Does morality come from the scriptures ?

[Bware]

Well, it comes from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which was created by God, and the Bible just backs that up.

Where is this tree exactly? And what about the tree that provides eternal life that god didn't want Adam to eat from?

Genesis 1:21 He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

What happened to the Cherubim? Shouldn't it still be there guarding the garden with a flaming sword? I mean we do know where the garden was supposedly located..what happened to the tree? Deforestation?

 

[TheKnight]

Only if you do not value and respect human life.


The best moral option does not need to be a good one.

I suppose.

Then you are both immoral and a coward. UNLESS he tells you? Really? Do you think that people doing crazy things in the name of god, like blowing themselves up, don't believe that's what he's telling them to do? Do you condone that? How is that any different?

In what way does my obedience to my God make me an immoral coward? People do crazy things in the name of God. I would agree that they do. I don't. In fact, chances are that God wouldn't tell me to go out and start killing a raping people.

Do I condone the actions of terrorists? Not at all. They cannot justify their actions.

To say that you would do anything, even if it's clearly ****** up - like rape and murder, because god commanded you, is pretty much proof that you have no concept of morality.

My concept of morality is based on what God tells me to do. It may not be the same as your particular flavor of morality and well, there's not much I can do about that.

You are a coward, because you would be willing to do things that go against what you believe in (well, I don't even know that anymore), just to appease big brother.

Go against what I believe in? I believe in doing what God says. If God says X, I do X. If God says Y, I do Y.

There is no other reason to just go out and start raping and killing, if you're a sane person.

I agree.

Which allows people to justify forrible, illogical actions. Do you really not see that? Do you think you are somehow special?

I never said that I was somehow special.

The best thing to do would be to call up your god and ask him why immoral actions are permitted in the first place. I don't need them, do you? He makes the rules, just remove some of the options. Your god is a sadistic little prick. It's a good thing he does not exist.

1. Which immoral actions are permitted?

2. Options are what make life worth living.

3. The weak tend to start insulting when they realize that they have nothing better to say. It's almost ironic. That you would simply close your eyes, cover your ears, and scream "Nope. LALALALALALA God is a sadistic prick and doesn't exist. Haha! I win."

That's hardly an argument.

 

[Commoner]

I suppose.

In what way does my obedience to my God make me an immoral coward? People do crazy things in the name of God. I would agree that they do. I don't. In fact, chances are that God wouldn't tell me to go out and start killing a raping people.

Do I condone the actions of terrorists? Not at all. They cannot justify their actions.

How do you know? Do you claim to know god didn't tell them to do that? Do you claim some special knowledge?

My concept of morality is based on what God tells me to do. It may not be the same as your particular flavor of morality and well, there's not much I can do about that.

Go against what I believe in? I believe in doing what God says. If God says X, I do X. If God says Y, I do Y.

No, it's based on what you think he tells you to do. And since it is arbitrary and cannot be confirmed in any other way (unlike a rational belief, based on objective evidence), anything can be justified.

I never said that I was somehow special.

You seem to claim special knowledge, as addressed above.

1. Which immoral actions are permitted?

2. Options are what make life worth living.

3. The weak tend to start insulting when they realize that they have nothing better to say. It's almost ironic. That you would simply close your eyes, cover your ears, and scream "Nope. LALALALALALA God is a sadistic prick and doesn't exist. Haha! I win."

That's hardly an argument.

1. In a world where god exists, god decides. If he wants immoral actions to exist, he makes it so. He makes the rules of the game.

2. We have already established some options are not available. I can't flap my wings and fly away. If god existed, that would have been gods choice. He could have easily changed the rules of the game. What makes life worth living is "up to god" - it could have easily been anything else.

3. The weak do what they are told without taking responsibility for their actions. And I said your god was a sadistic prick and doesn't exist, it's not an insult, it's what he told me to say. So it's ok.

 

[Kerr]

In what way does my obedience to my God make me an immoral coward? People do crazy things in the name of God. I would agree that they do. I don't. In fact, chances are that God wouldn't tell me to go out and start killing a raping people.

Problem is not if God actually would or not, problem is that if he did it you would not have a moral issue with it. For example, if God came down to me and told me to rape my mother, I would simply not do it. If my morality came from God, though, I would do an evil action.

 

[TheKnight]

How do you know? Do you claim to know god didn't tell them to do that? Do you claim some special knowledge?

I know for a fact that He didn't.

No, it's based on what you think he tells you to do. And since it is arbitrary and cannot be confirmed in any other way (unlike a rational belief, based on objective evidence), anything can be justified.

If you wish to see it that way.

You seem to claim special knowledge, as addressed above.

What special knowledge do I claim?

1. In a world where god exists, god decides. If he wants immoral actions to exist, he makes it so. He makes the rules of the game.

So you're saying we shouldn't even have the option of doing our own thing? That would defeat the entire purpose of our existing in the first place.

2. We have already established some options are not available. I can't flap my wings and fly away. If god existed, that would have been gods choice. He could have easily changed the rules of the game. What makes life worth living is "up to god" - it could have easily been anything else.

It could have been and is up to God. This setting, this format, is what He's chosen. I think it is the best imaginable way for the world to run.

3. The weak do what they are told without taking responsibility for their actions.

Is there anyone not taking responsibility for their actions here?

Problem is not if God actually would or not, problem is that if he did it you would not have a moral issue with it. For example, if God came down to me and told me to rape my mother, I would simply not do it. If my morality came from God, though, I would do an evil action.

Morality, in your point of view, doesn't come from God. In my paradigm, where morality comes from God, I have not moral or logical basis to oppose doing what God tells me to do. Why not? Because my morals are based on what He says to do.

 

[Kerr]

Morality, in your point of view, doesn't come from God. In my paradigm, where morality comes from God, I have not moral or logical basis to oppose doing what God tells me to do. Why not? Because my morals are based on what He says to do.

And I just mentioned one of the problems I see with that form of morality.

 

[Commoner]

I know for a fact that He didn't.

Ah, facts, now we can get this party started! What fact(s)?

I mean, I agree with you, but not from the same reasons.

If you wish to see it that way.

One follows from the other.
Morality is completely arbitrary, so you can't predict it. God isn't constrained by anything, so you can't use scriptures to say what he would or would not do. (although, I'm sure you'd try)
You are not infallible. Sometimes, when you "know" things, these things are later shown to have been false.
Even if you accept the premise that when god tells you to do it, you will know without a doubt that it was god telling you to do it, you can't be sure that you don't think god is telling you to do something, when - in fact - he's not.
So if you accept that god's word is law, no matter how absurd - even if there is no logical reason for his command (which you would require in any other case, in order to justify doing "anything"), and you are willing to do it, you can justify anything. As long as you believe it was from god, no reason is required.
That's why I think it's a really bad idea.

What special knowledge do I claim?

You know what god does/does not do. For a fact.

So you're saying we shouldn't even have the option of doing our own thing? That would defeat the entire purpose of our existing in the first place.

It could have been and is up to God. This setting, this format, is what He's chosen. I think it is the best imaginable way for the world to run.

If "doing your own thing" is raping someone - then, no. I would have no problem with that being impossible. You already don't have the option of "doing your own thing". You can only choose among the available options.

Is there anyone not taking responsibility for their actions here?

I'm sure you'd be faced with the consequences of your actions. But, if you don't think you did anything wrong, how can you really take responsibility?

 

[TheKnight]

Ah, facts, now we can get this party started! What fact(s)?

I mean, I agree with you, but not from the same reasons.

The simple reason I know that God does not tell them to go and murder people is because God says in the Torah that He does not want us to murder.

I believe that God revealed the Torah, and in that Torah he revealed what He wants us to do and that which He does not want us to do. When He revealed the Torah, He did a number of miracles beforehand and He then revealed Himself to 3+ million Jews.

Now, in order for any revelation after that (that is contradictory to it) to be valid, it must have at least all the same circumstances as the first revelation (meaning it would need to be in front of 3+million people accompanied by a number of miracles.

Anything less is not sufficient enough to establish that God revealed anything.

After all, we have one instance in history where God reveals Himself. When He does so, it is to 3+ million people.

That being said, if anything subsequent claim of revelation arises and does not match that initial revelation, then it is logical to assume that it is not a valid revelation from God.

One follows from the other.
Morality is completely arbitrary, so you can't predict it. God isn't constrained by anything, so you can't use scriptures to say what he would or would not do. (although, I'm sure you'd try)
You are not infallible. Sometimes, when you "know" things, these things are later shown to have been false.
Even if you accept the premise that when god tells you to do it, you will know without a doubt that it was god telling you to do it, you can't be sure that you don't think god is telling you to do something, when - in fact - he's not.
So if you accept that god's word is law, no matter how absurd - even if there is no logical reason for his command (which you would require in any other case, in order to justify doing "anything"), and you are willing to do it, you can justify anything. As long as you believe it was from god, no reason is required.
That's why I think it's a really bad idea.

Reason is required in establishing that the revelation came from God. Once you establish that, there is no reasonable grounds on which you can oppose what God tells you.

You know what god does/does not do. For a fact.

All we can know about God is what He tells us. He tells us not to do certain things. Anyone who claims that it is OK for us to do that which God has told us not to do is a liar. Plain and simple.

Even Islam prohibits murder. Those terrorists have no justification. Not even in their own religion.

If "doing your own thing" is raping someone - then, no. I would have no problem with that being impossible. You already don't have the option of "doing your own thing". You can only choose among the available options.

Sure I can. I can do whatever I like that is within my ability to act.

I'm sure you'd be faced with the consequences of your actions. But, if you don't think you did anything wrong, how can you really take responsibility?

What are you talking about? What would I be taking responsibility for? What wrong action have I done that I haven't taken responsibility for?

Or are you talking about in the hypothetical? In the hypothetical situation of God telling me to rape and kill, and my doing it, I would take full responsibility. The fact that I don't think it's wrong doesn't mean that I am unwilling to take responsibility. In fact, the opposite is true. I am more likely to take responsibility if I don't see it as wrong. Regardless of the action.

When I do something kind, I take responsibility for that.
When I do something wrong, I take responsibility for that.
When I do something that I think God told me to do, I take responsibility for that and am willing to accept whatever consequences may arise as a result.

 

[Commoner]

The simple reason I know that God does not tell them to go and murder people is because God says in the Torah that He does not want us to murder.

Now you've come full circle. The old "because it says so in The Bible!" trick. (feel free to replace "Bible" with your particular flavor of religious texts).

How do you know it was murder? How have you established they didn't simply kill the people. God determines who should live and who should die. They must have lost their privilege to life.

I won't quote the whole thing, but on the one hand you're saying - what god says, goes; on the other hand you seem to be implying god is somehow seriously restricted by his own scriptures? That seems...odd.

So, in fact, he couldn't tell you to do something we would generally consider completely immoral (murder, rape), without first addressing millions of people and changing the rules?

Reason is required in establishing that the revelation came from God. Once you establish that, there is no reasonable grounds on which you can oppose what God tells you.

Yes, but a nutcase can falsely establish that the revelation came from god. By saying that no further justification is required, you're removing a large chunk of the "security mechanism" we otherwise use to justify our actions.

And we're all basically nutcases. For instance, about 15 percent of the population will experience one or more hallucinations during their lifetime. (Aleman, Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception, 2008)

All we can know about God is what He tells us. He tells us not to do certain things. Anyone who claims that it is OK for us to do that which God has told us not to do is a liar. Plain and simple.

There is no consensus on what those things are/aren't. Even within a particular religion. Doesn't that make it a bit problematic? Even if you're fairly sure your interpretation is correct, you have to consider it might not be, if there is so much disagreement.

 

[Humanistheart]

If morality came from the scriptures I don't think the abrahamic religions would be the leaders in death and destruction. Unless of course that is your definition of morality.

 

[Kerr]

Reason is required in establishing that the revelation came from God. Once you establish that, there is no reasonable grounds on which you can oppose what God tells you.

Of course you can have reasonable grounds to oppose him. If you don´t, then the characteristics of God is irrelevant.

Also, the problem with insanity is that it is a huge risk reason will tell you the wrong thing.

All we can know about God is what He tells us. He tells us not to do certain things. Anyone who claims that it is OK for us to do that which God has told us not to do is a liar. Plain and simple.

So if I disagree with God, I am a liar? How?

 

[Humanistheart]

Of course you can have reasonable grounds to oppose him. If you don´t, then the characteristics of God is irrelevant.

Also, the problem with insanity is that it is a huge risk reason will tell you the wrong thing.


So if I disagree with God, I am a liar? How?

Good question. For all we know god's the one lieing. People have pretended to be demi-gods and prophets of god throughtout history to amass followers. If this god existed who's to say anything he says is actually true, and that he's not just saying these things for his own selfish desires?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Good question. For all we know god's the one lieing. People have pretended to be demi-gods and porphets of god throughtout history. If this god existed who's to say anything he says is actually true?

Only Poseidon tells me the truth. Ammon-Ra is a bull****ter, plain and simple.

 

[TheKnight]

Of course you can have reasonable grounds to oppose him. If you don´t, then the characteristics of God is irrelevant.

How do God's unknowable characteristics give me reasonable grounds on which to oppose Him if I know He is telling me to do something?

So if I disagree with God, I am a liar? How?

I should have worded that differently. Anyone who claims that God spoke to them and told them that it is OK for us to do that which God has told us not to do previously is a liar.

I won't quote the whole thing, but on the one hand you're saying - what god says, goes; on the other hand you seem to be implying god is somehow seriously restricted by his own scriptures? That seems...odd.
So, in fact, he couldn't tell you to do something we would generally consider completely immoral (murder, rape), without first addressing millions of people and changing the rules?

He could. However, I don't have to believe Him unless the revelation is similar to His initial revelation. How do I know that? Because the first time He revealed Himself, He set up criteria for knowing whether or not someone is speaking in His name or not.

Anyone who claims that we should do that which He prohibited falls into that category.

Yes, but a nutcase can falsely establish that the revelation came from god. By saying that no further justification is required, you're removing a large chunk of the "security mechanism" we otherwise use to justify our actions.

And we're all basically nutcases. For instance, about 15 percent of the population will experience one or more hallucinations during their lifetime. (Aleman, Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception, 2008)

That's an unfortunate circumstance. But as I said, that is a flaw in abiding by such a moral system. You are bound to have people who say that they are acting in such a way because God told them to.

There is no consensus on what those things are/aren't. Even within a particular religion. Doesn't that make it a bit problematic? Even if you're fairly sure your interpretation is correct, you have to consider it might not be, if there is so much disagreement.

Not every religion is worth considering. I think that there is sufficient evidence to allow one to reasonably believe in the claims of Judaism over another religion.

Also, we must realize that most religions teach the same ethical teachings. As Judaism places ethical behavior as the most important thing a person can achieve, most religions and their adherents are living acceptably because almost all religions have the same basic moral principles.

Besides, a person doesn't have to worry about abiding by the ethical principles found in Judaism if they have no interest in living in a Torah-Observant society.

If morality came from the scriptures I don't think the abrahamic religions would be the leaders in death and destruction. Unless of course that is your definition of morality.

Human beings kill and cause death and destruction. To associate that death and destruction with a particular religion solely on the fact that many of those causing death and destruction are adherents of a particular religion is to ignore the fact that most of the world's population believes in one of those three religions (Christianity and Islam anyways). If everyone in the world believed in Judaism, would you say that it's Judaism's fault that there would still be death and destruction?

I would hope not. The fact is that people do those sorts of things and you find them in all walks of life. It has nothing to do with the fact that they believe in a particular religion.

 

[Kerr]

How do God's unknowable characteristics give me reasonable grounds on which to oppose Him if I know He is telling me to do something?

Who do you rather follow, a sociopath who kills and play out people against each other for the single purpose of his own screwed up entertainment, or someone who actually cares about his followers and try to make it better for them? In what way is that not relevant?

 

[Kerr]

I should have worded that differently. Anyone who claims that God spoke to them and told them that it is OK for us to do that which God has told us not to do previously is a liar.

Unless the person actually believe in that . Which is highly unlikely, but still!

As a note I am not sure I trust anyone who claims God have spoken to them at all.

 

[Commoner]

He could. However, I don't have to believe Him unless the revelation is similar to His initial revelation. How do I know that? Because the first time He revealed Himself, He set up criteria for knowing whether or not someone is speaking in His name or not.

Ah, I get it. You believe in texts written thousands of years ago - without any real concrete evidence (your friends' friends' friends' friend told you so), yet to convince you to stop believing in them you would need a miracle like no one has ever seen before.

If you are going to believe that some scriptures represents god's words in the first place - don't you think you should demand the same?

That's an unfortunate circumstance. But as I said, that is a flaw in abiding by such a moral system. You are bound to have people who say that they are acting in such a way because God told them to.

No, no, not people that say it, people who actually believe it. How would you know you are not one of them? Ok, you can look at the Torah, but as we've established, interpretation is key.

 

[TheKnight]

Who do you rather follow, a sociopath who kills and play out people against each other for the single purpose of his own screwed up entertainment, or someone who actually cares about his followers and try to make it better for them? In what way is that not relevant?

What characteristics do I know about God that I could begin to use that as a judgment of what He says being moral or not?

Ah, I get it. You believe in texts written thousands of years ago - without any real concrete evidence (your friends' friends' friends' friend told you so), yet to convince you to stop believing in them you would need a miracle like no one has ever seen before.

I believe in the Torah because of the revelation at Sinai. The only thing that would make me stop, is something that is equal or greater to that revelation at Sinai.

If you are going to believe that some scriptures represents god's words in the first place - don't you think you should demand the same?

God provided that already.

No, no, not people that say it, people who actually believe it. How would you know you are not one of them? Ok, you can look at the Torah, but as we've established, interpretation is key.

I agree. Interpretation is key. And there is only one interpretation. Not my personal interpretation. Or the personal interpretation of anyone else. But the interpretation that God gave when He gave the Torah.

 

[Kerr]

What characteristics do I know about God that I could begin to use that as a judgment of what He says being moral or not?

If we can determine the characteristics is another discussion and has nothing to do with my point. Is we assume we know the characteristics, how are they not relevant?

 

[Commoner]

I believe in the Torah because of the revelation at Sinai. The only thing that would make me stop, is something that is equal or greater to that revelation at Sinai.

God provided that already.

What, a better story? No problem, let me just take a piece of paper and start writing. In fact, we have a lot of great literature to pick from already. You weren't there, were you? Don't worry about it, a friend of a friend of a friend told me it wasn't all that great. Certainly no Madonna concert!

You didn't see this revelation, yet you changed your beliefs from not believing in the Torah to believing in the Torah. Well, I'm assuming you weren't born believing in it? So it was probably some relatively (to Sinai) insignificant event that convinced you. You were "provided" with the same thing a crummy hallucination could have provided to anyone - a personal experience. Don't pretend you're basing your beliefs on some great miracle in the sky that 3 million people are supposed to have seen (less than the Rod Stewart concert in 94). A compelling story is all you have.

I agree. Interpretation is key. And there is only one interpretation. Not my personal interpretation. Or the personal interpretation of anyone else. But the interpretation that God gave when He gave the Torah.

It would be great if we all agreed on it, if that's the case.