The Absoluteness of God's Law. (souls, Buddha, Mormon, Egyptian)

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

If Jesus had been around in the 1980s, he might have followed visionaries like Micheal Dell and went for a direct marketing approach instead. The infrastructure in the middle east 2000 years ago wasn't conducive to phone and internet sales, so the church like so many other organizations is just a product of its time. Despite this, they're not doing that poorly for themselves, no pun intended.

So the answer is the creator of the heavens and earth was dependent upon 1st Century technology and infrastructure!?! That's a hell of a convincing argument.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

You are going to need more than a working knowledge of Greek to be able to "read" the scriptures. Nothing personal, but scholars in not only Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages but customs and traditions of those who wrote the scriptures, have spent their entire careers trying to not only translate the original text but also to divine their meaning.

Take for example, do you translate the 6th Commandment as being, "Thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not murder," What does that mean when applied in a real world.?

The immutable law advocates would argue that the commandment covers the "killing" of an unborn, yet taking of innocent life when it is "collateral damage" isn't. If you condemn an prisoner to death only to later find that he was innocent would that be a violation of God's law? And if such a possibility existed, wouldn't it behoove theist to abolish the death penalty?

So, who decides what God's law means, men? If the answer is the latter, then how is God's law any less capricious than the morality of secularist who derive their moral ethics from rational examination? Where is the assuredness of religiously formulated morality if it must be interpreted through the fallible eyes of man to begin with?

If I were a Christian apologist (reasonable rates, reductions for block bookings) I'd say that Men were selected to first give the Word, then to interpret it. The real can be distinguished from the fake according to whether they accord with our God given moral compass.

If I were God on the other hand, (I'm retired now so I have the time if any agent wants to offer me the job) I'd have it carved in every language on rock with new ones appearing every time a new language appeared. If people had no written language I'd speak out of the streams...ha! Let the sceptics explain that away!

As for interpretation, I'd keep my seraphs busy doing seminars and workshops and never mind Pure Faith. I'd make sure that, when Paul said men had no excuse for unbelief, he'd be right.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

So the answer is the creator of the heavens and earth was dependent upon 1st Century technology and infrastructure!?! That's a hell of a convincing argument.

If I get what you're saying here, I think we agree with each other.

[nick.leviman]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Any good businessman knows you never compete with your distributors by undercutting them with direct sales to the end user. Instead you focus on R&D and let the middle-men do the selling and customer support since that's what they're good at.

It make sense. It's also true if the stuff that you sell is total crap. Put it in the Wal-mart, or McDonalds and everybody will buy it! But if you will try to sell it yourself, then it is hard work.. people will ask "Why do we need it?".

The same happened with Joseph Smith (correct me if I'm wrong). His religious group was small, but he sold the idea to the Brigham Young which already had bigger group of followers, and everybody became Mormons!

[c'est la vie]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

.....the morality of secularist who derive their moral ethics from rational examination.......

Secularists default to moral absolutes in spite of themselves.

It's very easy to find a point at which they do.

As soon as they say 'That (behavior or action) is wrong. And it doesn't matter if the whole world thinks it's ok, it's still wrong' , they've appealed to a moral absolute.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

Secularists default to moral absolutes in spite of themselves.

Hmmmm?

Do you even understand the idea of moral absolutes?

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

Secularists default to moral absolutes in spite of themselves.

It's very easy to find a point at which they do.

As soon as they say 'That (behavior or action) is wrong. And it doesn't matter if the whole world thinks it's ok, it's still wrong' , they've appealed to a moral absolute.

There's something in that. There has to be a basis on which we fix a morality. However, those basics ought to founded on what we think they ought to be, not what a Holy Book tells us. That is the basis of a secularist morality.

People don't want to die, they don't want to be hurt, they don't want someone to steal their food. It's a basis. Not because a god approves or disapproves, but because of what people want. What they want has no validity outside of humans, but we are what we are and we can run our own lives to a considerable degree.

Morality is about how to do that by giving everyone the best chance to make the most of the only life (so far as we know) they have.

The question of moral absolutes in the religion-debate context is one of equivocation. As it so often is. Moral absolutes, as you say, has some grain of truth, but Moral absolutes and the moral compass and all the other stuff trotted out as supposedly an implanted code of god-given morality is another thing entirely. Since there is good reason to believe
that morals come from evolution (to use a broad term, broadly) and no reason to believe in a god, moral absolutes - perhaps yes. God - given moral absolutes, No.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

This seems to be a recurring theme amongst some theist, God's law is immutable. Well, if that were the case, why must God's law be interpreted through ministers, imans, rabbis, or priests? Why do theist reshape those laws over time, rejecting some and holding on to others?

I think when you begin to really understand how the universe works, you understand that "God's law" is immutable. The problem is that God's law is not what is written in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or any others.

It is simply love: unconditional, non-judgmental, love. That is the basis of all of science when you really get down to it as well, and for that reason it is immutable.

All the crap people overlay about God's wrath and requirements of savior worship were just made up by man trying to create an image of God that reflects themselves.

[c'est la vie]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There's something in that. There has to be a basis on which we fix a morality. However, those basics ought to founded on what we think they ought to be, not what a Holy Book tells us. That is the basis of a secularist morality.

People don't want to die, they don't want to be hurt, they don't want someone to steal their food. It's a basis. Not because a god approves or disapproves, but because of what people want. What they want has no validity outside of humans, but we are what we are and we can run our own lives to a considerable degree.

Morality is about how to do that by giving everyone the best chance to make the most of the only life (so far as we know) they have.

The question of moral absolutes in the religion-debate context is one of equivocation. As it so often is. Moral absolutes, as you say, has some grain of truth, but Moral absolutes and the moral compass and all the other stuff trotted out as supposedly an implanted code of god-given morality is another thing entirely. Since there is good reason to believe
that morals come from evolution (to use a broad term, broadly) and no reason to believe in a god, moral absolutes - perhaps yes. God - given moral absolutes, No.

If morals are based on 'what I want' or 'what I and a group of others want', then it is not absolute.

Everyone defaults to a moral absolute at the point that they say 'it doesn't matter what you or the whole world want or say, that (behavior or action) is wrong'.

Since moral absolutes , by definition, cannot originate in the fluctuating opinions of man or men, where do they come from?

Why are some things 'wrong, no matter what you or anyone else says'?

(If evolution were the source of morals, all humans would share the same morals. But they don't. Not by a longshot.)

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

If morals are based on 'what I want' or 'what I and a group of others want', then it is not absolute.

Grain of truth in that, too. . That's why we say we don't have moral absolutes in a secular morality. The semantics don't really matter. The concept is what matters and that concept is to decide what best to do; how best to live. Of course it's not an immutable law like gravity. It only relates to humans. But the basics I have are given the nearest thing to secularist moral absolutes we have.

Everyone defaults to a moral absolute at the point that they say 'it doesn't matter what you or the whole world want or say, that (behavior or action) is wrong'.

Of course not. What are you talking about? If I disagree with you about what's right or what's wrong, no matter whether I am as fatheaded as the example you gave or not, then we do not have moral absolutes.

That's why atheists (if they get into the morality debate) do not talk of moral absolutes. Those only exist because, supposedly, God says so. Doesn't make it right, but, if God says so, it's absolute. Needless to say that's one of the things that makes no sense to us.

Since moral absolutes , by definition, cannot originate in the fluctuating opinions of man or men, where do they come from?

It follows that, if there are really no moral absolutes, no reliable moral compass, and the best we can do is agree some evolutionary - driven basics and go on from there, then the answer is, the moral basics, though not absolute, are from the evolutionary need to survive. There is no reason to suppose they come from anywhere else.

Why are some things 'wrong, no matter what you or anyone else says'?

Because we have idiot bigots in the world who will not listen to rational argument. Morality is a concensus based on those evolutionary wants. We have to work out ways of giving everybody the best deal and we, rather surprisingly, come up with the same solutions, very often. Even if they were then stuck in a holy book and ascribed to a god in order to give them some clout.

(If evolution were the source of morals, all humans would share the same morals. But they don't. Not by a longshot.)

That is a gruesome oversimplification, but perhaps it's my fault because I was just dealing with the basics. As I said above, staying alive, not being hurt, not having our bananas stolen; they are evolutionary instincts, by all evidence. As are wanting to kill the other tribe, take their gene pool and eat their food.

But we have brains. We can see things from the other's point of view and we can do better that the rather selfish code given us by nature. We have to use our brains to work out a better way than the superman ethic, the circle of privilege and 'me first, stuff everyone else'. We have to do this. From what I see today, religion isn't helping.