Morality without god

But what does the Bible say?The Bible says that man knows good and evil as well as God does.

quote:

---

Also Faith it is a hypothetical question, if adult conversation is too tricky I understand - all u have to do is let's us know if u can't handle hypotheticals and other complex mental models and I'm sure everyone will understand.

---

Bad hypotheticals don't make an adult conversation and not responding to a post does not mean one can't handle the issue.
You didn't respond to my questions in Message 940 or Message 943.This thread is Morality without God, but I see more discussion about God than the issue of morality without God.Since you claim to be a beginner at debating, I suggest you refrain from taunting others.Edited by purpledawn, : Rearranged

Yet Paul is wise enough to realize that he himself cannot correct himself by himself. Thats my point.

Which is totally irrelevant to the topic.And again, your quote has nothing to do with the topic.

Dude very sorry for not replying to your questions, I genuinely didnt see them. Hopefully I can answer them in some way now.I am questioning the morality of god in an attempt to show that god does not equate with morality, the logical follow up to that is the conclusion that yes indeed morals can exist without god if god himself does not lend himself to good morals.Secondly I am trying through my hypotheticals (how well i am dping is clearly debatable) to illustrate that good morals come from intent, ergo rules which dictate courses of action remove a person from making moral decisions. Doing good by accident is not good morals, similar doing evil by accident is not bad morals - the intent and motivation behind the deed
is of paramount importance.Finally I am perhaps goading Faith a little but I am genuinely interested to hear her genuine opinion on my questions and not a repeated mantra which is adding nothing to my understanding of her position. I may not be a great debater but I am genuinely trying and I am genuinely interested in learning about opinions vastly different from my own

Okay, let's explore those options. Can you give me a couple that do not in any way violate anyones free will? (and note that if you make the child or the bomb ineffective the terrorist will just "will" to keep trying with other children and other bombs) Neither is God. In fact He's dying to keep you from hell... literally! If anyone ends up there, they have to step over His bruised, beaten and nail scarred body to get there. Of course, and so would God. And here is where it gets really interesting. Let's take for example the twin towers attack of 01. An omnipotant God could have stopped this from happening. But suppose this God is also omnipresent. Then He would also have the ability to see the outcome of each and every life that was lost that day, had He prevented it.There are only four catagories here. Those who had already repented and had faith in Christ, those who were before the age of accountability, those who never will repent, and those who were going to but just hadn't got there in life yet (saved, unaccountable, unsaved, and never saved). Suppose He used his "power" to prevent the ones who were unsaved from even being there that day. But the ones who were saved but had already fulfilled their purposes on earth He permitted. The children who were still unaccountable but would eventually be in the never saved group, along with children who he saw would be saved but face terrible lives in the future, He also permits to be there.Next He also alows some saved who still have a purpose to fulfill and some who are not saved but either will eventually get saved or be the catalyst for someone else to be saved in the future, to also go there that day. These few He does protect with His "powers" as the two buildings crumble down around them.In all of that He hasn't violated anyone's free will (including the terrorists) and He still accomplished His divine plan.

Thetopic is morality without God. My quote supports my contention that Paul did not believe in morality without God. Quit nitpicking on framing the topic. The topic stands as is.

Of course an all knowing God would know the future and that these young men were going to do worse, and therefore it better served His purpose to make an example of how serious He was about the treatment of those who speak for Him.

And your someone's child too. That doesn't mean you are an adolescent. However I'm sure that some were.If you were warned not to build your house in a flood zone and you chose to ignore that warning over and over, and it cost you the lives of your family in a flood, who is to blame? You or the authorities?

Regarding Hell;-if God created everything including Hell
-if God is all powerful
-if nothing in the universe goes contrary to Gods will
-if God not only judges who goes to Hell but also the criteria for which souls are judgedSo;-then God is ultimately responsible for all souls that go to hell, and has it in his power to decide not to send anyone there.
-Why have hell at all? If he created Lucifer and the rebel angels could he not just uncreate them?

You can not compare a flood, even one u were aware may be coming to unleasing the Angel of Death on people!!!! Of God is all powerful he could have found another way and if e is all knowing he already knew how it would end, he made an active decision to start a course of action he knew would lead to the death of Innocent childrenJust as an aside I told my son the story of pass over - u should have seen his jaw drop in shock and horror at the idea of the Angel of Death taking the first born sons. I'm quite proud of my little guy :-)

I think you are mistaken here. I don't believe God declares something to be immoral based on some kind of divine personal preference. We might need to probe a little deeper here and examine exactly what "evil" is. Here's a question for you. Is evil a thing? Because if God is the creator of all things then that would mean that God also created evil. But it is illogical for a God who is purported to be pure Good, to create anything evil. Therefore evil cannot be a thing at all. So what is it?Consider this, when we speak of a hole (like a donut hole) are we talking about a "thing." No actually we are talking about an absence of something. In the same way when we talk about evil we are not talking about a "thing" either, but the absence of something. In this case it would be the absence of what is good. For example if you just drove right past a homeless man who had just been hit by a car and was crawling from the street to the curb, you would probably see this as evil. Meaning you failed to do the good thing here. But suppose you stopped and tossed the guy a ten dollar bill. Normally we would think of giving a homeless guy ten bucks on the corner as being a good thing. The problem is that you would see the guy needs much more pertinent help than your money. Therefore a normally good thing also in this case becomes an evil thing.So evil is not a thing but rather it is the absence of what is good. So when God tells us what is good and what is not good, He is not just declaring to us His preferences, but rather is "revealing" to us something we may not necissarily recognize to be bad. But an all knowing God wouldn't be mistaken about something being bad, so He would never change His mind and tell us today that something which previously was bad, is now good. No I didn't meant to convey that at all. But if that's the way it came accross could you please tell me how, so I can correct this in the future?Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

Very good point, JBR, God's moral law isn't a personal preference but an actual Law, as built into the Creation as any law of physics or chemistry. It operates inexorably. That's why the question whether He could change His mind is absurd.

Don't like that analogy? Okay try this one. Your in a bar and watching some drunk who keeps making advances towards another man's wife. He keeps telling the guy she's his wife and to leave her alone, but this does not detour the drunks advances. The guy gives the drunk ten clear warnings that if he doesn't knock it off he's gonna get his tail kicked. His two drunken buddies all stay right there with him egging him on. When the drunk continues the advances and the husband rains down his "angel of death" (5 time black belt) on all three of them, then who is to blame?God kept telling Pharoe that the Hebrews were His and to leave them alone. But Pharoe ignored God's warnings over and over again. I think I'd of seen I was trifling with something beyond my means when the first plague came. But no Pharoe ignored God's warnings and his first born buddies stayed around to egg him on. So I don't see a problem with God's divine judgment on Egypt at all.

Cool - I think I can work with that reply :-)First off to address the hell issue from 985 you said"Would you hold a gun to your wifes head and demand she tells you she loves you?"I would say that is allegorical to "believe in me or go to Hell" - from what I presumed was u saying u disagreed with the wife statement I would imagine the logical inference is that u disagree with the similar stance on disbelievers going to Hell. Unless of course there is some special exception for God (like he apparently has for murder)Secondly My understanding of the theistic position was that Morality is ordained by God, but if your saying
"He is not just declaring to us His preferences, but rather is "revealing" to us something we may not necissarily recognize to be bad."
Then does the Morality exist independent of God? Would good and bad deeds exist without God "revealing" them to humanity?