What Defines Morality?

[Rose]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?



Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

[David M]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?



Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

Hello Rose
At last you bring up the basis on which we fundamentally disagree. However, to answer your questions, we have to agree the definition of the words moral and morality.

Whatever I say will get pounced on by you and Richard, and I will try to keep this short.

If we consider morality to be based on a system of rules for right and wrong living, then the question is; whose system of rules do we live by?

If we live by your rules (Rose's and Richards) then God-bashing as you appear to be doing is not immoral. And I will agree with your answers above, because we would be living by your rules. I expect most of your rules are good (it would be good for you to define your own top-ten rules). I choose not to live by your rules.

Of course by your rules (when they are defined) you can say that I am being immoral for not following your rules. This is the nub of the problem.

The problem humans have is; accepting God's rules. If I break God's rules, I am being immoral in God's eyes, so to answer your questions in this context, I have to say, "yes" instead of "no" to all your questions above.

The question comes down to; whose rules should we live by? It now becomes a contest of whose rules are best in terms of quality of life, living a peaceful and happy life, instead of strife, and hatred and killings etc.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, God has laid down a set of rules for humans. The fact that human society has incorporated those rules into its own system of rules must mean that those rules have value. Maybe, humans would have come up with something close if starting from scratch, but would have left out the first three commandments say.

I have to make a choice of whose systems of rules I live by. If you ask me to explain why I choose God's system of rules, we get back to arguing as we are doing, because you will not agree with my reasons. If you do not believe in God, you do not have to follow His system of rules. Your morality is right in your own eyes. This was the problem in olden times when everyone did that which was right in their own eyes and lead to disaster. God saw that human morality was not good. Humans did not make for themselves a good set of rules to follow. The 10 commandments were later given as a basis to live by.

God proved by the provision of His Son, born of the virgin Mary, that it was possible to live by His laws. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Jesus has already shown us by example, the life we should lead. Jesus moral code was summed up in the two great commandments about which he said; "on these hang all the law and the prophets".

So, in conclusion to keep this short and to wind up my inital thoughts, I say this; I continue to base my life on God's rules and that is what God shall judge me by. I am also bound by the laws of the country I live in, as long as there is no conflict with God's rules and then I would have to obey God's rule. It is a separate debate as to whose rules are have the higher moral standard. As it is, I believe in God (for reasons R & R disagree) and because I believe God has ultimate power and knows what is in each and every individual heart, I let myself be guided by God and live by His rules. Fundamentally, I find nothing to disagree with in God's rules.

One final point in conclusion. The problem is humans have been given free choice and this goes for the system of rules they want to live by. God has set the rules for humans and we are free to disagree and set our own. God is not bound by the rules He has set for humans. God can do anything He wants to and God is not immoral by His rules (only as humans perceive them).

God has also told humans the consequences for breaking His rules. We might object to the consequences, but then we are powerless to change that. God has proved in His word, that he does that which He has promised and that which He has stated. We might disagree, but then as I recall hearing; "when you can make your own planet, you can do things your way".

So the real problem at the heart of this is; whose set of values (rules) is best for us to live by; God's or R & R's ?


David

[David M]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or

care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

Hello Richard

I have responded to Rose's post to begin the replies. I have come back to your post to make one main point.

As many would say; God is Love. This is one of God's qualities, but not the only one. Love is arguably the highest quality and God has love for those who love Him. God has shown us that He hates abominations and in that case, God does not show love.

If God is Love, then that would mean our morality must be based on God, because you say; "morality is based on love" I know you disagree that God is Love and as I have explained; God is not just Love; He is more than that. Our problem is; we disagree with each other because of what God does, because we see His love differently (in your case - God has no love).

God can kill reprobates for the greater good of the human race, but when He does, you say that is immoral (by your standards). When you would deny God doing what He knows to be for the greater good of humans (in the long-term), you are in fact, imposing your own set of morals(rules) for which you have no credentials to prove that your rules are better.

I try to be objective and that is why I cannot accept what you say, because you cannot prove to be better than God. Your claims to know better than God have no weight at all. You can say that is my subjective statement, but how are you going to prove that I am wrong in my estimation of your values and for you to be in a position to do with what is best for mankind?

Unlike God, you have no plan to work to. God has a plan to restore the world and bring peace and harmony. Human nature left to its own devices has proved not to be in man's best interest. However, God's love is to all those who accept Him and believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Those people who do, come to understand and accept that God will restore the world and that God is the final arbiter and will select who He wants to be in His kingdom (to come on earth). Of course you do not believe in the kingdom of God to come, and will argue this point. I do not want to get into discussion about this here in this thread.

Obedience to God's rules, is what God knows to be best for Humans. Alas, I cannot base my life on your rules/standards which gives me no hope for the future. If you can offer eternal life, let me know, and then you might get me to agree with you. I know that even eternal life is a subject on its own and you will not agree and that is why I do not want to enter into any discussion that goes beyond the subject under discussion here. I have given you some reasons why I accept God's rules; its my choice. I am not going to get drawn into further discussions here. In this post and my reply to Rose, I have given my justification for why I choose God's rules. I have put up and I am shutting up for now and will see what others have to say. I might join in again later when more members of the forum have made their contribution to the discussion.

This discussion on morality is at the heart of the discussions we are having to do with human rights etc. It will be interesting to get a range of comments to this thread that Rose has started.

All the best,

David

[throwback]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Rose
At last you bring up the basis on which we fundamentally disagree. However, to answer your questions, we have to agree the definition of the words moral and morality.

Whatever I say will get pounced on by you and Richard, and I will try to keep this short.

If we consider morality to be based on a system of rules for right and wrong living, then the question is; whose system of rules do we live by?

If we live by your rules (Rose's and Richards) then God-bashing as you appear to be doing is not immoral. And I will agree with your answers above, because we would be living by your rules. I expect most of your rules are good (it would be good for you to define your own top-ten rules). I choose not to live by your rules.

Of course by your rules (when they are defined) you can say that I am being immoral for not following your rules. This is the nub of the problem.

The problem humans have is; accepting God's rules. If I break God's rules, I am being immoral in God's eyes, so to answer your questions in this context, I have to say, "yes" instead of "no" to all your questions above.

The question comes down to; whose rules should we live by? It now becomes a contest of whose rules are best in terms of quality of life, living a peaceful and happy life, instead of strife, and hatred and killings etc.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, God has laid down a set of rules for humans. The fact that human society has incorporated those rules into its own system of rules must mean that those rules have value. Maybe, humans would have come up with something close if starting from scratch, but would have left out the first three commandments say.

I have to make a choice of whose systems of rules I live by. If you ask me to explain why I choose God's system of rules, we get back to arguing as we are doing, because you will not agree with my reasons. If you do not believe in God, you do not have to follow His system of rules. Your morality is right in your own eyes. This was the problem in olden times when everyone did that which was right in their own eyes and lead to disaster. God saw that human morality was not good. Humans did not make for themselves a good set of rules to follow. The 10 commandments were later given as a basis to live by.

God proved by the provision of His Son, born of the virgin Mary, that it was possible to live by His laws. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Jesus has already shown us by example, the life we should lead. Jesus moral code was summed up in the two great commandments about which he said; "on these hang all the law and the prophets".

So, in conclusion to keep this short and to wind up my inital thoughts, I say this; I continue to base my life on God's rules and that is what God shall judge me by. I am also bound by the laws of the country I live in, as long as there is no conflict with God's rules and then I would have to obey God's rule. It is a separate debate as to whose rules are have the higher moral standard. As it is, I believe in God (for reasons R & R disagree) and because I believe God has ultimate power and knows what is in each and every individual heart, I let myself be guided by God and live by His rules. Fundamentally, I find nothing to disagree with in God's rules.

One final point in conclusion. The problem is humans have been given free choice and this goes for the system of rules they want to live by. God has set the rules for humans and we are free to disagree and set our own. God is not bound by the rules He has set for humans. God can do anything He wants to and God is not immoral by His rules (only as humans perceive them).

God has also told humans the consequences for breaking His rules. We might object to the consequences, but then we are powerless to change that. God has proved in His word, that he does that which He has promised and that which He has stated. We might disagree, but then as I recall hearing; "when you can make your own planet, you can do things your way".

So the real problem at the heart of this is; whose set of values (rules) is best for us to live by; God's or R & R's ?


David

Hey there David,

I'm really glad you chose to comment on this thread. I think there are two fundamental errors in your argument. First, you have no system of rules to define morality. If you did, then you could affirm that Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery are always wrong (I include rape in honor of the 32,000 virgins who were distributed to the soldiers who slaughtered their families, Num 31). But you can't affirm those things are absolutely immoral because God commanded them. This proves that you have no "moral rule" other than "We must do what God commands" no matter how immoral those commands might be in every other context.

Your second error is that you think morality is nothing but a set of rules. That is absurd because there are an infinite variety of moral dilemmas and you would need a "rule" for each one. For example, is it always wrong to lie? Of course not. If the Nazis knocked on my door and asked if there were Jews in my attic, it would be a sin for me to answer truthfully because people would die. The moral question lies only in your motive - are you doing it for love or something else? The proof is in the pudding - you have no rules that assert Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery are immoral even though such things are universally rejected by all truly moral people. The morals expressed by the United Nations are much higher than those of the Bible. Their resolutions prohibit Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery for all nations. If the Jews were committing the crimes commanded by God today, they would be seen as an abhorrent and immoral outlaw nation. Indeed, could you imagine anyone going about today murdering people in the name of God? Would you accept their testimony that the True God commanded it and so it was justified? Of course not. The only reason you believe it was justified is because the Bible tells you so.

The fact that morality is not made up of "rules" is evident from the teaching of Christ and Paul who both said that LOVE fulfills the law. The law itself, as given in the Bible, contains many things that have nothing to do with true morality such as not eating shellfish, and other things that directly contradict morality such as stoning people for breaking arbitrary rules like the Sabbath or disrespecting their parents. And on top of that, stoning is a primitive, barbaric, and fundamentally immoral punishment because it is a very slow method of execution akin to torture.

I'm very glad you are pursuing this topic. I think it is of central importance.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If God is Love, then that would mean our morality must be based on God, because you say; "morality is based on love" I know you disagree that God is Love and as I have explained; God is not just Love; He is more than that. Our problem is; we disagree with each other because of what God does, because we see His love differently (in your case - God has no love).

I don't disagree that God is love. Some of the descriptions of God in the Bible are just fine. But others are in grave error.

I never said that "God has no love." But the God of the Bible is a different matter. Obviously, there was no "love" for the people he ordered to be slaughtered or the virgins he ordered to be distributed to the soldiers who slaughtered their families.

God can kill reprobates for the greater good of the human race, but when He does, you say that is immoral (by your standards). When you would deny God doing what He knows to be for the greater good of humans (in the long-term), you are in fact, imposing your own set of morals(rules) for which you have no credentials to prove that your rules are better.

Sure, God can do what he wants. The problem is that that he didn't do it himself but commanded his people to do it, and that makes him look like he's trying to impersonate a typical brutal Bronze age tribal war god. Why would God choose to do that? How are we supposed to learn about morality if he goes about guiding his people into gross immorality? Splattering themselves with baby-guts. It's ridiculous.

I try to be objective and that is why I cannot accept what you say, because you cannot prove to be better than God. Your claims to know better than God have no weight at all. You can say that is my subjective statement, but how are you going to prove that I am wrong in my estimation of your values and for you to be in a position to do with what is best for mankind?

I'm sorry, but I have never seen any indication of any "objectivity" on your part. You are entirely committed to the truth of the Bible no matter how it appears to contradict known facts. You don't even address points that are contrary to you belief system. Everything you write is designed not to find truth, but to justify whatever is written in the Bible. Your behavior is the polar opposite of "objectivity." If you want to begin being objective, it would be good to start by admitting this fact.

Your assertion that I cannot prove that I am better than the God of the Bible is absurd. You merely assert, with no supporting evidence, that the God of the Bible is the true God and that he has some "plan" for humanity. That's all just empty assertion. You know no such thing. You are a man like me. You are setting yourself up as if you had true KNOWLEDGE of the "God's plan" when in fact all you have are unfounded beliefs based on an ancient religious text. That does not qualify as true "knowledge." You can't reject my words by merely claiming that your concept of God is correct, as if that settled it!

Unlike God, you have no plan to work to. God has a plan to restore the world and bring peace and harmony. Human nature left to its own devices has proved not to be in man's best interest. However, God's love is to all those who accept Him and believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Those people who do, come to understand and accept that God will restore the world and that God is the final arbiter and will select who He wants to be in His kingdom (to come on earth). Of course you do not believe in the kingdom of God to come, and will argue this point. I do not want to get into discussion about this here in this thread.

Granted - I am not God! Duh. Neither are you. Double duh. All your claims about God are no different than those of a Muslim or Hindu. So you can't trump my arguments by pointing out that I'm not "God" and I don't have a "plan" for planet earth. That's an absurd line of reasoning.

Human nature has always been "left to it's own devices" as far as anyone can tell. But when we relied on God we died. Then we stood up and began to rely on ourselves and we developed vaccines and so we live when God was perfectly happy to let us die no matter how much we prayed to him. The proof is simple: Take 100 atheists and 100 Christians. Give them all the plague. Let the Christians pray and let the Atheists take antibiotics. Who lives? Who dies? Case closed.

Don't worry, I won't argue your private version of eschatology here. We've got bigger fish to fry.

Obedience to God's rules, is what God knows to be best for Humans.

There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion. It doesn't even mean anything, because every Christian has a different set of "God's rules." For example, you are a Sabbath keeper, right? There are few Christians that agree with you. And what about shellfish? Do you eat it? And what does shellfish have to do with morality or what's best for people anyway? Absolutely nothing.

Alas, I cannot base my life on your rules/standards which gives me no hope for the future.

You can't base your life on love? What's wrong with you?

This discussion on morality is at the heart of the discussions we are having to do with human rights etc. It will be interesting to get a range of comments to this thread that Rose has started.

All the best,

David

Yes indeed!

All the best to you too,

Richard

[David M]

Hey there David,

The fact that morality is not made up of "rules" is evident from the teaching of Christ and Paul who both said that LOVE fulfills the law. Great chatting!

Richard

Hello Richard

I did say that Jesus summed up all the law in two commandments. Both of those two commandments contain the word love.
If you want to combine them into one commandment, that is fine. Infact do away with the rules all together and let everyone have love in their hearts. If everyone loves everybody else to the highest degree, that means we can tear up the rule book and we do not need any rules to follow. Great!!

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I did say that Jesus summed up all the law in two commandments. Both of those two commandments contain the word love.
If you want to combine them into one commandment, that is fine. Infact do away with the rules all together and let everyone have love in their hearts. If everyone loves everybody else to the highest degree, that means we can tear up the rule book and we do not need any rules to follow. Great!!

All the best,

David

Yes, I noticed you mentioned them. I should have added the phrase "as you noted" when I referred to them.

It is not I who has "done away with all the rules." That is YOUR doctrine, as implied by the fact that you cannot say that Infanticide, Genocide, Rape, and Slavery are morally wrong. All your vaunted "rules" have been reduced to one rule - "We must do whatever God commands" no matter how immoral those commands would be in any other context. It would be good if you addressed this point.

My assertion is that morality is not based on rules at all. It is based on love, empathy, and caring for others. There's a world of difference. Anyone can follow "rules" while inwardly hating others. Rules cannot be the basis of morality. Love is the true morality. Simple as that.

[CWH]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?

Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

Rose seems to be avoiding other commandments that she is uncomfortable with:

Thou shall not commit adultery

Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Thou shall not steal

The ten commandments has nothing to do with morals if not other things would have been included such as thou shall not lie, thou shall not rape etc. It is stated very clearly that the obeying of the ten commandments would lead one to a better life (see in bold). It seems to me that the ten commandments seem to apply more to the Jews living then but still somewhat applicable to us modern people but we are not directly under that covenant. Note that commandment as taught by Jesus, 1 to 5 is related to Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and commandment 6 to 10 is related to Love your neighbor as yourself. So those who do not believe in Loving God but believe in loving your neighbor as yourself should obey commandments 6 to 10 i.e. thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, covet, bear false witness.

Deuteronomy 5

6 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

7 'You shall have no other gods before[b] me.(Commandment 1)

8 'You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.(Commandment 2)

11 'You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.(Commandment 3)

12 'Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.(Commandment 4)

16 'Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.(Commandment 5)

17 'You shall not murder.(Commandment 6)

18 'You shall not commit adultery.(Commandment 7)

19 'You shall not steal.(Commandment 8)

20 'You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.(Commandment 9)

21 'You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.'(Commandment 10).........

28 The LORD heard you when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, 'I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good. 29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children FOREVER!............

32 So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left. 33 Walk in obedience to all that the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.

Just to understand your sense of thinking Rose, what are your ten commandments? Ah....I know:

1. Thou shall worship yourself and not God
2. Thou shall not rape
3. Thou shall treat male and female as equal
4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars
5. Thou shall love one another
6. Thou shall honor your parents unless they have not treated their children well
7. Thou can covet other people's property
8. Thou shall not keep the Sabbath
9. Thou shall not believe in the God of the Bible
10. Thou can divorce and remarry

What else Rose?

May God Blessed those who try to keep his ten commandments.