Zone1 Without God, right and wrong are just personal beliefs.

[Weatherman2020]

Stalin is dead. His legacy one of infamous failure. So, no. Not as valid.

One day you’ll be dead and your atoms off floating around.

Meanwhile your opinion of morality is as valid as anyone else’s in human history.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That is just inane equine excrement Stalin murdered and enslaved millions of people. The civilized world, withor without god undersatands that to be objectivly wrong . Yout lid of thinking is dangerous and give license to violence

Murder and slavery make a lot of sense without a God.
Survival of the fittest.

 

[dblack]

One day you’ll be dead and your atoms off floating around.

Meanwhile your opinion of morality is as valid as anyone else’s in human history.

I disagree. Some societies have better morality and thrive. Some don't and fail.

 

[BreezeWood]

Murder and slavery make a lot of sense without a God.
Survival of the fittest.

rather the opposite ...

the bible belt used their 4th century christian bible as the reasoning to foster and maintain slavery till losing their civil war and being forced by law to rescind their evil. however surly for them to keep in their hearts and religion of christianity - the opposite of what jesus and those others died for.

 

[sealybobo]

Without God good and evil are just personal opinions, without any of those opinions being superior to the other. Stalin’s definition is just as valid as yours. And that opinion can change depending upon the circumstances.

It just becomes a slippery slope as broken, sinful society decays further from truth and integrity.

Even with God right and wrong are just personal beliefs. We have laws for crimes against other people but beyond those crimes, right and wrong is subjective. Even to the believer. I know many pro abortion Christians for example. Certainly not clear cut.

 

[Libby von H]

In order to define evil, one must have a definition of good.
And ‘good’ is normally defined in the Judeo Christian faith.

Okay, but said illogically.
I doubt out of an entire desert of Jews in the Exodus even one said "wow, that's new" when Moses sid
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal

NOT ONE

 

[Libby von H]

rather the opposite ...

View attachment 886678

the bible belt used their 4th century christian bible as the reasoning to foster and maintain slavery till losing their civil war and being forced by law to rescind their evil. however surly for them to keep in their hearts and religion of christianity - the opposite of what jesus and those others died for.

And of course this is false.
The Bible Belt Methodists and Baptists had to split off in order to even maintain the morality of slavery !!!
And they were not forced by law at all, It was only as citizens. This was clear throughout our history, the Mormon bigamy case only said that you can't be a bigamist but you can maintain its rightness as part of your religious belief.

Finally, the old logic ice-breaker comes into play:What proves opposites PROVES NOTHING.
Slavery ended due to religious opposition. That some maintained both slavery and their religion doesn't prove anythying except to people like you who won't say slavery is wrong for non-religious reasons. SHAME ON YOU

So what should we think
We should see natural religion as our ally here
LINCOLN July 1, 1854: Fragment on Slavery

If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

 

[surada]

And of course this is false.
The Bible Belt Methodists and Baptists had to split off in order to even maintain the morality of slavery !!!
And they were not forced by law at all, It was only as citizens. This was clear throughout our history, the Mormon bigamy case only said that you can't be a bigamist but you can maintain its rightness as part of your religious belief.

Finally, the old logic ice-breaker comes into play:What proves opposites PROVES NOTHING.
Slavery ended due to religious opposition. That some maintained both slavery and their religion doesn't prove anythying except to people like you who won't say slavery is wrong for non-religious reasons. SHAME ON YOU

So what should we think
We should see natural religion as our ally here
LINCOLN July 1, 1854: Fragment on Slavery

If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

Skin color wasn't the criteria for the Khazar slavers.

 

[Libby von H]

Skin color wasn't the criteria for the Khazar slavers.

AND THERE YOU STEP IN A MEGA-PILE
The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred....

[ NOw before you call Henry Louis Gates or Linday Heywood or John Thornton racist , 2 are BLACK ]


For Frederick Douglass, it was an argument against repatriation schemes for the freed slaves. “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia,” he warned. “We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave trade than to stay here to work against it.”

 

[sealybobo]

One day you’ll be dead and your atoms off floating around.

Meanwhile your opinion of morality is as valid as anyone else’s in human history.

Do you see the deer on the back of my truck? Is it wrong? Is eating dog wrong? Not in China it's not.

China's annual dog meat festival is underway, but activists hope it will be the last

Rules are changing about eating "companion animals" in China, and with a pandemic linked to an animal market, the tide of public opinion is rising.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[alang1216]

Without God good and evil are just personal opinions, without any of those opinions being superior to the other. Stalin’s definition is just as valid as yours. And that opinion can change depending upon the circumstances.

It just becomes a slippery slope as broken, sinful society decays further from truth and integrity.

It is not personal opinions but society that determines right and wrong. God is hardly a constant as His views have evolved over time. The OT is very different from the NT.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It is not personal opinions but society that determines right and wrong. God is hardly a constant as His views have evolved over time. The OT is very different from the NT.

Society can determine right and wrong.

Cambodia, 1970’s
Germany, 1930’s-40’s
Russia 1920-?
China 1928-?
North Korea 1950’s-?
Japan 1936-45


All society driven morals.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Do you see the deer on the back of my truck? Is it wrong? Is eating dog wrong? Not in China it's not.

China's annual dog meat festival is underway, but activists hope it will be the last

Rules are changing about eating "companion animals" in China, and with a pandemic linked to an animal market, the tide of public opinion is rising.

www.cbsnews.com

Thanks for validating the OP.

 

[sealybobo]

Thanks for validating the OP.

How? Please explain. Oh you're saying they don't have god and are wrong to eat dogs but we are god fearing people who eat deer and cows?

 

[Weatherman2020]

How? Please explain. Oh you're saying they don't have god and are wrong to eat dogs but we are god fearing people who eat deer and cows?

Without an ultimate unchanging rule maker, rules are meaningless subjective personal choices.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Without God good and evil are just personal opinions, without any of those opinions being superior to the other. Stalin’s definition is just as valid as yours. And that opinion can change depending upon the circumstances.

It just becomes a slippery slope as broken, sinful society decays further from truth and integrity.

Wrong.

Religion and 'god' were created by man; consequently, principles of morality are likewise creations of man.

Humans are perfectly capable of moral conduct absent religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a Protestant/Non-Catholic Christian view. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is within our reach now, in this life. This way is eternal, meaning it extends beyond this life into the next (heaven).

Those who do not choose God/the ways of God are not forced to do so, and they can choose an eternal way of life without God (hell). I have no idea why atheists/people who do not want to serve God then yell and complain about having to do without him.

The ways of 'god' are often the most evil; the most evil is often committed in the name of 'god.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's essentially the message of the far left, yes

=

And here's an example of the evil practiced by theists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, I doubt that, but thanks to God we have laws that are moral.

Such is the arrogance of Christians, and their wrong-headed notion that Christianity has a 'monopoly' on morality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have Ten Commandments.
You have whatever feels good at the moment.

The ten commandments were written by men, and they belong to everyone.