Support NeoGAF

[farmerboy]

Man has always felt a deeper connection with the world around him. We see this especially with indigenous peoples. As culture developed these ties formed into religions. But it is this original connection that informs our desire to be good. Good to others and the earth that created us.

I strongly believe, whether that connection is with God or not, that connection exists. And it is the source of all moral good.

 

[Rentahamster]

Man has always felt a deeper connection with the world around him. We see this especially with indigenous peoples. As culture developed these ties formed into religions. But it is this original connection that informs our desire to be good. Good to others and the earth that created us.

I strongly believe, whether that connection is with God or not, that connection exists. And it is the source of all moral good.

Evolutionary speaking, one of the reasons our species of hominids became dominant is not because we were necessarily smarter or stronger than the others, but because we cooperated better with each other. Eventually, this becomes a measure of fitness, and the tribes that have a tighter social cohesion are able to accomplish more and survive better, and propagate themselves into the future.

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

When I was little, say under 7 years old, my grandma would babysit this girl who would insistently bite my arms. She would latch her teeth onto me and not let go. I would eventually start pulling her hair to make her stop, but often that wouldn't stop it. She always left the equivalent of a dental print on my arm. Nothing would get her to stop and her biting always lead to me having to beat her off in the way a 6 year old boy would. I don't mean she'd bite and a few seconds I'd fight her off. I mean 10-15 minutes of her latched onto my forearm with her teeth clamped on my skin like a bear trap. My grandma would often look exasperate and just give up because she needed that babysitting money.

So I don't think every child naturally knows right from wrong. I wouldn't assume that. Dark natures start early. And I use the word nature with intent, because I doubt this is bred in by society. It may be stray genetic flaws, but some people have a nature to them that you don't want in society.

A proper religion gives guidelines on how to act in the world, but it often includes warnings about those things that cannot coexist in the tribe with others. I view these as socially evolved wisdoms based on truth about humans as social creatures. I also view God as not just a force grander and larger than the human, but that thing beyond comprehension.

And most attempts to replace this necessary part of human life have been terrible or too weak to defend itself from those dark natured things. All the elements are necessary, the religion, the lessons, and the idea of God. The one thing that may not be necessary is the church. I'm still trying to figure that out.

 

[O-N-E]

Yet you claim to be sure of its existence and how it is derived with certainty. Don't you think those things should be closely related?


Can you prove its paradoxical nature? Can you demonstrate these other levels of reality, or is the only one available to us to measure this current one?


How can you, a mere mortal, assume to precisely know the will of The Creator so easily?

You disingenuous little %$*!

That still means He knows everything. Many Christians adhere to the phrase, "God has a plan". Do you agree or disagree?

What does it matter? What is the relevance to this thread?

I mean. I can just say "The heat death of the universe".

That's inevitable, right? That could be a plan.



You are something else, man.

You still haven't demonstrated this beyond assertion.

Yes, I have. As your precious philosophers demonstrated with logic, so have I.

You believe in an emergent morality (society / biology). The factors that led to your current moral outlook were determined by everything that came before. Without a creator, you're merely a lump of atoms that happened to coalesce due to a myriad of previous causes and you will continue to move along a particular trajectory until your demise, which will cause those atoms to slough off and continue on their trajectory.

Not just your end, but your every move and gesture is destined.

Where's the responsibility? Where's the morality? Is it that thing that sits in your head and whispers for you to do this and that and nod to yourself that you're a good person?

Pfft

 

[Rentahamster]

You disingenuous little %$*!

Care to explain?

What does it matter? What is the relevance to this thread?

It matters because:

If a Creator doesn't exist, you live in a deterministic universe and no morals exist aside from your imaginary ones. If a Creator exists, free will can exist, and with it, absolute morality. Your society doesn't matter.

It is relevant to this thread because:

If a Creator doesn't exist, you live in a deterministic universe and no morals exist aside from your imaginary ones. If a Creator exists, free will can exist, and with it, absolute morality. Your society doesn't matter.

I'm elaborating on your train of thought.

I mean. I can just say "The heat death of the universe".

That's inevitable, right? That could be a plan.



You are something else, man.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you agree with the sentiment many Christians share that "God has a plan"? Simple question.

Yes, I have. As your precious philosophers demonstrated with logic, so have I.

You believe in an emergent morality (society / biology). The factors that led to your current moral outlook were determined by everything that came before. Without a creator, you're merely a lump of atoms that happened to coalesce due to a myriad of previous causes and you will continue to move along a particular trajectory until your demise, which will cause those atoms to slough off and continue on their trajectory.

Not just your end, but your every move and gesture is destined.

Where's the morality? Is it that thing that sits in your head and whispers for you to do this and that and nod to yourself that you're a good person?

Pfft

No you haven't. Is "God did it" any more acceptable than "A wizard did it"? You need to explain it more deeply than that. Some people accept that reasoning as good enough and that's fine, but that's not a reason based on reality.

As I mentioned earlier, if a given tribe or society considers prosperity, health, and wealth positive things, then it will structure itself to maximize for those things. American law is derived in similar ways. These is morality in these structures that inform the framework of our society. It keeps most of us alive. It punishes the wicked and rewards the just (for the most part although it's not a perfect system). One would think a divinely inspired form of law would be as perfect as the being which created it, yet there are still many injustices that can occur in a strictly dogmatic interpretation of God's law in some religious institutions. That would lend one to think that those imperfect laws must have been a mortal creation given they are not divinely perfect.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

"I'm agnostic and I'm not a cereal killer."

Where did you hide the bodies hamster?

 

[Rentahamster]

"I'm agnostic and I'm not a cereal killer."

Where did you hide the bodies hamster?

You see them out in the open every Friday at my pool parties.

 

[MetalAlien]

You see them out in the open every Friday at my pool parties.

I'm jealous that Tess liked all your posts in this thread. I'll never forgive you.

 

[GAMETA]

The thing is, you have to choose to be good. Not doing evil is not the same as being good.

And I don't think most people are good or want to be good, they're just afraid of being punished.

Religion and the law function in the same way here, morality is the guidelines to a good society, the path that leads to benevolence, but following it is very different than being forced to to avoid punishment.

What does that mean? That religion's gods, heaven and hell serve a purpose, as well as the law, freedom and punishment... That also means that, soon, corporations controlling the internet and the flow of information will be the next gods.

 

[Sign]

I already gave you two. Did Zeus dictate what was right and wrong to the Greeks? Why is it that when we consider the Ancient Greeks and their notions of democracy which form some of the basis of our modern notions of democracy, do we relate that more to the origins of philosophy, debate, and quorum? Or to Athena or Persephone, or Neptune?

What are the main key differences between democracy, theocracy, and dictatorship? No need to elaborate deeply, just a few sentences.

Neither Buddhism, nor Confucianism, nor Shinto command morality via authority and supernatural edict. These are different. There is religion, but not a god-mandated framework of morality as described in my premise.

The premise of this thread is that morality can be found independent of God. If this were true, we would have a single example of a country, anywhere, through-out all of human history, that developed independently from the concepts of God. Of right and wrong. Nothing "Supernatural" whatsoever.

Japan does not fit this bill.
Ancient Greece does not fit this bill.

If there is a belief in a "greater being," in a "more," in something other than just man, it will have an affect on everything in that society, whether explicit or not. There will always be questions of how to not anger the Gods, how to please them, etc.

So far the idea that "The existence of god, a god, or many gods is not required in order for a society to have a positive moral framework," is a resounding "No."

Or at least, "Not until a religion does all the heavy lifting of making the society actually stable and functional before being discarded by """""intellectuals""""" and collapsing into nothing, being conquered by groups with much stronger beliefs."

Countries in the West are suffering from crazy pants lunacy right now because they've left God for their own "creations." It is not by coincidence that Europe is seeing massive influxes of Muslims, it is not by coincidence that Japan's birth rates have plummeted, it is not by coincidence that crazy White Liberals are literally kneeling before Black people.

The irony of this whole thread, of course, is that atheism is decreasing world-wide, not increasing.

Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population

Though the percentage of religiously "nones" in America has risen, the global share of religiously unaffiliated people is expected to fall in coming decades.

www.pewresearch.org

This relative decline is largely attributable to the fact that religious “nones” are, on average, older and have fewer children than people who are affiliated with a religion.

Atheists have fewer children. Japan, a country that is less religious today, has demographics issues as does many countries in the West. It is almost like atheism / secularism isn't capable of creating societies from scratch (which require religious frameworks), or even maintaining them.

TL;DR: Until you can give a single example of a society that, from inception, has never dealt with religion or Gods in general, we will be dealing with hypothetical's. I can't change your mind on a hypothetical because it isn't real. It is the same reason why Communists never concede their ideas don't work, because to them "It has never really been tried!" It is all hypothetical's.

You may think that "right and wrong" comes innately, but there is no society that demonstrates this. The "secularism" always ends up bumming off the foundation building of religion and Gods. The belief in the Divine pierces deep in any man's soul, and will always be inseparable from the societies history, development, tribulations, and current state.

And when that piercing blunts and ceases to exist, that society dies with it. Always. Without fail. And for the worse.

You don't think the Old Testament counts?

Of course it counts, but Christianity is the Old and New. If it were just Old it would be Judaism (sorta). New Testament is God sending his only begotten son to die for everyone's sins. Christianity by its very nature leans on the New Testament, though.

 

[Rentahamster]

The premise of this thread is that morality can be found independent of God. If this were true, we would have a single example of a country, anywhere, through-out all of human history, that developed independently from the concepts of God. Of right and wrong. Nothing "Supernatural" whatsoever.

Japan does not fit this bill.
Ancient Greece does not fit this bill.

Was there a Greek or Japanese equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount, or the Ten Commandments?

If there is a belief in a "greater being," in a "more," in something other than just man, it will have an affect on everything in that society, whether explicit or not. There will always be questions of how to not anger the Gods, how to please them, etc.

So far the idea that "The existence of god, a god, or many gods is not required in order for a society to have a positive moral framework," is a resounding "No."

That's just another reason out of many. You can also reach those same conclusions from the premise that you value human life and wish to preserve it as much as possible.

The irony of this whole thread, of course, is that atheism is decreasing world-wide, not increasing.

Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population

Though the percentage of religiously "nones" in America has risen, the global share of religiously unaffiliated people is expected to fall in coming decades.

www.pewresearch.org

We were talking about Christianity, not world religions. Not just believers of religion. Do you consider the moral tenets of other faiths such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or Wiccan to be just as relevant as those of Christianity?

Or at least, "Not until a religion does all the heavy lifting of making the society actually stable and functional before being discarded by """""intellectuals""""" and collapsing into nothing, being conquered by groups with much stronger beliefs."

Countries in the West are suffering from crazy pants lunacy right now because they've left God for their own "creations." It is not by coincidence that Europe is seeing massive influxes of Muslims, it is not by coincidence that Japan's birth rates have plummeted, it is not by coincidence that crazy White Liberals are literally kneeling before Black people.

You have not demonstrated that this is a direct cause and effect due to Christianity (or the lack thereof) beyond just saying that it is.

TL;DR: Until you can give a single example of a society that, from inception, has never dealt with religion or Gods in general, we will be dealing with hypothetical's. I can't change your mind on a hypothetical because it isn't real. It is the same reason why Communists never concede their ideas don't work, because to them "It has never really been tried!" It is all hypothetical's.

That's not what the thread is about though. It's "can we conceive of one without relying on the existance of god".

You may think that "right and wrong" comes innately, but there is no society that demonstrates this. The "secularism" always ends up bumming off the foundation building of religion and Gods. The belief in the Divine pierces deep in any man's soul, and will always be inseparable from the societies history, development, tribulations, and current state.

I didn't necessarily claim that "right and wrong" is innate. And that's not what the example of children was about, either. Your doom and gloom about the state of the world does not match up to facts about reality.

9 charts that prove there’s never been a better time to be alive

Guys, it’s really not that bad. In fact, it’s the best it’s ever been. That’s Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s argument in his new book “Enlightenment Now” (Viking). We may be inundated with ho…

nypost.com

Of course it counts, but Christianity is the Old and New. If it were just Old it would be Judaism (sorta). New Testament is God sending his only begotten son to die for everyone's sins. Christianity by its very nature leans on the New Testament, though.

That is quite true. So Exodus 21 counts. Do you agree that God's guidance in Exodus 21 is moral? By your reasoning, it has to be, because it's from God.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

And I don't think most people are good or want to be good, they're just afraid of being punished.

They are afraid of being uncomfortable.

 

[Stouffers]

Look around.

 

[Thurible]

Rentahamster Exodus is part of the Old Law from the Old Testament. Christians generally do not follow the Old Law because we believe it has been fufilled with Christ. A new covenant was made with Him which changes things. Ex. Sacrifical and purification rites described in leviticus are non-applicable and men do not have to be circumcised with Christianity.

Christian views on the Old Covenant - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Rentahamster]

Rentahamster Exodus is part of the Old Law from the Old Testament. Christians generally do not follow the Old Law because we believe it has been fufilled with Christ. A new covenant was made with Him which changes things. Ex. Sacrifical and purification rites described in leviticus are non-applicable and men do not have to be circumcised with Christianity.

Christian views on the Old Covenant - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Do the Ten Commandments not count anymore? Are these laws still from God?

 

[Thurible]

Do the Ten Commandments not count anymore? Are these laws still from God?

From the wiki source:

Unlike the ceremonial and judicial precepts, moral commands continue to bind, and are summed up in the Ten Commandments (though the assigning of the weekly holiday to Saturday is ceremonial). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord ... the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'"2070. The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law: "From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue" (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 15, 1: PG 7/1, 1012).2072. Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbour, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.[10]

 

[Rentahamster]

From the wiki source:

Unlike the ceremonial and judicial precepts, moral commands continue to bind, and are summed up in the Ten Commandments (though the assigning of the weekly holiday to Saturday is ceremonial). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord ... the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'"2070. The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law: "From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue" (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 15, 1: PG 7/1, 1012).2072. Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbour, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.[10]

Why do the Ten Commandments count but not Exodus?

 

[O-N-E]

As I mentioned earlier, if a given tribe or society considers prosperity, health, and wealth positive things, then it will structure itself to maximize for those things. American law is derived in similar ways. These is morality in these structures that inform the framework of our society. It keeps most of us alive. It punishes the wicked and rewards the just (for the most part although it's not a perfect system). One would think a divinely inspired form of law would be as perfect as the being which created it, yet there are still many injustices that can occur in a strictly dogmatic interpretation of God's law in some religious institutions. That would lend one to think that those imperfect laws must have been a mortal creation given they are not divinely perfect.

You're ignoring fundamental problems with emergent morality that I've pointed out and from a cursory glance at your interactions with others, it seems like you're trying to tie them up in a pointless debate on the specifics of their religion with no real payoff with regards to the topic at hand. It's futile.

 

[Rentahamster]

You're ignoring fundamental problems with emergent morality that I've pointed out and from a cursory glance at your interactions with others, it seems like you're trying to tie them up in a pointless debate on the specifics of their religion with no real payoff with regards to the topic at hand. It's futile.

No I'm not. You haven't explained why "emergent morality" is a problem aside from an appeal to the supernatural.

Debating about theology is not pointless if for some people it is the basis of their morality, which is the topic of this thread.

You do seem averse to answering questions that make you uncomfortable.

 

[Master Of Illusion]

Morality is fake.

 

[O-N-E]

No I'm not. You haven't explained why "emergent morality" is a problem aside from an appeal to the supernatural.

I'm not appealing to the supernatural. I'm using common sense. Cause and effect. Your every action has already been dictated. Your "morality" is not your own.

You believe you have freedom of choice? Why? What's the mechanism? How dare you assume on behalf of the universe?

Debating about theology is not pointless if for some people it is the basis of their morality, which is the topic of this thread.

You're going about trying to attack specific points of a particular religion. Regardless of whether you have something valid to say on that, this topic was about whether a society can be moral with a root in a god or without. Why are you dissecting this particular deity or that one? You're putting the cart before the horse.

The fact is you don't have a single example of a nation that has been wholly untouched and devoid of religious influence and therefore have no empirical evidence. Everything else has been smoke and mirrors. A distraction.

I added another layer to the argument by pointing out that a world without a Creator is predictable and deterministic. In which case, your whole premise is moot as no-one is moral to begin with. Everyone is equal.

You do seem averse to answering questions that make you uncomfortable.

Nah. Just your tactics are so desperate and irrelevant that, as I said earlier, makes this futile.

 

[mcz117chief]

Why do the Ten Commandments count but not Exodus?

The Ten Commandments establish the moral framework and the basic relationship between humans and God. They are the foundation on which all humans can build their relationship with God and one another, not just the Jews but the Gentiles too. Exodus was for a specific period, people and event just like Leviticus. Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the old covenant, but to fulfill it. He also gave us a new commandment, the commandment of love "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not appealing to the supernatural. I'm using common sense. Cause and effect. Your every action has already been dictated. Your "morality" is not your own.

You believe you have freedom of choice? Why? What's the mechanism? How dare you assume on behalf of the universe?

Your answers to these questions will inform the resulting answers. I'm trying to explain to you step by step. This doesn't work if you don't reciprocate.

Yet you claim to be sure of its existence and how it is derived with certainty. Don't you think those things should be closely related?


Can you prove its paradoxical nature? Can you demonstrate these other levels of reality, or is the only one available to us to measure this current one?


How can you, a mere mortal, assume to precisely know the will of The Creator so easily?


That still means He knows everything. Many Christians adhere to the phrase, "God has a plan". Do you agree or disagree?

You're going about trying to attack specific points of a particular religion. Regardless of whether you have something valid to say on that, this topic was about whether a society can be moral with a root in a god or without. Why are you dissecting this particular deity or that one? You're putting the cart before the horse.

I'm elaborating on what others have discussed. You didn't bring it up, but others, have, and I respect them enough to engage on it. That's fine if you don't like it, but I'm more interested in honest debate and answering questions fully. Do you think that the word of God in the Bible is always moral? By nature, it should be, correct?

The fact is you don't have a single example of a nation that has been wholly untouched and devoid of religious influence and therefore have no empirical evidence. Everything else has been smoke and mirrors. A distraction.

The title of the thread is not "It is impossible for nations to be moral without some influence of religion". The title of the thread is "The existence of a god is not necessary to derive positive morals". Please understand the difference because there is one.

Nah. Just your tactics are so desperate and irrelevant that, as I said earlier, makes this futile.

Asking questions and giving honest answers, devoid of insults is called proper debate participation, not desperation. Don't give up so easily.

 

[Rentahamster]

The Ten Commandments establish the moral framework and the basic relationship between humans and God. They are the foundation on which all humans can build their relationship with God and one another, not just the Jews but the Gentiles too. Exodus was for a specific period, people and event just like Leviticus. Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the old covenant, but to fulfill it. He also gave us a new commandment, the commandment of love "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

What part of the new covenant did Jesus say, "The Ten Commandments are still valid, but throw out Exodus and Leviticus"?

Like you said, Jesus came not to destroy the old covenant , but to fulfill it, as He describes in Matthew. That would suggest they're still valid. They're still the word of God, after all, who is eternal and infallible. There are some parts of Jesus' words that sound like He's replacing Old Testament material, but it's not that extensive. Again, there's nowhere where He disavows Exodus. If Exodus was meant to be so specifically targeted, where was the clarification of when it does and doesn't apply anymore?

And why is there so much disagreement from the various Christian denominations about whose interpretation of the old covenant vs the new covenant is correct?

 

[O-N-E]

The title of the thread is not "It is impossible for nations to be moral without some influence of religion". The title of the thread is "The existence of a god is not necessary to derive positive morals". Please understand the difference because there is one.

Hahaha. Wow, ok. So the whole topic was not whether the existence of a god in a society's cultural roots is necessary to bring about morality, but whether the ACTUAL existence of a god is necessary for morality to exist.

That's amazing, because look up and I have answered your question excellently in my first reply and reiterated over and over to you and you don't seem to understand, wanting to go into specifics of exactly what type of god I believe in, bring out a magnifying glass for scriptural analysis.

Come on, furball. Where does your morality derive from? What makes you responsible for your actions? Is it not your agency? Show me the source of your free will, and I'll get you a new hamster wheel.

 

[mcz117chief]

What part of the new covenant did Jesus say, "The Ten Commandments are still valid, but throw out Exodus and Leviticus"?

Like you said, Jesus came not to destroy the old covenant , but to fulfill it, as He describes in Matthew. That would suggest they're still valid.

No, they aren't because they are fulfilled, they are done. Exodus and Leviticus were guidelines for Jewish people stuck in a hostile desert. The ten commandments and the 11th commandment are moral imperatives for the whole world. You also have a wrong perception of the Bible. It isn't the word of God in a literal sense, the Bible is people's relationship and experience with God.

 

[Halo is Back]

The bible is only a guide book to morality. It is not required.

 

[Belgorim]

Well, this was a long thread now, so only skimmed it. These are my simplified thoughts on the subject.

Religion and superstition are neccesary in new societies since I believe it is in human nature (wherever that comes from) to try to find explenations for things.

We can have plenty of moral structures in a post-religious society since it is also in human nature (wherever that comes from) to find a path in life with less friction and thus try to fit in.

 

[Rentahamster]

Hahaha. Wow, ok. So the whole topic was not whether the existence of a god in a society's cultural roots is necessary to bring about morality, but whether the ACTUAL existence of a god is necessary for morality to exist.

Did you read the thread title and OP? It's right there ya know.

That's amazing, because look up and I have answered your question excellently in my first reply and reiterated over and over to you and you don't seem to understand, wanting to go into specifics of exactly what type of god I believe in, bring out a magnifying glass for scriptural analysis.

This is your first reply:

Well, this is laughable.
Big brain atheist moment right here.
You're working off of a faulty paradigm. If a Creator doesn't exist, you live in a deterministic universe and no morals exist aside from your imaginary ones. If a Creator exists, free will can exist, and with it, absolute morality. Your society doesn't matter.

I've gone through your interactions with @DunDunDunpachi and you've got nothing, really.

Atheism isn't a short cut to intellectual prowess, kids.

That is not an answer. That is a flawed correlation between determinism and morality based on your feelings. It also contains an association of free will with a Creator, which I'm also trying to explain to you, but you don't answer the questions, so that's holding up the discussion.

Come on, furball. Where does your morality derive from? What makes you responsible for your actions? Is it not your agency? Show me the source of your free will, and I'll get you a new hamster wheel.

My morality comes from my values. I value happiness, health, prosperity, life, liberty, justice, fairness, among others. There are certain actions I can do that maximizes those values for me and others, and there actions I can do that are contrary to those values. I can choose either, and thus this moral understanding of what I value leads me to maximize those values with the corresponding choices. I am responsible for my actions because I am an individual, and that's the expectation our civil laws are predicated on. I have agency, as we all do. The source of my "free will" as it relates to how we interact with reality, is my nature as a sentient life form with consciousness and the capacity to think and reason.

It would do you a bit of good to calm down and think about this when not triggered. God gave you the capacity to reason. He wants you to use it.

 

[Rentahamster]

No, they aren't because they are fulfilled, they are done. Exodus and Leviticus were guidelines for Jewish people stuck in a hostile desert. The ten commandments and the 11th commandment are moral imperatives for the whole world. You also have a wrong perception of the Bible. It isn't the word of God in a literal sense, the Bible is people's relationship and experience with God.

Picking and choosing what's "done" and what isn't in the Old Testament is man made and not any instruction from God. Not a clear one anyway. What parts of the Old Testament are still valid and what's not has been a matter of contention among Christian denominations from nearly the beginning. Who's right? How do you know?

Exodus is God's instructions on how to live. That's not the word of God? Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that you only need to follow these rules only while you're stuck in a desert? Does that make the slavery laws okay?

 

[mcz117chief]

Picking and choosing

You aren't supposed to pick and choose, where did you get impression from my post? I said that the Old Testament is fulfilled, multiple times now. It is done, finished, over, just a historical background for Jesus' story in the New Testament.

 

[O-N-E]

That is not an answer. That is a flawed correlation between determinism and morality based on your feelings.

Why is it flawed?

Go in.

I have agency, as we all do. The source of my "free will" as it relates to how we interact with reality, is my nature as a sentient life form with consciousness and the capacity to think and reason.

Your "nature" is a result of the natural laws of the universe. Cause and effect. At its core, a linear mechanism. Your existence acts on the same principles. Are you choosing which synapses fire in your brain? How? Did you choose your upbringing? Your genetic code? Your predispositions?

It would do you a bit of good to calm down and think about this when not triggered. God gave you the capacity to reason. He wants you to use it.

The calm condescension throughout your posts, despite a lack of any meaningful content, has been noticed no doubt.

 

[Rentahamster]

You aren't supposed to pick and choose, where did you get impression from my post? I said that the Old Testament is fulfilled, multiple times now. It is done, finished, over, just a historical background for Jesus' story in the New Testament.

By picking the Old Testament as still okay but Exodus not. That's picking and choosing via a means of your own determination, not God's.

What does the Old Testament being fulfilled mean? That you don't have to obey any of it anymore? You'd get some pushback from other Christians about that. That doesn't change the fact that was still God's law, and contains aspects that would be considered immoral by today's standards. Was God being immoral? Or are we wrong about the immorality of slavery?

 

[mcz117chief]

By picking the Old Testament as still okay but Exodus not.

You'd get some pushback from other Christians about that. That doesn't change the fact that was still God's law.

I say, again, that Old Testament is done, Exodus is part of the Old Testament, it is also done. I don't care about pushback from "other Christians", I follow Christ. And considering laws in the Old Testament (which are all null and void now), Jesus himself specifically said that "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart". The laws that Moses permitted were created specifically for the people of the time and place as I said before, they are no longer applicable today. So Moses wasn't immoral, he was being a realist. He knew that bringing flowers to the hostile tribes in the desert wouldn't work, so he had to do what had to be done to survive.

 

[Rentahamster]

Why is it flawed?

Go in.

For the third time, please answer these questions.

Yet you claim to be sure of its existence and how it is derived with certainty. Don't you think those things should be closely related?


Can you prove its paradoxical nature? Can you demonstrate these other levels of reality, or is the only one available to us to measure this current one?


How can you, a mere mortal, assume to precisely know the will of The Creator so easily?


That still means He knows everything. Many Christians adhere to the phrase, "God has a plan". Do you agree or disagree?

Your "nature" is a result of the natural laws of the universe. Cause and effect. At its core, a linear mechanism. Your existence acts on the same principles. Are you choosing which synapses fire in your brain? How? Did you choose your upbringing? Your genetic code? Your predispositions?

There are immutable aspects to my nature as well as aspects that evolve over time due to my environment and my choices. I do not consciously choose to fire individual neurons in my brain because that's not how the brain works. This leads into research about the nature of free will and how it's probably an illusion, as studies suggest. Nevertheless, we structure our society and code of laws based on the idea that we all have agency and are responsible for our actions. All of which can be concluded through reasoning. God not required. Some may insert Him into the equation, which is fine, but the point of the thread is that you can do it without Him too.

The calm condescension throughout your posts, despite a lack of any meaningful content, has been noticed no doubt.

No condescension here. My speech is devoid of insults or talking down. I give straightforward answers and do my best to not avoid any. Can you say that you have done the same?

 

[Rentahamster]

I say, again, that Old Testament is done, Exodus is part of the Old Testament, it is also done. I don't care about pushback from "other Christians", I follow Christ.

So do they.

I say, again, that Old Testament is done, Exodus is part of the Old Testament, it is also done.

The Ten Commandments are also part of the Old Testament.

The laws that Moses permitted were created specifically for the people of the time and place as I said before, they are no longer applicable today. So Moses wasn't immoral, he was being a realist. He knew that bringing flowers to the hostile tribes in the desert wouldn't work, so he had to do what had to be done to survive.

Being real is the justification for condoning slavery? You'd think an all powerful God would have a better solution than that.

 

[mcz117chief]

Being real is the justification for condoning slavery? You'd think an all powerful God would have a better solution than that.

Moses isn't a God

The Ten Commandments are also part of the Old Testament.

Just then a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”

“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man asked.

Jesus answered, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Like I said, many times, the Commandments are universal, they are not specific to the Old Testament.

 

[O-N-E]

No condescension here. My speech is devoid of insults or talking down.

When someone tells you to calm down, they try to paint you as hysterical and irrational, thereby sweeping away your points as invalid emotional outbursts. I was just posting my genuine reactions to your... um, methods of debate, while at the same time providing relevant and rational rebuttals.

For the third time, please answer these questions.

Not playing games anymore. Don't try to lead me on a string and paint it as if I'm hard to work with. Assume the most optimal position for your side of the argument, and go forward. I'll correct you if need be. Though truthfully I'm done with this convo as it's late and your talking points are miserably devoid of substance.

This leads into research about the nature of free will and how it's probably an illusion, as studies suggest. Nevertheless, we structure our society and code of laws based on the idea that we all have agency and are responsible for our actions. All of which can be concluded through reasoning. God not required. Some may insert Him into the equation, which is fine, but the point of the thread is that you can do it without Him too.

Thank you and good night!

 

[Rentahamster]

Moses isn't a God

He follow's God's instruction.

Just then a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”

“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man asked.

Jesus answered, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Jesus acknowledges the Old Testament. It's still relevant.

 

[Rentahamster]

When someone tells you to calm down, they try to paint you as hysterical and irrational, thereby sweeping away your points as invalid emotional outbursts. I was just posting my genuine reactions to your... um, methods of debate, while at the same time providing relevant and rational rebuttals.

When I told you to calm down, it's because you were letting your desire to make fun of my username get in the way of cogent argument. Just a piece of advice.

Not playing games anymore. Don't try to lead me on a string and paint it as if I'm hard to work with. Assume the most optimal position for your side of the argument, and go forward. I'll correct you if need be. Though truthfully I'm done with this convo as it's late and your talking points are miserably devoid of substance.

Not playing games dude. I'm asking you simple questions about your worldview. You can either choose to share, or choose to stay isolated.

Thank you and good night!

How is that a conclusion?

 

[Azurro]

I'm not looking to prove God exists in this thread. I was merely pointing out that the premise kids knowing "right from wrong" whatever that may have been (no study was provided) didn't disprove God.

You cannot argue morality emanates from God. You argue your particular brand of morality comes from him, but your brand of morality is different than the brand of morality of a japanese person, and different from the morality of an Indian person. If it was true that morality emanated from your particular version of God, then why does it vary across the world? It should be non changing, static and known to everybody, but it isn't.

What does that tell you? That your religion is nothing but incidental and a product of coincidence. The text itself is nothing more than kind of an agreement from people of that era of what was good behaviour with some silly myths thrown in there for fun.

The life of a Christian is infinitely more demanding than that of an atheist, all things being equal. Most religions require far more out of the individual than an atheist lifestyle. I agree that it helps foster community, though.

I kinda agree with that, but only because of rules meant to control your behaviour in unnatural ways. Especially with rules concerning sexuality, they are purposefully difficult because of the historical context due to the status of women as property of the man of the house. The rules are usually silly and self imposed, so it's not like they provide any meaningful addition to your life.

However, the great, great majority of religious people don't actually give two shits about their texts and the teachings, they are Christian/Islamic/whatever because of the sense of identity and community, that's about it, so their life is not any bit more demanding than an atheist's. An Atheist is way more likely to have read the bible than a Christian.

There has never been a purely secular society in the history of humanity. The ones that have tried to jettison their religions have been responsible for some of the worst human atrocities. There hasn't been a single example given in this entire thread of a country and that began secular, developed secular, and prospered secular.

What we see right now is hubris. And it has led to woke-puritan crazies, communists, and in places like Europe, Islam.

Societies do not "outgrow" religion. They decay and collapse.

That is a dishonest position. Humanity naturally inclined to gods due to our capacity for creativity and imagination as well as our lack of knowledge combined with the fact that life has mostly been desperate for most people in history. It's the god of the gaps concept, a man back then didn't understand the process behind lightning, but if he saw one striking down and killing his brother Jubaba, he probably thought, "The gods are angry!", similarly if there's a drought, he must have thought "the gods are not happy with us and are punishing us".

As more and more people have more resources, better access to education and a better quality of life, religiosity lowers, it's a rather natural process, religious fervor almost declines over time in a country where economic standing of its people increases.

And no, the wokes are not the result of a lack of god, let's not get crazy here. The "woke" exists because of the weakening of the concept of family due to the USA's hyper individualism as well as laser focus on universities for profit. It would actually be interesting to see the history of this, but woke people come from out of control activists having a large forum to promote their ideas. Universities have plenty of useless programs, such as women's studies, Islamic studies and such, but they were created so that the biggest amount of people could come to the school and make the largest amount of money.

Where do useless activists that have nothing to offer society except anger go to? They go to preach in universities to spread their ideas to impressionable young people. Wokeness is a religion my friend, just like Christianity, and they are nuts.

 

[mcz117chief]

Jesus acknowledges the Old Testament. It's still relevant.

Of course he acknowledges it, he came to fulfill it, how many times do I have to repeat it? Old Testament sets the field for Jesus, once he comes it becomes irrelevant as far as "rules and laws" are concerned. Like setting up a party, once the party is done you don't keep the "don't tell anyone about the party" rule in place because it doesn't apply anymore, the party is done, the people left.

 

[Rentahamster]

Of course he acknowledges it, he came to fulfill it, how many times do I have to repeat it? Old Testament sets the field for Jesus, once he comes it becomes irrelevant. Like setting up a party, once the party is done you don't keep the "don't tell anyone about the party" rule in place because it doesn't apply anymore, the party is done, the people left.

He still seems to think the commandments are relevant, as you demonstrated.

 

[mcz117chief]

He still seems to think the commandments are relevant, as you demonstrated.

Because the commandments are universal, which I also said many times already.

 

[Rentahamster]

Because the commandments are universal, which I also said many times already.

Which instructions from God specify this characteristic?

 

[betrayal]

The existence of God, a god, or many gods, is not required in order for society to have a positive moral framework change my mind

Of course, faith in God is not necessary for a moral framework, but it does provide a guide to contentment.

As a human being, contentment is always there when you have a goal and are constantly working towards it. Faith is nothing more than undefined optimism without a basis, which shows a way even in difficult times. Strong morals and principles can do the same without faith.
If a person can set meaningful goals for himself and has strong principles and morals, then he does not need faith (foreign influence) to lead a happy life.

 

[mcz117chief]

Which instructions from God specify this characteristic?

Attend a seminary or study theology like I did for 5 years and then you might get all the answers you seek. You mostly won't since there is so much to learn about God and our relationship with him but there are plenty of books on the subject of God's Law, Moral Theology and others. Thank you for your conversation
But to answer you question, I would say that any that don't go against the Commandments.

 

[Rentahamster]

Attend a seminary or study theology like I did for 5 years and then you might get all the answers you seek.

Then it should be an easy enough question to answer. Or, it should be clear enough via God's word. Is it?

You mostly won't since there is so much to learn about God and our relationship with him but there are plenty of books on the subject of God's Law, Moral Theology and others. Thank you for your conversation

Thanks for being polite and responsive, but you probably shouldn't assume what I have or haven't done based on having no knowledge of my personal history.

But to answer you question, I would say that any that don't go against the Commandments.

Which would be? And whose responsibility is it to reconcile any conflicting information? Yours? God's?

 

[mcz117chief]

Thanks for being polite and responsive, but you probably shouldn't assume what I have or haven't done based on having no knowledge of my personal history.

Your lack of basic understanding of what the Bible is, what Christianity is, who Christ, Moses are,what are the relationships between the Old and the New Testament clearly show your knowledge in this area is surface level at best.

Whose responsibility is it to reconcile any conflicting information? Yours? God's?

ours, yes, it is up to us to read, meditate and understand. Easy rule though when you are trying to figure it out, love = good, hate = bad. Now it is up to you to recognize them, you are a free man.

With your permission, I would like to leave this conversation on a friendly note, we could go back and forth forever but I would like to exit

 

[Yoshi]

The hamster is right, as he is often.