How can morality exist without god?

[McBell]

by what criteria does one determine the claims are right or wrong?

I seriously doubt that he will ever get Christians to come to an agreement on a single interpretation of the NT.

 

[1robin]

First you have to decide which interpretation of the NT is to be the standard.
Then you will need to get all Christians to agree that that interpretation is the to be the standard.

You are making things far more complecated than they actually are on purpose. The bible says do not murder. If you murder (kill without justification) your guilty. That is at least as simple as what we have now. It says and uniquely provides for the sanctity of life. That eliminates abortion unless the mothers life is in danger. Regardless what you pick to establish a standard based on what's found in a book is far less complicated than haveing to write the book in the first place. The bible also gives the only suffecient justification for the morals that society needs and has created in a far more haphazard and inconsistent method than is needed with the bible. Like I said and have said it wasn't designed for universal incorporation and so is a kind of square peg in a round hole. Regardless it would IMO be far better than any system that is consistent with non belief. I have worked in dozens of federal court rooms around the country they all contain libraries of hundreds of huge tombs to hash out law. No matter what problems are found with an application of biblical law it would be simpler than that.

Now since getting Christians to agree on a single interpretation of the NT is much like herding cats....

If your claims are what you think they are then why do we have a universal set of modern bibles that differ in less than 3% of the text. Don't wrongly bring up the apocraphya as even the Catholics do not claim it as part of the canon. Why does any atandard modern bible vary with the oldest copies we have by less than 5% in any meaningful total of variants. Pretty stable and consistent to me.

 

[Sir Doom]

Today, I went to the store and bought myself a gallon of milk. The milk was pretty good, and after drinking it I ate a baby.

Today, I went to the store and bought myself a gallon of milk. The milk was pretty good, and after drinking it I ate a sandwich.

Less than 5% difference in those two phrases.

 

[waitasec]

You are making things far more complecated than they actually are on purpose. The bible says do not murder. If you murder (kill without justification) your guilty.

it is complicated...you need to define the justification

the bible is not clear on the real issues of todays world.


stem cell research, cloning, intellectual copyright infringements etc...

 

[1robin]

by what criteria though?

Are you suggesting there is no way to determine whether someone is in agreement with the bible or not? How do we detremine if anyone is acting in agreement with any standard. It is done every day a million times. Why is it only an issue with the bible?

i don't think we ever got to the bottom of that...



and

by what criteria does one determine the claims are right or wrong?

In the worst case by the same means we determine whether people are consistent with any of the millions of standards we already have. This isn't that complicated. Why do you have such a unrealistic rediculous standard for the bible but not for anything else?

 

[waitasec]

Are you suggesting there is no way to determine whether someone is in agreement with the bible or not?

yes.

How do we detremine if anyone is acting in agreement with any standard. It is done every day a million times.

you know if you are acting in agreement with a standard, do you not?

Why is it only an issue with the bible?

there is a criteria that i follow which helps me determine if something is true or not...empirical evidence...that is why it's an issue with the bible.

In the worst case by the same means we determine whether people are consistent with any of the millions of standards we already have.

all standards are subjective...

This isn't that complicated. Why do you have such a unrealistic rediculous standard for the bible but not for anything else?

what is the unrealistic standard you are referring to,
empirical evidence?

 

[1robin]

yes.

This answer seems to directly contradict your next statement below.

you know if you are acting in agreement with a standard, do you not?

If I know it why could any one else.

there is a criteria that i follow which helps me determine if something is true or not...empirical evidence...that is why it's an issue with the bible.

Only if is universally applied. By your standard. Cival law is untrue and inapplicable because it has the same issues to determine adherence to standards that the bible does.

all standards are subjective...

That is a complicated issue and I don't have time.

what is the unrealistic standard you are referring to,
empirical evidence?

Your suggesting that it is impossible to establish a workable code of law based on the new testament. It is no different than any other standard. In fact it is less complicated because it is based on universal applicability and already exists. Cival law is not universal and had to be cobbled together based on opinion. Whatever problems the bible has cival law has more and so unless you consider cival law invalid then you have different standards.

 

[McBell]

You are making things far more complecated than they actually are on purpose. The bible says do not murder. If you murder (kill without justification) your guilty. That is at least as simple as what we have now. It says and uniquely provides for the sanctity of life. That eliminates abortion unless the mothers life is in danger. Regardless what you pick to establish a standard based on what's found in a book is far less complicated than haveing to write the book in the first place. The bible also gives the only suffecient justification for the morals that society needs and has created in a far more haphazard and inconsistent method than is needed with the bible. Like I said and have said it wasn't designed for universal incorporation and so is a kind of square peg in a round hole. Regardless it would IMO be far better than any system that is consistent with non belief. I have worked in dozens of federal court rooms around the country they all contain libraries of hundreds of huge tombs to hash out law. No matter what problems are found with an application of biblical law it would be simpler than that.


If your claims are what you think they are then why do we have a universal set of modern bibles that differ in less than 3% of the text. Don't wrongly bring up the apocraphya as even the Catholics do not claim it as part of the canon. Why does any atandard modern bible vary with the oldest copies we have by less than 5% in any meaningful total of variants. Pretty stable and consistent to me.

And yet there are over a billion different versions of Christianity...

ALL based on the same book...

That has less than 3% variance between its various "modern" versions...

 

[Alceste]

A Christian arguing for Honor Killings on RF, who? xD

I don't want to name any names, but the thread title rhymes with Tex Fist Chins.

 

[Alceste]

He is free to do so. However he is not free to say he bases that claim on the bible. There is no teachings in the new testament (the one that actually applies now) that allow murder of any kind.

Oddly enough, this defense of honour killings is actually coming from a female person. I know, amazing. It is in fact based on the Bible, which she believes to be the literal word of God and the sole valid basis for any kind of human morality. I gather her sect is not a small one. She makes a very big deal about the difference between "killing" and "murdering", and argues that as long as we are only killing each other rather than murdering, God is well chuffed.

 

[1robin]

Oddly enough, this defense of honour killings is actually coming from a female person. I know, amazing. It is in fact based on the Bible, which she believes to be the literal word of God and the sole valid basis for any kind of human morality. I gather her sect is not a small one. She makes a very big deal about the difference between "killing" and "murdering", and argues that as long as we are only killing each other rather than murdering, God is well chuffed.

While I do think God is just and won't hold anyone as guilty if their actions are justified, he went to great lengths in the bible to make it clear that killing is a grave matter and it greaves him tremendously. There are as far as I know no verses in the new testament that allow for killing in any sence. The old testament is full of killings but as the old covenant is over and the new covenant (testament) is now in force the old testament cannot be used to justify killing. Whoever this person is, they making a grave error at least from your description. This is nothing new, people have taken biblical things out of context and contrary to their intention and clear meaning in order to justify all kinds of garbage.

 

[1robin]

And yet there are over a billion different versions of Christianity...

Of course I made that number up. There are slightly over 2 billion Christians and I think a few thousand completely seperate denominations.

ALL based on the same book...

Yes based on a book with over 500,000 words that was written over the course of more than a thousand years. It is the mot influential book in history and since it is covering the most devisive, complex, and profound subjects in human history it is no suprise that there are many different opinions on some parts of it. Most of these are trivial secondary issues. Most of Christendom is united concerning the vast majority of doctrinal maters. I do not find anything strange about this.

That has less than 3% variance between its various "modern" versions...

Modern bibles are extraordinarily consistent. Even when they are compared to te original greek codex' they are 95% accurate. Scholars have said that not one of the differences are contained within verses that define doctrine. The bible has by far the most reliable textual tradition of any other book in ancient history. It is almost as if God was watching over it's transmission. Nothing else in the time frame is even in the same ballpark. What ever issue you have with these facts are irrational and unjustified.

 

[Alceste]

While I do think God is just and won't hold anyone as guilty if their actions are justified, he went to great lengths in the bible to make it clear that killing is a grave matter and it greaves him tremendously. There are as far as I know no verses in the new testament that allow for killing in any sence. The old testament is full of killings but as the old covenant is over and the new covenant (testament) is now in force the old testament cannot be used to justify killing. Whoever this person is, they making a grave error at least from your description. This is nothing new, people have taken biblical things out of context and contrary to their intention and clear meaning in order to justify all kinds of garbage.

The ironic thing is that she says exactly the same thing about your interpretation: anybody who interprets the Bible differently than her sect is "misunderstanding" it. Maybe you have more in common than you think!

 

[waitasec]

This answer seems to directly contradict your next statement below.

no not at all. the bible isn't a standard as you have not shown what criteria that would determine the bible as a standard.

If I know it why could any one else.

if your standard is to not steal, you know when you not following the standard if you steal. if your standard is to not lie, then when you lie you know that you are not following your standard.

Only if is universally applied. By your standard. Cival law is untrue and inapplicable because it has the same issues to determine adherence to standards that the bible does.

so for today, stoning a girl to death for not bleeding on her wedding night is justified by the standard the bible lays out? good to know.

Your suggesting that it is impossible to establish a workable code of law based on the new testament. It is no different than any other standard. In fact it is less complicated because it is based on universal applicability and already exists. Cival law is not universal and had to be cobbled together based on opinion. Whatever problems the bible has cival law has more and so unless you consider cival law invalid then you have different standards.

civil law is subject to change...when proven invalid.
heard of amendments...?

 

[1robin]

The ironic thing is that she says exactly the same thing about your interpretation: anybody who interprets the Bible differently than her sect is "misunderstanding" it. Maybe you have more in common than you think!

Since the bible says this: You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣa&#7717, is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
You shall not murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I feel pretty confident that I am justified and she is nuts.

 

[1robin]

no not at all. the bible isn't a standard as you have not shown what criteria that would determine the bible as a standard.

What? You make me want to run away from home. If the bible says do this and don't do that and someone says don't do this and do that then by employing rocket science, discrete mathematics, pluralistic philosophy, and astrophysics we know they are not consistent. You must be completely out of rational counter points.

if your standard is to not steal, you know when you not following the standard if you steal. if your standard is to not lie, then when you lie you know that you are not following your standard.

And that is exactly how it can be determined if someone is faithful to the bible or not. You just answered your own question.

so for today, stoning a girl to death for not bleeding on her wedding night is justified by the standard the bible lays out? good to know.

You have tried this inaccurate assertion several times now. There is no commandment we are required to follow that suggests this. Find me one new testament scripture to back up your claim. I dare you.

civil law is subject to change...when proven invalid.
heard of amendments...?

And that is why a new testament (the only one that is applicable today) biblical standard is superior. It will never need revision and it actually contains a justification for moral requirements that is far superior to opinion.

 

[McBell]

Yes based on a book with over 500,000 words that was written over the course of more than a thousand years. It is the mot influential book in history and since it is covering the most devisive, complex, and profound subjects in human history it is no suprise that there are many different opinions on some parts of it. Most of these are trivial secondary issues. Most of Christendom is united concerning the vast majority of doctrinal maters. I do not find anything strange about this.

Nice little sermon, but it fails to address the point.
The point is that the over 30,000 'recognized' Christian denominations are DIFFERENT denominations because they disagree with one another enough to warrant there being completely separate denominations.

And all from the SAME book...

Modern bibles are extraordinarily consistent. Even when they are compared to te original greek codex' they are 95% accurate. Scholars have said that not one of the differences are contained within verses that define doctrine. The bible has by far the most reliable textual tradition of any other book in ancient history. It is almost as if God was watching over it's transmission. Nothing else in the time frame is even in the same ballpark. What ever issue you have with these facts are irrational and unjustified.

And yet here you have well over 30,000 'recognized' denominations based on that same book...

What is interesting is how you keep bringing up this red herring like it helps your argument somehow.

Would you please be so kind as to explain why there are so many denominations that all claim the KJV as their "official" version?
Based on your argument, every single denomination that 'officially' uses the KJV should all be one single denomination.
The fact that they are not all one denomination shows that your "all bibles are with in 95% correct margin thingy" argument is completely irrelevant.
Why?
Because you have so many denominations based on the KJV.

 

[Alceste]

Since the bible says this: You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣa&#7717, is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
You shall not murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I feel pretty confident that I am justified and she is nuts.

Lol, I'm sure she and the other members of her sect would say the same about you and yours. Me, I think I'm right and you're both nuts.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Morality is a matter of opinion, not a program built into us by a creator. The fact is that the strongest people are going to survive, and those that are weak or rely on faith rather than practicality won't. In my opinion "right" is anything that promotes my survival/happiness. There's my morality, and I figured it all out without God.

 

[1robin]

Lol, I'm sure she and the other members of her sect would say the same about you and yours. Me, I think I'm right and you're both nuts.

This is not an unsolvable issue. Just like a court case where two sides disagree. The evidence decides the issue. There isn't anything in the new testament that can even be used out of context to support her position. Her position is so contrary to the bible I wonder if you are stating it in the correct context. A book that says do not murder, treat others as you desire to be treated, and to turn the other cheek is hard to use to support honor killing.

As far as you being right I would love to see you sufficiently justify that.
On my side is this:
1. The bible contains prophecy that could only have it's source in the divine. There are over one thousands prophecies that have been fulfilled 100%. They are extremely detailed and exact.
2. The bible contains scientific claims which are detailed and accurate. They were written long before they have become known by science.
3. The bible has 25000 plus historical corroborations verified by archaeology.
4. It was completed over the course of 1500 plus years, has 66 books, and over 40 authors. The fact that it contains an extremely sophisticated and perfectly consistent narrative throughout despite those facts suggests a divine, timeless, omnipotent author.
5. It is the only book that contains explicit, complete, and sufficient explanations for the deepest subjects of mankind. Origin, destination, meaning, and purpose.
6. It has greater explanatory scope and power by far than any other book in human history.
7. It contains the only logical path and means to heaven. All works based salvation systems are chaotic, arbitrary, capricious, unspecific, and impossible. Only the bibles grace salvation system overcomes all these issues.
8. The bible has a greater and more accurate textual tradition by a large margin than any other work of ancient history. It retains 95% accuracy even after 1800-3500 yrs. No other book is even in the same league.
9. Every philosophical claim or implication contained in the bible is consistent with accepted philosophy.
10. It's theological claims are the most sophisticated, consistent, sufficient, and profound found in any religion.
11. The bible is unique in it's demand and guarantee of a spiritual experience with God. I have had the born again experience guarantied in the bible that follows faith in Christs sacrifice. It is a spiritual experience of such a character that it confirms the reality of God and the book that was followed to arrive at that conclusion and faith.
12. The bible is the most tested, researched, trusted, read, and cherished book in human history.

What is a Taoish? Is it oriental Taoism? What evidence or claims do you use to defend or promote it?