Is it really that hard to believe that there's a Creator and that He will hold you accountable to an absolute Moral Law? (salvation, souls)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The only problem with your theory is that in several places in the Bible God commands acts we would consider immoral.
He orders genocide, forcing women of a defeated army into being sex- slaves, etc.
If there is an absolute moral law, than you have to conclude that God violated it.
Also, if you believer there should be one law for the people in the old testament, and a different law for post-jesus era people, you don't believe in an absolute moral law, by definition.

What you say is unassailable, Box . . . the mistake is in assuming it is a law that is absolute when it is a purpose for our existence itself that is absolute and determinative of what is or is not moral. It if is constructive to our purpose it is moral. If it it is destructive to our purpose, it is immoral. This is the unavoidable standard of situational morality dependent upon its effect on our purpose. Our problem is not just that we have to determine what our purpose is . . .but then we have to do the evaluating of whether or not any action or behavior is constructive or destructive to it in each instance.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

No, it isn't hard for me to believe there is. Not at all. But, before I am to believe that, there must be some kind of reason to believe it. To date, there is none. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest there MUST be a creator for this planet, this galaxy, this universe to be here. Possibly that will change someday, and if it does, I will belive.

Completely reasonable.

Now this one is hard to believe. The reason being is that there are no absolutes in the man-made concept of morality. The evidence for this claim? Morality, as another poster nicely put it, is a moving target. It's everchanging and influenced by the social and cultural mores of the time period. No act is inherently moral or immoral. An act is merely an act. It isn't until society places a value on the act that it becomes eother moral or immoral.
If there is an objective and absolute standard of morality, where exactly does it exist? Certainly not in the human psyche.

See above. The standard is a desired outcome . . . NOT a prescribed set of rules and laws to be followed by rote without thought or reason like robots.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by QuixoticHobbit

Why must a creator by default wish to hold us accountable for anything?

Why would a creator of universes use such primitive and fragile methods as ink on animal skins or papyrus to record it's "unchanging" moral code? And employ bronze age ignorants to transcribe it?

Why must said creator of universes need to be born of a virgin as a mortal, grow to adulthood then have himself nailed to a cross in order to forgive?

I'm afraid you are asking the wrong questions. The question you should be asking yourself is why you believe in such an absurd piece of mythological garbage as the Bible and why you mindlessly insist on worshiping the primitive man-made monster of joke it calls "god".

Apart from what has already been posted wrt the morality aspect, the inerrant word of god does not even get the basic 10 commandments right in the two versions printed. There are in fact 17 (IIRC) when merged and if the simplest of these commandments cannot even be transcribed properly, how can the OP simply ignore this and asset that there is some kind of objective morality?

When xians are shown that their beliefs differ from other pagan beliefs, they get upset and most folk have tossed the pagan gods in the wastebasket where they belong. The Judeo/xian god deserves no special pleading as it it is just one of many man made gods.

[Joe90]

It is hard for me to believe now, although I did as a brainwashed kid (without any serious degree of conviction).

It just sounds so stupid to me now.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by lee9786

Is it really that hard to believe that there's a Creator and that He will hold you accountable to an absolute Moral Law? And that this absolute moral law has been written down?

Yes. It is really hard for me to believe something for which there is no supporting argument, evidence, data or reasoning.

Perhaps if some were presented things would be different.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by distraff

Yes it is hard to believe because there is no evidence.

Exactly what I was going to say.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It if is constructive to our purpose it is moral.

This is in danger of being a circular argument however. You assume we have a purpose and you build a concept of morality around that. You then assume that morality shows we have a purpose. And around goes the circle.

If you could show that morality was set by something that is not human without reference to a purpose - or you could show that we actually have a "purpose" - then perhaps you could break that circle. Both however appear to be assumed by default and then used to support the other. Not good.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Our problem is not just that we have to determine what our purpose is . . .

.... but that you have not even determined we actually have one in any meaningful sense.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by monumentus

This is in danger of being a circular argument however. You assume we have a purpose and you build a concept of morality around that. You then assume that morality shows we have a purpose. And around goes the circle.If you could show that morality was set by something that is not human without reference to a purpose - or you could show that we actually have a "purpose" - then perhaps you could break that circle. Both however appear to be assumed by default and then used to support the other. Not good.
.... but that you have not even determined we actually have one in any meaningful sense.

I have done no such thing . . . you have created the tautology on your own. For me the concept of morality is vacuous if there is no purpose for our existence. I am not denying its pragmatic utility for society . . . just its validity as a concept separate from normative ethics. Accidents have no purpose or reason to exist. TO ME this means . . . things that are constructive to our existence are no more moral than things that are destructive to our existence . . . since we have no reason to exist in the first place. So for me . . . morality is a pointless concept if there is no purpose to our existence. Clearly you are free to disagree.

[ABQConvict]

Is it really so hard to believe that the gods sit in great gilt halls at the top of a large tree that represents the universe and when they come into contact with mortals, hilarity ensues?

[hiker45]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

For me the concept of morality is vacuous if there is no purpose for our existence.

I guess this DG has shown you that many of us totally disagree with you.

I do not believe there is a diety and I do not believe our lives have any special purpose. However, I am very happy to be alive and I am very happy to see our children and grandchildren living their lives in a good manner.

I consider myself to be a moral person. I guess my morals are a combination of the morals I was taught by my parents and the instinctive morals that most humans have - the morals that helped us survive and prosper in social groups. Those morals have never gotten me in trouble.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have done no such thing . . . you have created the tautology on your own. For me the concept of morality is vacuous if there is no purpose for our existence. I am not denying its pragmatic utility for society . . . just its validity as a concept separate from normative ethics. Accidents have no purpose or reason to exist. TO ME this means . . . things that are constructive to our existence are no more moral than things that are destructive to our existence . . . since we have no reason to exist in the first place. So for me . . . morality is a pointless concept if there is no purpose to our existence. Clearly you are free to disagree.

I think that's a pretty strong argument.

But I would add that "who should decide the purpose of our existence?" is as good of question as whether there is a purpose of our existence at all.

A christian can decide to adopt God's purpose for our existence, while an atheist would normally adopt his own purpose for our existence. At that point they would both have a purpose, neither more valid than the other.