The Absoluteness of God's Law. (salvation, bible, contradictions, Christianity)

[nick.leviman]

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.
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?

Moral came from society. Different societies have different morals. However they are very close to each other. Sociology study this.
We accept morals because they are right and useful, and not because "Bible/Koran sad this". In fact Bible/Koran are very immoral books. According to them we need to stone to death some individuals like prostitutes, homosexuals etc. This moral is unacceptable in modern society.

Of course there are some benefits of religion like community, mutual help etc. But if it is based on wrong ideas (on "believe") than we better do not use it. I know few non-religious people (mostly single moms, older people without relatives) who is going to church and pretend to be Christian in order to get friends, compassion, help etc. I knew that a lot of people are like this.

Bottom line: For me ability to question the world and truth is the most important thing. If something is improvable then I do not believe it is. God(s) existence was not proven by any legitimate science for thousands of years. Egyptian Gods, Greek Gods, Buddha, Santa Claus, Unicorns etc. Bible, Koran, Book of Mormons, Old, New Testaments are not proven. In fact they actually disproved by many sciences. Evolution, Genetics, and Physics disprove Genesis. Sociology disprove many "moral" things from Bible. Archeology disproves many stories about Noel Arc, and even about Jesus existence, and of course resurrection.
Atheism for me is not believe but side effect of questioning things and following the logic.

So here we go. I build my morals based on human morals and not on some unproved book, which for me no more then (I’m sorry) bunch of fairy tales with some bloody killings, jealousy in the name of God etc. I want to build my life on legitimate and proven things (like science or human morals).

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" Leviticus 24:16
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

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.)

Please don't mix apples with nuclear warheads. Evolution have nothing to do with morals. It is natural selection. In fact there are plenty of examples when some species benefit from coexistence with other species called "symbiosis" but it is not related.
Morals made by society. We need to follow them because it is right and not because some dude Jesus/Muhammad in the clouds watching us. And let's say that you will find out that Jesus do not exists? What, you will start kill, rape and steal then?

[AREQUIPA]

That's a good point. One problem with a god-based 'absolute' morality is, that it is based on what God wants. If your theist loses faith, does he lose his morality? It could be. He has no consensus - based social morality to fall back on. I have seen this happen in one case.

On the other hand, if they do fall back on a godless morality without changing very much (and, contrary to the theist smear of atheists running amok in an orgy of murder, loot and rape, because there Is No Reason Why They Shouldn't deconverts don't change, usually) it means that they were, as Christians, operating on a secularist moral code all the time. they just didn't realize it.

[ovcatto]

"Evolution have nothing to do with morals."

Oh, I disagree. I think that morality is very much a part and product of human evolution. If we can agree with the definition of morality as being a code of conduct, a social contract that binds a society, without the establishment of a moral code, the human species could not have survived much less thrived. Even the most primitive society has some code of conduct by which to organize its social order.

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

To the contrary, humans overwhelmingly share the same basic moral principles. Humans as social beings depend upon the group for survival and across humanity, whether a culture is based upon hunting and gathering, or agriculture the requirements for the groups survival are much the same as are, in a broad sense, the codes that allow those cultures to function. As social groups evolve so do those rules that govern society.

[c'est la vie]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Because we have idiot bigots in the world who will not listen to rational argument. Morality is a concensus based on those evolutionary wants.

You're contradicting yourself.

Are morals based on 'consensus' or not?

Is it consensus only when everyone agrees with your idea of what is rational?

Suppose that you had lived 200 years ago in the south when the consensus was that slavery was morally acceptable.

Was it 'right'?

Nearly everyone in your society would have said it was.

Was it right, or was it wrong?

If you say 'it was wrong', you are appealing to a moral absolute (i.e. you are admitting that society does NOT determine what is and is not moral).

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

You're contradicting yourself.

Are morals based on 'consensus' or not?

Is it consensus only when everyone agrees with your idea of what is rational?

Suppose that you had lived 200 years ago in the south when the consensus was that slavery was morally acceptable.

Was it 'right'?

Nearly everyone in your society would have said it was.

Was it right, or was it wrong?

If you say 'it was wrong', you are appealing to a moral absolute (i.e. you are admitting that society does NOT determine what is and is not moral).

No, no, you are confusing concensus morality with absolute morality. Concensus is like everything else; debatable. With an absolute (God- given) morality, there should not be concensus morality but everyone doing what God wanted morality. Such as those who thought God allowed slavery and those who thought he didn't. so even God's absoluted were not absolute after all.

No, given that starting from the evolutionary directives 'what we want' we come up with similar ideas, we know that concensus is very often limited to areas and conditions. The more we discuss, the more we widen the concensus. It doesn't neccessarily mean we won't change our mind on it. Someone may come up with a good argument. Conditions may change. We can only keep the best for everyone objective in mind.

As to slavery being wrong, it was against the nearest thing to absolutes that secularist morality has - the slave doesn't want it done to them. That's why I am against the slavery and the racial prejudices of the south. But voluntary slavery. That's another matter.

[c'est la vie]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

No, no, you are confusing concensus morality with absolute morality. Concensus is like everything else; debatable. With an absolute (God- given) morality, there should not be concensus morality but everyone doing what God wanted morality. Such as those who thought God allowed slavery and those who thought he didn't. so even God's absoluted were not absolute after all.

No, given that starting from the evolutionary directives 'what we want' we come up with similar ideas, we know that concensus is very often limited to areas and conditions. The more we discuss, the more we widen the concensus. It doesn't neccessarily mean we won't change our mind on it. Someone may come up with a good argument. Conditions may change. We can only keep the best for everyone objective in mind.

As to slavery being wrong, it was against the nearest thing to absolutes that secularist morality has - the slave doesn't want it done to them. That's why I am against the slavery and the racial prejudices of the south. But voluntary slavery. That's another matter.

But slavery was right in the consensus of that society, only a small minority objected.

So why was it 'wrong'?

'What we want' in that instance was cheap labor and comfortable lifestyles. So evolutionary considerations figured into the outcome.

So why was it 'wrong'?

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

But slavery was right in the consensus of that society, only a small minority objected.

So why was it 'wrong'?

'What we want' in that instance was cheap labor and comfortable lifestyles. So evolutionary considerations figured into the outcome.

So why was it 'wrong'?

Empathy, and the golden rule. Obviously God wasn't telling all those religious slave owners that it was wrong.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

But slavery was right in the consensus of that society, only a small minority objected.

So why was it 'wrong'?

'What we want' in that instance was cheap labor and comfortable lifestyles. So evolutionary considerations figured into the outcome.

So why was it 'wrong'?

I just recently had this debate... anyway.

Why was it wrong, because it became an irreconcilable conflict between two rational ideals, economic advantage on one hand and the concept of the inherent rights of men on the other. Neither of which, by the way, are covered by the bible. The fact that slavery became recognized as a moral wrong was an evolutionary and rational process.

[c'est la vie]

You are appealing to absolutes, LIYF.

Why should anyone accept the Golden Rule as authoritative? What if it is more important to them to get what they want at the moment?

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by c'est la vie

But slavery was right in the consensus of that society, only a small minority objected.

So why was it 'wrong'?

'What we want' in that instance was cheap labor and comfortable lifestyles. So evolutionary considerations figured into the outcome.

So why was it 'wrong'?

Jesus, don't you understand anything?
You should be able to see it yourself. The slaves didn't want it done to them. That is the only thing that is near to an absolute. It is an instinct. We all have it. It is one of the the only things we can use as a basis that isn't concensus. Slavery was, borne out of convenience, tradition and need to make profit and supported from Bible writ if needed.

Others opposed it using other Bible arguments. mainly that blacks had converted to christianity so they must be saved, right? So they must have souls to be saved so...etc. up to the Other concensus, that people with souls should not be slaves.

Of course, 'what we want' is our evolutionary basic but we can think. We can see that sometime what we want conflicts with what others want. It might be argued that, if we're strong enough, who cares what they want. 'Might is right' is tempting. The superman ethic appeals to those who assume, of course, they will be the supermen.

However, we should know by now that there is going to someone out there who is going to have what he wants even if we don't like it.
Theus we have got to moderate what our instincts are if we are going to survive. We can be tolerant of 'other' concensus'. We can try to persuade if we don't approve, but in the end it's their concensus.