What Defines Morality?

[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

Hi Cheow,

No Cheow, I am not avoiding those commandments! I only listed the ones that have nothing to do with morality, the three I left out can have moral applications so it was appropriate not to include them in my list.

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.

Not too bad I will answer in red.

1. Thou shall worship yourself and not God I have no need to worship anyone including myself
2. Thou shall not rape Yes, rape is immoral
3. Thou shall treat male and female as equal Absolutely, men and women should have equal rights!
4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars I would take it even farther, all killing is immoral except for self defense, accidental and wars
5. Thou shall love one another Yes, love your fellow human as yourself
6. Thou shall honor your parents unless they have not treated their children well All people should be honored and respected for how they treat others
7. Thou can covet other people's property People are free to do as they wish, covet or not covet
8. Thou shall not keep the Sabbath People are free to keep any day or no day as the Sabbath
9. Thou shall not believe in the God of the Bible People are free to believe in any god they wish and practice any religion they wish, this has nothing to do with morality
10. Thou can divorce and remarry Absolutely! All people should be able to divorce and remarry whomever they wish, this also has nothing to do with morality


All the best,
Rose

[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

Hi David,

I wanted to acknowledge that I read your post, but since Richard said pretty much the same thing that I would have said I will let his post stand as a response on my behalf. Thank you, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my post...

All the best,
Rose

[David M]

Hi Cheow,

No Cheow, I am not avoiding those commandments! I only listed the ones that have nothing to do with morality, the three I left out can have moral applications so it was appropriate not to include them in my list.


Not too bad I will answer in red.

4. Thou shall not kill babies but can kill others in self defense and in wars I would take it even farther, all killing is immoral except for self defense, accidental and wars
All the best,
Rose

Hello Rose

I cannot let this pass by without comment. So you agree that in wars killing is legitimate. Even if you say that in wars it is OK to kill provided not babies are killed, you get stuck with babies that have no parents and no obligation by the warring parties to look after the spared babies. Now that is a real problem you have to deal with and give an answer to.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

Hello Rose

I cannot let this pass by without comment. So you agree that in wars killing is legitimate. Even if you say that in wars it is OK to kill provided not babies are killed, you get stuck with babies that have no parents and no obligation by the warring parties to look after the spared babies. Now that is a real problem you have to deal with and give an answer to.

All the best,

David

Good point David.
Sometimes I wonder if those Canaanite babies ordered killed were legitimate. Were those babies born from adulteries, incests, prostituitions, rapes etc. Perhaps many of those babies were orphans and rejects, As such, those babies will tend to grow into anti-socials. And many with no parents to look after them will either died off anyway or became anti-socials.

God Blessed those childrens.

[Rose]

Hello Rose

I cannot let this pass by without comment. So you agree that in wars killing is legitimate. Even if you say that in wars it is OK to kill provided not babies are killed, you get stuck with babies that have no parents and no obligation by the warring parties to look after the spared babies. Now that is a real problem you have to deal with and give an answer to.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

To further clarify myself: what I meant by killing in wars is restricted to the soldiers who are fighting other soldiers, NOT the civilians (men,women, and children)! Civilians should never be killed! Personally I am totally against war except for self-defense, which non of our wars in recent times have been for.

All the best,
Rose

[Rose]

Good point David.
Sometimes I wonder if those Canaanite babies ordered killed were legitimate. Were those babies born from adulteries, incests, prostituitions, rapes etc. Perhaps many of those babies were orphans and rejects, As such, those babies will tend to grow into anti-socials. And many with no parents to look after them will either died off anyway or became anti-socials.

God Blessed those childrens.

What! You say the killing of Canaanite babies was legitimate because they may have been born from "adulteries, incests, prostitutions, rapes etc."! With that kind of reasoning then you must also think that the babies that came from the Hebrews soldiers raping the Midianite virgins should have been killed too!

And you say that God blessed those children? Your reasoning is beyond me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What! You say the killing of Canaanite babies was legitimate because they may have been born from "adulteries, incests, prostitutions, rapes etc."! With that kind of reasoning then you must also think that the babies that came from the Hebrews soldiers raping the Midianite virgins should have been killed too!

And you say that God blessed those children? Your reasoning is beyond me.

I've really never seen anything quite so ironic as a Christian justifying the slaughter of innocent babies.

[CWH]

I've really never seen anything quite so ironic as a Christian justifying the slaughter of innocent babies.

Neither do I really seen someone who is very eager to save and support every children born out of incests, prostituitions, fornications, rapes and "Free Love". Such children reminded the parents of the sin they have committed and many of them would rather want them dead than alive. Isn't these the main reasons why many people aborted their fetuses?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should ignore those "sinful children" to their fate but to show mercy and kindness to them by spreading the Gospels to them. This is a form of saving them. Some say that Salvation is not through good works but by faith but I will say it's through both as James confirmed that faith without good works is dead. Spreading the Gospels is one of the good works and faith same as with charity and kindness. Remember one cannot depend on good works alone. Loving your neighbors as yourself without loving God who created your neighbors doesn't make much sense. It's like loving Americans without loving America.

Jesus didn't try to save and resurrect every dying children, did He? No, but He did the salvation by offering the Gospel to every generations that whoever believe in Him will never die but have everlasting life.


God Blessed.

[David M]

Whatever we might think about God's justice, God has declared He is just. God is also merciful. Humans who are made in God's image are told; to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with God. The Canaanites must have been a very bad lot for God to order the Israelites to destroy them completely. At the time of the Great Flood, God wiped out the whole of civilization except for Noah and his family. In wiping out civilization and starting again with Noah, God had destroyed men, women, children and babies. God saw that there was no hope for any of them. Only non-Godfearing people will defend their own kind. I would not defend people who are completely evil and have no inclination to change their ways and shun evil.

The people pre the Flood were said to; "only do evil continually". God saw no point in saving them; they were beyond saving. Those people had 100 years to consider their ways while Noah was building the ark. It cannot be said that 100 years was not long enough for them to think about changing their ways. The Canaanites were also a totally bad lot. It is speculation to think that these people could be taught the ways of God and would repent. Why should God save those who reject Him? Why should God love those who hate Him? God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for the same reason, but not until the few righteous people were saved. God saves the righteous.

I am reminded by the line in Zechariah 14:21 which says; there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. Such was the reputation of the Canaanites, they had become the symbol for the most evil of people and were rejected by God. God does not have to justify himself to humans, though God has explained to us that judgment belongs to Him. God will do what He sees is necessary. God is working to restore the earth and have it occupied by people who have believed and trusted in Him. God is selectiong people from all generations.Whether sooner or later, all will die one way or another. God is the final Judge. God decides who should live again after death. Judgement has been passed to His only begotten Son.

If God gives up on people who have corrupted their minds and are beyond saving, it is God's right to do with them as He sees fit. God gives life and God has the right to take life back. For humans to impose their own moral values on God is to make themselves superior to God. People who think they are superior to God are deluded.

It is up to ourselves to search out God's wisdom in what God has done and learn the lessons He wants us to learn. I have decided it is pointless for me to discuss this subject any further with people who are not looking to understand God's ways. God does not punish the righteous, God only punishes the unrighteous. Those who believe in God, He treats as adopted children. God corrects His childeren when they do wrong and God leads His children in the paths or rigtheousness that lead to life eternal. As for those who reject God, they are following their own paths leading to destruction and death eternal.

My time is better spent on subjects that lead to further enlightenment. No further enlightenment will come from discussing God's morals with R & R. Having given my initial thoughts, I fail to see what more I can say after this post. No amount of quoting scripture will change anyone's mind who does not want to look for understanding in the ways of God.

All the best.

David

[Unregistered]

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.

I do not agree.

A baby can bond but it cannot reason love.

It can follow it's instinct though and to us it might look like love but it is just the baby recognizing through instincts the rules of prisoners revenge. That it is more profitable to survival to cooperate and not compete. The only two things that you and I do constantly when interacting with others.

I think this is proof.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...rality-100511/

Regards
DL