing others' actions to be immoral will generally cite the harm caused (ie, Iraq war & Iraqi citizens). Those justifying a questionable action will attempt to defend its morality by either disputing the claim of harm caused or by claiming harm prevented. Here is where the subjectivity of perspective enters in, since it deals with assumptions and hypotheticals. In the case of capital punishment, if the termination of the criminal's life prevents the termination of other lives, many would consider it "moral". Many others would suggest that even that is not a sufficient justification. Who is right? It's all a matter of perspective. Generally, societal morality will be subjective and fluid because it is determined by the values and perspectives of the majority. So, it is not based upon a belief in oneself as a "god" so much as a representative of the majority, or a belief that the majority perspective is flawed in some significant fashion.
I sure hope we make it to the finals so I can sit and chat with you. I just like your style. I really think I can learn a lot from talking with you one on one.
You are VERY into this idea that moral rules cannot be made or followed unless created by a god, but this is exactly the point where we differ. Why CAN'T we humans justify morality? Why can't we say "this is how we prefer to live as a society, and those who don't follow the rules are not welcome"? You can't just say "without God there is no reason to be good" and leave it at that. I can think of dozens of reasons not to kill, murder, steal, or maim folks, even without a god telling me it's wrong. Are you unable to do so?
So here's a related question for the biblical-morality folks. If your wife took your son one morning and said that God had commanded her to kill him, what would you do?
PltdPlatypus has it right for the most part. I would also specify there is an importance to defend those that are at a disadvantage because of how they are born. Everyone should have an equal chance at the "American Dream" without being infringed upon along the way.
I operate under the presupposition that scripture is inerrant, and humans are not. So I would tell her that any perceived spiritual prompting which is in clear opposition to the canon of scripture is not to be submitted to and is most likely either misinterpreted or an attempted deception by the evil one.
Well according to my belief; God has already spoken through his word and the life of the "Old Testament" is over and we, and our Faith have been reborn the day that Jesus died and risen on the third day. And the only time we see Jesus again on Earth, will be during "The Great Tribulation". So I think I'm pretty safe that won't happen.
This isn't my idea Trip. This was quoted from many of the great philosophers, outside of "Christianity". Hell Christianity wasn't in existence when many of these philosophies were made. And you, I and some others all agreed with this. Why the change after I brought up this point?
What change? I only just entered this particular discussion. I don't recall agreeing to anything! Perhaps you have me confused with some OTHER misguided atheist? And I'm happy to consider the arguments of great thinkers, but you can't just wave your hands and tell me how pretty they are -- bring them out into the light so we can discuss them in plain view! I'm familiar with the "nothing can be morally wrong without a higher power" argument -- I just don't find it convincing. Hypothetically, if there had been a race of humans who were all sadists and murderers, they would have died out completely after MAYBE a few generations. Even a group that was totally selfish and ignored there fellows completely would be easily outcompeted by groups that wanted to help each other and treat each other well. Therefore it strikes me as completely reasonable (NECESSARY, even) that a species as successful as ours should have a predisposition towards wanting to help others, rather than randomly harm them.
