Zone1 Without God Who Or What Decides What Moral Law Is?

[BreezeWood]

If two poople have two different ideas of what is right and wrong, and both believe god gave them their moral compus, which one if right.

is that really possible - knowing two different ideas - without both knowing which is which ...

if they have triumphed in their respective beliefs and are pure - they will have earned their right for judgment that will be rendered by the heavens. for admission to the everlasting.

 

[saveliberty]

When Man decides it is a slippery slope into depravity. Happened in every civilization to date.

 

[saveliberty]

You sound like a Muslim talking about Christianity. Regardless you have only dodged the question. If slavery was considered moral by Jefferson but is considered immoral in our society, it seems clear to me that, with or without God, society determines morality.

Jefferson did not consider slavery moral. In fact he called it moral depravity. He spent his entire life in a society that tolerated slavery. Your statements are completely wrong.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jefferson did not consider slavery moral. In fact he called it moral depravity. He spent his entire life in a society that tolerated slavery. Your statements are completely wrong.

- the crucifiers who wrote the c-bible ... to be more specific.

 

[Leviticus]

is that really possible - knowing two different ideas - without both knowing which is which ...

if they have triumphed in their respective beliefs and are pure - they will have earned their right for judgment that will be rendered by the heavens. for admission to the everlasting.

Both opponents and supporters of slavery claimed that god supported their ideals. And both quoted the bible to support their ideals. So yes It's very possible for completely different moral views to both claims that god is on their side.

 

[alang1216]

Jefferson did not consider slavery moral. In fact he called it moral depravity. He spent his entire life in a society that tolerated slavery. Your statements are completely wrong.

So was Jefferson moral or immoral?

Many Christians of his day considered slavery to be moral. Most (if not all) Christians today consider it immoral. So, per the OP, where does God fit into the equation?

 

[BreezeWood]

Both opponents and supporters of slavery claimed that god supported their ideals. And both quoted the bible to support their ideals. So yes It's very possible for completely different moral views to both claims that god is on their side.

is that really possible - knowing two different ideas - without both knowing which is which ...

well, for various reasons they may be on opposing sides - that's not to say they did not really know the truth and who are evil, know it perfectly well.

they think it's all fun and games - a good excuse ... and have their family's to take care of them anyway.

 

[Meriweather]

So was Jefferson moral or immoral?

Many Christians of his day considered slavery to be moral. Most (if not all) Christians today consider it immoral. So, per the OP, where does God fit into the equation?

Where does God fit into the equation? He is eclipsed by the question of, Where does money fit into the equation?

Slavery: In the US, it was the wealthy and the large businesses that owned the most slaves. Three out of five southern families did not own slaves; making it four out of five people did not own slaves. Look at the politics of the time, Recall that a free state could not enter the Union unless a slave state did as well so that Congress would remain "balanced". Didn't matter that North and South combined the great majority did not own slaves. It was the wealthy and well-to-do, which Jefferson was one. The there was that Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court....

The same issue appears in every generation. Ours is, Where does God fit into the equation about abortion? Again, that question is eclipsed by where does money fit into the equation? People make money off those having abortions; people see loss of revenue in raising a child (or having to pay child support).

 

[alang1216]

Where does God fit into the equation? He is eclipsed by the question of, Where does money fit into the equation?

Slavery: In the US, it was the wealthy and the large businesses that owned the most slaves. Three out of five southern families did not own slaves; making it four out of five people did not own slaves. Look at the politics of the time, Recall that a free state could not enter the Union unless a slave state did as well so that Congress would remain "balanced". Didn't matter that North and South combined the great majority did not own slaves. It was the wealthy and well-to-do, which Jefferson was one. The there was that Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court....

The same issue appears in every generation. Ours is, Where does God fit into the equation about abortion? Again, that question is eclipsed by where does money fit into the equation? People make money off those having abortions; people see loss of revenue in raising a child (or having to pay child support).

Thank you for supporting my point that it is not God that decides what moral law is but society and, in part, the economics of that society. I see no history of an unchanging morality between the time of Abraham and our time.

 

[Votto]

A key (and tragic) deficit in human reasoning is belief that mankind is not capable of governing himself free from self-forged iron shackles of either mythological deities who know all, see all and who spectacularly punish mistakes of the species or god-like men such as kings appointed to rule by command of said mythological deities.

The way one determines right from wrong (in the absence of any god's wrath) is to identify and differentiate between those actions which harm the continuation of our species and those which benefit it and encourage its proliferation.

For instance, abortion—even without the dusty presence of ancient deities—can be easily identified as morally wrong; the act of abortion—mass abortion in particular—severely reduces the number of humans available to procreate and continue our species. Thus, and without any inclination toward deity worship, the act of abortion is provably, morally wrong. It is the same with issues such as mass homosexuality, mass transgenderism and euthanasia as a societal policy: all three aforementioned philosophical perversions severely detract from the capability of our species to reproduce, perpetuate and survive—all without need of deity worship or mention.

Harming children in any way, be that harm physical or psychological, is super antithetical to the continuation of the human species. War, also, is against the logical means and natural progression of our race other than in those few true instances of war for national defense, a situation which is historically so rare as to (almost) have never arisen.

Murder is also antithetical to prosperity in general, unless one sets out to be a madman, and unless one is killing in self-defense. Either way, murder removes warm human bodies capable of reproduction and continuation of our species.

Living by a good moral code requires neither genius nor belief in a god; only love for oneself and our species are necessary.

The Left thinks that mankind is destroying the world via carbon emissions. Upon believing this premise, they then believe they have a moral obligation to stop humanity from doing just that.

To reduce the human carbon footprint, they must reduce human activity. To reduce human activity, you must reduce human numbers.

Of course, rounding them up and killing them all off would be wrong, but what if you promoted them killing off themselves via abortion, gender confusion that sterlizes them, allowing them to buy lethal drugs coming across the border, fostering black on black violence in the inner cities, etc.

This is the morality of the Left, not mine, because I neither agree to their premise or methods. But rest assured, they sleep just fine at night as they pat themselves on the back for being the only thing that stands between global destruction and the survival of mankind.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”​

C.S. Lewis.

 

[Votto]

it's called having a conscience.

 

[Votto]

Religion and ‘god’ are creations of man; consequently. moral law/morality is a creation of man.

Only if man created himself.

 

[Votto]

Secular humans have a higher moral standard than the religious

Well that is a bold face lie. Those of faith actually care about the poor as where Leftists destroy economies by printing unlimited money to government.

Why faith inspires people to give

As Americans make decisions about year-end giving, how much of it will be influenced by their faith?

theconversation.com

Overall, religious Americans volunteer more, give more and give more often, not only to religious but secular causes as well. Among Americans who give to any cause, 55 percent claim religious values as an important motivator for giving.

Atheistic Leftists just sit around trying to convince others, and themselves, to vote for people who will force them to pay higher taxes on the premise they will use those taxes to help those in need, (a false premise I might add). Then they try to get out of paying taxes at the end of the year like everyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

Well that is a bold face lie. Those of faith actually care about the poor as where Leftists destroy economies by printing unlimited money to government.

Why faith inspires people to give

As Americans make decisions about year-end giving, how much of it will be influenced by their faith?

theconversation.com

Overall, religious Americans volunteer more, give more and give more often, not only to religious but secular causes as well. Among Americans who give to any cause, 55 percent claim religious values as an important motivator for giving.

Atheistic Leftists just sit around trying to convince others, and themselves, to vote for people who will force them to pay higher taxes on the premise they will use those taxes to help those in need, (a false premise I might add). Then they try to get out of paying taxes at the end of the year like everyone else.

Secular Americans support the rights of gays, they oppose the death penalty, they support universal healthcare, the rights of women

Fundamentalists oppose

 

[Meriweather]

Thank you for supporting my point that it is not God that decides what moral law is but society and, in part, the economics of that society. I see no history of an unchanging morality between the time of Abraham and our time.

Christians believe that God's law is written on the hearts of mankind. My point is in that case, what has some generations/societies upholding the moral high ground, while others eschew it. I see money as the common denominator in the efforts of the wealthy and powerful to persuade society to reject the higher moral ground.

While I see God as the author of morality and wealthy/powerful humans rejecting that morality and persuading the rest of society to go along with it, you seem to see society agreeing on what is moral. I don't see it your way because I see the clear division in society as it relates to slavery and to abortion. In other words, some choose God over the humans who have the wealth and power to manipulate/force society into accepting what is immoral. Nazi Germany is another clear example of the rich and powerful convincing the majority that it was moral to cleanse the gene pool.

 

[Votto]

Secular Americans support the rights of gays, they oppose the death penalty, they support universal healthcare, the rights of women

Fundamentalists oppose

The rights of gays? Christians only oppose the redefining of marriage, like the Left does with all other terms, like recreating what the term woman or recession is.

But why does a secular government care about marriage? Why does government give special perks to those who marry? Hmm? It makes no sense to me. Everyone should have the same rights no matter who they marry or decide not to marry. What am I missing here?

The death penalty ends the life of murderers, murderers who will probably murder again and again, and again in addition to merely dealing out simple justice. For example, do you really have a problem with how Nazis were hung at the end of WW2 for their war crimes? I don't. The Bible allowed for killing murderers to maintain a civil society.

You don't give a damn about women. If you did, you would care about women like this who are athletes being easily beaten by males pretending to be women. In fact, you would not define away what women are.



And if you cared about blacks, you would care about Blacks like Larry Elder who get attacked by white racists dressed in a gorilla mask.



As for health care, North Korea and Venezuela have "free" health care like you want. Why not go there instead? We know why, don't we.

In short, you don't care about people, you just care about the power of the DNC party.

 

[rightwinger]

The rights of gays? Christians only oppose the redefining of marriage, like the Left does with all other terms, like recreating what the term woman or recession is.

Yes, those rights

Christians seek to force their views on same sex marriage on a secular society

 

[Votto]

Yes, those rights

Christians seek to force their views on same sex marriage on a secular society

Force how exactly?

The secular loons are the ones who have all the political power and are forcing it down the throats of the people in public schools all across the country.

 

[Blues Man]

I think that it's a very good question actually. She brings up a very good point.

People decide what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for the society in which they live and it has always been so.

 

[Blues Man]

NO. Human nature prohibits mankind from being able to codify Right and Wrong on our own.

And yet there were codified laws before the Old Testament was ever written