Monday open post

Comments and trackbacks on any topic are welcome.

Imagine Kitty Magazine linked with Shameless self promotion, ahoy!
The Conservative Cat linked with Sharon Stone suffers psychotic episode in newspaper interview
The Steel Deal linked with Questions
7 Deadly Sins linked with Anger: Dittos
The Peace Moonbeam Chronicles linked with Viva la Protest!

Comments

[Phoenix]

Is God the source of morality?

[Steel]

No. Society is.

[Individ]

What is God? In my view, God is the Ground of Being, our Ultimate Concern. The word religion shares a root with the word ligament; religion is about connection, binding, re-connection. Connected to what? For me, religion is about binding people to each other, and to the universe. This is "Ultimate Concern". Morals are the rules of binding. So yes, God is the source of morality. That is my take. Cheers,

[rob]

Is God the source of morality?

Yes.

[Phoenix]

The Bible is full of orders from God to go out and kill enemies. Slaughter in the Old Testament is extensive and gruesome. While one might not accept these orders as having any effect on them, the 'father of faith', Abraham, demonstrated absolute obedience to God's order to kill his first-born son. Abraham figures largely in the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faith, so his story cannot be that easily dismissed or re-interpreted. Abraham might be said to be the ligament to three of our largest religions. Can all three of these religions be wrong?

If one accepts that story, that order from God to Abraham, then you cannot claim that anyone else who has claimed to have received an order from God to be wrong or delusional. That would be like admitting you are delusional.

If God is the source of morality, then to disobey Him would be immoral. That means, if He dictates orders to kill and you don't, you have disobeyed him and are, therefore, immoral. Does this suggest that most theists really do not believe their god is the source of morality and that they can, indeed, exercise moral evaluation and judgment without theism and religion. Those who take the Bible literally would have to obey, right? To me this demonstrates that strict adherence to one's religion is actually detrimental to moral reasoning and behavior.

So, in essence, theists pick and choose what they want from the word of God. I think that's pretty obvious.... Whatever suits. But how does a theist justify his reasoning?

[Phoenix]

What determined morality before the time of God?

[Phoenix]

Can you believe in God and not religion?

[AkRonin]

I understand religion to be a belief in a higher power, and a way of life in following that belief. I think you can believe in God and not practice religion, but one does not believe in religion, per say.

[AkRonin]

As regards Abraham, as you said, that was Old Testament. When Jesus died and was reborn, in fact when Moses was given the 10 Commandments, the old ways were left behind. The teachings in the New Testament are the teachings we practice today. We do not sacrifice animals, or anything else for that matter, to God any longer.

One can find all sorts of things in the Old Testament that are barbaric and wrong. For instance, the old adage, "An eye for an eye..." stems from the O.T. and was to be followed literally. In the N.T. Jesus taught "Turn the other cheeck". One cannot point to randomly cherry picked passages in the O.T. and declare that Christianity is immoral or say that "Well, they did this then so you God is brutal and ..." You know, whatever.

[Will]

I understand religion to be the mass medium for the path to god, a medium as twisted and ingorant as anything. No, you absolutely do not have to be part of a religion to believe in a higher power. If I did believe in a god of sorts, I most definitely would not need some pastor, or priest, or bishop, or rabbi, or imam telling me how to interpret or express my beliefs. The ten commandments are basically a religious twist on generally accepted illigitimate preferences, and did and would have come about had the new testament or bible ever existed. Steel is right, morality comes from society, it is a rational acceptance that some things shouldn't occur i.e. taking life, rape, stealing etc.

[Rob]

What determined morality before the time of God?

Your question makes no sense, Phoenix. If you assert that God doesn't exist, then how can he be the root of Morality? If you assert that he does exist then there was no time before him. That's part of the definition. :-)

The Bible does make mention of Perfect Religion. The stuff we practice is far, far from what God intended. Like most things, we think we know what he ment and make changes accordingly and in all cases fall short of what he really wanted.

[Phoenix]

My question makes sense when you think of the people who existed before God was revealed to us. How about the Greeks and Romans? How about the societies that came before them? What established the criteria for their morality? If a society does not 'know' of God, then what is their source for morality?

So far, we've dismissed the Old Testament and we've agreed that we interpret the Bible and make changes accordingly. You say we all fall short of what He really wanted. How so? Either the Bible is the source of morality, or we pick and choose from it that which will serve us. That makes us immoral, then, in the eyes of God. Are you willing to say you are immoral?

"If you assert that He does exist then there was no time before him." But, then, why did he let man exist for thousands of years before He revealed himself to us?

"One cannot point to randomly cherry picked passages in the O.T. and declare that Christianity is immoral or say that "Well, they did this then so you God is brutal and ..." You know, whatever. "

Why not? Isn't that what Quakers do? Pacisfists? As well, if we've dismissed the Old Testament as not fitting our current beliefs based in the New Testament, what is to stop us from doing the same with the New Testament. Did we dismiss the Old Testament because it was wrong? Who made that decision? God? The Catholic priests in the three hundred years after Jesus?

[Rob]

But, then, why did he let man exist for thousands of years before He revealed himself to us?

He didn't.. he was with man from the moment he made man. If you run all the geniologies in the Bible there is a solid 6000 year history presented. Are you saying the Greeks were around 4000 bc? but that chases us down a path leading to me and Obi's big argument so let's not go there now, ey? Let's just say that of all the written records we have none predate the Biblical account of creation. (and feel free to disagree on that)

It is possible to be "a good person" apart from God... but by what ruler are you measuring your morality? I've heard alot of people use that argument.. "I'm a good person.. I have some issues but I'm no Hitler". Why do you think people compare themselves to Hitler or Stalin? Cause they set the bar so low it's easy to feel good in comparison. That whole Moral Relativism thing falls apart because without a solid basis of comparison it's meaningless.
God's word clearly says our state in many places. For instance:
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:21-26

[Obi-Wan]

Aaaaaalll-righty then.

Personally, I don't compare myself to Hitler or Stalin. I DO compare myself to 1) everyone I know, all the way up to (local) church leaders and pastors, and all the way down to governmental leaders ;o) , and 2) the essential morality I was brought up in, that is, fundamental Christianity. In other words, I treat people the way I would want to be treated, I don't lie, I'm faithful to my wife, etc.

Now, although I was a practicing, Bible-believing, washed-in-the-blood evangelical fundamental Christian for about 40 years, I am now very skeptical of the idea that God exists at all. But I still hold to, and practice, most of the same basic morality that I always did. So, on one hand, one could argue that my morality came from God, i.e., it came from the Bible and Christianity as a religion. On the other hand, one can argue that God is completely unnecessary for morality, since what I practice in private is dictated solely by what I think is right, not whether I think a supreme Being is watching me and will reward me (or not) for what I do.

On that basis alone it seems to me that atheists are, as a group, capable of greater morality than theists.

One very common Christian teaching, at least around here, is that the only hope you have for being able to consistently do the right thing, e.g. forgiving and loving your enemies, is having a special strength that comes from God.

But for me, at least, I have noticed no difference in the difficulty of doing right between when I was and was not a believer.

The ancient Greeks even argued that it was impossible for morality to come from a deity. They asked the question, if God tells me to do this or that, say, to be honest, does He tell me to do this because honesty is intrinsically the moral and right thing to do, or is honesty the right thing to do just because God says it is?

If the latter is true, then acts have no intrinsic moral value--they have only the value assigned to them by God. And God could change His mind tomorrow about what is and is not right. It does no good to argue that God would never do such a thing--the fact is that He could, and who are you to say what God will or will not do?

[DaveG]

Obi, you and I have more in common than I realized, not least because I too would have said "all the way down to governmental leaders."

I find that strongly right-brain geeks like myself nearly always exhibit atheistic tendencies. My theory is that we are analytical by nature, and find it difficult to believe things based solely on faith.

[rob]

nearly always exhibit atheistic tendencies

Not nessecarily.. I'm analytical too, and a geek the likes of which few have seen. ;-) (Obi got 95 on his nerd score.. I aced with a 99 while reciting pi to 50 digits from memory) But I'm Christian and so are most of my co-workers. All coders. Most (but certainly not all) of my friends are Christian and most of them are 1337 h4x0rs too.. I guess it has more to do with who you hang around with.

On that basis alone it seems to me that atheists are, as a group, capable of greater morality than theists.

Do you realize that in this last century more people have been killed by atheists than have been killed by "religious folk" (of whatever bent) in all of recorded history? You argue a comon falacy.

the fact is that He could

The fact is, he won't. God will not violate his nature. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God could snap his fingers and make every living person a perfect being.. but that would violate free will that he gave us. So he's spent the past 6000 years shaping us and moving us in the direction towards moving closer to him because he didn't want to break a rule he made.

[Phoenix]

Man has been around millions of years. This 6,000 years? What? While there are more people on the planet now, the time that man has been on the planet is so much longer than 2006 years plus 6,000 years. Ethics and morality were intrinsic parts of all societies before God revealed Himself to man. Human nature managed to make it without the fear of punishment. In all societies, morals are the standards of good and bad behavior that conform to principles of what is right and wrong. Most typically, they adhere to the conventional standards of a particular social or religious groups. Is it moral relativism to say a particular society five hundred years before the time of the Greeks had standards that we might now consider immoral?

Ethics is more scientific and is more objective: What is the highest good? Personal disposition has no part in this. How can early civilization have come up with systems of ethics without the Ten Commandments or the New Testament to tell them what to do or what would happen to them if they didn't do it? We can't just dismiss these societies as if they never existed.

[Phoenix]

"Do you realize that in this last century more people have been killed by atheists than have been killed by "religious folk" (of whatever bent) in all of recorded history? You argue a comon falacy."

Can you give us the source for this?

[Phoenix]

A huge junk of what I wrote was lost. ? I'll try to paraphrase it briefly: It seems to me that dismissing the individual's ability to make the right choices is not a good thing. Marginalizing a non-believer because he has no basis of comparison to know how to be good is not a good thing. How did the Roman, the most successful civilization thus far manage without God to tell them what to do? They developed a system of ethics and the rule of law, and they incorporated an inherent morality into that by allowing anyone to become a Roman simply by stating, "I am a Roman." and by accepting the ethical standards and rule of law of the Romans. There was empirical evidence available to the Romans to make their systems work.

What about the myriad civilizations hundreds of years before the Romans? They didn't have Hitler to compare themselves to to make them do the right thing. They looked around and developed the morality that worked for them and the system of ethics that would be the best for their society at the time.

It may be non-believers and pre-God societies/individuals used the best comparison there is to determine the right thing to do: Reason.

[rob]

How did the Roman, the most successful civilization thus far manage without God to tell them what to do?

Thing is, the Romans are the perfect example of why moral relativism doesn't work. They started out great. Borrwing heavily from the best of Greek civilization they indeed built a civilization to be proud of. Then they revised their morals to suit whoever was in power and little by little their standards of right and wrong slid till they bacame the most bloodthirsty and sadistic country of their age. Read up on crucifiction sometime. That was the height of Roman engenuity, the perfect way to kill a man while causing the most agony. What a legacy. They eventually (and within a pretty short time) declined into oblivion. They had no foundation to anchor their morals on, they "went with the flow" and eventually what was considered right was gastly. You can measure something to be any length you want if you use the right ruler.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

You need to read some Roman history. If all you can say about them was that they 'invented' crucifixion, then...... well, I can't address the rest of your comment because it is invalid in every respect other than what they lacked in artistic aesthetics they got from the Greeks, and what the Greeks lacked in law and mechanical invention, they got from the Romans. The Greco-Roman civilization is still the most powerful and long-lived civilization to date.

I haven't a clue about that ruler/measurement comment you made. You still haven't addressed those multi-societies that thrived hundreds and hundreds of years before God presented Himself to man.

[Phoenix]

Also this:

"Do you realize that in this last century more people have been killed by atheists than have been killed by "religious folk" (of whatever bent) in all of recorded history? You argue a comon falacy." Can you give us the source for this? Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, 28 March 2006 at 09:04 PM

[rob]

Take a look at this article on wikipedia. Look at the deaths caused by "religious" groups such as the horribly misguided Crusades (15,000 between years 1100 and 1500). Or the various other massacares by Catholics against Protestants.. usually the body count is in the hundreds.

Contrast that to atheistic regimes..
Pol Pot - 2 - 3 million
Stalin - up to 60 million
Hitler - over 10 million
Roman Colosseum - 100,000 - 650,000

[Rob]

Sorry I missed alot of points earlier, btw.. I have a hard time following all the forks. I'll try to catch up at lunch...
Ruler comment: I have an elastic tape measure somewhere. (well, it's my daughters actually). I can measure my waist with it and get a "35". If I pull it a bit I can get that down to "30" pretty easily. Which one is right? If I don't have an absolute definition of what an inch is, then both are. Is sex before marrage "right" or "wrong". At one time it was "wrong". These days for the most part it's "right". Our culture "pulled the tape" slowly over time and turned a wrong into a right. Morals were compromised because the anchor of our national morality was let loose about 40 years ago.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

Excellent analogy of moral relativism. (And good for you for having a 30" waist! :) I'm glad you said "Our culture" and "our national morality". I can't say I disagree with your assessment. If you really want to get grossed out, read Thomas Wolfe's, "I Am Charlotte Simmons". I do think this particular pendulum of unbridled freedom of sex will swing back, though.

I can't go along with your premise that atheists kill more than religious people. Pol Pot was devoid of religious motivation, but the other three you mentioned all had religious motivations to them. Stalin, maybe not. Hitler was driven by hatred of Jews and religion. Both interfered with his plans to produce the perfect race. So, religion was a primary motivating factor for him. The Romans killing Christians..... that was what eventually became weekly fare in the Colosseum. Killing Christians was de rigueur until Constantine got wise and figured best to 'go with the flow'. He had to leave Rome and take over Byzantium and turn it into Constantinople, but it was the turning point for Christians to gain a foothold and to thrive.

So, I can't accept that atheists have killed more people on this planet. Can you do a religious body count?

As well, all wars are not fought because one is or is not an atheist or a believer. It is just not a valid premise to make a case that non-believers or worse killers than believers. In fact, the opposite is true: A non-religiou war generally ends when political motivation is satisfied while religious wars will go on interminably because people are more willing to kill and die for religious beliefs than those who are marching to a political drum.

Back to the morality before God made himself known to man. I'm not sure how one can censure a society for cultural practices/morals that do not meet with our approval. In Greece, officials all had boys as companions. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all had young boys. Plebian mothers groomed their young sons to be appealing in the hopes they would be chosen by the elite because that meant their sons would be educated, taken care of, and that they might stand to rise above their class. This was common and accepted practice. Because that practice disgusts us, do we dismiss the Greeks as heathens not worthy of our consideration for what they did give to western civilization? Well.... we certainly haven't done that. We seem to have simply overlooked that one aspect of their culture. Cherry-picked the good, you might say.

Let's talk about the Aztecs and Mayans. Or maybe the ancients who believed in animism. The Celts and the people of North America were animists. They did not know God. What about them? Are Christians right and they wrong? Who determines that?