Does morality come from the scriptures ?

[Amhairghine]

Well, i think i found a remarkably simple answer.
Look at the video. A young boy has his his brother accidentially (this is a short version of the video).
See what happens. You see morality after just 34 seconds.

As the supposed punishment for raping a virgin, the rapist pervert is required to buy the victim from her father and marry her. Rape victims were forced to marry their rapists.

UNHOLY BIBLE SANCTIONS RAPE.

Deut. 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold of her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the MAN THAT LAY WITH HER shall give unto the damsel's father fifty she-kels of silver and she SHALL be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

GOD COMMITS OR ORDERS VARIOUS ATROCITIES INCLUDING GENOCIDE AND THE MURDER OF CHILDREN.

I Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and WOMAN, INFANT, AND SUCKLING, ox and sheep, camel and ***."

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore kill EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, and kill EVERY WOMAN that hath known man by lying with him."

Numbers 31:18 "But of the WOMEN CHILDREN that have not known a man by lying with him, KEEP ALIVE for yourselves." (GENOCIDE, INFANTICIDE, SEX SLAVES, AND PAEDOPHILIA.)

Isaiah 13:15-16 "Everyone that is found shall be thrust through, and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. THEIR CHILDREN ALSO SHALL BE DASHED TO PIECES BEFORE THEIR EYES; their houses shall be spoiled, and their WIVES RAVISHED."

Deuteronomy 2:34 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the LITTLE ONES, of every city, we left NONE to remain."

Deuteronomy 3:6-7 "and we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves."

Ezekiel 9:5-6 "...Go ye after him through the city, and smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay utterly old and young, both maids, and LITTLE CHILDREN, and woman..."

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed into pieces, and THEIR WOMEN WITH CHILD SHALL BE RIPPED UP."

See infanticide-genocide also in Deut. 20:16-17, Joshua 6:2, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 8:25, and Deut. 12:2-3.

Actually God sends a killer angel to kill the first born in Egypt (human and non-human). The injustice is that each attack on Egypt is excused after God "hardens Pharaoh's heart." He altered Pharaoh's will to resist so that God could inflict more suffering and death, to show his glory. (I.e. showing off.)

God does immoral things. If there is any moral objectivity, the Bible is a book of lies. If infanticide is good because God orders it, then morality is purely arbitrary not absolute. It depends on God's capriciousness and emotional lability. (i.e. insanity.)

"No one has seen God at any time" vs. "Moses saw God face to face")."

Amhairghine

 

[TheKnight]

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

Because they have nothing to do with His authority.

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 don't need to see the revelation. There is a nation of people, the Jews, which have lived and survived until this day proclaiming that same message to history. Dying for it consistently, existing through pain like no other proclaiming that same message. I simply believe that the Jews are telling the truth. I think that there is some merit to their claim.

I know it's not 100% proof, but then, I don't need 100% proof. I only need enough to establish reasonable belief. And well, the story that the Jews present to humanity, the ethics they proclaim, and the logic they use...I think it's enough for a reasonable belief.

 

[Kerr]

Because they have nothing to do with His authority.

Authority does not have anything to do with morality. In fact, sometimes morality requires that you disobey the authority in question.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

It depends on what you base it off of. There are flaws in a Theistic moral system, but they're different (and in my opinion less problematic) than those in a Non-Theistic system. Particularly when it comes to subjectivity and consistency.

Care to elaborate? I do not really know what you mean or lets say i do not think that the topic of consistency or subjectivity is one where theistic morals would prove to be better.

I believe that the Torah has a moral teaching for any given circumstance.

I dont think this is true if one sees the possible number of situations with the limited rules you have. I could imagine that one could agree with you if one was willing to find applicable (general) rules that fit some (specific) situation.
But then again that can be said for any moral system.
Each situation is evaluated seperately using general guidelines.

Also, is it OK to forgo Johnny's right to live, but not our children's? The fact that we have a right to live isn't relevant to my point.

You keep asking me about details that i claim you wouldnt find in your scripture either. Of course we evaluate a situation. Of course we have a picture of "innocent" people versus "criminal" ones and of course we normally evaluate the rights of innocent ones to be somewhat higher in such situations as the rights of the other.
If someone commits a crime against an innocent person then we would judge the rights of the criminal to be less than the ones of the innocent and harm done to the criminal as less bed than harm done to the innocent.
Of course that doesnt mean that one is allowed to kill the criminal. One should try to avoid it. But when the choice between two lives has to be made then the life of the innocent is to be prefered.

I know that. My problem is specifically with the "harm=evil" mindset that a lot of Non-Theists seem to promote.

Its a difficult topic.
Hasically i think that harming others is essentially a bad act. It may be justified when saving from greater harm or when bringing some greater good.
But that depends indeed on the situation at hand and can hardly be generalized.

They do. I believe that all morals (even those we come up with from our internal reasoning) are from God. However, the denial of God's existence necessitates that we believe that morals will evolve. Of course, that is if we expect to have a successful society.

I think that nontheists see it the other way around.
Morals had to evolve in order for humanity to live.
If morals can evolve then they do not need to be from God.
Morals have evolved (there are explanatory models for that, which fit).

It doesn't take much to realize that the text needs interpretation. And keep in mind that we in Judaism do believe that God gave an interpretation at Sinai. Torah was the notes, the Mesorah is the lecture itself. If I say to you "There was once a man who...and because he was...he did....and then he....but then a woman...and she and he...now they arent."

It is obvious to you that there are parts missing in that...it's similar with the Torah. It's written in such a way that you can know that it's not the whole story. That doesn't mean each person individually needs to figure out the blanks. After all, there is an accompanying interpretation.

Well for me the "math" here is simple.
If God reveals then he would reveal himself correctly.
If I see that things are missing then the revelation is either not complete or can be completed by me.
If I need to figure things out and there is no definitive guideline by god himself, then there is no way to be sure of ones "understanding".
That doesnt fit with my idea of a revelation especially not when taking into account the history of conflicts because of interpretational differences.
Now you stated:

This may be true in Christianity. But as I explained in the post before yours, Judaism is a religion in which we believe that God gave the Torah and alongside it gave the interpretation. He gave the lecture and the notes.

We have a tradition that goes back pretty far (at least as far back as the first temple period) and that tradition explains the entire Torah.

It's not just man putting his own interpretation, but God assisting us in our interpreting.

What ruleset is this that you are talking about? I have not seen one and as far as I know there is no single interpretation in Judaism.

 

[Commoner]

I don't need to see the revelation. There is a nation of people, the Jews, which have lived and survived until this day proclaiming that same message to history. Dying for it consistently, existing through pain like no other proclaiming that same message. I simply believe that the Jews are telling the truth. I think that there is some merit to their claim.

I know it's not 100% proof, but then, I don't need 100% proof. I only need enough to establish reasonable belief. And well, the story that the Jews present to humanity, the ethics they proclaim, and the logic they use...I think it's enough for a reasonable belief.

Then do the same with the Torah and judge each claim on it's own merit. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I don't see any ethical teachings in scriptures, I do. I also happen to believe there are much better sources to go to, but even then, I look at each idea, each argument, and decide for myself. Not on the authority of the one who wrote it - I don't care if it was Socrates or a homeless drunkard. If somebody wants to convince me homosexual sex is immoral, he'd better have some good arguments. If someone wants me to think worshiping god is moral, even if god said it to me himself, he'd better have some good arguments as well. Saying some other things on an unrelated subject that I happen to agree with isn't good enough.

But you seem to expect god to somehow be childish or is treating you as children. "Because I told you so!" should get a swift and decisive "No!" in reply.

 

[TheKnight]

Authority does not have anything to do with morality. In fact, sometimes morality requires that you disobey the authority in question.

If it's the ultimate authority and I have no other method of determining morality...then sure it does.

Care to elaborate? I do not really know what you mean or lets say i do not think that the topic of consistency or subjectivity is one where theistic morals would prove to be better.

In a non-Theistic moral system, morality is subjective. In a Theistic system, morality is set and absolute. Granted, not everyone believes in it, but it is still absolute. As far as enforcement goes, Theistic morality is easier to enforce and easier to justify.

I dont think this is true if one sees the possible number of situations with the limited rules you have. I could imagine that one could agree with you if one was willing to find applicable (general) rules that fit some (specific) situation.
But then again that can be said for any moral system.
Each situation is evaluated seperately using general guidelines.

The Torah doesn't really give rules for the most part, but concepts. At least when it comes to dealing with other people and what not. When it comes to dealing with God the rules are set, but when it comes to dealing with other humans the laws are vast and exhaustive.

You keep asking me about details that i claim you wouldnt find in your scripture either.

Actually there is a specific law concerning killing someone who is trying to kill someone else....like it literally says "If you see someone trying to kill an innocent person, you must do whatever it takes to stop that person."

Its a difficult topic.
Hasically i think that harming others is essentially a bad act. It may be justified when saving from greater harm or when bringing some greater good.
But that depends indeed on the situation at hand and can hardly be generalized.

I would agree. A lot of non-Theists I've met though....proclaim the whole harm=evil thing as if it's divine truth. Like it's some sort of absolute that everyone should just know because it's just obvious. I guess that's what bother me the most about it.

I think that nontheists see it the other way around.
Morals had to evolve in order for humanity to live.
If morals can evolve then they do not need to be from God.
Morals have evolved (there are explanatory models for that, which fit).

That is, of course, if you believe that something can evolve from nothing.

Well for me the "math" here is simple.
If God reveals then he would reveal himself correctly.
If I see that things are missing then the revelation is either not complete or can be completed by me.
If I need to figure things out and there is no definitive guideline by god himself, then there is no way to be sure of ones "understanding".

I agree. And Judaism teaches that God gave a fully functioning legal and ethical system. It's just not limited to one book.

That doesnt fit with my idea of a revelation especially not when taking into account the history of conflicts because of interpretational differences.
Now you stated:
What ruleset is this that you are talking about? I have not seen one and as far as I know there is no single interpretation in Judaism.

The Talmud is that interpretation. Or, the parts of the Jewish Tradition known as the Oral Law. We believe that God gave it at Sinai. It remained Oral teaching (because one is supposed to learn from a teacher and teach it to students) until about 2000 years ago when it was written down out of fear of it being lost.

And you're right. In cases where the Talmud offers multiple interpretations, each interpretation is right. Even if they're contradictory.

Then do the same with the Torah and judge each claim on it's own merit. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I don't see any ethical teachings in scriptures, I do. I also happen to believe there are much better sources to go to, but even then, I look at each idea, each argument, and decide for myself. Not on the authority of the one who wrote it - I don't care if it was Socrates or a homeless drunkard. If somebody wants to convince me homosexual sex is immoral, he'd better have some good arguments. If someone wants me to think worshiping god is moral, even if god said it to me himself, he'd better have some good arguments as well. Saying some other things on an unrelated subject that I happen to agree with isn't good enough.

But you seem to expect god to somehow be childish or is treating you as children. "Because I told you so!" should get a swift and decisive "No!" in reply.

There are reasons for them. There is the Kabbalah (the science of Torah) which offers the spiritual explanations of the commandments, and there is a work known as the Shulchan Aruch which goes through all 613 Jewish commandments and their reasons.

Then for Noahide law, the reason for them is to make the world a better place. And the 66 Noahide commandments do, in fact, make the world a better place both physically and spiritually.

 

[Commoner]

There are reasons for them. There is the Kabbalah (the science of Torah) which offers the spiritual explanations of the commandments, and there is a work known as the Shulchan Aruch which goes through all 613 Jewish commandments and their reasons.

Then for Noahide law, the reason for them is to make the world a better place. And the 66 Noahide commandments do, in fact, make the world a better place both physically and spiritually.

I would find it hard to believe that an argument such as "homosexual sex is wrong, since not doing it makes the world a better place" could convince anyone. It's just a bit too circular isn't it - "it's bad beacause it's not good"?

I'm not too fond of it myself, but what makes it immoral?

I believe that in most cases, where non-theists like myself can't see an obvious reason for something being immoral, the argument still boils down to "Because I said so!", doesn't it?

Let me name a few other such examples and skip over the dietary stuff, which is almost too easy a target to mention: fear god, idoltry (kind of self-defeating imo), to burn a city that has turned to idol worship (and other idoltry related), not to be afraid of killing the false prophet, not to bow down on smooth stone, to serve the Almighty with daily prayer, not to marry non-Jews, to break the neck of the donkey if the owner does not intend to redeem it, break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder, purchase a Hebrew slave in accordance with the prescribed laws, destroy the seven Canaanite nations, not to let any of them remain alive, wipe out the descendants of Amalek, keep the laws of the captive woman, not to retain her for servitude after having sexual relations with her.

I mean, these are just inexplicable to me (and I just picked a few). Some just because I don't see a direct reason, some because they are completely horrible.

 

[TheKnight]

I would find it hard to believe that an argument such as "homosexual sex is wrong, since not doing it makes the world a better place" could convince anyone. It's just a bit too circular isn't it - "it's bad beacause it's not good"?

I'm not too fond of it myself, but what makes it immoral?

I believe that in most cases, where non-theists like myself can't see an obvious reason for something being immoral, the argument still boils down to "Because I said so!", doesn't it?

Well it's not necessarily a matter of it being immoral. There is an optimal condition for our world which can only exist through the observance of such commands.

I mean, these are just inexplicable to me (and I just picked a few). Some just because I don't see a direct reason, some because they are completely horrible.

I'd recommend that you read the Shulchan Aruch (there are English versions...in English it's called the Code of Jewish Law) You can even find it online. Shulchan Aruch Online.

 

[Commoner]

Well it's not necessarily a matter of it being immoral. There is an optimal condition for our world which can only exist through the observance of such commands.

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure it was immoral a couple of pages ago.

I'd recommend that you read the Shulchan Aruch (there are English versions...in English it's called the Code of Jewish Law) You can even find it online. Shulchan Aruch Online.

From what I've been able to read, Shulchan Aruch offers only detailed instructions, but not any actual reasons or arguments for/against. I've read "Part II: Yoreh De'ah; Chapter 21 - Slaves and Proselytes". I found it here, is this text representative?[FONT=arial, helvetica]

[/FONT]

 

[Commoner]

Oh, and just as a matter of curiosity, would your faith prevent you from watching/reading something like Harry Potter? I know certain people have forbidden their children from reading it, because of all the "witchcraft" and related ideas.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Oh, and just as a matter of curiosity, would your faith prevent you from watching/reading something like Harry Potter? I know certain people have forbidden their children from reading it, because of all the "witchcraft" and related ideas.

It's too scary for my tastes. The Brits conquered half the world without magic. Imagine what they can do with it!

 

[Commoner]

It's too scary for my tastes. The Brits conquered half the world without magic. Imagine what they can do with it!

OMG!

 

[Kerr]

If it's the ultimate authority and I have no other method of determining morality...then sure it does.

No offense, but it takes blind faith not to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong without an ultimate authority.

In a non-Theistic moral system, morality is subjective. In a Theistic system, morality is set and absolute. Granted, not everyone believes in it, but it is still absolute. As far as enforcement goes, Theistic morality is easier to enforce and easier to justify.

It can also be unreasonable, dumb and flawed... in which case it does not matter how comfortable it is (to be honest, though, I find it harder to justify). To make homosexuality illegal because the people in power would consider it against God is a perfect example of that. Which also brings forth an interesting point... the morality you speak of is as subjective as any other form of morality. In theory it may sound more objective, but if you look at how the world is you see many, many different interpretations.

 

[TheKnight]

No offense, but it takes blind faith not to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong without an ultimate authority.

That depends on the right and wrong being discussed. Not everyone has an inherent moral sense and therefore we cannot rely on it as a source of what is and isn't moral. The fact that we don't like something and therefore our "moral sense" goes off does not mean that an action is/isn't immoral.

It can also be unreasonable, dumb and flawed... in which case it does not matter how comfortable it is (to be honest, though, I find it harder to justify). To make homosexuality illegal because the people in power would consider it against God is a perfect example of that. Which also brings forth an interesting point... the morality you speak of is as subjective as any other form of morality. In theory it may sound more objective, but if you look at how the world is you see many, many different interpretations.

As I said, regardless of whether or not people believe in it, a Theistic moral system (a system that was given by God) would be the definition of what is and isn't moral.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

In a non-Theistic moral system, morality is subjective. In a Theistic system, morality is set and absolute. Granted, not everyone believes in it, but it is still absolute. As far as enforcement goes, Theistic morality is easier to enforce and easier to justify.

I think this is not really true. You see as you state below...

The Torah doesn't really give rules for the most part, but concepts. At least when it comes to dealing with other people and what not. When it comes to dealing with God the rules are set, but when it comes to dealing with other humans the laws are vast and exhaustive.

the Torah (as an example) doesnt even give clear and precice rules. Something that is not precice cant really be set and absolute in my view. What sense does it make to state that your morals are absolut when two people have three different opinions about how to interpret the "concept"?

For nontheists this problem doesnt exist as they do not claim "divine" absoluteness.
Morality here is a progressing/evolving things that adapts to a changing world.

Actually there is a specific law concerning killing someone who is trying to kill someone else....like it literally says "If you see someone trying to kill an innocent person, you must do whatever it takes to stop that person."

... interesting. Now i could construct of course a case where i think it would be vastly immoral to do what this law prescribes.
Suppose that your inaction is the only way to save 3 other people that would perhaps get harmed if you intervened and saved the first one?
According to your example you MUST act, even if that gets many more killed?

That is, of course, if you believe that something can evolve from nothing.

We know that there "never" was a "nothing". There always was "something".
Even the big bang didnt come from nowhere.
You only need to believe that complexity can arise from simpler forms. And that is definetly possible.

I agree. And Judaism teaches that God gave a fully functioning legal and ethical system. It's just not limited to one book.

The Talmud is that interpretation. Or, the parts of the Jewish Tradition known as the Oral Law. We believe that God gave it at Sinai. It remained Oral teaching (because one is supposed to learn from a teacher and teach it to students) until about 2000 years ago when it was written down out of fear of it being lost.

And you're right. In cases where the Talmud offers multiple interpretations, each interpretation is right. Even if they're contradictory.[/quote]
Now the very last three sentences are the spot where I lost you.
How would you know that the Talmud really offers multiple interpretations and not that simply some people interpret things differently (I guess you understand the difference)?
How can each interpretation, even if contradicting be equally right ?

Suppose an interpretation says "do it" and the other says "don't".
How can both be right? It would only make sense if its irrelevant whether you do it or not. Then however it wouldnt be a moral law at all.

 

[Commoner]

As I said, regardless of whether or not people believe in it, a Theistic moral system (a system that was given by God) would be the definition of what is and isn't moral.

I know this was not addressed to me, but I would stil like to point some things out.

There is no need for a theistic moral system to be a set of specific rules that need to be followed. Not only that, it seems likely (from my completely subjective standpoint) that if a god were to exist, he would give us the principles - the guidelines by which we could, each of us, decide on what's right and what's wrong. Clearly, even the best designed laws are flawed, they cannot apply to every (any) situation (this can easily be shown, if needed).

So if you think god is playing a type of game with you (revealing himself a bit at a time, giving you little bits and pieces of information), why not assume that the rules (the commandments) were in fact just a simplistic set of laws designed for the culture of that time and that your job is to figure out what the underlying principles from which those rules came are.

So that you can take them as laws made for people thousands of years ago, but not apply them to your life. Instead, apply the underlying principles and create ethics and laws that fit the times we're living in now.

 

[Kerr]

That depends on the right and wrong being discussed. Not everyone has an inherent moral sense and therefore we cannot rely on it as a source of what is and isn't moral. The fact that we don't like something and therefore our "moral sense" goes off does not mean that an action is/isn't immoral.

I am not sure I believe moral sense is not inherited as much as taught or learned. And no, what we like or do not like does not need to have anything to do with morality. I dislike arrogance, but I do not consider arrogance to be immoral. I do however dislike murder and consider it immoral. It is not like we think things are immoral because we dislike them, we dislike them because they are immoral (if they are).

As I said, regardless of whether or not people believe in it, a Theistic moral system (a system that was given by God) would be the definition of what is and isn't moral.

That can be said by anyone who blindly believes in their own moral system.

 

[TheKnight]

From what I've been able to read, Shulchan Aruch offers only detailed instructions, but not any actual reasons or arguments for/against. I've read "Part II: Yoreh De'ah; Chapter 21 - Slaves and Proselytes". I found it here, is this text representative?[FONT=arial, helvetica]
[/FONT]

Hmm. Torah.org is a reliable source of information, so I would assume that a document you'd find there is good. Although I've never thoroughly read the Shulchan Aruch. I know that it is meant to be a text that offers explanations.

Another good one is Moses Maimonides Guide To The Perplexed. You can buy it for about 13 bucks (I've never seen an online version). I like his because he looks at things from an Aristotlean point of view.

Oh, and just as a matter of curiosity, would your faith prevent you from watching/reading something like Harry Potter? I know certain people have forbidden their children from reading it, because of all the "witchcraft" and related ideas.

Not at all. One is not punished for what one thinks but for what one does. While it is suggested that one not read or even get near such things, it is not prohibited.

I think this is not really true. You see as you state below...

the Torah (as an example) doesnt even give clear and precice rules. Something that is not precice cant really be set and absolute in my view. What sense does it make to state that your morals are absolut when two people have three different opinions about how to interpret the "concept"?

It's not a concise set a rules, but a sort of....way of living by general principles that allow you to know exactly what to do in a certain situation.

... interesting. Now i could construct of course a case where i think it would be vastly immoral to do what this law prescribes.
Suppose that your inaction is the only way to save 3 other people that would perhaps get harmed if you intervened and saved the first one?
According to your example you MUST act, even if that gets many more killed?

What do you mean by get harmed if I intervened? Do you mean, I do something that causes them to get killed or because I killed the aggressor a third party killed 3 other people?

We know that there "never" was a "nothing". There always was "something".
Even the big bang didnt come from nowhere.
You only need to believe that complexity can arise from simpler forms. And that is definetly possible.

You have to believe that A.) Matter always existed or B.) Matter came from somewhere.

Now the very last three sentences are the spot where I lost you.
How would you know that the Talmud really offers multiple interpretations and not that simply some people interpret things differently (I guess you understand the difference)?
How can each interpretation, even if contradicting be equally right ?

Suppose an interpretation says "do it" and the other says "don't".
How can both be right? It would only make sense if its irrelevant whether you do it or not. Then however it wouldnt be a moral law at all.

In a case of contradicting opinions, it's always when it comes to "non-moral" issues. Or to minor details of moral issues. For instance "How long must you wait, after eating meat, to drink milk?" Some opinion say 30 minutes, some say 6 hours, some say a whole day. All those opinions are right. In a case of contradictory opinions from two valid sources, one can choose either source and remain "right".

There is no need for a theistic moral system to be a set of specific rules that need to be followed. Not only that, it seems likely (from my completely subjective standpoint) that if a god were to exist, he would give us the principles - the guidelines by which we could, each of us, decide on what's right and what's wrong. Clearly, even the best designed laws are flawed, they cannot apply to every (any) situation (this can easily be shown, if needed).

So if you think god is playing a type of game with you (revealing himself a bit at a time, giving you little bits and pieces of information), why not assume that the rules (the commandments) were in fact just a simplistic set of laws designed for the culture of that time and that your job is to figure out what the underlying principles from which those rules came are.

So that you can take them as laws made for people thousands of years ago, but not apply them to your life. Instead, apply the underlying principles and create ethics and laws that fit the times we're living in now.

Because when He gave them He said that they were meant for all time.

I am not sure I believe moral sense is not inherited as much as taught or learned. And no, what we like or do not like does not need to have anything to do with morality. I dislike arrogance, but I do not consider arrogance to be immoral. I do however dislike murder and consider it immoral. It is not like we think things are immoral because we dislike them, we dislike them because they are immoral (if they are).

I know that. However, I have come into a lot of non-Theists who do have a very "I don't like X therefore X is immoral mindset." It's not all of them. And most of the ones on this forum are not like that. But on another forums I participated in...a lot of the Non-Theists were very "I don't like X and therefore X is immoral." Then when you try to argue they'd say "Do you like X" I'd say "No, I don't" They'd respond "So how can you say that X is moral?"

It was ridiculous and it's part of the reason I left and came here. It's not all non-Theists, but you meet a lot of them who think the same way and you start to wonder.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

It's not a concise set a rules, but a sort of....way of living by general principles that allow you to know exactly what to do in a certain situation.

Well, what makes you think that "general" principles allow you to know "exactly" what to do in any certain situation while at the same time "general" principles in a nontheistic system could not do that.
As for me i rather think that general principles are exactly that "general". They can be guidelines but are not detailed enough for all situations.
Seeing that many people react differently in the same situation while claiming to apply the same principle is (at least so i think) evidence for this.

What do you mean by get harmed if I intervened? Do you mean, I do something that causes them to get killed or because I killed the aggressor a third party killed 3 other people?

Lets take both examples. In short. Take a situation where your saving of the other person will end in more innocent people getting harmed.

You have to believe that A.) Matter always existed or B.) Matter came from somewhere.

I think a very common misconception that theists have is that one has to believe "something" rather than to simply state "i dont know".
It is this misconception that often leads to problems.
I do not know.
If matter has come from something else, than where did this something else come from?... and so on. We would end in an infinite regress where "God was the first" doesnt actually solve the problem.
So my take currently would be that the idea that everything (or lets say the basic substance that changes over time) has always been there. If you want to call that matter then so be it.
I do not however know how this is related to the question of morality because it is not a "materialistic" question in such a sense. Its a question of ordering and evolution of something already existing. The brain already did exist. The functions changed or were added.

In a case of contradicting opinions, it's always when it comes to "non-moral" issues.

Forget about those, since we are talking about morals.

Or to minor details of moral issues. For instance "How long must you wait, after eating meat, to drink milk?" Some opinion say 30 minutes, some say 6 hours, some say a whole day. All those opinions are right. In a case of contradictory opinions from two valid sources, one can choose either source and remain "right".

Well i wouldnt call this moral but even if it were so. What is the result of these "opinions"? If all are right then none is of importance.
You see when the answers do not matter then they are not needed for a true moral system.
In my view a true moral system should be precice, noncontradictory and "essential". Essential in the sense that it avoids any redundany or nonneeded information.

 

[Commoner]

Because when He gave them He said that they were meant for all time.

That's what I thought. It all still boils down to "Because I said so!". I have no idea why anyone who can think for himself would accept that as an argument, ever.

I have never seen any other arguments for the "iffy" commandments (although I've certainly read excuses), and apparently you haven't either. I think simply accepting them would be the definition of blind faith and I imagine any moral authority would frown upon that.

How do you justify owning slaves, for instance? I can think of many reasons why I would consider it immoral and unnecessary, but not even one that would make me consider it moral. I wonder why we have laws against slavery, if it was not shown to be detrimental to society? I'm sure you dislike talking about specific issues, but that's kind of the point - it's these specific issues that have no place in modern times and should be criticised and questioned.

I know that. However, I have come into a lot of non-Theists who do have a very "I don't like X therefore X is immoral mindset." It's not all of them. And most of the ones on this forum are not like that. But on another forums I participated in...a lot of the Non-Theists were very "I don't like X and therefore X is immoral." Then when you try to argue they'd say "Do you like X" I'd say "No, I don't" They'd respond "So how can you say that X is moral?"

Isn't that pretty much what you're doing. Only you say god doesn't "like it", so it's immoral. But the fact is, you chose your religion - it was your preference. How is that different, if that's your only argument?