What makes you Christians think that Christian morality is a better or a genuine morality???

Question

A. If we identify morality with God’s command we have to face the possibility that God might have commanded us to torture the innocent. If this is correct then torturing is acceptable because God says so!

B. But genuine morality is not that arbitrary is it? if God has a "reason" for not torturing people then it is that "reason" that counts as the genuine morality.

D. But if this is so then morality is not based on God’s command but on the independent fact that torture is wrong based on that "reason".

So you people have a dilemma to resolve. Gods command is either arbitrary or based on a fact which provides a "reason" for the command. In which case either morality is arbitrary or there is an independent basis for morality??

Your thoughts???

You might also want to ask yourselves this:

1. Do you praise God because he is moral???

2. Or is God moral because you praise him???

(anyone here remember Socrates??!)

(btw... conceptual chess continues.. check!)

Answer 1

The conscience of God appears to be a little warped.  Initially He created Lilith then killed her in preference for Eve; the first of His many murderous deeds.  This, along with drowning practically the entire source of life on the planet in fact proves to me that He has no moral code of any value.

He did not naturally follow the commandments He sought to impose upon us, because it was not innate.  My own conscience tells me what is right and what is wrong and although I am neither a God or Goddess, nor seek to be one, I would never have drowned practically the entire population of a planet because they did not do my bidding; willing slaves only please!!!

Answer 2

The bible makes them think that way.

Answer 3

"Every national church or religion has established itself by

pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain

individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus

Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as

if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

"Each of those churches show certain books, which they call

revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God

was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that

their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say,

that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from

Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for

my own part, I disbelieve them all.

"Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its

absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining

ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to

conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent

with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this [Christian] story is."

Thomas Paine

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Answer 4

Whether you all know it and believe it all or not or if you even care..

we each worship either one God or the other. Judging God, the

Creator, is such a dangerous thing to do. God doesn't kill, he destroys.

And the wages of sin is death.



People are quick to pick up a book and decide that a "philosopher"

speaks nothing but truth; but, in reality is only offering a theory.

Nothing was ever proven..merely accepted. How can one prove anything? Especially coming from man? We're all fallible. Far

too fallible to ever try to judge the one who's created us.

Does the fact that we don't comprehend nor conceptualize God

prove that he's not real? I'm not here to argue Christianity: you either  

believe or you don't. Your choice. That's your free will. But just because he isn't real to you then don't try to take away my free will to believe. I don't force my beliefs on anyone, but you all tend to enjoy imposing your disbeliefs on everyone else. Democracy is for everyone and not just an elite few.

I won't even begin to get started on the snafu, quagmire, chaos and

utter terror one would face if society didn't live by any higher codes of morals other than their own. Because adopting that mentality would mean that each person is free to interpret their own definition of what morals mean. This would lead to some having too much morals and others not having nearly enough morals at all.

We've been sheltered from so many horrors and live in a geographical region where mass

corruption really isn't nearly as widespread as in many countries. Yet, for this we're not thankful. We can't humble ourselves because we've exalted ourselves up too high. But there will come a time very soon, when all of these morals which you guys detest so much will only be

a faded memory. You will get your wish..but I warn you; be careful what you ask for...

Peace/Joy

Answer 5

I don't bother with the idea of God's command. I'm more concerned with how to ground the independent fact of murder or torture being wrong. Like Nietzsche, I believe that morality and values are community specific, designed to meet the needs of a community.

The problem for us in this respect (since communities have become dissolved into mass shared culture and since cultures started to be shared) is: what are our values and needs? I still believe that we can only think locally, but we are forced to keep justifying them globally.

Answer 6

i am absolutely convinced i have a higher quality effect on the world and peolpe around me with a personal spirituality and a metaphysics to make the less obvious and closer to call moral decisions than i ever could have with a "god" delusion and and an associated holy book to guide me.

i will take my evolutionary moraility to a pepsi challenge againt any religion derived morality any day of the week.... i have yet to be taken up on this challenge i think my confidence plainly indicates i feel i could always provide a better way seeing within the evolutionary parameters I do

[] not only do I remember socrates I lament the fallout we still feel today of plato's murder of socrates' ideas. truth,to me, is secondary to quality.  

[] it is metphorical that you have refused those questioned their right to 'C' ?